text
stringlengths 53
8.97k
| label
class label 1
class |
|---|---|
I saw this movie thinking that it would be one of those old B movies that are fun to watch. I was so wrong! This movie was boring and obviously aimed at males who like looking at corpulent women. The story was so ridiculous and implausible that it lost my interest altogether. It seemed to be in the same genre as the Ed Wood films - bottom of the barrel.
| 0neg
|
Dear me. Where do I start? The dad isn't anywhere near old enough to be the girl's dad. He corpses on camera in the first 5 minutes of the film. The favoured exclamation in this film is "Jesus Christ!!!". Zombies are agile, stupid and few and far between. Motives are utterly incomprehensible and a narrative does not exist. People 'rush' to their destination in jeeps driven at 3 MPH. The world seems to be carrying on as normal yet these are supposed to be the end days. Breasts appear for the sake of breasts. Normally such an approach would provide some redemption but the rest of the film actually made me uninterested in breasts or the future of humanity. There's a dog for no reason and thin, orange blood that turns the stomach. The General and his catchphrase of "Shut the f**k up!" is the only redeeming feature. As for the rest, I sincerely hope to hear that they had done the decent thing and killed themselves.
| 0neg
|
What of Domino did I hate over everything, and I mean everything, else? Perhaps it was the overall glorification of being a bounty hunter; maybe it was the sexism masquerading as an involving and interesting study of a hard bodied female lead character; maybe it was the mere look of the film with its bizarre yellow glow and distorted blue tints or the manner in which it takes an actress like Lucy Lui; who deserves a lot better than this junk; and has her sit there in the one spot in the room the light cannot directly hit with the same dumb look on her face. Maybe it's the editing; that horrid rapid fire editing and the manner in which lines of dialogue echo as they're uttered by people like Kiera Knightly who, if you buy as a bounty hunter, then you'll probably be able to kid yourself into believing the world will end in 2012.<br /><br />Nobody comes away from Domino with any sort credibility, absolutely nobody at all. It is a painful and misguided experience, taking inspiration from things like Natural Born Killers and letting loose ideas to an audience not even there for them. The principal question is: 'Was Domino supposed to be some kind of comedy?' what with its hilariously bad lead uttering certain lines that desperately want us to think she's coming across as 'tough' but really, she resembles more an arrogant fifteen year old girl on her first day at public school, attempting to impress her peers. There are things you genuinely don't know how to react to, whether they're supposed to be funny or not. If it is supposed to be a comedy, that begs the next question: 'Is the life of a bounty hunter really the sort worth exploiting for laughs?' I don't think so.<br /><br />The film opens with the title card 'Based on a true story........sort of.' If that's supposed to be some sort of post-modernist technique that enables director Tony Scott to bend and manipulate the story of Domino Harvey for his own unique purpose, then you're simply on another planet. Truth is, in that one opening quote the film identifies the subject matter and the original text before completely copping out and saying 'sort of' which I guess is supposed to enable them to make Domino older than she should be and appear on Jerry Springer. Following this, we learn of Domino's relationship with her father who died in the film when when she was ten or something; here is the first use of the 'sort of' cop out as in real life she was just four. But if the film had gone by reality's dates then her entire drive would've been born out of the death of........her goldfish.<br /><br />We are then thrust into action with Ed Mosbey (Rourke); Domino (Knightley) herself and would-be love interest Choco (Ramírez). During the scene, an American mother is pinned down via gunfire in her own caravan in the back end of nowhere as she pleads for her son's life to be spared. What a really misguided opening; presenting its three leads as nasty people who break into trailers, fire off weapons at innocents we don't know anything of and come close to shooting their pet dogs.<br /><br />The immediate feeling is of hatred toward the three leads, a feeling of 'No, why are you doing this? Why is this happening?' Bad seeds are planted and, wouldn't you know it, they stick. The film is painful to watch, excruciating even; as these three mug their way through the piece complete with supporting performances from actors known for playing characters in Beverly Hills 90210. Here is another daft post-modernist slant, people playing themselves and that 'sort of' Joker card being played again. Christopher Walken even pops up in a really stupid role that reeks of Robert Downey Jr's Natural Born Killers character.<br /><br />So as the film plods on and Domino is cast into Ed and Choco's gang, purely for her good looks I might add, it appears amidst the plot to do with fake driver's registration I.Ds or something that Choco and Domino may have feelings for one another. The problem is, as each performer is doing such a bad job in their respective character; there is no chemistry and no feeling between the two; the film isn't a love story so why even bother going down that road in the first place? Does anyone care about these two characters amidst all the fast edits and stuff blowing up? If there is any 'feeling' between Choco and Domino, it exists on such a small, tiny, minimalist scale that you have to ask why it's even included.<br /><br />So then the film feels the need to crank things up narrative-wise. We find out the reason for the fake I.Ds that are linked to someone else and a guy talks on a cell phone in a sound proof bubble. The sound proof bubble I can believe but how does he get his phone under the water and into the bubble in the first place without it becoming flooded? He must've swam really quickly double the speed of the film's fasted edit which means something in the region of .01 of a second. Yeah, sure. The film's story becomes both too complicated and just plain arbitrary before resorting to a really dumb climax in which more stuff blows up. Plus, there's a really distasteful scene to do with a wall chart full of new ethnicities and the film's comedy runs SO dry, that it has to resort to the "Jerry, Jerry!" chant whilst people are on a popular American talk show. When did we last laugh at "Jerry! Jerry!"? when we were, say, seven years old? I came away feeling sad and depressed at such a film's existence.
| 0neg
|
Even though the book wasn't strictly accurate to the real situation it described it still carried a sense of Japan. I find it hard to believe that anyone who was involved in making this film had ever been to japan as it didn't feel Japanese in the slightest. Almost everything about it was terrible. I will admit the actors were generally quite good but couldn't stand a chance of saving it. Before the film started I was surprised that there were only ten people in the cinema on a Friday night shortly after the movie had opened in Japan. 30 minutes in I was amazed they stayed. I stayed so I would have the right to criticize it. The whole movie was punctuated my groans and suppressed laughs of disbelief from my Japanese girlfriend. Everyone I saw walking out of that cinema had looks of confusion and disappointment on their faces. <br /><br />To the makers of this movie, you owe me two hours.
| 0neg
|
The original book of this was set in the 1950s but that won't do for the TV series because most people watch for the 1930s style. Ironically the tube train near the end was a 1950s train painted to look like a 1930s train so the Underground can play at that game too. Hanging the storyline on a plot about the Jarrow March was feeble but the 50s version had students who were beginning to think about the world around them so I suppose making them think about the poverty of the marchers is much the same thing. All the stuff about Japp having to cater for himself was weak too but they had to put something in to fill the time. This would have made a decent half hour show or they could have filmed the book and made it a better long show. It is obvious this episode is a victim of style over content.
| 0neg
|
The Ladies Man is a funny movie. There's not much thought behind it, but what do you expect from an SNL movie? It's actually better than most SNL movies (i.e. Superstar or A Night At The Roxbury) Tim Meadows and Will Ferrell were both very funny. Chris Parnell was also funny in his short scene (one of the funnier ones in the movie). Other than that, the rest of the cast is average and is just there to support Meadows. I've definitely seen funnier movies, but I've seen dumber ones too. Again, it's not exactly a deep movie, but it's good for a few laughs. It was funnier as a skit though. But still, if you're looking for a pretty funny movie, I'd recommend this one. Just don't think about it too much, or you'll hate it.<br /><br />Rating: 6/10
| 0neg
|
This movie sucks from beginning till (especially) the end. You probably don't get 'm any worse, acting, storyline ,photography, camera work, etcetera it's all bad, very, very bad.<br /><br />But that's what makes it a 'great' watch, it will give you more than enough good laughs. The worse, the better! <br /><br />I really have no clue what so ever of what these people were thinking making this movie. A serious viking movie? The story is goddamn ridiculous, it's more like a comedy in disguise, kinda like Mafia, also pointless but damn funny.<br /><br />And look out for the very very end of the movie... uhum.
| 0neg
|
This could well be the worst film I've ever seen. Despite what Mikshelt claims, this movie isn't even close to being historically accurate. It starts badly and then it's all downhill from there. We have Hitler's father cursing his own bad luck on the "fact" that he'd married his niece! They were in fact, second cousins. Hitler's mother, Klara, called his father, Alois, "uncle" because Alois had been adopted and raised by Klara's grandfather and brought up as his son, when he was really his nephew. Alois was much older than Klara and so as a child she'd got into the habit of calling Alois, "uncle."<br /><br />The scene in the trenches where Hitler is mocked by his fellow soldiers and decides to take it out on his dog is simply a disgrace and an insult to the intelligence of all viewers. We see Hitler chase the dog through the trench, when he catches up with the poor thing he proceeds to thrash it for disobeying him. In the distance we see and hear his fellow soldiers continue to mock and chastise the cowardly little man, but then a shell lands directly on his persecutors, and every last one, we are told, is killed outright. How then, if Hitler was the only person to survive the scene, did this tale of brutality and cowardice come to be told? Did Hitler himself go around "boasting" about it? - I don't think so.<br /><br />Next up, Hitler bullies and intimidates a poor, stressed out and war weary Jewish officer into giving him an Iron Cross! I can only assume that this Jewish officer had been a pawnbroker before fighting for the Fatherland, and had thoughtfully brought along some pledged medals from his shop, because I'm certain that Iron Crosses were not being handed out as shown in this comic farce.<br /><br />All the grotesque clichés are here, not least the calming and hypnotic effect of Wagner's music upon the little man. If only the producers had kept Ian Kershaw on side. Then they might have discovered that Franz Lehar's "Merry Widow" was more likely to float the Fuhrer's boat than any "Flying Dutchman" from the cannon of Richard Wagner!<br /><br />Hitler may have been responsible for the deaths of 60 million people but how can he ever be forgiven for his appalling taste in music?<br /><br />I could go on but I'd be at it for hours.<br /><br />Give it a miss.
| 0neg
|
There's enough star power in THE HOUSE OF SPIRITS to create another galaxy, yet the final product is pretty debatable. The film and its messages are very noble, and I think perhaps most would agree with them. (Liberal Democracy good, violent fascist regime bad; open-mindedness good, racism bad, etc). Unfortunately, we're battered from head to toe with these, and as much subtlety is used as I've described them. <br /><br />Ultimately, we are left watching very noble people without any flaws squaring off with nasty cretins who have no redeeming qualities. It radiates with all the suspense of a badly orchestrated "pro" wrestling match.<br /><br />Jeremy Irons plays the patron, a man of many contradictions. Meryl Streep as his gifted bride and Glenn Close, as her sister in law. When the camera stays with these folks, the movie tends to move, and is quite enjoyable. Unfortunately, THE HOUSE OF SPIRITS engages with simply way too many subplots, and characters pop up and out of the picture like shooting gallery targets. We don't get to know them, hence we don't get to care for them. The result is boredom. <br /><br />If Bille August, the director and screenwriter (from Isabel Allende's book) had either lengthened the film or snipped a few characters, this film might have worked completely. As it stands, it was a nice try, with nice messages, and a bonecrushing yawnfest.<br /><br />Not recommended.
| 0neg
|
I recently watched the first Guinea Pig film, The Devil's Experiment, and I must admit to being disappointed.<br /><br />This film is invariably included in any list of the "nastiest" films and maybe I was expecting more because of the hype. The truth is though, I don't rate it.<br /><br />If I'd been watching it believing the opening text to be true ("I found this tape..."), I might have been a bit disturbed by it, thinking it was real. Even without the benefit of knowing it not to be real though, I think I'd have worked out that it indeed wasn't.<br /><br />Throughout the film, the girl's reactions to what is being done to her just aren't what they should be. She should be screaming like a banshee in pain. The fact that she isn't means that it's obviously not real. I wouldn't want to watch it if it were real but if she were to be more convincing in her acting, the film would be more disturbing.<br /><br />And then there are the notorious scenes: nothing affected me at all up until the scalpel in the hand. The hot oil, maggots and innards just didn't bother me. I'm not saying I'm "hard"; just that I wasn't able to suspend my disbelief, partly because of the girl's inaction.<br /><br />The scalpel made me wince a little but the hammer to the hand just made the hand look rubber. And the final scene with the eye was again a little wincing but nothing more. I didn't want to look away and neither did I feel nauseous.<br /><br />Perhaps it's because the film is twenty-odd years old, or perhaps I'm just jaded. The truth is, I didn't find this film at all disturbing.<br /><br />It's the kind of thing you might expect to see playing on a loop as a modern art installation and as an exercise in stripping away characters, story etc. and just leaving the torture, it works on some levels. As a disturbing piece of film though, it didn't work for me at least.<br /><br />I watched Guinea Pig with my wife, who is of the "it's just a film" bent and she wondered what all the fuss was about. We got to discussing why I watch these films and my reasons are many but include a desire to be affected by a film. She said that she didn't think any film could be so convincing as to disturb her and challenged me to do exactly that. I played her the fire extinguisher scene from Irreversible and she was indeed disturbed.<br /><br />I'm not sure I have a point, other than that both of us were more disturbed by a scene in a non-horror genre film than any film thus far which sets out to disturb.
| 0neg
|
One hour, eight minutes and twelve seconds into this flick and I decided it was pretty lame. That was right after Hopalong (Chris Lybbert) drops on his horse from a tree to rejoin the good guy posse. I was pretty mystified by the whole Hopalong Cassidy/Great Bar 20 gimmick which didn't translate into anything at all. Obviously, the name Coppola in the credits couldn't do anything to guarantee success here, even with more than one listed.<br /><br />If you make it to the end of the film, you'll probably wind up asking yourself the same questions I did. What exactly was the hook with the gloves? What's up with the rodeo scenario? Who was The Stranger supposed to represent? Why did they make this film? <br /><br />I could probably go on but my energy's been drained. Look, there's already a Western called "The Gunfighter" from 1950 with a guy named Gregory Peck as the title character. Watching it will make you feel as good as watching this one makes you feel bad. That one I can recommend.
| 0neg
|
I just read a review defending this film because it had a low budget, now my take on things.<br /><br />The CGI monsters was reasonable well animated but was implemented in the worst possible way. The fight scenes weren't even fights it was just one shot of an actor then one shot of monster with very interaction at all. When the monster did interact it looked like it was done in paintshop pro. In my opinion if you have a low budget you should use models and puppets. They may not look as fancy but at least they interact, just look at Peter Jacksons early films.<br /><br />As for the acting Beowulf did an descent job but the rest of the cast were either not trying or they forgot where they where.<br /><br />The script seemed confused to me. One minute they would be talking as if it were a modern day setting the next you get drama club Shakespeare speech. I'm not say it should be all 'ye' and 'that it be' but you need to find a cohesive balance so the lines sound like they come from the same person.<br /><br />I did notice one part near the start when Beowulf was quoting the old testament which would have been find had he not spent the rest of the films talking about the gods and portents.<br /><br />In short, this film is a very slightly polished turd, but a turn none the less.
| 0neg
|
I'm surprised that anyone involved with the production of this series would actually admit responsibility. The script is so unfunny it must have been written by someone who failed the entrance exam for the Canadian Comedy Writers' Union (and that's saying something!). Get out your binoculars if you want, but there's nothing resembling a joke in sight. Ronnie Corbett must have been flat broke to demean himself with this rubbish. The rest of the cast are so lacking in any kind of acting or comedic ability I'm amazed it lasted past the first episode - correction, past the auditions. All I can say to those who are amused by it is that they must be very easily entertained. And it's obvious that the production costs must have been all of ₤100 per episode. And just in case anyone thinks I'm commenting as a foreigner who is unfamiliar with English humour, I must add that I am indeed English.
| 0neg
|
may contain spoilers!!!! so i watched this movie last night on LMN (Lifetime Movie Network) which is NOT known for showing quality movies. THIS MOVIE IS AWFUL! i am still amazed that i watched the entire thing, as it was terrible. could this movie contain any more stereotypes? (harping jewish mother who wants son to be a doctor, catholic family with priest sons, big big crucifixes in every room shown in the catholic family's house, mexican whores, "bad" guy who is really a softie at heart, incredibly bad country accents) GAG!!!! i was at first intrigued by the fact that i had never heard of this movie and after seeing that cheryl pollack and corin nemec were in it, i decided to stay awake until 4am to watch it. anyway, the only redeeming thing about this movie is madchen amick's beauty. i suppose pollack's and nemec's acting is okay, but they have a horrid script to work with. unlike the other reviewer who commented on the lack of texan accents (the movie is supposed to take place in austin and very few people there have a twang) i think that the accents were there (in supporting characters like mary margaret's date and john) and were unnecessary. they were also very very bad. i am so very tired of hollywood "southern" accents that sound nothing like the area where the accent is supposed to be from. and since it was supposed to take place in austin and shooting movies there in 1991 would not have been expensive, i fully expected there to be familiar shots of the town: the beautiful capitol building, the UT tower lit up for a winning football game, etc. none of these things were there. also, it takes about 5-6 hours to drive to mexico from austin. at one point in the movie, michael and his posse take off for mexico to lose their virginities and are able to drive off when it is dark (during the summer and early fall it doesn't get dark in austin until 9pm or so), spend time in mexico getting drunk and having sex with mexican (is there any other kind?) whores, and then return to austin by dawn. while this is theoretically possible it is NOT very likely. and if anyone has started school in the hill country (usually the third week of august, but may have been in september in 1960) they know that unless they want to pass out from heat stroke they DO NOT wear their letter jackets!!!!! in august and september in austin and the surrounding areas it is 90+ degrees. only people with no body temperature would be stupid enough to wear sweaters or letter jackets on the first day of school. all in all, a very bad made for tv movie experience.
| 0neg
|
The sitcom "The league of Gentlemen" follows the lives of several bizarre inhabitants of the fictional village "Royston Vasey". The different scenes are linked together by their common setting.<br /><br />In the first series, a sketch show, the main plot deals with a new road which is going to be built through Royston Vasey. Consequently, more foreigners visit the small town. But Edward and Tubbs, the owners of a "local" shop, which is actually far away from the town, do not like foreigners. Whenever a visitor enters their shop, they kill him. In my opinion some scenes are kind of tasteless and not funny at all, for example, when the couple absorb two engineers who want to build the new road. Edward drums, while Tubbs is dancing half naked around the victims. <br /><br />Moreover Pauline lives in Royston Vasey. She works at the local Job Centre. Although Pauline hates the people she has to work with, the woman does not want to loose her job. So when an unemployed man gets an interview as fireman, she does not allow him to go because he is not ready for the job yet.<br /><br />Then there is Barbara Dixton, a transsexual taxi driver who goes into great detail about "her" sexual conversion.<br /><br />Furthermore the vet, Mr. Chinnery, always kills animals instead of curing them. In one case, he comes to a farm and is leaded into the sitting room, where a dog lays in his basket. The farmer goes outside. On the assumption that the dog is the sick animal, Mr. Chinnery euthanizes him. A second later, the farmer opens the door, holding the "real" sick animal, a sheep, in his hand.<br /><br />Some more inhabitants are a husband and his wife who are visited by their nephew (his friend is killed by the shop owners, by the way). The couple is very tidy. They have, for example, towels in different colours. Each colour stands for one part of the body. Besides, they have thousands of keys, marked with different colours and precisely classified.<br /><br />In my opinion, the actors play very well. By playing women, the scenes become comical. The costumes are suited to the actors, too. Tubbs is wearing a scarf and some crazy characters, for example Edward, have unappetizing black teeth. The show has a great deal of dark humour, typical British. The set design reflects the mood of the series. The village and all the houses look grey and are decayed. Around the local shop there is often fog which strengthens the threatening effect. Even the village sign is ominous: "Welcome to Royston Vasey. You will never leave."<br /><br />Although I think that the actors do a great job, this type of series is not my taste.
| 0neg
|
...from this awful movie! There are so many things wrong with this film, acting, writing, direction, editing, etc. that it's amazing that something rises to the top and proves itself to be the absolute worst. The music! I noted that the film has two composers listed. This must be the reason why every single frame has music, of the absolute worst "D" movie style drivel. They have never heard of the expression "less is more". It got so painful to listen to, I muted the sound every time there was no dialogue, not that the dialogue was that good. You have to feel sorry for Robert Wagner and Tom Bosley, I'm sure they didn't see roles like this in the twilight of their careers. See it at your own risk.
| 0neg
|
Daphne Zuniga is the only light that shines in this sleepy slasher, and the light fades quickly. If not her, than what other reason to watch this. five college kids are signed up to prepare an old dorm for its due date of demolition. Problems are automatically occurring when a weird homeless man is soliciting, and the group are short a few people. Then, a killer is on the loose. I honestly wanted to say I was going to enjoy this one. It had a fair set up, or maybe that was just Daphne Zuniga in it. The film is too slow, and almost as silent as a library. Most of the acting is below average, and the "point-of-view" moments are so old news. Acclaimed composer Christopher Young of such films as "Hellraiser" and "Entrapment" scored this, in a repetitive cue line that was better made for a TV movie. Still, it seems higher than the movie deserves. So, other than Young and Zuniga, this one scrapes the bottom of the barrel.
| 0neg
|
This is an extremely boring film. If you grew up during the Vietnam Was, as I did, then you've seen and heard all of the film footage and arguments here a hundred times by now. But what really makes this film boring is the narration by director Carlton Sherwood. The majority of the film is shot with Sherwood talking directly into the camera about his opinion of this conflicting time in the history of our nation.<br /><br />If you're old enough to remember Vietnam, then you won't find anything new here. There is no new evidence to condemn John Kerry or new evidence worthy of another documentary on Vietnam. Younger viewers who are interested in the subject should see George Butler's excellent film Going Upriver! Stolen Honor was clearly meant to be a hatchet job on John Kerry, but it fails miserably at accomplishing that goal.
| 0neg
|
Weak Bobby "Pineapple Salsa" Flay and Mario Batali bring this down.<br /><br />Flay being the worst. Definitely a one trick pony, I think they could have gotten other American chefs to come to the table on this one as the Iron Chefs. The kind of dishes this duo come up with really...don't reflect on the creativity of the original Iron Chef Series. I don't think Batali even went to chef school, actually. There are a lot of great chefs in America, I just wonder why they don't appear on the Food Network.<br /><br />It would also help to have more regional ingredients and perhaps co-hosts who can handle the pressure. I like Alton Brown, but he is a bit too flippant/funny for this role.
| 0neg
|
I went to see this film yesterday and although i didn't have high hopes for this film, I was still bitterly disappointed! I actually cant believe I spent 96 minutes of my life watching this film...it was THAT bad!!! The storyline was disgraceful and the acting was terrible (even though it had big names such as Uma Thurman in it). This film heavily relied on its special effects...but they personally had no effect on me. I honestly wished id never watched it and I strongly warn everyone against seeing this film. It is a total waste of money and you'll only end up being disappointed afterwards. My advice is to save your money, go shopping, treat yourself, just don't go and see this film... You'll live to regret it lol!
| 0neg
|
LIVE A LITTLE, LOVE A LITTLE is one of Elvis' weirdest movies. Part slapstick, part fluff, part surreal and part strange. Elvis meets up with a very off-beat girl with an annoying voice. She looks like Jennifer Aniston. Story doesn't make much sense as is the case with most Elvis Presley movies, and there a bunch of odd characters galore. Not much music in this one, but what there is I liked, although none are memorable. Strange continuity. Elvis and Michelle Carey go into her beach house at night, but a few minutes later a delivery boy comes in and it's stark daylight!! What?? That's about the essence of the movie. What?? Oh, two good things about the movie: A) Elvis looks great and B) the dog steals the show.
| 0neg
|
Eric Rohmer's 'The Lady and the Duke' is based on the journals of an English aristocrat who lived through the French revolution. But it's a stilted affair, with its strange, painted backdrops and mannered conversational tone. Most notably, this portrait of age of terror takes place almost entirely at one remove from the real action; one sees very little of ordinary people in this movie, and little of the chaos, poverty and terror that unfolded away from the drawing rooms of the persecuted, but spoilt, aristocratic classes. The result is frequently dull, and ultimately unenlightening about the forces that sometimes drive societies to the brink of destruction; it's a disappointing film from an acclaimed director.
| 0neg
|
Please avoid this movie at all costs. This is without a doubt, the worst movie I've ever seen. Most movies have at least one redeeming value. This has none. Totally horrible!
| 0neg
|
This film is not devoid of charm and also shows a bit of warmth, but ultimately this effort is too vain and too strongly focussed on the leads. There is no doubt that Mary Tyler Moore knows what to do with all her screen time but she takes too much of the limelight away from the rest of the cast.<br /><br />Another problem is the overburdening of the script with cliches. The daughter who secretly drops out of college, an older woman finding it difficult to get a good job (and first ends up with fairly demeaning work), the sleazy network executive with his executive toys who goes for glitz over substance, the journalist who sticks up for her beliefs, etc. There is nothing really wrong with any of these, i.e. they are all firmly rooted in reality, but in combination they are just too much and leave us with too much deja-vu and too few surprises.
| 0neg
|
I am the guy who usually keeps opinions to himself, but I just got back from this movie, and felt I had to express my opinions. Let me start by saying that I am a HUGE horror fan. But what makes a horror movie? I sure like to see even a tiny bit of a good script and character development. I know they often lack in horror movies, but Prom Night looked like it didn't even put forth ANY effort in that department. Next, we all love suspense. That on the edge of your seat suspense with unpredictable surprises. Yeah, Prom Night had none of that! Of course, we like a terrifying killer. Prom Night have that? Nope, it has a pretty boy with a cute lil' knife. And when all else fails...at least horror has its guilty pleasure to make it enjoyable like gore gore gore, and the occasional nude scene! Yeah, well when you have a horror movie rated PG-13 like Prom Night, they leave that stuff out too. So with all of these elements missing, I ask....does this still count as a horror movie? Nope. I'd call it more of a comedy. People in my theater were laughing more at this then they were when I saw "Semi-Pro" that was supposed to actually be a comedy (which also sucked, but thats another story!). I think I am just going to have to give up on new horror. All the good horror movies of the good ol' days have been remade into garbage so movie studios can make money. The people I went to see it with didn't even know this was a remake! Which made me mad! I wonder what will happen when there's no more movies to remake??? Where will horror go next???
| 0neg
|
Whoa boy.<br /><br />Ever wanted to watch a documentary about a megalomaniacal jerk ruining his own life and alienating everyone around him? Well they exist, in many forms. But have you ever wanted to watch said documentary about one who didn't ultimately succeed in doing anything despite everyone's praises about how much of an artistic "genius" he is? Well you could probably just grab a camera and find someone like that in any local scene (I know they're everywhere and I don't even follow the local scene), or you could save yourself the trouble by spending money watching this tripe.<br /><br />The premise is good and, honestly, it's not as if the filmmakers knew precisely where it was going considering that's one of the difficulties of doing a documentary. We are made to follow two bands, The Brian Jamestown Massacre, lead by Anton, and The Dandy Warhols, lead by Courtney. I've heard of The Dandy Warhols before watching this movie... not so the Brian Jamestown Massacre. Why? Well from this documentary's perspective, because The Brian Jamestown Massacre's intergroup dysfunction refused them the ability to really make it in the music industry. However, instead of this becoming an analysis of the two separate bands and how one was able to succeed, the focus becomes much more on Anton and his insanity.<br /><br />Because, see, Anton is a "genius." Because he plays rock music. He really "understands the evolution of music"... because he plays rock music with a lot of different instruments. His music is considered "post-modern retro but the future"... because it's rock music. He wants to bring out a "revolution"... through rock music. Okay so let's face it... twenty minutes in and this is one of the stupidest kids I'd care to watch a documentary about.<br /><br />The documentary itself doesn't really lend itself to showcasing any of Anton's talent, because in the nature of editing down 2000 hours of material into a quarter short of two hours we don't really have the time to focus on that. So instead we watch Anton, "the genius", the socio-maniacal loser, be a jerk for the two hours and are just told to understand that he made really great music. Whether he did or not I won't know, because its not like the documentary had enough time to prove it. What I do know is that then we're left with a story about some self-centered obnoxious twerp running around the country calling himself a God of music and doing nothing to back it up. Why even bother watching that? People like Anton don't deserve the attention they seek, the hope and admiration of all those different people, and especially a post-failure paean to lost potential. This movie plays like a two-hour rough-cut VH1 special for a reason: he goes on and on about the music, but it's all about the image and the attention. Look at the guy, look at how he dresses, look at how he acts, look at how he tries to create controversy because he can't afford marketing.<br /><br />Honestly the only interesting character in this film is Joel, and that's because of anyone in this documentary, Joel is the only person who seems to have any fun. Maybe it's because he's the tambourine man. The rest of them are all "rock stars"! They deserve our attention, and admiration, and interest, and engagements! They are out there to "save rock and roll." Do you remember when The White Stripes were supposed to "save rock and roll"? Yeah, that was because of Anton, and it's "selfish of them not to mention me (Anton) as an inspiration." What a load. People like Anton are best left forgotten. This documentary explains why mainstream music is so dull--because music execs have to deal with people like Anton for a living and ultimately can only really throw their support behind someone safe and passionless. Thanks a lot, Anton. Your antics ruined music for EVERYONE you touched, whatever the opinion to the contrary is. And if people "in the know" about Anton disagree and he really was a genius, it still shows how bad this documentary is that it cuts it down that way.<br /><br />--PolarisDiB
| 0neg
|
Patricia Hunter: Oh, professor, do you also make a habit of collecting coffins? Dr. Lorenz: Why, yes, in a manner of speaking. I find a coffin much more comfortable than a bed. <br /><br />Interesting Bela Lugosi (Glen or Glenda, Dracula) vehicle where he plays the mad scientist. I was especially creeped out when he appeared in the bedrooms of his guests when they were sleeping.<br /><br />Luana Walters (Girls in Prison) was really appealing as a sensual reporter, Patricia Hunter< who was to be a victim, but woman-power trumps evil scientist every time.<br /><br />2'11" Angelo Rossitto and creepy Frank Moran , who liked to stoke the women's hair added to the film.<br /><br />Interesting look at a 40s horror film.
| 0neg
|
Before I'd seen this, I had seen some pretty bad Christmas films. But once I saw this, "Jingle All the Way" looked better than "The Godfather". "Santa Claus" is a jolly film about Santa helping out some kids, but it almost feels demonic watching it. Santa's jolly ho-ho-ho is replaces by an evil, devilish laugh that I'm sure has turned many kids off of Christmas. The plot of this massacre is very strange, which fits along with all of the performances and dialog. Santa lives high above Earth in the North Pole where he, and kids from all around the world get ready for Christmas. But Santa has an enemy named Pitch, or Satan. Pitch tries to ruin Santa's Christmas by making three boys naughty, and by creating diversions, like moving the chimney and making the doorknob hot. When Pitch causes Santa to be attacked by a dog, it's up to Santa's helper Pedro and Merlin the wizard to get Santa out of this pickle. <br /><br />Everything about this film, along with being downright bad, is so bizarre. Satan dances a lot and he actually seems much more merry than Santa. Santa talks about delivering presents to all the boys and girls, yet he seems to only deliver to 5 houses of kids in Mexico. The reindeer are wind up toys, and when the reindeer laughs, I'm amazed it doesn't bring tears to kid's eyes...it's frightening. Everything is terrible. The first 10 minutes are simply Santa playing the organ while kids sing to it. Probably one of the strangest scenes is Santa shooting Pitch in the butt with a mini-cannon and uproariously laughing about it while Pitch dances around in pain. I think parents are better off telling their little kids about where babies come from, than showing them this. The only positive is it will have you laughing hysterically if you can appreciate bad cinema.<br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 85 mins.
| 0neg
|
I watched the entire movie recognizing the participation of William Hurt, Natascha McElhone, and Desiree Nosbusch. I'm glad that I had no idea of the presence of Peter Weller. At the end of the movie I said "THAT was Peter Weller?" Kudos to Mr. Weller for an outstanding performance. Weller played a major character, and his performance was such that I didn't even recognize him.<br /><br />Overall the plot was bad, the writing was bad, and the performances, aside from those of Nosbusch and Weller, were subpar. The scenery and setting were interesting, and Weller was amazing.<br /><br />4 stars, of a possible 10.
| 0neg
|
The truth is that a film based on a Harold Robbins novel is not going to win any awards. This is no exception. "The Lonely Lady" is a pure B picture in budget, cast and execution. Technically, it looks like a made-for-tv film. The acting is very uneven. Joseph Cali is especially terrible. Anthony Holland is an embarrassment. As one reviewer said of a certain Katherine Hepburn performance, her range goes from A to B. Ms Zedora manages to get to G. The rest of the cast is solid (and wasted in their respective roles). Lloyd Bochner and Bibi Besch deserved better. Still, the whole thing can be a great deal of fun in a trashy sort of way. As befits Robbins, everything revolves around sex and nudity. If you're looking for some fun...and you're not too sober...this could be for you.
| 0neg
|
This movie was so poorly written and directed I fell asleep 30 minutes through the movie. The jokes in the movie are corny and even though the plot is interesting at some angles, it is too far fetched and at some points- ridiculous. If you are 11 or older you will overlook the writing in the movie and be disappointed, but if you are 10 or younger this is a film that will capture your attention and be amazed with all the stunts (which I might add are poorly done) and wish you were some warrior to. The casting in this movie wasn't very good, and the music was very disappointing because it was like they were trying to build up the tension but it didn't fit at all. On a scale of 1-10 (10 being excellent, 1 being horrible) the acting in this movie is a 4. Brenda Song is talented in comedy, but with this kind of movie, in some of the more serious scenes, her acting was laughable. When she made some of her "fighting" poses, I started laughing out loud. I think the worst thing about this movie is definitely the directing, for example, the part where her enemy turns out to be the person the evil villain is possesing, how her voice turns dark and evil, I think that was incredibly stupid, and how Wendy's (Brenda Song)teachers were all her teachers at school being possessed by monks, that was pretty ridiculous to. So to sumamrize it all, a disappointing movie, but okay if you're 10 or under.
| 0neg
|
A wealthy Harvard dude falls for a poor Radcliffe chick much to the consternation of his strict father (Ray Milland).<br /><br />Syrupy, sugary, and most of all, sappy story about a battle of the 'classes' when rich-kid Ryan O'Neal brings home a waif of a librarian for his snobbish parents to ridicule. Ali MacGraw is the social derelict with the filthy mouth while John Marley plays her devout-Catholic father, but no one in the film is more annoying than O'Neal himself with his whimpering portrayal as Harvard's champion yuppie.<br /><br />Followed 8(!) years later by 'Oliver's Story'.
| 0neg
|
...the child actors were annoying. Also it seems as if the makers on this film were struggling to fill 90 minutes. Decent death scenes, though. If not for the death scenes, this movie would have a very Disneyish feel to it.<br /><br />The main child protagonist didn't seem nearly as scared as she should have been. If I was in the middle of the woods with a tooth fairy ghost killer type individual, you can bet your arse I wouldn't be out wandering around and riding my bike.<br /><br />Overall, I've seen worse (i.e. It Waits) but it's nothing I would watch again, or recommend anyone bothering with it unless you're an avid horror collector.
| 0neg
|
I'm not sure it was the language or the poor acting, but everything about this movie feels and looks cheap and fake.<br /><br />After seeing Der Untergang this is a huge disappointment. There's no connection between different scenes, and the acting is so incredibly poor I couldn't even believe people could make such a mess of something that had great potential.<br /><br />And above all, everyone in Germany speaks English. Big mistake. The German language has a certain sound to it, and especially Hitler himself only sounds like Hitler when he's speaking/yelling German.<br /><br />The way the story is told made me believe it was improvised on the spot, the characters were empty and the movie seems to be a collection of random events that could have happened.<br /><br />Whether it's the English or the fact that I've already seen Der Untergang, everything about this movie was fake and ridiculous.
| 0neg
|
Poorly written conspiracy drama/mystery about the possibility that AIDS was introduced to the public by the government. Wlaschiha plays a gay researcher looking for answers--that within this foggy plot would be hard for anyone to find. Despite the cinematography itself being commendable, the camera hungers for characters of true depth instead of the shallow, amateur acting it unfortunately has to convey. Grade: D+
| 0neg
|
If you want to watch a good film about how women can fight back against sexual assault, then this film is not the film that you want to watch. It was a social commentary about a woman who was victimized and fights back. Spoiler: Rosario Dawson turns the tables on her assailant. Instead of using the criminal justice system, the victim resorts to using vigilantism. She in essence nullifies the judicial system. The film "The Accused" was a much better film because the victim uses the judicial system and wins. What the "Descent" does is telling victims of assault that they should resort to violence? Is victim any better that the accuser? No!!!
| 0neg
|
The plot has already been described by other reviewers, so I will simply add that my reason for wanting to see this film was to see Gabrielle Drake in all her undoubted glory.<br /><br />Miss Drake has to be one of the sexiest, prettiest examples of "posh totty" to have been committed to celluloid. Of her era and ilk, only the equally exquisite Jane Asher comes close. What was it about actresses with musical brothers? (Nick Drake and Peter Asher) For those who like me have admired Gabrielle, her scenes in this movie will not disappoint. She has a magnificent figure and none of it is left to the imagination here.<br /><br />As a whole, the movie is very poor and being of its time, very cheaply made. The song that covers the opening credits seems to go on forever and is appalling.
| 0neg
|
This film can not even be said to be bad for it is sadly, just painfully mediocre. Lacking any real wit or imagination, a thin plot is stretched to the absolute limit and the `jokes' (which are predictable and threadbare) are spun out to such inordinate length that boredom and yawns quickly overtake the viewer. Another notch to mark the sad decline of John Waters and a reminder that what `shocked' or amused us 30 years ago doesn't work quite the same way now. We've seen it all before, and it no longer breaks any taboos because they have long since evaporated. A major miss.
| 0neg
|
I just watched The Incredible Melting Man for the second time, and it was even more boring than when I first watched it. I don't understand why it has become such a 'cult classic' when it is so tediously dull. The opening scene looks promising, when the fat nurse drops the canister of blood and runs for her dear life. After this all that really happens is the melting man stalks around some woods and houses, whilst having flashbacks of his life as an astronaut. The makeup is quite good, and his melting gooey face looks fairly realistic. There is a cool scene where he throws a mans head in a river, and it floats until it reaches a waterfall where it falls on rocks and bursts open. There's not much to wet yourself over though, most scenes are shot in darkness and you can't really see what is happening. There isn't much gore, at least in the Vipco DVD I watched. <br /><br />No, The Incredible Melting Man is not that great at all. I'll give it marks for its cheese factor but that's about it. If you want a TRUE sci-fi/horror cult classic, watch The Deadly Spawn instead!
| 0neg
|
It's not the most well made slasher movies of all time, but for what it is, it's pretty amusing. The plot is lame but the kills are not too bad. I have to be honest, if you don't follow the bands that are featured in this film, you wont find this film as funny as those who do. I knew someone who saw this film and was really disappointed because of the poor quality of the film but you have to understand that it was made in the spare time of being on tour, in between playing to moshing kids and drinkin' with friends backstage...it's not made to be taken seriously. It's ubber cheese at it's punk best and with over 100 kills,most of which are ultra gory, it's a fun movie to have friends over to watch, drink and be merry!
| 0neg
|
This movie was a rather odd viewing experience. The movie is obviously based on a play. Now I'm sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn't feel terribly interesting enough to watch. The movie is way too 'stagey' and they didn't even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. Instead what is presented now is an almost literally re-filming of a stage-play, with over-the-top characters and staged dialog. Because of all this the storyline really doesn't work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore- and obsolete viewing experience.<br /><br />It takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy you're watching. At first you think its a drama you're watching, with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you'll notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy, that leans really more toward the comedy genre, rather than the drama genre.<br /><br />The characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over-the-top one that at times really become unwatchable. Sure, the actors are great; Peter O'Toole and Susannah York, amongst others but they don't really uplift the movie to a level of 'watchable enough'.<br /><br />The story feels totally disorientated. Basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother/sister characters played by Peter O'Toole and Susannah York. But what exactly is the story even about? The movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. Like I said before; I'm sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn't fitting and simply doesn't work out.<br /><br />The editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences. <br /><br />More was to expect from director J. Lee Thompson, who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed, stage-play translated to screen, project.<br /><br />Really not worth your time.<br /><br />4/10
| 0neg
|
Quite one of the worst films I have ever seen. Terrible acting, laughable 'action' (it's clear that the cars are travelling slowly), atrocious script, hideously unsatisfying ending and incompetent direction make a hash of a movie. We know Judge Reinhold is a fine actor, but he should be ashamed of this detritus. There is no great tension within the car and, when the characters stumble upon moments of hope, they laugh like inane banshees for some reason, even 'high five-ing' when they see the bridge lowered!<br /><br />Also, the chain of events that lead these people to share the same car strains credibility. Apparently based on true events, though? If that's the case, truth is evidently stranger than fiction! Unfortunate then, that it was portrayed in such an inept manner.
| 0neg
|
This should have been a movie about Sam and his wife, the glorious Peter Falk and equally glorious Olympia Dukakis. That would have been a movie worth seeing. Instead it's a Paul Reiser vehicle, with a little Falk thrown in. The wonderful Elizabeth Perkins is also in this movie, but you'd hardly know it. I presume Reiser is under the impression that he's a giant movie star who needs an appropriate vehicle. He's not. Even more galling is that Reiser took the trouble to hire some of the best women character actresses on the screen today and then shoved them all into his background. Dukakis does not show up until the last 15 minutes, but when she does, the screen glows. The story is about Falk and Dukakis really, but we're subjected to a pointless, silly, preposterous road trip in which Reiser gets to show how very cute, precious and oh-so-deep with psychological insight (wrong!) he can be. For instance, In a restaurant scene that I imagine Reiser had hoped was "Cassavetes-like" there's a laughably false confrontation between Reiser and Falk that is so patently ridiculous, I was embarrassed for Falk.
| 0neg
|
Contrary to its title, this film offers no spice and thus audience is subjected to a tasteless dish. All Humor appears forced, theatrical, mechanical, staged, reminiscent of those Pakistani plays available on video, including even the mannerisms. Everybody is screaming, shouting and doing odd things for no reason. The premise looks interesting as it is a straight lift from Hollywood's 'Boeing Boeing". John Abraham who is so natural in almost all his films is a complete misfit here. If we keep morality factor aside, even then the bizarre events looks trite. Akshay Kumar and Paresh Rawal, two experienced stalwarts try hard to lift the film by being natural but in vain. At least, the characters of three girls should be made contrasting in order to bring some interesting elements but sadly here too all of them appears those brainless, buxomed bimbettes (3Bs) who talk, behave and even scream in quite similar fashion. The major hole in the plot is what made the protagonist keep the three girls at his same home pretending that they will never get to know about each other? Just to do some Sex, what else? The same could be done in hundreds of other ways. Therefore so much dramabaazi for no reason is not something audience will digest easily. But surely, great flesh show and tempting promos always gives such films a great initial. Now for those who call it a situational comedy, I call it a pathetic taste. Sense of humor of such cinema going audience is surely gone corrupted and demented to the extent that they are connecting to a sadistic, weird and maddening type of humor, where it is not the characters that they laugh at but rather at themselves and at their own frustrations that look how senseless we have become that in order to laugh we have to bear with such things?
| 0neg
|
I couldn't believe I spent $14.00 on this. The only redeeming quality is the outrageous gore. The dubbing was worse than any I have ever experienced. It looks like it was shot with a VHS camcorder. I think every pfennig was spent on the special effects because there was a whole lot of blood and body parts everywhere. Its one of the worst movies I have ever seen but I do have to acknowledge the plentiful gore that wasn't as disgusting as it could have been because the whole movie is so silly and unbelievable
| 0neg
|
The acting is some of the worst I've ever seen, the characters are totally unconvincing. This could be overlooked to some extent if the plot was interesting, which the plot to "The Prodigy" was not. It's sort of a bad mix between "Fresh" and "Animal House", except that both of those movies were good.
| 0neg
|
Jewish newspaper reporter Justin Timberlake (as Joshua "Josh" Pollack) is puzzled when a courtroom defendant whispers "Thank you" to testifying officer LL Cool J (as Rafe Deed) as he leaves the witness stand. In the opening sequences of this film, you are given the explanation. You will see Mr. Cool J's devilish detective partner Dylan McDermott (as Frances "Laz" Lazerov) decide NOT to murder Damien Dante Wayans (as Isaiah Charles). The cops in the city of "Edison" are so corrupt they shoot their suspects, steal their money, and snort their dope. Whether he's out to impress his girlfriend (herein, called "Pussy") or win a Pulitzer, the city's corruption does NOT sit well with the noble Mr. Timberlake.<br /><br />Timberlake decides to investigate the corruption, which reaches both unexpected scope and life-threatening levels of danger. Writer/director David J. Burke keeps the film above water, but just barely. LL Cool J beats Timberlake in the "pop star to movie star" sweepstakes (aka the "rapper to actor" progression). Mr. McDermott has fun with his role. Lending gravitas to the proceedings are sagely supporting actors Morgan Freeman (as Moses Ashford) and Kevin Spacey (as Levon Wallace). F.R.A.T. means First Response Assault and Tactical, but it's more important to know that "Edison (Force)" stars Justin Timberlake and LL Cool J, not Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey (who seems lost).<br /><br />**** Edison (9/17/05) David J. Burke ~ Justin Timberlake, LL Cool J, Morgan Freeman, Dylan McDermott
| 0neg
|
This is easily the worst Presley vehicle ever, which would bring us pretty close to the worst film ever made. It is measurably worse than even the revolting "Happy Ending" song at the end of "It Happened At The World's Fair", and here I thought that moment when Elvis buys all of the vendor's balloons for his girl, and then the balloon vendor gets jiggy to the marching band was the epitome of bad cinema and could not be topped. I usually enjoy the random Elvis flick if for no other reason but the memories of a time when we were innocent enough to sit through it. This one, however, ought to be called "Live a Little, Wish You Were Dead a Little", and makes "Stay Away Joe" look like Olivier playing Othello.<br /><br />Here, Elvis plays Greg, who is essentially a hippie free-lance photographer except for the Establishment haircut. After a fun morning of reckless driving, he ends up at the beach where he is abducted by a woman who's name changes depending on the scene and who is speaking to her. Clearly Michele Carey was selected for her resemblance to and ability to mimic Elizabeth Taylor (if I watched this without my glasses, I would have thought it was late 1960's Liz playing the female lead). She sics her dog on Elvis until he runs into the water and catches convenient movie pneumonia, then she keeps him doped up out of consciousness in her beach pad so long he loses his job and his apartment so she moves his stuff into her house before he awakens without even telling him (the audience does not know about it either, until Elvis tries to go back to work and his boss has him beaten up for no reason except he deserved it for making this movie, and tries to go home and finds some hateful woman in a slip living in his house).<br /><br />Rather than having her arrested for kidnapping, larceny and assault, he goes out and gets two jobs to repay the back rent Miss Crazy Pants had to spring for when stealing all of his belongings. Job one is working for Don Porter at a Playboy type magazine, job two is upstairs working for Rudy Vallee at a snobby fashion magazine. I think the two-job shuffling is supposed to be the comedy, too bad it isn't the least bit funny, unless you'd laugh the 100th time you saw someone run up and down stairs in fast-motion to silly music. The predominate obstacle that keeps Greg from falling for his abductor is her other love interest, the dreadfully miscast Dick Sargent (let's face it, either Porter or Vallee, even given their advanced ages in 1968, would have made far more believable competitors for Miss Crazy's affections).<br /><br />There are a variety of uninteresting and unfunny twists and turns, I kept waiting for something, anything to happen that would make all of this make sense. It never did. Entertainment totals approximately three minutes and is comprised of Elvis' rendition of "A Little Less Talk" (which I can listen to on CD without this painful movie inflicted upon me) and a funny five second bit where Elvis flops on the couch and Crazy Pants has apparently disassembled it so it flies all to pieces when he lands on it. That's it, folks, busted furniture, the only laugh in this entire film. No amount of mod sixties clothing, music, or décor can salvage this high-heaven stinker and it should be avoided at all costs. Viewing this can create an unnatural desire on the part of the audience toward the self-infliction of grave bodily harm.
| 0neg
|
The only thing remarkable about this movie? is that all the actors could bomb at the same time. Idiocy. I want my money back...and I got it free from the library. Sheesh. I would rather chew on tin fool and shave my head with a cheese grater then watch this again.
| 0neg
|
Why were there so many people crowding into an evening showing of Roberto Moreira's "Up Against Them All" ("Contra Todos") at the San Francisco Film Festival? "It's about a hit man," my friend said. "Well. . . and it's Brazilian," I added. Beautiful multicolored people, tropical weather, lush rhythms, and a hip gangster plot? Ample enticements no doubt.<br /><br />Somebody forgot to tell us one little detail: this is a very bad movie, really pretty horrible, and as unpleasant to watch as it is poorly made.<br /><br />So how on earth did "Contra Todos" get to make the rounds of Berlin, Melbourne, London, Manila, Stockholm, Cairo, Chicago, numerous smaller local festivals, and now San Francisco? Apparently, because of the way the promotional process and the film festival circuit work.<br /><br />First of all, it won first prize at the Rio Film Festival where it was called the best Brazilian movie of the year. It must have been a bad year; they've had much, much better ones. Next, snappy synopses in catalogs plus imaginary buzz lead to crowded auditoriums and -- since the movie isn't featured anywhere and so avoids close scrutiny by critics -- it keeps going the rounds.<br /><br />Festival blurbs aimed at promotion sometimes goose it up a lot. A Chicago Festival one called "Contra Todos" "a speedball cocktail shot straight out of Brazil" and referred to Claudia's s boyfriend as the "stud of the slum-like neighborhood." Soninha is "Teodoro's nymph-like teen-aged daughter of burgeoning sexuality." The movie is "shot with the urgency of a frequently hand-held camera" and the director "works up a genuine and palpable sense of frustration borne from domestic desperation and decay." The effect is " unbearably raw and honest," and the movie hurtles "toward a conclusion as dead-ended as the lives on display." Not the best writing, but it sure pumps up the excitement for a certain kind of potential viewer.<br /><br />"Contra Todos" does concern a hit man, two hit men actually, and a wife and daughter and a born-again Christian girlfriend. It's shot -- in execrably ugly digital video with no talent behind the camera-work -- mostly in a barren-looking poor suburb rather than in one of the teeming "favelas" or village-like Brazilian city slums where such wonderful films as "Black Orpheus", "Pixote," and "City of God" were made, and not in Rio this time, but São Paulo.<br /><br />The hit man with family problems is Teodoro ( Giulio Lopez) and his partner with a drug problem is Waldomiro (Ailtan Graça). Both actors have a little TV experience as does the actress who plays Teodoro's sluttish blonde wife Cláudia (Leona Cavalli) and Silvia Lorenço who plays his pouting, ready-to-revolt daughter Soninha. These actors might make it through the back corners of a few telenovelas. Who knows? -- in a better directed film they might even be good. Aside from them there are some young men who get bumped off by Teordoro or, when he's busy, gangs of thugs. The principals don't work up much presence, even though the camera magnifies their pores.<br /><br />A couple of observers, one at the Berlin Festival and one at London's, did see this movie's failings but alas they're buried in the Web hinterlands. Henry Sheehan noted from Berlin that the "film" (his quotes) was "the worst of the video works" shown. "The filmmaker seems to have chosen video simply because it was a cheap alternative to film," Sheehan wrote, "and hasn't made any creative use of the new medium" -- nor, he adds, done anything else creative.<br /><br />Sheehan pointed out the movie's first big mistake: it "starts off as a domestic drama that's supposed to ratchet up when, half an hour into the action, Moreira reveals that the father and one of his friends are professional hit men. Waiting the thirty minutes adds nothing to the movie; it seems like a perfectly arbitrary decision and is, at the very least, a waste of time. But ratcheting up is all Moreira ever does, like a little kid who's gotten a tool kit for his birthday, and goes around banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill." Devastating, but true.<br /><br />Writing about the 2004 London festival for Kamera.com, Metin Alsanjak tried to look at the positive side but nonetheless gave away the lack of redeeming features in calling the performances "easily the film's best feature." Yes, very easily, given that everything else is so bad. Alsanjak admitted that " this low-budget, violent and seedy account of the lawless in Sao Paulo is devoid of any likable characters, and as a result, of hope. Too dark and cynical to be a telling account of the human condition, the film is not helped by poor subtitling.. ." Alsanjak's connecting Contra Todos to "Dogme" and Mike Leigh didn't help matters.<br /><br />Apart from that meaningless first half hour in which nothing redeems the boredom of our wait for the first acts of violence -- which, when they come, are just "banging everything in sight without rhyme, reason or skill" -- Moreira clumsily tries to redeem his abrupt finale by adding what appear to be outtakes right after it, followed by an implausible ironic concluding scene where one of the characters gets married. No doubt the director wanted to exhibit the "banality of evil" of low-level hit men in working class neighborhoods, but he can't make the characters, which he sees generically, come alive for us. And the structure of the film shows that he also can't edit his material. <br /><br />(Seen at the San Francisco International Film Festival on April 28, 2005.)
| 0neg
|
I was looking over our DVD tower last night for something to watch. We were between NetFlix mailings and it was a quiet Saturday night. I pulled one out that I never heard of before and realized it was borrowed from a friend. From the jacket, it sounded like a rip-off of "The Big Chill" but, with the all-star cast, felt it might be worth watching. Boy was I wrong!!! Not only was it like "The Big Chill," it was a rip-off almost character by character. The Bill Paxton character was a copy of William Hurt ("where have you been all this time" role) -spoiler warning- and, lo and behold, he remains behind to take care of the old place(cabin/camp). Kimberly Williams = Meg Tilly; jerk womanizer Matt Craven = Jeff Goldblum etc., etc. I found myself wondering why I'm even watching these people. There was insufficient character development for me to find any interest in them. How did "Unca Lou" even find these characters after 20 years? Plus it wasn't even funny, except when Perkins fell, err 'flopped' out of bed the first morning, it was a sign and I missed it. After it was over, I asked my wife, "Were there any endearing characters in this film? ... Are you sleeping over there?" She replied, "No, I'm still thinking...No, none I can think of."
| 0neg
|
Unfortunately for me, the first Busby Berkeley movie I ever watched was "42nd Street." I then expected all of his stuff to be that good. I found out that wasn't necessarily the case, even here, with my all-time favorite classic-era actor James Cagney.<br /><br />Oh, the musical numbers at the end are as spectacular as always, but the story is like many of the others and quite tiresome. They seem to always involve screaming, unhappy show producers. In this film, it's Cagney who winds up shouting things out so often that he gives me a headache after awhile and his character wears thin....fast!<br /><br />Even the songs in here are anywhere near "42nd Street" class, songs you could hum for years and years - decades, I should say. The songs in this movie are not memorable. No, this is one of the few early Cagney films - and Berkeley films - I totally dislike and was very disappointed with while watching.
| 0neg
|
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!
| 0neg
|
Leave it to Paul "sex on the brain" Verhoeven to come up with a pointlessly sleazy and juvenile version of the INVISIBLE MAN story. If he'd direct a Pokemon film, I'm sure he'd turn it into some massive orgy of sorts. I don't mind sex or even sleaze (check my other reviews) on film but frankly, it's obvious the director has a one track mind and he couldn't see interesting aspects about an invisible man storyline than the kinky implications it comes with it. It's a shame because it could have been good if the film didn't spend so much time having an invisible Kevin Bacon grope women. <br /><br />The game cast of actors does what it can with the one-note cheesy script but I felt bad for some of them, including William Devane, who is totally wasted here.<br /><br />But then what could I have expected from the director of SHOWGIRLS, which, btw, is much more entertaining than this stilted & bad film.
| 0neg
|
Guy Richie's third proper film (not counting the God-awful "Swept Away" is a complex action thriller concerned with gambling, gangsters and chess. Fans of Richie's previous efforts will probably hate Revolver as much as I did, with its twists and turns. Richie stalwart Jason Statham plays Jake, a newly-released ex-con, out to wreak revenge on the ridiculously named Dorothy Macha (a superbly OTT Ray Liotta) but instead gets embroiled with a couple of other cons, (one of which is Andre 3000 from rap outfit Outkast) who throw him and us the audience, a number of red herrings throughout the film, all of which becomes extremely tedious. The high point of this mess of a movie is the bit in the restaurant, where the dialogue gets turned down in favour of a superbly shot, slow-mo shootout set to Beethoven's Moonlight Sonata. All in all, Revolver is a flawed work, not truly awful but far from Richie's best. That would still be Lock, Stock. If this film was a school homework assignment it would be graded 'must try harder!'
| 0neg
|
Seemingly intended to be a thriller of a movie winds up being almost laughable. It prompted me to exclaim "Oh my God!" more than once at the convoluted contrivances of plot that were just plain silly.<br /><br />Fanciful or absurd locations just for the sheer novelty or dramatic situation and improbable, near impossible, human reactions and circumstances are too much to be comprehended as to why they exist.<br /><br />If you have the time and wish to discover just how bad a picture can be then you will want to see this one. Otherwise dedicate some time into watching some paint dry for a more productive investment of time!<br /><br />(That a film released in 2003 is already being shown on TV in July 2003 might give an indication of the film's quality)
| 0neg
|
Effect(s) without cause is generally not possible in the real world but in the world of Hollywood remakes, not only is it possible, it's required. The Haunting has been given the computer treatment courtesy of a 1st-class cinematographer-turner-director who once showed promise (Jan de Bont- Speed) but has since produced a string of big budget garbage (Twister, Speed 2).<br /><br />Actor are superfluous in a movie of this type and they seem to realize it. Liam Neeson and Cathrine Zeta-Jones act like they wish they were anywhere but in this film. Lili Taylor makes an attempt to add something to the proceedings but whatever that something might be is unknown since the script feels like half of it is missing. Events just happen, good and bad ghosts show up with no rhyme or reason and then the story just ends with a most unsatisfying non-event meant to wrap up the previous 90 minutes of inanity.<br /><br />There really isn't even reason to see this for the effects since we all know that anything can be put on screen now. Why not watch effects in the service of a good story instead of just for their own sake?
| 0neg
|
I grew up with scooby(kinda the re-runs of where are you)I hate scrappy, love Daphne, and feel its not complete with out the whole gang. But this is sad, scooby doo is mystery solving comedy-not bad totally spy's jap anime. i like "whats new", they had to give danger-prone Daphne a makeover sometime :( and try to lose the *sex *drug jokes of many a generation, but this "get a clue" is flat out crap and should not have the Scooby name attached. They even tried to do some lame punk thing with the theme song. now i'm gonna go watch my DVD of scooby doo where are you to wash the filth of this new series off my eyes
| 0neg
|
This story had a different angle that intrigued me, enough to buy a previously-viewed VHS sight-unseen. That was a mistake.<br /><br />In what could have been a very nice story - about badly crippled people at a hospital, and their various personalities - turned quickly into a very profane soap opera with unlikeable characters.<br /><br />We have "Bloss" (William Forsythe) the stereotype racist white person, who says the f-word every other sentence and is so despicable they didn't give him a first name in the movie. He's a lot of fun to be around. Then, there is "Raymond Hill" (Wesley Snipes), a fast-talking womanizer. Snipes must have liked those fast-talking "hip" arrogant roles because he played in a number of them, like in "White Men Can't Jump." Then there is sweet Helen Hunt playing "Anna" that wonderful caring, loving person who is having an adulterous affair with the leading character in the film, "Joel Garcia" (Eric Stoltz).<br /><br />Yup, this is heartwarming, feel-good type stuff. It just makes my heart melt watching these nice folks. But, if you are one of those who loves sleazy characters portrayed by sleazy people in this sleazy film.....you might really like this! Add in a dose of Hollywood political correctness and there you go! What more could anyone want?
| 0neg
|
Yes, I was lucky enough to see the long-running original production of Michael Bennett's hit musical. It was an amazing experience and I paid to see the movie when it hit theatres back in 1985. It is awful. Almost everything fails. First off, Attenborough (a fine actor, a good director with the right material) is a sorry choice - almost as bad as when John Huston was hired to mangle ANNIE. The camera is always in the wrong place - they chop up the songs and the CASTING!!! They are awful - the power of the play was these dancers - these hungry, talented performers just wanted a chance to show what they could do and when they got their chance - you couldn't take your eyes off of them. But this cast just gets by dancing, does a "nice" job singing but none of them spark one bit. In fact, look up the cast on IMDb - none of them really went on to do anything much. (OK, OK, Janet Jones married Gretzky - sheesh). So this cinema trainwreck does not capture for one second the magic, the desperation, the passion of the stage musical. A total strike-out! (But even though they try to smother the music - the great music still rises up at times and reminds people how great the score was).
| 0neg
|
This is the worst show I have seen in years. I believe that it should be taken off of T.V. because of its retardedness. It is so dumb I could faint when I watch it. (even though I never watch it because it is SOOOOO poor) <br /><br />Goofs: When mac says he can;t eat sugar, in another episode he eats sugar. Almost everything in the world has sugar in it!!! In episode "Eddie Monster" when eddy screams at Terrance he falls into the crate twice PLUS the seconed time he falls in he doesn't fall in, he falls off to the side. What stupidity. I can't even say the word Fosters Home. I even made a song with my band about how retarded this show is. Byyyyyyyyeeeee
| 0neg
|
Comedy Central has a habit of putting on great programs at times-Chappelle's Show, The Daily Show, Colbert Report, and then there are those that some people love or hate-Stella, Dr. Katz. Then there are some shows that have their defenders but are just plain awful- Mencia, and now, Sarah Silverman.<br /><br />This show is based on the fact Silverman is self-Centered, which can be funny (Colbert Report) but can be horrible (Mind of Mencia). It should shock no one that I believe the latter is the case. This show is a parody of a sitcom and society, a program so absurd it loses itself in its absurdity and it simply isn't funny. A woman farting has been done in comedy many many times because its not something that's common. We don't need 25 minutes of it. When a criminal is disarmed by a queef, it simply loses its appeal-we saw it in Jay and Silent Bob Strike back, except the women were hotter, and the whole scene was more absurd, making it better. But the best comparison of this show is to Stella, except Stella was more subtle, which is what made the absurdist comedy funny. It had better acting, and I suppose, a bit more of a fantastical realist view.<br /><br />Perhaps the fact some reviews are so negative (I'm very skeptical of the critical acclaim but do not dispute fan reaction) to this show is the amount of advertising on it, very obnoxious ads through many programs far outdo advertising on for other programs. Many people are wondering why Sarah Silverman has a career, and others are still bitter when better shows have been canceled. This show should've never made it past the unaired pilot stage. Back to Norm showed far more promise, yet this show makes it further. And as far as critics being correct, many things have been universally panned have seen their status rise immensely. Last I checked, Britney Spears gets good reviews too also. Take that comparison however you want because someone will no doubt accuse me of being psychotic on IMDb for not liking this show.
| 0neg
|
What do you get when you mix a lump of clichés with a directionless pacing and a group of characters who you don't care about and a failed attempt at creating an appealing visual style and an even bigger lump of clichés and a weak sense of humor and a really big budget? Why, you get one of the most intolerably unwatchable movies ever made! I'm referring, of course, to Domino.<br /><br />Here are some things that people might say during the viewing of this movie:<br /><br />"Ooh, wow, the storyline is told out of sequence, that hasn't been done a billion times before. And much more skillfully than in this movie."<br /><br />"Wow, look at all of the flashing lights and grainy film texture and elaborate transitions! The director is trying so hard to make things look arty and to establish a visual style! It's just too bad that none of these effects add anything to the movie or make sense with the scenes they're in, and it's also too bad that most of them come across as irritating!"<br /><br />"I've heard that exchange of dialogue in about twenty thousand movies before!"<br /><br />"I've seen this scene in about thirty thousand movies before!"<br /><br />"This one too!"<br /><br />"Uh, didn't they reveal this 'plot twist' about half an hour ago? Was that supposed to be surprising?"<br /><br />"If this movie is supposed to be showing a 'tough chick' going around kicking ass... when why doesn't she do very much of it?"<br /><br />"I can't believe how unoriginal this dialogue is."<br /><br />"How long is this thing? I feel like I've been watching it for over four hours already."<br /><br />"I have no idea what just happened, but also, I don't particularly feel motivated to try to figure it out."<br /><br />"Is this over yet?"<br /><br />"I want my money back."<br /><br />"The songs in this soundtrack feel so misused here."<br /><br />"It's ironic that all of the cursing they use actually detracts from the impact of each one."<br /><br />"UGH."<br /><br />And, finally: "I might have to end my friendship with the person who recommended this movie to me."<br /><br />In summation, this movie is a failure in nearly every aspect. Avoid watching it at all costs. If your house is on fire and this movie is playing in the only room that isn't flammable, you should seriously consider being burned alive instead.<br /><br />(If I sound bitter, it's because I just spent over two hours watching this movie and, uh, I didn't enjoy it very much.)
| 0neg
|
I wonder who, how and more importantly why the decision to call Richard Attenborough to direct the most singular sensation to hit Broadway in many many years? He's an Academy Award winning director. Yes, he won for Ghandi you moron! Jeremy Irons is an Academy winning actor do you want to see him play Rocky Balboa? He has experience with musicals. Really? "Oh what a lovely war" have you forgotten? To answer your question, yes! The film is a disappointment, clear and simple. Not an ounce of the live energy survived the heavy handedness of the proceedings. Every character danced beautifully they were charming but their projection was theatrical. I felt nothing. But when I saw it on stage I felt everything. The film should have been cast with stars, unknown, newcomers but stars with compelling unforgettable faces even the most invisible of the group. Great actors who could dance beautifully. Well Michael Douglas was in it. True I forgot I'm absolutely wrong and you are absolutely right. Nothing like a Richard Attenborough Michael Douglas musical.
| 0neg
|
So much is wrong with this abysmal little wet fart of a movie that it's hard to know where to begin.<br /><br />First of all, it's a remarkably un-scary scary movie, even by Amercian standards. The dialogue is cliché, the characters are two-dimensional, the writing is ho-hum, and what little story there is is neither coherent nor remotely interesting.<br /><br />We meet the following stereotypes in order: Balding Loser Guy (probably divorced, but who knows? This movie doesn't tell us) with a brave heart, the Young Hero (who doesn't do anything heroic at all), Brave Little Kid (with a homicidal streak a mile wide) and Black Bad-Ass Bitch (with more brawn than brains). These guys take up an ongoing fight with the Tall Scary Reaper Man and his evil Ewoks.<br /><br />Oh, and the film is full of wicked little metal orbs whoosing around menacing people. Given a chance, they perform impromptu brain surgery on those who doen't have the mental acuity to duck when they come at them. Booh! Actually, one of them is haunted by a good ghost (but then again, it might be a deceitful spectre) who seems intent on helping our Brave Contagonists retrieve their young kidnapped friend.<br /><br />There is no character background or even an introduction to any of the characters. It starts with some kind of recap of the ending of the previous movie, but this doesn't explain a lot. If you've seen the first two movies, fine. Otherwise you don't know who these people are, how they are related, why they aren't in school or at work, or why you should care whether they live or die. Consequently, you don't. The only point of interest becomes any splatter effects. And there aren't enough of those to keep you awake.<br /><br />Of potenial interest/amusement are the three Raider Punks, as stupid as they are evil, who menace Our Heroes. But they don't get much screen time. They are offed almost immediately. Then they are buried (why anybody should take the time is beyond me), then they appear again as Evil Raider Punk Zombies. Only to be offed again, literally within a minute.<br /><br />The rest of the movie mainly seems to consist of Caspar the Friendly Ghost appearing and disappearing, driving around looking for places, and Balding Loser trying to score som Bad Black Bitch Booty, using pickup lines that would embarrass a mentally retarded teenager. No dice there; not even some gratuitous sex could have saved this movie, so good thing there never is any.<br /><br />The head baddie, called the Tall Man, doesn't manage to scare anyone older than 3 years; howling "Booooy!" every five minutes isn't enough. Why he, with his amazing telekinetic powers and uncanny upper-body strength, doesn't simply squash our heroes like bugs isn't explained. Instead, he delegates the job to his inept retarded little minions, who never manage to kill anyone before being shot to hell.<br /><br />Filmgoers who like masterpieces like "Friday 13th part XXXXVIII: Jason goes to college" might find some entertainment. The rest of us, who have developed pubic hair, will be bored out of our skulls.
| 0neg
|
Why do I constantly do this to myself? I mean, really, it's right there in the title - "The Incredible Melting Man". What else would I expect? I have to admit, I'm a sucker for just about anything I come across on the Monster HD channel, but the only redeeming feature of this picture would be that truly grotesque makeup job by the legendary Rick Baker. As for creepy, I'll give the nod to that horny old geezer couple sucking on lemons just before lights out. Now they were truly scary.<br /><br />Something I could never figure out in horror flicks was why a monster's victims wouldn't simply just run away when faced with virtual annihilation. Like the chick in the cabin. You know, there was a door completely visible right there in the kitchen that she could have run right out of at any time. Incredible Steve-O couldn't muster much more than a brisk walk, so why not just blow right by him? I don't know, maybe I'm missing something. <br /><br />This flick had some of the feel of a 'Tales From The Crypt' episode, but 'Tales' usually had a cool or grotesque twist which often times you didn't see coming. This was one picture that you couldn't quite get a handle on coming OR going. For example, in an early scene, you can clearly make out that Melting Man's eyeball fell out of his head, so how did he manage to get around for the rest of the story? I guess we're not supposed to ask.<br /><br />At eighty four minutes, this picture was about an hour and a half too long. When it was all over, I was ready to take up General Perry on his earlier suggestion - "I could really use a drink about now".
| 0neg
|
"Piece is Cake" is defeatist, revisionist history of the worst kind, whose only point is to unfairly savage the reputation of the (admittedly fictional) pilots it portrays. It left a remarkably bad taste in my mouth.<br /><br />In the March 1989 "Aeroplane Monthly", Roland Beamont wrote a stinging condemnation of the way that RAF Fighter Command was portrayed in the TV mini-series. A few of his comments are worth repeating:<br /><br />"There was no sense of defeatism at any time in any of the squadrons that I saw in action, and a total absence of the loutishness portrayed in 'Piece of Cake'. It would not have been tolerated for a moment... ...The prevailing atmosphere was more akin to that in a good rugby club, though with more discipline. Nor was there any sense of 'death or glory'. RAF training had insisted that we were there to defend this country, and now we were required to do it - no more and no less.<br /><br />"There was no discussion of 'bravery' or 'cowardice'. People either had guts or they did not - but mostly they did. But we knew fear, recognised it in ourselves and in each other, did our damnedness to control it, and then got on with the job...<br /><br />"...I could feel no 'glory', but there was a sense of greatness, and none of this bore the slightest resemblance to 'Piece of Cake'."<br /><br />Beamont was, in his own words, "a fighter pilot who, unlike the author and producer of the recent TV series, was there at the time".<br /><br />Beamont served with 87 Squadron both in France and the BoB, before going on to become one of the premier exponents of both the Typhoon and Tempest, and a post-war test pilot.<br /><br />"Piece of Cake" is an absolute, total misrepresentation of the way pilots in Fighter Command acted at the time. It is nothing less than a complete and utter disgrace...
| 0neg
|
Tim Robbins is oddly benign here, cast as a garage mechanic in 1950s New Jersey who falls in love with a perky blonde who turns out to be Albert Einstein's niece! Although he's on-screen much of the time, Robbins cancels out the inner-workings of his intense persona and fades into the background (it's easy to forget he's even in the picture!). Lumpy romantic comedy with a gimmick, that being Walter Matthau playing Einstein (who does what he can with a cartoonishly conceived character). Otherwise, it's sugary and sunny, directed rather drowsily by Fred Schepisi, who shows heart but no wit or brains. Meg Ryan is her usual affable self and the chemistry between she and Robbins is charming, like that of an affectionate sister and her big brother. ** from ****
| 0neg
|
Thanks to a dull, dimensionless screenplay by Neil Simon, and lackluster direction from Robert Moore, Chapter Two becomes a shrill showcase for Marsha Mason who received her third of four Oscar nods for Chapter Two giving the same performance here that she gave in Cinnderella Liberty(73), The Goodbye Girl(77), Audrey Rose(78) and Only When I Laugh(81);only this time she doesn't have a child to drag around. Chapter Two is the third and last feature film for Moore having previously directed Neil Simon's The Cheap Detective(78) and Murder By Death(76). Caan is miscast, the characters are mono-dimensional, the dialog is overly analytical, and there's virtually no establishing detail. The first half is a less-than-captivating, meet cute, coy romance between a blinkered Caan and a chipper Mason, and the dreary second half makes you long for the first half. The NYC locations as well as Joe Bologna, and a painfully thin Valerie Harper are irrelevant, but at least they provide some welcome distraction. And last and least, there's an awful song played during the credits.
| 0neg
|
It's not just that this is a bad movie; it's not only that four of the "best" Mexican movie makers are in this film; and it's not only that the script is terrible. It's just that...this movie sucks...big time. This people are wasting money in terrible scripts. It's supposed to make a criticism about Mexican society but we're fed up with this kind of films. Is bad language supposed to be funny? I don't get it. Mexican cinema is in big trouble if this kind of movies are going to continue playing (and being written and produced).<br /><br />Please, don't think this kind of movies are well received in Mexico: We hate them and they don't reflect us.
| 0neg
|
When I first saw the preview for this movie, I really couldn't wait to see it. The plot seemed good and the setting was great. I mean, a slasher movie that takes place on prom night, great idea!! And the plot: A High School teacher that becomes sexually obsessed with one of his students, goes crazy, gets arrested, and escapes three years later on prom night! Prom night, a night that is supposed to be happy and memorable, turns into hell!! However, I saw it and was extremely disappointed. It was not only the worst "horror movie" I have ever seen, but it was one of the worst movie in general that I have ever seen!! First of all, it wasn't even scary. There was not one moment in that movie when I jumped out of my seat. Also, the murder scenes were so cheesy and dull. All the slasher did was either stab his victims in the stomach multiple times or cut their throats. Also there was absolutely no gore (its rated PG-13). The scene with the most blood was probably the one where the killer murders the black girl. He slits her throat and blood splatters on the sheets hanging around them (they don't actually show him cutting her throat).<br /><br />Next, you see the killers face the first time he is introduced in the movie. He isn't mysterious, creepy, or scary. He's just this guy who kills people.<br /><br />Also, everything in the movie was so cliché. An example is when, at the end, the killer is about to kill the main character and at the last moment, the detective shoots and kills him. Also, every single thing in this movie was so predictable. The victim, after seeing the guy with a knife, runs for her life, hides, thinks she gets away, and then the killer just pops out and kills her.<br /><br />Finally, the sequence of the movie was extremely bad. The guy goes into the hotel, kills a few people, the bodies are discovered, someone pulls the fire alarm, and everyone evacuates. The main character forgets something in her room, has an encounter with the killer, runs and escapes. Thats it! She and her boyfriend go home, the slasher kills the guards patrolling the house, finds the girl, then gets killed by the detective. The movie sequence was so stupid and cliché.<br /><br />If your thinking of seeing this movie all because the preview looked good, trust me, don't waste your time or money. No wonder this movie was being shown in the smallest theater in the movie theater. My friend and I, along with these two girls sitting in the back, were the only ones in the theater. That should have told me something about the movie beforehand.
| 0neg
|
Another violent, angry fantasy from Paul Verhoeven. Verhoeven is a puzzle: it's difficult to tell whether he takes his sordid impulses seriously, with sardonic intent or operates in complete oblivion. He also seems completely ignorant of the fact that all the brilliant visuals in the world (and this has some outstanding ones) cannot hide a negligence to story, dialogue and performance. Kevin Bacon plays a corrupt scientist who has discovered invisibility and uses it to drive himself into moral bankruptcy. Bacon is normally a likable actor who occasionally shows his dark side (`The River Wild') in an attempt to offset his boyish looks; given the material, however, Bacon isn't nearly hateful enough to compel. The other principals are Elisabeth Shue and Josh Brolin, neither of whom are gifted enough to make a solid impression and who, when forced to deliver inane dialogue, embarrass themselves. The climax is a study in preponderance and disbelief has to be truly suspended.
| 0neg
|
Will they ever make movies without nudity and sex? This came on at 3:00 on Sunday afternoon and I couldn't believe what they showed. Thank God my son was outside or I would have been freaked out if he had seen the soft/medium porn! Do people who make movies not care who they offend or corrupt? Kids could have been watching after church and that is what they show???!!! The acting was good and I enjoyed the suspense but GEE! There was violence and bad guys but that is to be expected in a western movie. Randy Travis was really good in his role. If the writers, directors and producers would just quit putting on so much uncalled for sex scenes. What has to happen to get them to quit going in that direction? Where can I complain?
| 0neg
|
The memory banks of most of the reviewers here must've short-circuited when trying to recall this Cubic Zirconia of a gem, because practically everyone managed to misquote Lloyd Bochner's Walter Thornton, when in a fit of peevish anger, he hurls the phallic garden nozzle at his new wife, Jerilee Randall-Thornton, (a nearly comatose Pia Zadora) which was used to sexually assault her earlier in the movie...but I'm getting ahead of myself. In any case, poor Lloyd could've been snarling that line at the speechless audience as much as he was his put-upon co-star.<br /><br />Hard as it is for most of us to believe, especially these days, nobody in Hollywood sets out to INTENTIONALLY make a bad movie. This is certainly not the most defensible argument to make, since there just seem to be so damn many of them coming out. But then again, there is that breed of film that one must imagine during the time of its creation, from writing, casting and direction, must've been cursed with the cinematic equivalent of trying to shoot during the Ides of March.<br /><br />THE LONELY LADY is in that category, and represents itself very well, considering the circumstances. Here we have all the ingredients in a recipe guaranteed to produce a monumentally fallen soufflé: Pia Zadora, a marginal singer/actress so determined to be taken seriously, that she would take on practically anything that might set her apart from her peers, (which this movie most certainly did!); a somewhat high-profile novel written by the Trashmaster himself, Harold Robbins (of THE CARPETBAGGERS and DREAMS DIE FIRST fame); a cast who probably thought they were so fortunate to be working at all, that they tried to play this dreck like it was Clifford Odets or Ibsen; plus a director who more than likely was a hired gun who kept the mess moving just to collect a paycheck, (and was probably contractually obligated NOT to demand the use of the 'Alan Smithee' moniker to protect what was left of his reputation.) Like Lamont Johnson's LIPSTICK, Meir Zarchi's I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, Roger Vadim's BARBARELLA, Paul Verhoeven's SHOWGIRLS or the Grandmammy of Really Bad Film-making, Frank Perry's MOMMY DEAREST, THE LONELY LADY is still often-discussed, (usually with disgust, disbelief, horrified laughter, or a unique combination of all three), yet also defies dissection, description or even the pretzel logic of Hollyweird. Nobody's sure how it came to be, how it was ever released in even a single theater, or why it's still here and nearly impossible to get rid of, but take it or leave it, it IS here to stay. And I don't think that lovers of really good BAD movies would have it any other way.
| 0neg
|
Just what we need! Another remake of vintage Hollywood cinema, with Eddie Murphy miscast again in his second time around after THE NUTTY PROFESSOR (1996)! This shows why we're running out of special ideas in making a quality movie, ladies and gentlemen! It has some signs of hope for its likeable and delightful imagery of animals who can act and speak with humans. Things can only get more worse, unfortunately. Bathroom jokes and sexual references kill this piece of "family" funfare instantly. Even parents and children saw the trailer ad on The Family Channel, which was followed by utter angst and disgust in the movie theater. Sad to say this is the more progressive pre-millennium era, but enjoy it while it lasts 'cause things can only get worse with time. More went wrong with the all-new DR. DOLITTLE. It is absolutely plotless, feeling too flat. I also hate that irritating voice of Chris Rock!!! We need more talented voice-overs than a bunch of overpaid celebs who don't want to declare bankruptcy. I'll have to agree on my local newspaper giving this among the top five worst movies of 1998. Then again, the original version wasn't any good, either. Murphy's next project could be PATTON if he's not careful!
| 0neg
|
As I am not a blood and guts fan I found the gory scenes totally unnecessary (you spell it) and too real for my liking, if you're the type of person who gets their rocks off on beheadings on the internet or snuff movies I say go for it, it beggars belief what sort of person dreams this sick crap up though.<br /><br />Apart from that it had the potential to be a great movie, the music was top class too (through the movie and especially the end credits). Some parts though were a bit unbelievable, like you've just been found by your girlfriend trust up awaiting torture and death and all you do is tell her about what had happened and how you got there, (why didn't he ask her if she happened to have any wipes or even some air freshner or a piece of gum while he was at it?), come on now, most would probably just scream "hurry up and untie me then lets get the f*** out of here QUICK!". where were the flys, maggots etc, and when the girl accidentally came across the place surely the stench of rotten flesh would have sounded a few alarm bells! I would only recommend this movie to friends of Dennis Niellson and the like, I'm sure a video like this would make sickos like that have a very happy Christmas.
| 0neg
|
Men In Black 2 was a real disappointment for me. While the actors did a pretty good job, especially Smith, there just isn't a cure for a poor script once in production. The movie really had a "sequel" kind of feel, playing off partial events of the first film. The story was, in a word... bad, at best. It wasn't thought out well, and seemed very choppy and incoherent at times.<br /><br />In the first flick, the MIB Organization had a kind of "elite" force feel. You had a few special agents, and it had a "clandestine" kind of feel to it. In the sequel, the MIB Organization has a JROTC Summer Camp vibe.<br /><br />The movie wasn't terrible or anything.. it just lacked the "coolness" (for lack of a better phrase) of the first movie. A lot of the same old humor was recycled from the first to the second, and didn't really add any originality to the MIB Universe.<br /><br />A perfect analogy would be Episode 1 to the first 3 films. Was it decent? Yeah. Is it worthy of bearing it's title? Not really.
| 0neg
|
The only scary thing about this movie is the thought that whoever made it might make a sequel.<br /><br />From start to finish "The Tooth Fairy" was just downright terrible. It seemed like a badly-acted children's movie which got confused, with a "Wizard of Oz" witch melting and happy kiddies ending combined with some bad gore effects and swearing.<br /><br />Half of the cast seem completely unnecessary except for conveniently being there to get murdered in some fashion. The sister of the two brothers, Cherise the aura reader and Mrs. McDonald have entirely no point in the film - they could have included them in the main plot for some interesting side stories but apparently couldn't be bothered. The people watching the film know the characters are there for some bloody death scene but come on, at least TRY and have a slight plot for them. The story in general is weak with erratic behavior from the characters that makes you wish they all get eaten by the witch.<br /><br />Add the weak plot and the weak acting together (the children are particularly wooden) and the movie ends up a complete failure. If only MST3K could have had a go at this one ...
| 0neg
|
Three part "horror" film with some guy in a boarded up house imploring the viewer not to go "out there" and (unfortunately) gives us three tales to prove why.<br /><br />The first story involves a young couple in a car accident who meet up with two psychos. It leads up to two totally predictable twists. Still, it's quick (about 15 minutes), violent, well-acted and well-done. Predictable but enjoyable.<br /><br />The second involves a man on the run after stealing a large amount of money. His car breaks down, he's attacked by a dog and stumbles into a nearby clinic. VERY obvious, badly done and extremely slow. Even at 30 minutes this is too long. Good acting though.<br /><br />The third is just barely a horror story. It involves a beautiful, lonely woman looking for Mr. Right. It has beautiful set designs, a nice erotic feel and a nice sex scene. But (again) predictable and not even remotely scary.<br /><br />It ends very stupidly.<br /><br />All in all, the first one is worth watching, but that's it. Tune in for that one then turn it off.
| 0neg
|
I liked it, i really did. Please don't think that i'm an idiot but i have to admit that i enjoyed this film. I expected it to be crap, it was crap, but sometimes its OK to relax and watch a crappy film that you don't have to concentrate too much on isn't it? I didn't expect any hidden meanings or morales, and there wasn't any, but that doesn't matter because i only watched it for entertainment, and it did entertain me throughout. Films like this are why the Ben Stillers (excusing 'there's something about Mary') and the Vince Vaughns (however you spell his last name, i couldn't be bothered checking)have jobs. It's OK to watch a crap film as long as you don't expect too much from it, and i for one shall take a stand, jog, perhaps run, but not drive because i don't have a car, to Blockbuster Video, or even Choices, and rent a bunch of these toilet humoured films and stay in one night watching them. Good day to you reader. P.s if you do not say that this comment helped you then i don't like you, if you do say it helped then god bless you, you will go to heaven.
| 0neg
|
Though Frank Loesser's songs are some of the finest that Broadway has to offer, they're bollixed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz' lethargic staging and uninspired presentation--when it's over it barely feels like you've watched a musical. Mankiewicz doesn't seem to know how to present Loesser's challenging but tuneful melodies for maximum effect: for example, one of the best numbers, the showstopping `Adelaide's Lament', concludes by having Adelaide (Vivian Blaine) belt out the finale while sitting on a chaise lounge; and Stubby Kaye's faux-spiritual `Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat' has his backing choir sitting in folding chairs while he simply stands there. Mankiewicz zaps all the fun out of everything by letting static scenes go on too long and his dialogue (adapted from Abe Burrows' stage book) has none of the wit that his films like `All About Eve' have. Part of the blame has to go to the leads, just about all of whom are miscast: Marlon Brando looks bewildered as to why he's in a musical, Frank Sinatra plays way too nice a guy and has none of the edge which makes him so essential (the songs are not tailored to his style) and Jean Simmons barely registers the way a Shirley Jones might. Only Blaine, as the lovelorn showgirl Adelaide, commands our attention like a Broadway pro should. The colorful art direction is by Joseph Wright and Howard Bristol created the flashy sets.
| 0neg
|
This movie is so awful, it is hard to find the right words to describe it!<br /><br />At first the story is so ridiculous.A narrow-minded human can write a better plot! The actors are boring and untalented, perhaps they were compelled to play in this cheesy Film.<br /><br />The camera receptions of the National Forest are the only good in this whole movie. I should feel ashame, because I paid for this lousy Picture.<br /><br />Hopefully nobody makes a sequel or make a similar film with such a worse storyline :-)
| 0neg
|
So why does this show suck? Unfortunately, that really is the only question, because there is no doubt that it does.<br /><br />For those unfamiliar with the premise of the show, the doomed-to-be-shortlived series Cavemen focuses on a number of Neanderthals and their struggle to exist in modern day America and is based on the characters featured in a series of television ads for Geico Insurance. The concept is solid and there is every reason to think it could be executed successfully.<br /><br />I had to think about it for awhile, but then the tagline from the commercials -- something to the effect of "We're not that much different from you" provided me with the key to the show's suckiness. Even though cavemen/Neanderthals are actually a different species than humanity, the title characters of this show, it turns out, are exactly the same as those of us who are boring jerks.<br /><br />Maybe its my background as a game writer -- rather than a soulless, hack, committee-based writer from California -- but this show had so much potential, and none of it has been realized. To start with, the producers should have focused on the fun things that would make cavemen different from us.<br /><br />What could conceivably be funny, for example, about giving them occupations like perpetual grad student and furniture store clerk, when they would have more compellingly been drawn to things like subterranean utility workers and guides at cave parks? Why would they play prosaic games like squash, when a whole episode could be devoted to them trying get hunting licenses to go after game with spears? A show like this could write itself, and it takes some willfully bad writing to make it quite so crappy and boring.<br /><br />Another tiresome aspect of this show is an attempt to portray the cavemen as being subjected to a number of stereotypes associated with various human minorities. Yawn! This has been done so many times before, and never more drearily than this. And, as noted previously, Neanderthals really are a different species, so using them as a metaphor for racial stereotyping is both uncompelling and off the mark.<br /><br />Responses are welcome, including those from anyone who wants to tell me why I'm wrong. I'd like to enjoy this show and am just sorry that I have thus far been unable to.<br /><br />Michael J. Varhola, Skirmisher Online Gaming Magazine
| 0neg
|
Such is the dilemma(above) that Debbie must face at the close of this Sam Sherman production Naughty Stewardesses. Debbie has just hit town, become a stewardess, slept with an elderly rich man(who she describes is in his 50's but obviously hit that mark a decade or two ago), shoots nude scenes for a photographer she just met, and then is the central element to a kidnapping/extortion plot. Through it all and amidst all that emotional upheaval and soul-searching, what in heaven's name will Debbie do? Well, I cannot give it away completely but don't expect any real epiphany here. Let's face it. Naughty Stewardesses is just what it wants to be(at least two-thirds through): a soft core porn film with lots of topless women and a funny in that kitchy 70's way film. There is no grand art here. The movie was designed to make money and exploit a growing trend at the time to put nymphomaniacal stewardesses in films so that the audience could live out vicariously their voyeuristic tastes. By todays standards, the film is pretty tame. What this film DOES do wrong is try to be some kind of statement film at the end. C'mon, anyone here believing that little diatribe by Debbie while on the beach contemplating life. She would spend more time picking out which halter top she will wear that day then do that. And what about the ridiculous plot to steal 50 grand? It didn't make sense to me so how on earth did these characters "dig" it? Anyone buying Cal as a member of the PLO(something like that) or even as a director for hardcore pornography? He would be luck to get work at Seven Eleven! This is, as another reviewer noted, more of a Sam Sherman piece then and Al Adamson piece. You can tell when Al is in complete charge. There is virtually no budget and the film doesn't look nearly as polished as this. Adamson does a decent job directing this time and I have to give Sherman credit to a degree. While this film is bad just for what it was meant to be, it has a certain style to it. I liked the opening credits with the animation and photographs. I even liked the music of Sparrow. "Silver Heels" was a somewhat catchy tune. The movie doesn't look cheap really at all. Compare that to ANY of Al's horror films. As for the cast, yes, Bob Livingston is a bit old for the lead, but some examination went into his character and the obvious thread that young women are attracted to men with money was explored as well. I had major problems with Robert Smedley who was just plain awful in his role. The girls have all got great sets, so what else was required of them huh? Naughty Stewardesses is relatively harmless exploitation film from the 70's and will serve as a living time capsule for certain aspects of life during that decade. By the way, did I mention it is a pretty bad picture?
| 0neg
|
"The Rainmaker" released in 1956 - has some of the finest actors of its time. Katharine Hepburn, Lloyd Bridges, and Burt Lancaster being the principle players. Not even they can save this completely over acted melodrama. First of all, Hepburn is horribly miscast as a shy spinster - despite her brilliance as an actress, not even she can pull this off. She is too strong to be credible as being this much of a simpleton, and was just too old for the part. Lancaster over acts to the extreme, and Earl Holliman is way too hammy and comes off more like Jethro Clampett. Only Bridges and the ever reliable Wendell Corey seem to rise above the cast a bit - but even they can only do so much. It seems like the 1950's was a time when Katharine Hepburn wanted to spread her wings a bit as an actress, and that is fine. She just made a bad choice here. Fortunately for her fans (me being among them) she didn't make too many of them. Despite an A-list cast and good production values, it doesn't work.
| 0neg
|
Truly bad and easily the worst episode I have ever seen....ever.<br /><br />They tried to make up for it by giving it the, 'we know we are doing this' routine. That would have been funny if it weren't for the fact that 'The Simpsons' had already done it. And it still wouldn't make up for it if they had come up with the idea in the first place.<br /><br />The flashbacks took place as part of the usual character's (mainly J.D's) fantasies. The flashbacks weren't even of actual events that occurred, just compilations of say, J.D falling over or, i don't know.... Elliott falling over. If I wanted to watch a Scrubs compilation i'd go on youtube and not waste half an hour of my life.<br /><br />Scrubs has ultimately fallen into the trap that most sit-coms have to, and it disappoints me, they managed to go 5 and a quarter seasons without an episode like this. <br /><br />I was hoping that scrubs wouldn't have to be that kind of sit-com.<br /><br />And just as a passing thought, why the hell was Dr.Cox bald?
| 0neg
|
This "documentary" is a proof of talent being used for mean purposes. The fact that it is financed by the venezuelan government gives it a lack of legitimacy in the purpose of searching for the truth of what really happened those horrible days of April 2002 in Venezuela, something even we venezuelans don't know for sure.<br /><br />There are ways of lying, and the directors of this stuff lie both by omission and by knowledge. <br /><br />The venezuelan political process is too complex to be easily understood by foreign audiences, and they take advantage of that. For instance *POSSIBLE SPOILERS* they show pro-Chávez demonstrators shooting at an empty street (what the hell they did that for?) in a way of saying they didn't kill anyone, but didn't bother showing the images we all saw here, of opposition demonstrators (and a journalist) falling dead or injured at the other side of that "empty" street. They can't explain why the chopper of the political police was the only one authorised to fly over Caracas that day and did nothing against the snipers that were all over the roofs of the buildings nearby the presidential palace, something that would exhibit how inefficient would be the security measures to guard the President. A few days after the "coup", the chief of the military guard in charge was asked at the National Assembly (our Congress) why didn't they act against the snipers and he said "'cause they weren't there to act against the president", isn't that a confession?<br /><br />There is so much more, the fact that the highest rank military announced that Chávez had resigned and 2 days later he said he had lied because "that's politics" and nowadays is the Minister of Internal Affairs of Chávez' administration.<br /><br />It would take me thousands of words to explain all the lies depicted in this "documentary", made with the intention of selling the world an image of the good old Hugo Chávez who rules for the poor and the bad rich opposition that wants him out at all costs, when the truth is that 60-70% of people rejects his government, and that percentage includes the poor.<br /><br />I hope those of you who have seen and bought this will be able to see a different version that is being made by a group of venezuelan people showing no less than 30 lies.<br /><br />Nazi propaganda has returned!
| 0neg
|
Quote: theurgist: Anyone with an I.Q. over 50 would have seen this film what it is, an intelligent well acted prequel to a modern day classic, yes it doesn't have a blockbuster cast or a huge budget BUT it is still very well done and had me hooked for the full duration.<br /><br />An I.Q. over 50 you say.. that most mean you have an I.Q. lower than 50.. its name is CARLITOS WAY: Rise to power !!! meaning it should have something whit the first one to do.. <br /><br />all and all its a OK movie if.. YOU CHANGE THE TITLE AND NO CHARACTERS NAMED CARLITO BRIGANTE!!!<br /><br />P.s don't comment on a movie if you don't know anything about movies. but i guess an I.Q. under 50,, you wont know what the hell i am yelling about...<br /><br />Peace out!!
| 0neg
|
I rented this movie tonight because it looked like a fun movie. I figured that you really couldn't go wrong with a concept of Ex Girlfriend with super powers. <br /><br />... but the movie was confused and pointless ...<br /><br />it seemed that at every turn the writer kept throwing junk in. Also the writer kept throwing in way too much toilet humor and sexual situations that only a teenage boy could love.<br /><br />It seems that it could have been so simple to draw a story out of Fatal Attraction Super hero .. but I guess not. <br /><br />This is not a fun romantic comedy it was advertised to be. You could not take a child to see it and you would be embarrassed seeing it a date. <br /><br />If the writer could have done a basic story around the high concept and cleaned it up - the movie might have a fighting chance. <br /><br />A serious waste of time.<br /><br />B
| 0neg
|
I went into this film expecting it to be similar to The Matrix or Pi. Boy, was I wrong. Yes, there is a poorly written, poorly acted plot in the movie (with CG animated cells and peptides to boot). However, the real focus of the film are the "expert" talking heads spewing out new age feel-good hogwash in between plot segments.<br /><br />Sure, it stars off innocently enough. There is a little bit of real quantum physics in the beginning. It states, for example, that electrons exist as both particle and wave, and that an atom is mostly empty space. However, the movie takes a giant (and unscientific) leap, saying that sub-atomic quantum effects happen on large scales as well. The talking heads take it even further. According to them, the following are true:<br /><br />-When Columbus arrived in the Caribbean, the natives were unable to see his ships because their minds were incapable of perceiving something so different. -Meditation can reduce the murder rate. -With positive thought, you can walk on water. -Your thoughts can change the formations of ice crystals in bottles of water.<br /><br />And hey, that's only in the first 40 minutes!<br /><br />Watching the movie was torture. This film felt like a movie they would show you to get you to join a cult. After doing my homework, I realized that it basically is just that.<br /><br />On the other hand, this could be seen as a campy comedy (albeit one that's not funny).<br /><br />Save your time and money: don't see this movie.
| 0neg
|
This movie is just bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I feel better. This movie is poor from beginning to end. The story is lame. The 3-D segment is really bad. Freddy is at his cartoon character worst. Thank God they killed him off. And who wants to see Roseanne and Tom Arnold cameos?<br /><br />The only good thing in the movie is the little bit of backstory that we're given on Freddy. We see he once had a family, and we get to see his abusive, alcoholic father (Alice Cooper).<br /><br />Other than that, all bad. There are some quality actors in here (Lisa Zane and Yaphet Kotto), and they do their best, but the end result is just so bad. The hour and a half I spent watching this movie is and hour and half I can't ever get back.
| 0neg
|
I viewed this movie in DVD format. My copy may have been affected but I was disappointed with the lack of menu screen for the DVD. I will say that my initial reason for viewing this movie was Claire Forlani. While fun to watch, I feel she didn't live up to my expectations that I have so far found from her other films. I actually was equally pleased to see Arkin turn in a humorous performance. The other two actors I wasn't very familiar with so I can't compare their performance, however they were fairly enjoyable also. The acting is the only endearing quality of this movie in my opinion. The story line, while some could say slightly compelling, lacked direction. I feel that the main problem stems from the script and not the direction of this film. If you enjoy any of these actors to a fair extent then I recommend this film, but otherwise leave it alone.
| 0neg
|
A stale "misfits-in-the-army" saga, which half-heartedly attempts to be both surreal (the foreign subtitles) AND vulgar (the flatulence gags), but just ends up being a mix of many different kinds of humor, none of them followed very successfully. Barbara Bach, the Bond Girl from "The Spy Who Loved Me", has only two or three brief scenes. What a waste! (*1/2)
| 0neg
|
First of all, I apologize for my English. <br /><br />Everybody from ex-Yugoslavia who isn't some extreme Serbian radical will agree with me. This movie, shows Serbian side, and only Serbian side. No Serbian crimes were represented. Luckily, everyone can see that this movie was made by Serbians, so there is no neutrality. All ''professionals'' who were interviewed are not professionals at all. Some guy only read a book written by some radical Serbian, the other one is genocide denier etc.etc.<br /><br />Even Slovenians were accused in this movie.And the whole war in Slovenia lasted for few days, and only because Slovenians were lucky.There weren't many Serbs in Slovenia, and YNA couldn't reach Slovenia trough Croatia (after Croatia-Serbia war started). Every Slovenian is outraged by all accusations in this movie. <br /><br />Every reasonable Croat will agree with one thing: The independence was too early. Perhaps all major conflicts could be avoided. However, mentioning WWII and some unrelated things was truly pathetic attempt to justify everything. Just imagine Japanese throwing nuclear bombs at Seattle and Washington, and saying that was justified by Hiroshima and Nagasaki. You will find no evidence about strangled YNA soldier, and murdered Serbian civilians near Vukovar. But you can find the tape with reporter committing that his claims about Serbian civilians near Vukovar were lies. All over the internet. And the director forgot to mention the whole bombing of Vukovar by YNA (now on Serbian and Montenegro side-and 100% full of Serbs and Montenegrin) And let's not start about the Chetnik movement. At the beginning, it was simply a resistance movement. But director somehow forgot to mention collaboration with the Nazis, including Ustashe, ethnic cleansing, and fighting again the Yugoslav partisans. There are thousands of other things, but all of it can be easily checked. There are many misleading things in this movie. Only few of all accusations are true. Every Croatian is outraged by this movie. <br /><br />I believe that I don't need to mention Srebrenica genocide denial, the genocide that has too many evidence. Imagine the movie about holocaust denial. This movie is the same. And according to this movie Bosnian Muslims in Sarajevo bombed themselves. Every Bosnian Muslim is outraged by this movie. <br /><br />Somehow director forgot to mention the short occupation of small piece of Macedonian (FYROM) land by the Serbs. <br /><br />Croatians, Slovenians, Bosnians, and Macedonians never entered Serbian borders. If you are not Serbian and you actually started to believe some things from this movie, know that Serbs have some kind of propaganda that Croats, Bosnian Muslims, and Macedonians are actually Serbs who made up their history. So...<br /><br />Even 50% of Serbs will say that this movie is ''little'' extreme and pro-Serbian. <br /><br />And Serbian radicals are very, very pleased with this movie (there is about 40% Serbs who vote for radicals).<br /><br />I think everyone understands my points in here. In this so called documentary is very little truth, and my advice to everyone is: Inform yourself before watching this movie. After that, you will only laugh at all pathetic accusations.<br /><br />Watch real, neutral documentaries about death of Yugoslavia.
| 0neg
|
I remember being forced (yes--literally FORCED) to see this film by a Southern Baptist Preacher when I was a kid, and even then I loved its awfulness. It's designed to scare poor suckers into being "saved." The only thing that "saved" me was the fact that it finally ended and I could go out and have a REAL life.<br /><br />Check out the chapter on this film in Sarah Diamond's book "The Politics of the Christian Right." FASCINATING. And certainly more interesting than the movie!
| 0neg
|
There's plenty to appreciate here: spectacular locations and flying sequences; period costumes, props and sets; and competent writing and acting. However, to enjoy a drama, we need at least one principal who exhibits some qualities that we can like or admire. In this bunch of catty snobs, we found only one character who is at all likable a hapless enlisted man in a fleeting peripheral role as their helpless victim. From the reviews here, it is clear that we are completely out of step, but we did not find their malicious-schoolgirl behavior amusing or entertaining. Even the dog is detestable. We threw in the towel after two of the six episodes, so you should discount these observations accordingly, but what I could find written about this mini-series gave us no cause to expect character transformation or redemption.
| 0neg
|
A vampire's's henchman wants to call her after falling in love with a five-dollar hooker in this extremely low-budget horror-comedy. I can't explain all the positive comments on this movie. I'll chalk it up to mass hallucination, but it's disconcerting none the less. The one redeeming factor (and this is me being extremely generous here) might be the Grandfather who's the only semi-likable character in this whole mess. Don't waste your money, or time. In fact here's a word of advice, If Troma puts it out on DVD, but does NOT make it themselves, in all likelihood it's crap.<br /><br />Troma DVD Extras:Commentary with Omar and Kirk; second commentary with cast and crew deleted scenes; bloopers; troma interactivity; radiation march; Clip from "Terror Firmer"; Theatrical trailer ;Trailers for "the Rowdy Girls", "Teenage Catgirls in Heat", "Cannible: The Musical", and "Toxic Avenger 4" <br /><br />My Grade: D
| 0neg
|
Teamo Supremo are three kids, consisting of their leader- Captain Crandall, Rope Girl and Skate Lad, all with their own battlecry (buza! chika! woopa!) and outfit and moves. They work for the governor, Kevin, and were recruited after wishing to be heroes and playing at that game. They lead normal lives as well, and have family and school duties, but most of the action takes place away from school fighting villains. The villains all have rather unique and singular traits, such as Mister Vague and his men who never seem to know what their plans are but act anyway. From an evil robot to a wicked baron the three have to encounter them and stop their evil, and often strange, plans to gain power, take revenge etc.<br /><br />The animation itself is quite nice and smooth, but the style appears to be simple on purpose. The backgrounds have overlapping colour and the buildings seem futuristic. The music is quite nice, and the show isn't too bad altogether, although the style isn't my favourite.<br /><br />The plots are almost always nonsensical and ridiculous, but after all this is a cartoon and one can't blame them for that. However this would not be in the same rank as Fillmore! or Pepper Ann.
| 0neg
|
I'm not sure this is a spoiler; perhaps it is a public service. If you are one of those people focused on instant gratification who skip end credits, you will miss the final line of the end credits news announcer's voice-over, which states the U.S. has just surrendered to Nazi Germany on May 7, 1945 to end WWII. Here are just a few of the problems with this close: <br /><br />1)The older viewer must conjure up the equivalent of two or three more UNHOLY movies in their mind's eye to fill in the yawning chasm between movie events and this startling conclusion.<br /><br />2)The average person will really kick themselves that they did not "watch" one of these UNHOLY fill-in-the-blanks flicks created in their own head for free, instead of shelling out time and money to see this UNHOLY from the video store (or on cable).<br /><br />3)This end credits sequence of imagined news bulletins may be the first information some younger viewers are exposed to about WWII, leading them to the conclusion that George W. Bush is the latest heir to the Nazi throne.
| 0neg
|
I wasn't expecting a lot from a film directed by Sidney J. Furie and starring Dolph Lundgren but I was surely expecting more than a got. A one-liner user comment - 2nd rate action movie - didn't seem too depreciative to me for a Lundgren film. On the other hand, I wouldn't have bothered to watch this film if its rating was below 5.0 but hey, the movie had a 5.9 out of 10 score, which seemed pretty acceptable to me for this kind of production.<br /><br />Now I understand that the 37.5% of people who rated this film a 10 (excellent) was clearly a publicity stunt because DETENTION is the regular Nu Image garbage you have seen before, over and over.<br /><br />Lundgren does not convince as an ex-military turned a history teacher assigned to a rough school. His acting is just plain terrible, emotionless and contrived. Lundgren's inability to act becomes more visible in the scenes with the juvenile delinquent kids. Either they are great actors or, compared to Lundgren, they seem great actors - just because they seem natural and believable.<br /><br />DETENTION has some elements that could have been potentially interesting for this low budget movie - a closed-for-weekend high-security high school, four teens in detention with a war-veteran teacher and a group of ruthless criminals trying to get in - but the story (something like THE BREAKFAST CLUB meets DIE HARD, or is it PANIC ROOM?) is full of unbelievable situations, lots of clichés and stereotypical characters. And let's not forget Dolph Lundgren is the main actor.<br /><br />Alex Karzis and Kata Dobó play a Bonnie and Clyde couple in love and they deliver the most acceptable performances of the movie, even if he seems a low-budget version of Sam Rockwell and she, a Milla Jovovich wanna-be. In a movie where everything fails, their craziness and style supplied enough fresh air to prevent my interest from dropping to ground zero.
| 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.