text
stringlengths 53
13.7k
| label_id
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
According to IMDb Takashi Miike's Master of Horror-segment, Imprint, was banned in the US. So I figured I'd translate the Swedish review I just wrote for it...<br /><br />It was hard to NOT have any sort of expectations from Ichi The Killer-director Takashi Miike's episode in the Masters of Horror series. And the DVD-cover of Imprint did in deed look very promising.<br /><br />The story mostly takes place in a remote Japanese bordello, some time during the 19th century, and it tells the tale of a journalist searching for Komomo, the woman he left behind and whom he promised to return for. Tired and dejected he arrives at the bordello, hoping that this will be the end of his very long journey. It turns out that one of the prostitutes, a deformed and quiet girl, know about Komomo, and the desperate man makes her tell him where she is and what has happened to her since he left. The story she tells him is as deplorable as it is hard to swallow...<br /><br />The first thing that hit me about the episode was how unnatural it seemed that the Japanese cast for the most part spoke fluent American-English. But I will leave it at that, it's not that big a deal. What IS a big deal however is how miserable the rest of it was. Miike's tale moves at such a slow pace that I couldn't help looking at my watch several times during the 63 minutes. The extended torure-scene, that takes place somewhere in the middle of the movie, felt so unmotivated - and pornographically intrusive - that not even THAT scene became interesting. I felt like it was violent just for the sake of violence itself - with no sense of style or purpose. The only scenes that provoked any kind of emotion out of me were the images of bloody fetuses rolling along the bottom of the swiftly flowing water...and, in all honesty, the only emotions they provoked were feelings of disgust.<br /><br />The journalist seeking the love he left behind is played by Billy Drago, for me most memorable as Frank Nitti - Al Capones whiteclad assassin in Brian De Palmas The Untouchables (1987). I've always found Dragos portrayal of Nitti to be very icy (and I mean that in a good way), and that is probably why I was almost annoyed when I found him to be so terrible (NOT in a good way) in this one. His acting seems to flow between no feelings or empathy whatsoever to displays of some really bad overacting. When his character is supposed to react to the awful things Komomo has been subjected to I was sitting in the sofa, twisting and turning in an attempt to escape the horrible actingjob put forth by Drago. I'm grateful that most of the story is told by Yuoki Kudoh (Memoirs of a geisha, 2005), who plays the deformed prostitute.<br /><br />The finale is probably supposed to be chocking, maybe even revolting and horrid, but I just found it to be kind of...you know... "blah" (and I looked at my watch again, for the umptieth time, just wishing the crappy episode would end). Maybe the finale caused me to smile just a bit, but that's only because I couldn't help thinking of an episode of Red Dwarf, and the upside-down chins of Craig Charles and Danny John-Jules, with eyes glued on them to make them look like aliens... Lucky you, if you've seen that episode and now decide to see Imprint, I will forever have ruined the visuals of the ending for you.<br /><br />My first thought, when Imprint finally ended, was that the only thing that made the pain of watching it worth it, was hearing the main title theme by Edward Shearmur (the same music I believe is used in every episode of this series), and that - if anything - is a big friggin warning, don't you think?<br /><br />One might point to the costume design, by Michiko Kitamura, and say that there, at least, is something NOT lacking in style and refinement...but there are so many other films and TV-shows that is so much better at showing off the Japanese "geisha-fashion". This is nothing but inferior and I am disappointed. Takashi Miike's Masters of Horror-episode is boring, uninspiring and pointless. In other words; It's really, really BAD! | 0 |
Hello. this is my first review for any movie i have seen. i went through the trouble of doing this to tell everyone that this is quite literally, the most disgusting movie i have ever seen. I feel like the movie was porely made, which i will give some understanding due to budget constraints on making it. I felt like i was watching a very bad remake of the movie saw. Which i can agree, saw as well is also very graphic, but, i did like the movie saw.<br /><br />The scene where he takes the hammer to the head of the tied up victim in the chair is the most disturbing scene i have seen. the scene lasted almost forever, well actually, it was probably around 5 min but still. i want to note that i like some horror movies and i do give credit if they are good. this director uwe boll, and his group of people used to make this movie should think it over before making another one similar to this one. one final note haha!! FOR ALL THE PEOPLE WHO ENJOY WATCHING ANIMALS BEATIN TO DEATH, LETTING ROT, WITH WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS WELL AND A FIVE MINUTE SCENE OF SOMEONE GETTING THERE HEAD SMASHED IN WITH A HAMMER then you will enjoy this movie, if not, and you like horror, go with a higher budget film, like saw for example. I cant believe people actually make movies like this. anyway sorry to anyone who loves uwe boll and took it to heart, this is just my opinion on the movie. | 0 |
In director Sooraj Barjatya's Vivah,20-something Delhi boy Shahid Kapur finds himself smitten by the demure, small-town girl his father has selected for him to marry. Drawn to her innocence and simplicity, Shahid agrees to the marriage barely moments after he's met her at her home in Madhupur, and the young lady in question Amrita Rao seems equally floored by her charming suitor. The marriage is fixed for six months later, and the couple find themselves in the first throes of young, budding love, their geographical distance notwithstanding. But Amrita, who's been raised by her uncle and her aunt after her parents' death, is struck by a horrible calamity just hours before the marriage. And then, it's up to Shahid to play the honourable lover and to embrace her unconditionally.Much in the same vein as Hum Aapke Hain Koun and Hum Saath Saath Hain, Barjatya's new film Vivah too is on one level a family drama with an extremely idealistic premise. But sadly, the plot of this new film comes off looking way too outdated, even more far-fetched than those regressive Ekta Kapoor soaps. And the problem is clear you just can't relate to such squeaky-clean characters who don't have one bad bone in their bodies. There are many things that work in favour of and against Hindi films, and timing is one such important factor. Twenty-five years ago, perhaps the plot of Vivah may not have felt like such a stretch, but today it just seems like the product of a mind stuck in a time warp. Perhaps the film's only saving grace is the fact that it oozes sincerity from start to finish, you can make out right away that the filmmaker's intention is not to deceive. Judging both by Barjatya's previous films and by closely examining this new one you can safely declare that Barjatya believes in a perfect world, he believes in his good-as-gold characters, he believes that large families can live together happily under the same roof without the slightest bumps.But alas, he's unable to translate his vision to the screen. It's difficult to overlook how one-dimensional his protagonists are Shahid and Amrita, both virtuous and virginal I mean, think about it, the first time they hold hands is an hour and twenty minutes into the film. Barjatya may think he's returning to his Maine Pyar Kiya roots with Vivah, but truth is that the reason we embraced Salman and Bhagyashree in that film, or even Salman and Madhuri in Hum Aapke Hain Koun is because they had such fantastic chemistry. Because although they were created out of the same mould as Shahid and Amrita in Vivah, those pairs had mischief and masti. Shahid and Amrita are just insipid and boring.For a film that relies so heavily on music to narrate its story, the filmmaker chooses a string of 70s-style tunes that only further slacken the film's deadening pace. But if I had to choose just one reason to explain why Vivah doesn't work for me, it's because I'm not sure I can relate to any of the characters who inhabit Barjatya's story. To some perhaps, Vivah will give hope, that a perfect world like this is actually out there somewhere. But I'm a little cynical I guess. So, give me the coquettish Madhuri of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, give me the bratty Salman of Maine Pyar Kiya, I'll even take that mischievous Karisma Kapoor of Hum Saath Saath Hain. But save me from these dullards. You know, some marriages aren't made in heaven. This one's Vivah! | 0 |
Disappointing and irritating. The screenwriter has no true understanding of human nature but instead strings together clichés in a disjointed fashion. Character is not explored in depth. These are puppets plunked down in a plot he openly confesses needed a dramatic element, the mother's affair with her daughter's lover. <br /><br />Anne Reid gives an excellent performance in spite of being given some peculiar situations and lines, such standing passively to allow her angry daughter to slug her in the eye. The script portrays Darren (Daniel Craig) as a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde without any hints about why, except that he snorts cocaine before the big scene. <br /><br />A mature writer could have done so much more with this topic. | 0 |
If you don't mind having your emotions toyed with, then you won't mind this movie. On the other hand, if you enjoy British crime mysteries, following clues and seeing how they all logically fall into place at the end, you'll be very disappointed.<br /><br />Here are some of the logical inconsistencies that lead to that disappointment: <br /><br />* While the police utilize the CCTV cameras early on to gather clues about the mystery, the huge truck that stopped and blocked the children's view just before her disappearance doesn't get caught on camera. This is a critical piece of the mystery. It's inconsistent to have the car the children were in caught on camera and not the big truck that is so critical to the mystery.<br /><br />* The movie goes to great lengths to show the sophistication of the equipment in tracking down the children's movements but misses the opportunity to utilize the same sophisticated equipment is tracking down vehicles that may have entered the crime scene from camera-visible locations adjacent to the crime scene as part of developing clues.<br /><br />* In England, driving is on the left. The director goes out of his way to have the car at the crime scene park on the right, several meters away from the flower kiosk, when it could have easily parked immediately behind, or even on the side; as the huge truck did.<br /><br />* The police forensics team is so meticulous as to find a discarded cell phone in a sewer drain several miles from the scene of the crime, but can't find any blood evidence from the head injury right at the crime scene, even though they secured the scene just hours after the disappearance and with no intervening rainfall.<br /><br />* Search dogs were not used at all to find the missing children; this from the country that is well known for developing the hound dog for search and hunting.<br /><br />* It is illogical that such a highly publicized news story would not turn up the presumably innocent truck driver that stopped at the flower kiosk.<br /><br />* It is illogical that the mother would go to such extremes and expend so much effort to leave carpet fiber clues under her fingernails for her eventual murder investigators even coaxing her daughter to do the same-- while she simply could not have crawled out of the unguarded mobile home. If she had enough sense about her to ask her daughter to get carpet fibers under her nails, she could of just as easily asked her daughter to call out for help or even leave the mobile home that was in a crowded residential park.<br /><br />* The suspect that abducted the little girl was portrayed as mentally slow/dimwitted --justifying his unknowingly drowning of the mother but, he was smart enough not to cooperate with the police and also fully exercise his rights not to self-incriminate.<br /><br />There are more inconsistencies like this that will lead to a true sleuth aficionado's disappointment. 'Five Days' is a very weak British crime story. | 0 |
If it wasn't for some immature gullible idiot I know insisting that I watch this "documentary" I would never have seen this comedy! This film is full of bad scripting and laughable moments. One in particular is where the Afghan police / soldiers arrest Don Larson for filming in the streets while they allow the cameraman to carry on filming his arrest and then drive away, still filming, presumably to his plush hotel. Then there's the scene where a car crashes into another car which has been turned upside down and parked nicely on the side of the road without any evidence of it being in a crash or explosion.<br /><br />I am surprised this has currently got the rating it has (5.8 / 10). I thought IMDb users had more sense. | 0 |
This movie certainly proves, that also the good Americans can do terribly good propaganda. No questions being asked, no comments being made on power abuse or police terror, when James Stewart, solid and convincing as always, solves all the stories from Dillinger to 5th Column more or less singlehandedly. June Allyson as his regular love interest holds up the family values and E.J. Hoover is executive producer.And children or non guilty bystanders are never harmed, when the professionals execute. Not to speak of civil rights, which are never broken or homes, which are never intruded. And if the FBI service would not be enough, Steward also gives his son's life for the country in WW II. Perfectly made, if you wouldn't know better.... | 0 |
This isn't a film, it's a 111-minute Evangelical Christian sermon draped over red state America's #1 sport, high school football. Another of the long, earnest messages to the converted who are then presumed to be fired up enough by the spirit to go abroad and convert their unsaved neighbours.<br /><br />Dialogue like "You won the big one when you accepted Christ" loses any possible camp appeal by the disturbing intensity in director/Coach Alex Kendrick's sunken black eyes. Then there are the "parables".<br /><br />Two farmers prayed for rain but only one prepared his field to receive it. Which one do you think God blessed? This rhetorical question is meant to foreshadow the miraculous climax, in the course of which Coach asks his trepidous back-up kicker, "Son, do you think God could help you make that kick?" It's the kind of entertainment we could have expected would receive faith-based funding ad infinitum, if only the Evangelical Christian Bush Administration's hegemonic pursuits around the world had convinced us all to become "devout" after their example. Behold that poor Giants coach in the apocalyptic finale, urging his team on crying "Who's with me!" while the devout Eagles on the other side were quietly going about doing the Lord's work.<br /><br />So, do you think our terrified back-up makes his kick to vanquish those self-centrist Goliaths? Well, we all know zealots can't lose. Put it this way: Transfer the playing ground to the deserts of the Middle East, replace the Christian proselytizing, and this virulent nonsense can easily be repackaged as a Taliban-vs-Superpower parable, which the devout worshippers of this garbage might want to think about a minute.<br /><br />Luckily they won't care, nor need to: like Coach tells his team of earnest empty vessels pregame, the answers are all right here in this Book. And the Christian Right will devour this on their way to their Rapture, that final victory they have prepared their fields for. | 0 |
I have to agree with some of the other comments and even go a step further. <br /><br />Nothing about this film worked, absolutely nothing. Delmar our central character makes the decision to become a surrogate mother in order to earn enough money to buy a restaurant but along the way fall for a wise ex-jailbird. At the same time her friend Hortense is trying to get her lawyer boyfriend to finally marry her. She also happens to be sleeping with Marlon who is desperately in love with her. Then there's Delmar's brother Jethro who gets involved with a former coke addict, Missy who reveals she was sexually abused by her adopted father. On the sidelines we also have the eccentricmother who has an assortment of equally odd friends, one of whom dies on the couch at the beginning of the film. So far so good but after introducing these characters and story lines addressing life, death, grief and love in the first half, the film simply loses direction. <br /><br />If the writer had only selected one or two characters and allowed us to follow their stories maybe things would have been fine but equal screen time is given to all with the result that no one story or character is fully developed. For instance, why does Delmar think she will be able to hand over her child in exchange for money, especially when the prospective parents are a creepy bigoted lawyer and his semi alcoholic and depressed wife? Why is Hortense so desperate to marry a man who is a jerk and clearly doesn't love her? How is it Missy manages to kick her coke habit overnight? Is Jethro regularly drawn to women with overwhelming problems, or is Missy the exception? Has Delmar and Jethro's mother always been on the eccentric side, or is it a more recent development? Why is Jethro so keen on Cadillacs that he has one in the middle of his living room? Why did Moses spend years in prison for stealing a car, a relatively minor crime? How does Delmar manage to end up giving birth to Moses' baby when there is no suggestion that they ever had sex? <br /><br />These questions are posed in the screenplay but sadly are never answered. I can only assume they were answered in the original novel and that is why the writer felt the need to include it all in the script. Big mistake. Losing several subplots especially the Hortense and Marlon story, which adds nothing to the overall film, would have tightened things considerably and allowed more time to develop the Delmar, Jethro and Moses characters who are clearly more central to the plot and underlying themes than anyone else. <br /><br />Add to that the most pedestrian directing style seen outside of the average soap opera and the result is a huge missed opportunity for all, including Jorja Fox who does her best to rise above the material. I'm not surprised that this appears to have been the director's last film as this effort shows no evidence of a visual style or ability to tell a moving and intelligent story. | 0 |
Zombie Review #3<br /><br />**Spoilers**<br /><br />Few films are actually "so bad they're good", and Zombi 3 is not just bad, it's wretchedly, unforgivably bad in so many ways that a whole new language may be needed just to describe them all<br /><br />More than that, it's a film credited to Lucio Fulci that even by his standards has absolutely no coherency, sense or reason. However we can't blame Fulci as it wasn't really directed by him but by Bruno Mattei, who doesn't even have Fulci's sense of style to help carry the film. Mattei seems to have brought little to the film but staggering ineptitude.<br /><br />So, I'm ashamed to say how much I enjoyed every worthless minute of Zombi 3. It has no redeeming features - in a genre known for thin characters, weak story, and lack of film making skill, Zombi 3 pushes the boat out but in doing so it's even funnier than Nightmare City.<br /><br />The "action" starts when the "Death 1" gas is stolen from a military base, and damaged in the escape. Who is the thief, why did he steal it, and why did the US military think that creating cannibalistic legions of the living dead would be a good idea? All these questions and more will fail to be answered in Zombi 3....<br /><br />After hiding out at a hotel, the infected thief goes mad from all the green plastecine growing on his face before being tracked down by the army who somewhat foolishly decide the best way to dispose of his corpse will be to burn it, sending "Death 1" up into the atmosphere resulting in... zombie birds! Who then attack people and turn them into zombie people!!! (if zombies are cannibals, why don't the zombie birds just attack other birds?)<br /><br />Then we meet our "heroes", a trio of horny GIs and a coachload of girls. There's a couple of other guys with them too, but they're not important - NO ONE is important here. You'll be hard pressed to remember anyone's face, let alone their name or find a reason to care about them. They end up hiding out at the same hotel as the thief ("a week ago this place was buzzing with life, now it's buzzing with flies!") but there's no escape from the undead.<br /><br />By this point you'll either be completely sucked in or you'll have turned the damned thing off. The script is so appalling even the greatest acting in the world couldn't save it, so it's just as well they have some of the worst - and not just the human characters, the zombie acting here is an all time low. There's no consistancy in how the zombies behave - some shamble about in the time honored style, others engage in full on fist fights or charge around with machettes, not to mention the zombies who are still able to talk (a gimmick that gives the film it's HORRIFYING TWIST ENDING). They die from gunshots to the chest (rather than the head) and even get knocked out by a good left-hook. How can you punch out a zombie???!!!!! In fact the emphasis on badly done 80s action often makes it resemble an episode of V...<br /><br />The zombies also spend a lot of time hiding, seemingly waiting for hours in ridiculous places on the chance some poor sap will pass by and get the fright of their life. They hide in bushes, in garages, in huts, on roofs, in the water, and even underneath pregnant women. At one point a zombie follows a woman up the stairs. To kill and eat her? No! To push her into the water, those zombies and their wacky sense of humour!<br /><br />There is plenty of gore though. Limbs are hacked, wounds ooze green pus, and there's much in the way of flesh eating and people getting their faces mushed in. There's nothing to match the originals eyeball piercing, but if bad make up effects are your bag you won't be let down.<br /><br />All this and I've not even mentioned the awful music, the inexplicable flying zombie head, the scientist whose acting actually manages to stand out as REALLY bad, or the final chilling punchline.... in an ingenious twist on the originals radio station being overrun by zombies, Zombi 3 gives us an actual zombie DJ!! "He's gone over to their side!" our escaping hero's cry, before vowing to continue fighting against the undead in a sequel that sadly never came.<br /><br />Zombi 3 is rubbish - it would be no loss to the world if every single print was destroyed and all records of it's existence erased, yet somehow I feel my life is richer for having seen it.<br /><br />Did I say richer? I meant 88 minutes shorter... | 0 |
This is a Japanese film but there is quite a bit of English also spoken in here. It's a pretty film, with nice visuals, featuring the scenic beauty of Hawaii.<br /><br />However, that was the only redeeming quality for me. The story was generally boring. Who wants to watch a young woman sulk for 90 percent of the film because her "picture" husband is a lot older than he advertised he was? Granted, that could be a bummer......but get over it!<br /><br />Only in the last 10 minutes does she do an about-face and become fond of him. By then, for most viewers, it was too little-too late. We'd fallen asleep by then. | 0 |
I consider myself to be a bit of a snob when it comes to everything and although the cinematic experience is more suited to explosions than high drama, I can be very stuck up about films, too.<br /><br />Not all art films, however, are better than King Kong. I quite possibly would give Kong two stars, double this film's haul.<br /><br />My guess is that people got so excited about this because it was almost identical in style to what you can see in a play. For the less discerning art-buff, a film that looks like a play is 'great art'.<br /><br />This film, however, was useless.<br /><br />There was hardly any story so it relied on high drama. The only drama in this film was whether the cat would drop off the roof or not. So, deep and meaningful dialogue, then? No. Great acting? Hardly.<br /><br />To be excessively fair: Some of the scenery was interesting, though: Communist flats, city vistas (Petersburg?) and the Soviet trams still in service. | 0 |
I registered just to make this comment (which pretty much echos some of the ones here already) The acting is worse than subpar, it expounds on commonly held stereotypes, has some of the worst displays of tasteless female objectification (all bod no brain), and has some of the cheesiest lines known to man.<br /><br />including but not limited to "allright lets see what these guys can do" I should also mention that when they show the crashes involving innocent civilians, you end up feeling bad for the innocent people and start to hate the characters themselves. Eddie Griffin's character is also one of the most stereotypical black guy personas that just rubs people the wrong way. He may or may not be a good actor but this movie doesn't allow for that kind of character exploration. You want a movie that leaves the audience on the side of the bad guys? Oceans 11. This movie just makes you hate the bad guys instead of capturing the audience.<br /><br />Even the cars can't make up for this fluke of a movie. That Enzo that Griffin wrecked sums up this movie perfectly. It just sucks. | 0 |
Oh my. I decided to go out to the cinemas with some friends, wanting to watch one of those mild, feel-good Christmas movies, and I walk out disgusted. The movie failed. Full-stop. Paul Giamatti who I consider as a good actor played his character and roll just horribly, along with Vince Vaughn who has always been a personal favourite of mine. They try and turn a Christmas movie, into some new-style. Sort of bad, mixed with good, but it all turned out very wrong. The first ten or so minutes weren't too bad, but once we saw Santa, it was over. It didn't get any better, the rate stayed the same, there was NO character development, and certainly is one of the worst Christmas movies ever invented. Don't watch it, whatever you do. | 0 |
this is just usual Indian garbage that gets turned out as cinema, as Indians we can proudly boast that we have the biggest cinema industry, however it also the worst.<br /><br />how can other poor countries have films with real characters that challenge the views of their respective societies and we just keep on pumping out garbage. take a look at Russia, Iran, china and Latin America, look at the brilliant films they have and we get crap like Kisna!!<br /><br />get real people, no wonder the international community in general laughs at Indian cinema. | 0 |
Whoo-boy, that was definitely one of the worst flicks I've seen all summer. Granted, it was on Sci Fi, and I don't watch much Sci Fi, but man, talk about a razor thin plot and two dimensional characters to the max.<br /><br />The characters were stereotypical and overdone, the plot and setting were unbelievable, the vampires were less intimidating, more funny-looking, the gore was unnecessary, the special effects were down-right horrible, and the ending? Well, the only thing unpredictable about the ending was when suddenly the tomboy becomes a lesbian and starts to do it with the female vampire, which, by the way, isn't really all that hot considering it occurs for about three seconds, in which you're closer to "What the hell?" then "Man, that's hot." If this ever appears in reruns, God forbid, DON'T WATCH IT. | 0 |
CQ is incredibly slow, and I'm a David Mamet fan. The movie follows around a young filmmaker who is making a very Barbarella-esque film. After that the movie started to lose me. Deep and profound? Not really. The movie "Dragonfly" being made in CQ has the problem of having no ending. This greatly parallels CQ, which also lacks an ending (in my opinion).<br /><br />I was lucky enough to catch this movie at the SxSW film festival. I had fairly high expectations having just watched Y Tu Mama Tambien and several other great movies. I was also looking forward to Jason Schwartzman's performance. But it was not an easy film to get into. If you're not into 60's sci-fi or slow movies that go no where, skip it.<br /><br />CQ feels like a student film. If you want a recent sci-fi-esque indie film rent Donnie Darko, it won't put you to sleep. | 0 |
Another variation and improvisation on the famous and beloved children tale, La Bete (1975) aka The Beast tries to imagine (in very graphic and what may seem offensive and disturbing but in reality rather silly and comical way), what actually happened between Beauty and the Beast? I am amused by many reviews and comments that seem to look too deeply into this movie. I would not go so far as saying that it is a serious and dark exploration of such subjects as sexual frustration, longing, fulfillment, or satirical criticizing of the catholic Religion. I would not even call it a horror-erotic movie. It's more of the parody on all genres it touches or mentions even though it's got some shocking moments in all departments that sure will stay in your memory.<br /><br />The long (way too long) scene between an Aristocratic young woman and the supposedly horrifying but the most laughable I've ever seen in the movies creature with truly impressive...well anatomy, is set to the clavichord music of Scarlatti and is hysterical. My husband and I both laughed out loud at the exaggerated details of the encounter. The moral of the scene is - beauty can and will defeat the monster. The question is - who is the target audience for the film? For an erotic picture, it is too verbose; for an art movie - it's got too many jaw-dropping scenes of sheer madness and I'd say an abrupt ending. IMO, the film creator did not mean for it to be a serious drama. As a parody of art house/horror/erotica, it is funny and certainly original. Have a good laugh and try not to look for some deep meaning. This story of the curious Beauties and the lustful Beasts certainly is not recommended for co-viewing with the children. The opening scene that may shock an unprepared viewer much more than the infamous scene of bestiality can be successfully used On Discovery channel for the program like "In the world of animals - mating habits and rituals of horses". | 0 |
I watched an episode. Yes I sat through the entire miserable experience, and I have to say, this brand of comedy is one of the worst you will get. Imagine Peter Griffin, of Family Guy fame. Now imagine Peter Griffin as a(admittedly slim and minus the glasses) woman, except that he now lacks the something that made him hilarious. Peter Griffin is an idiot, but he doesn't know he's an idiot. Sarah has none of the genuine character, none of the acting ability to pull her character off. Maybe its the trite, formulaic jokes that pull her comedy even lower than her character can take it by herself. Maybe it's the lack of believable foils. Her insensitive, bigoted persona may appeal to insensitive, bigoted people unlike the mass appeal that Stephen Colbert's insensitive, bigoted character has. Like Bill O'Reilly, Sarah creates an annoying, unfunny character. She lacks something that is necessary for the genre of satire, let alone for the entire world of comedy. What Sarah Silverman lacks, its noticeable. And when you don't believe it and identify with it, it's not funny anymore. | 0 |
Within 15 minutes, my whole family was rooting for Goldie Hawn's character to die, or at least for Steve Martin's character to leave her. At 40 minutes, we turned it off. There are only a couple of movies a year we try that turn out so annoying that we can't even stomach it long enough for the story to get established.<br /><br />Normally I like both Steve Martin and Goldie Hawn, and I remember enjoying the Neil Simon original. So I blame Marc Lawrence and Sam Weisman. Combine the director of "Whats The Worst That Can Happen" and the writer of "Miss Congeniality 2", and I guess this is what we end up with. | 0 |
I might not be a huge admirer of the original "Creepshow", but its trashy sequel makes that anthology look like perfection! And to think I was going into this expecting to like this one more. Five years after its predecessor, George Romero gets back on board the EC Comic style trail and on this outing pens the screenplay for Steve King's three stories. Though, the direction is handed off to Michael Gornick. The film mostly falters in that aspect with uneven brushes by Gornick. But most of the blame would have to go to Romero's dreadfully static and unbearably cringe-like script (especially in those dialogues streaming through the first and final story). Moralistic messages (that came from mostly a sour bunch of characters) simply took over the black humour. Oh it was painful and the same can be said about the lively rotten music score accompanying the picture. Loosely linking the three tales (Old Chief Woodenhead, The Raft and The Hitchhiker) together is a mildly curious and effective wraparound story done in nostalgia (80s) animation form. I rather liked this segment and the wisecracking Creep character was a glowing light. <br /><br /># The first story "Old Chief Woodenhead" sees two elderly proprietors (George Kennedy & Dorothy Lamour) of a general store in a dying native community, Dead River. Get robbed and eventually killed by a couple of punks dying to live it up in Hollywood. In front of the store is a wooden statue of an Indian Chief that comes to live to avenge their deaths. <br /><br />-Listen to George Kennedy waffle.. And waffle on for 10 minutes about how he's committed to his 'great' community. What a nice touchy feely time. Well, just like Kennedy's speeches, this is one monotonously colourless and overdrawn item that never makes good of a fine premise. The overbearing script is plain inane and the performances are suitably so. These two factors really added to my headache. When the Indian comes alive and turns avenger, the goons meet a very quick (though grisly) death in the proper fashion. The effects were commendably done, but what about that free flowing hair. How could Hollywood knock that lock of hair back? Ugh! <br /><br /># Second story "The Raft" follows a group of dope smoking and yahoo teens heading up to a secluded lake. After swimming to the raft in the middle of the lake, they get trapped on the platform because of an ominous looking creature lurking in the water. <br /><br />-Now this is much better, MUCH better. What starts of as your basic teens run afoul turns into a mysteriously creepy set-up that's full of tight and claustrophobic tension. And it doesn't even cop out on the flashes of nudity or spiteful splatter. Quite morbid it is and that goes for its sense of humour too. The surprisingly ironic ending has a beautiful touch to it. The performances from the nobodies are acceptable without making a huge mark. Gornick's direction sticks to the nasty and rather gooey side. While, the alarming music score on this occasion pressed the right chords. The sludge-like creature in the lake (like many have mentioned) looks like an icky black tarpaulin (yeah you're reading that right!) floating on the water. <br /><br /># Finally number three concludes with "The Hitchhiker". A wealthy, but sexually lacking woman is on her way back home after being with her male gigolo, but she's is running late. Thinking of some ideas to explain for her lateness if needed, she skids off the road and accidentally hit's a hitchhiker. Instead of checking or getting help, she drives off in the hope getting home before her husband. Soon enough she's being terrorised by the mangled corpse of the dead hitchhiker.<br /><br />-Not awful, but I really didn't get into this laughably ludicrous exercise at all. Compared to the first two this one was so different in tone and tried to tickle the funny bone instead. Lois Chiles was okay in the lead role, but that constant assuring and the little conversations she has with herself became pitifully aggravating and downright tired. The vivid make-up effects are well-displayed and dripping with vision. When she hit's the hitchhiker that's when it becomes hectic, cheesy and over-the-top in its execution. From there onwards we endlessly hear our supposedly dead hitchhiker repeat and repeat
and repeat the line, "Thanks for the ride lady!" This happens every time she decides to run over him. Have a little courtesy for the dead darling. <br /><br />In all, the second short story "The Raft" and the unpleasantly, well-conceived effects is what lifts this extremely inferior sequel. | 0 |
I have been a fan of Without A Trace from the premier episode. I really cannot express my disappointment in the episode last week. This is a REAL problem that far too many Afican-American families have dealt with and continue to deal with. The lack of media coverage crucial in the first 48 hours has been documented by a recent study. Law enforcement including local , state, and federal are also complicit. What was the purpose of advertising this subject matter and then copping out on the ending? Seemingly, television can deal with almost ANY subject matter EXCEPT RACE. This is shameful.Get it together or don't explore it next time. | 0 |
Very poor effort that offers pretty much nothing to anyone but a hardcore fan of Stanley Tucci, who tries, but can not save the poor structure, dialogue, direction, or talent of our leading man.<br /><br />Pretty much the only trick this plodding tale of a naive new salesman for an alarm company has, is its quirky side characters. But without a realistic backdrop, such characters are pointless.<br /><br />Nothing to see here, keep moving...<br /><br /> | 0 |
This movie tries hard, but completely lacks the fun of the 1960s TV series, that I am sure people do remember with fondness. Although I am 17, I watched some of the series on YouTube a long time ago and it was enjoyable and fun. Sadly, this movie does little justice to the series.<br /><br />The special effects are rather substandard, and this wasn't helped by the flat camera-work. The script also was dull and lacked any sense of wonder and humour. Other films with under-par scripting are Home Alone 4, Cat in the Hat, Thomas and the Magic Railroad and Addams Family Reunion.<br /><br />Now I will say I liked the idea of the story, but unfortunately it was badly executed and ran out of steam far too early, and I am honestly not sure for this reason this is something for the family to enjoy. And I was annoyed by the talking suit, despite spirited voice work from Wayne Knight.<br /><br />But the thing that angered me most about this movie was that it wasted the talents of Christopher Lloyd, Jeff Daniels and Daryl Hannah, all very talented actors. Jeff Daniels has pulled off some good performances before, but he didn't seem to have a clue what he was supposed to be doing, and Elizabeth Hurley's character sadly came across as useless. Daryl Hannah is a lovely actress and generally ignored, and I liked the idea of her being the love interest, but sadly you see very little of her,(not to mention the Monster attack is likely to scare children than enthrall them) likewise with Wallace Shawn as some kind of government operative. Christopher Lloyd acquits himself better, and as an actor I like Lloyd a lot(he was in two of my favourite films Clue and Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and I am fond of Back To The Future) but he was given little to work with, and had a tendency to overact quite wildly.<br /><br />Overall, as much I wanted to like this movie, I was left unimpressed. Instead of being fun, it came across as pointless, and that is a shame because it had a lot of potential, with some talented actors and a good idea, but wasted with poor execution. 1/10 Bethany Cox | 0 |
One of those classics, held up next to "Deep Throat" and "Behind the Green Door."<br /><br />Sure, it was clever, but the female lead isn't that attractive and sex isn't that hot. But if not for this film, porn would not have blossomed into what it is today.<br /><br />Harry Reems was the Ron Jeremy of his day. Worth a look if you're a Fan. | 0 |
The problems with this film are many, but I will try to mention the most glaring and bothersome ones. First of all, while the theme suggests a number of vignettes about Manhattan life, the reality was that everything, as usual in movies and TV, was about something bizarre, usually of a sexual nature. The story lines were thin or nonexistent, and virtually every scene, camera shot, line of dialog, and expressed emotion was absolutely, and totally fake. It finally reached a point after an hour of so of mind numbing garbage that I walked out (something no uncommon for me in recent years.) I would have guessed the fi9lm was directed by some wannabe auteur drop outs from some 3rd rate film studies program, but I believe the (at one time, pre-Amelia, talented)director Mira Nair took part in this disgusting travesty, so perhaps the directorial talent in America has descended en masse into the cesspool. | 0 |
Chillers starts on a cold, dark stormy night as a bus drops off three passenger's outside a bus station, a young boy named Mason (Jesse Emery), a college professor Dr. Howard Conrow (David Wohl) & a woman named Sharon Phillips (Laurie Pennington). Inside they discover that they have missed their connecting bus & are stranded for the night. In the waiting area they find two other people, Ronnie (Jim Wolf) & a sleeping woman named Lindsay (Marjorie Fitzsimmons) who is currently having a terrifying nightmare...<br /><br />While swimming in an indoor pool Lindsay encounters & befriends guy named Billy Waters (Jesse Johnson), the next time Lindsay sees Billy he dives into the pool & then seemingly disappears into thin air before he surfaces. Shortly after Lindsay discovers that Billy Water died in a diving accident 5 years ago...<br /><br />Lindsay wakes up & tells the others about her nightmare, everyone else responds by saying that they too have suffered disturbing dreams recently & decide to share them to pass the time...<br /><br />Next up is Mason who tells a story of how he & two friends, Scott (David R. Hamm) & Jimmy (Will Tuckwiller), are terrorised during a camping trip...<br /><br />Then it's Sharon whose story revolves around a newsman named Tom Williams (Thom Delventhal) who she phones up, in no time at all Tom is at her front door but he actually turns out to be a Vampire...<br /><br />It's Ronnie's turn next & he describes how he discovers that he can bring the dead back to life, unfortunately he brings executed mass murderer Nelson Caulder (Bradford Boll) back to homicidal life...<br /><br />Finally Dr. Conrow tells a tale of how two of his students brought an ancient Aztec war-god named Ixpe (Kimberly Harbour) back to life...<br /><br />Then it's back to the bus station for one last (predictable) twist...<br /><br />Written, produced & directed by Daniel Boyd Chillers is one of the worst horror anthologies I've ever seen & I usually really like this sub-genre. The script by Boyd lacks what is needed for films such as Chillers to work, you can see the final twist coming a mile off & each story is really lame. The first one is totally pointless & didn't seem to have an ending & the best thing about these anthologies are the short snappy stories that are rounded off with a neat twist. The second story is predictable &, again, just ends without any payoff. So it continues throughout Chillers that each story is deeply unsatisfying to watch & have no reward for doing so. The character's & dialogue are poorly written, the stories seem to have no original ideas of their own & as a whole the film totally sucks. At least each story doesn't last long & I liked the idea behind the linking segments.<br /><br />Director Boyd was obviously working with a very low budget & it shows. All I can say is if you want to watch a 15 odd minute short story set entirely within a swimming pool then Chillers is for you. The stories are neither clever, scary or have any sort of tension or build up to anything. Having said that it does have a few nice scenes & some surprising competence shines through on occasion. Violence & gore wise there isn't much happening in Chillers, a ripped out heart, a decapitated head & a bitten off hand is as gory as it gets.<br /><br />Technically Chillers is poor stuff that won't impress anyone. Basic cinematography, bad music, cheap special effects & below average production values. Chillers also features one of the worst closing theme songs ever, period. The acting is also of a very low standard.<br /><br />I am sure a lot of effort was put into Chillers as a low budget film & at least the filmmakers tried so I will give credit for that at least, but that still doesn't stop me from thinking it's crap. Similar anthology films like Tales From the Crypt (1972), Asylum (1972), The Vault of Horror (1973), Dr. Terror's House of Horrors (1965), Creepshow (1982) & Tales From the Darkside: The Movie (1990) are far superior to Chillers so watch one of those instead. | 0 |
The female lead was a terrible actress which made the whole movie mediocre. She was smiling too much when she first went in front of the cameras to talk about her daughter. This should have made the police suspect her. I would have been inconsolable in the identical situation. She seemed way calm for a mother who could not find her daughter. It was as if she did not want to even be in the movie. Jennifer Aniston would have played the part better. And it would have made a lot more money for such a controversial, important subject. Everyone else was excellent. I don't know where the lead actress is but I hope she got some acting lessons. | 0 |
As I watch this film, it is interesting to see how much it marginalizes Black men. The film spends its time showing how powerless the most visible Black man in it is (save for an heroic moment). For much of the film, the other Black men (and dark-skinned Black women) in the film are way in the background, barely visible.<br /><br />Vanessa Williams' character was strong and sympathetic. The viewer can easily identify and sympathize with her. There are also some fairly visible and three-dimensional support characters who are light-skinned, and some White characters of some warmth and dignity. But 99% of the Black males in this film are nothing but invisible men. Voiceless shadows in the background, of no consequence. Such a horrible flaw, but anything but unusual in the mainstream media. | 0 |
I'd really, really wanted to see this movie, and waited for months to get it through our Blockbuster Total Access account. When it showed up in our mailbox, I threw it straight into the DVD player.<br /><br />I was very sadly disappointed, which in turn made me mad. I'll give any movie a chance, even if I want to walk out of the theater/press 'stop'. I watched it all the way through, but didn't get anything from it but frustration.<br /><br />The acting was very, very good, but that was about it. Nothing is explained; while we understand that Mathieu becomes depressed and lands in a psych ward of some kind, we're never given insight to his 'downfall'. While we understand that he and Cedric break up, again, we don't see it happen or WHY it happened. During an interview with Mathieu's doctor, Cedric reveals that he'd cheated on him once, but it was no big deal. I expected to see this in flashbacks, but no--nothing. We also gets the hints that Cedric was the one to bring Mat to the hospital--but AGAIN, we don't see it.<br /><br />I know some movies are a 'take it as it is' basis, but this movie honestly ticked me off. When Pierre, Cedric's ex shows up in the club and starts trouble, we don't see hide nor hair of him until near the end, and it took me a good chunk of time to figure out that Pierre WAS the ex. His personality at the club and when Mat finds him are entirely different. I might even be wrong saying this, it was that confusing.<br /><br />The film expects you to know everything and move along with its disjointed, out-of-place and confusing pace. I can keep up with films like 'Pi', 'Citizen Kane' and other films that have flashbacks/flash-forwards left and right, but CU didn't capture and hold onto the style. At the end of 'Citizen Kane', you know what's going on and discover the answer to the main mysteries. CU just leaves you hanging. It has an air of pretension in its 'we're not gonna tell you a damned thing, figure it out for yourself' presentation. It's like reading a book with the chapters switched around and pages missing.<br /><br />Good acting, like I said. I liked the characters, but the whole story was just too disappointing. | 0 |
When I heard the plot for this movie I simply had to see it, I mean whole cities being wiped out by killer tomatoes! Sadly the title is about as funny as it gets.<br /><br />Led by Detective Dick Mason, a special team of military and scientists (including Greg Colburn who never takes his SCUBA outfit off and Lt. Finletter who is never pictured without his parachute trailing behind) 'Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes' is a parody of B-Movies, in particular Japanese horror of the 1950's. The film begins with a standard sized tomato being discovered by a women washing up in her kitchen before we find ourselves in a middle of a crime scene as the tomato has supposedly murdered this lady, and let me tell you it doesn't get any saner as the film progresses! To be fair there are a couple of funny moments, for instance anytime the Japanese scientist Dr Nokitofa speaks his voice is dubbed over in an American accent, or when disguise expert Sam Smith infiltrates the tomatoes 'hey, can somebody please pass the ketchup?'. Equally this film was probably a lot funnier in 1978 with the whole so bad its good concept. Unfortunately for 'Attack Of The Killer Tomatoes' spoof films such as the 'Airplane' and 'Naked Gun' series have been released and done this kind of comedy a lot better since.<br /><br />The acting is atrocious; there is zero continuity in the editing and it just feels genuinely slow and lacking energy. For a parody film to work you need a lot of things happening at once, one gag after the over. The singing in the film seems pointless and the adverts for the furniture store that flash across the screen are damn right bizarre, even for this film. Ultimately, however, you can see why this film is a cult one; I can't see many people being indifferent to it. Unfortunately terrible would be the way I would sum this up. | 0 |
Ronald Colman won a Best Actor Oscar for showy performance as a popular stage thespian who completely loses himself in his roles, particularly as Shakespeare's Othello. Critically-lauded George Cukor film has a marvelous pedigree, having been written by the estimable team of Ruth Gordon and Garson Kanin. Unfortunately, the witty banter comes off as self-conscious here, and the backstage business is overripe. Miklós Rózsa also won an Oscar for his score, and Shelley Winters has a few fine moments a tough waitress (when theatrical Colman breathlessly addresses her, she asks him, "What are ya? Some kind of nut?"). Otherwise, this scenario is awfully obvious, surprisingly draggy, and not very funny. *1/2 from **** | 0 |
From the moment Christopher Lee puts on a pair of punk sunglasses and tries to sneak into a punk rock club, you know you've got a stinker on your hands! This film had potential. Beneath all of the sludge there are the remnants of what could have been crafted into a decent film, if not an interesting one. The final product is a real mess, however. Aside from the gratuitous nudity and some very attractive women, Howling II winds up being a laughable excuse for a horror film. Christopher Lee gives it a nugget of credibility, but even he cannot raise it above the level of crap.<br /><br />Having never seen any of the other films in this series, this critic will be forced to accept on face value that this is a genuine continuation of the events in part one. We start off at a funeral for one of the characters from the original, and within the first ten minutes we find ourselves in Transylvania with a small group of heroes ready to battle a coven of werewolves. The film is paced fairly well, and there are not too many dead spots. The action is there; it just isn't filmed well. One bright spot is the music of a punk band called Babel. Though their song is played quite often, it is rather catchy.<br /><br />The problems with this film are great in number. First off, the acting is worse than pitiful. Christopher Lee is good enough, but that's where it ends. The two leads Reb Brown and Annie McEnroe are lacking in just about everything you'd want for such characters. The writing is wretched, the editing redundant, and the direction amateurish. There are a couple nice special effect gimmicks, but the cheesy ones far out weigh them in number. Sybil Danning is nice to look at, but her acting performance is less than satisfactory. Judd Omen looks the part he plays, but his voice and acting are unconvincing to say the least. Much of the dialog is in an unintelligible language that may or may not be Latin.<br /><br />I liked the general idea for the story. I always enjoy stories of true believers out to battle seemingly invincible forces of evil. One scene where a small group of good guys are trekking through a dark forest and shooting down a bunch of werewolves is even kind of exciting. Kind of. Maybe a bigger budget or a better director could have made the rest of the film a bit more compelling. 3 of 10 stars.<br /><br />The Hound.<br /><br />Side note: As of this writing, the censors at youtube.com have still not taken down the ending credits with Sybil Danning ripping off her top several times while the Babel song is playing! Catch it while you can! | 0 |
I work at a Blockbuster store and every week we have movies that come in with just a few copies, these are the kind of movies that the Sci-Fi channel shows. The kind of movie that nobody ever wants, and only that idiots rent, when they bring it back I ask them "was it any good?", they say "no we turned it off after 15 minutes!" Movies with terrible computer generated, super imposed monsters and such like, very unappealing.<br /><br />This is the same type of movie that Grendel is, and absolute waste of time, if you want a reasonably (and only reasonably) good Beowulf based movie then try Beowulf & Grendel , starring Gerard Butler, who is also starring in the eagerly anticipated 300, as King Leonidas of Sparta.<br /><br />Plus, later this year we have another Beowulf movie, with a star studded cast ranging from Anthony Hopkins and Brendan Gleeson, to Angelina Jolie and John Malkovich.<br /><br />But don't let that get your hopes up like we all did with Eragon, or we are all in for another big disappointment.<br /><br />And regarding rentals, here is my rule of thumb: If there is only one or two copies, don't rent it because its a load of crap.( This is true 99.9% of the time, usually not true if the title is foreign, or a documentary.) | 0 |
I have a nice collection on movies going, and this one was added to it. Number 274 to be exact. <br /><br />The title had me going at first. Splatter University. I thought this would be a great horror movie. Was I ever wrong. Don't get me wrong, this is not the worst movie I have ever seen, but it could have been a lot better. I love all movies, but this one was one that was more of a laugh then a scare. <br /><br />Poor audio quality, poor acting, and poor shot arrangements are some of the areas that could have been improved. 3 out of 10 stars.<br /><br />Movie is ideal for a good laugh. If your looking for one of those movies to make fun of, then this is one! | 0 |
Believe it or don't, i have my very own DVD copy of this "movie" which i bought at Walgreens for a great big whole dollar. I'm still not sure if it was a dollar well spent or a dollar foolishly wasted.<br /><br />Pretty amazing set designs and costumes. Apparently much thought and effort went into their making. The set designs are very Mexican in stylization. I liked them a lot. And Santa is impressive. One of the more impressive Santas in moviedom.<br /><br />I'm guessing the original intent and purpose of this movie was to be something uplifting and cheerful for a kids audience. But, somehow, it comes across quite deranged. In fact, i'm left stunned at how deranged it is.<br /><br />Maybe it's the English dubbing that makes it seems so deranged and bizarre. One of the reasons i prefer to experience movies in the original language they were made and the use of English subtitles as dubbing often gives an unintended strangeness. The kid voices were at least dubbed with actual kid voices as opposed to women pretending to be kids which tends to sound very, very weird.<br /><br />Did you know that demons in hell spend their free time dancing around doing ballet in their longjohns? You didn't? Neither did i until i watched this movie. One learns something new everyday.<br /><br />Is this movie actually worth watching? Now, that's a tossup. I can't in good conscience recommend it to anyone as it's quite disturbing in its own bizarre way. Yet, its unintentional bizarreness is what makes it worth watching. You decide what you're going to do. I dunno... for myself, it made me feel uncomfortable seeing demons constantly doing cutesy ballet moves. Now, that's just wrong... | 0 |
Absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The acting, the dialog, the manuscript, the sound, the lighting, the plot line. I actually can't say anything positive about this, although I enjoy Swedish movies. The fighting scenes are so ridiculous that it's impossible to take it seriously. And when the lead character just happens to loose his shirt, while dodging bullets in a strip bar, I'm not sure if it's supposed to be a joke, or if someone really thinks these are ingredients in a good film?! Regina Lund is the only half descent actor, but she disappears in a flood of laughable pronunciations and unbelievable reactions. It leaves you horrified that someone actually spent time and money on something like this... | 0 |
Like a relative that gives you a bad gift, Soul Survivors has its heart in the right place but trips up with a bad execution. Stephen Carpenter's writing/directing effort borrows freely from other, better films, such as Jacob's Ladder and Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). For those who haven't seen either of these films, I won't give the premise away; suffice to say it's not nearly as well handled here than in those two superior films.<br /><br />Melissa Sagemiller stars as Cassie, about to go away to college. Her current boyfriend Sean (Ben Affleck) and ex-boyfriend Matt (Wes Bentley), both friends, and Annabel (acerbic Eliza Dushku) are in a car accident after being pursued by two killers (?) in transparent masks. She survives the wreck, but while attending college has visions of the hospital ordeal and dead people reappear and disappear, leaving her in a state of total confusion: who is dead? Who's alive? What's real?<br /><br />Soul Survivors has the look of a bad been-there, done-that, gore-filled, blood-splattered, body-stacking teen exploitation flick. True, it has its share of killer-stalking-the-victim scenes (plentiful, repetitive, and mind-numbing), but at least it attempts to build suspense through ideas rather than cliches, unfortunately rather unsuccessfully. It breeds confusion much more often than cohesion, as the story becomes jumbled, messy and incoherent near key points of the mystery (predictable as it is.)<br /><br />Horror fans who pick up a copy will have no idea they are in for a film that is more concerned with building an uneasy facade of reality than delivering a body count. Credit goes to Carpenter for attempting to create something beyond a derivative teen horror flick; too bad he's created a derivative psychological thriller. Sagemiller also deserves kudos for showing strength in the central performance, actually developing her character and evoking some sense of emotion as the unraveling Cassie. It's great the filmmakers try something different, but the film ends up a mixed bag and failed experiment.<br /><br />4 out of 10 | 0 |
i was lucky enough to see A Chorus Line when it came to my city.. i was younger then.. but it was an Excellent play.. so would someone please tell me why in heavens name did they have to make a movie out of it.. and why Michael Douglas ??? He didnt suit the role.. this movie really sucked BIG time !!!<br /><br />my advise is NOT to rent this movie.. save your money for something better like "Cats" .... | 0 |
This was not the worst movie I've ever seen, but that's about as much as can be said about it. It starts off with some good atmosphere; the hospital is suitably sterile and alienating, the mood is set to "eerie". And then...nothing. Well, somethings. Just somethings that clearly don't fit in...and no effort is made to clarify the connection between the bizarre and yet not particularly intimidating critters, and the hospital they've taken over. I mean, come on, biker duds? Some band watched a bit too much Gwar.<br /><br />My personal favorite was the head demon, who looks rather a lot like a middle-aged trucker desperately attempting menace, while simultaneously looking like he'd really like prefer to sag down on an afghan-covered couch, undo his belt, pop a can of cheap beer (probably Schlitz), and watch the game. Honestly, I've seen far scarier truckers. At truckstops. Drinking coffee. WWWwoooooohHHHHHoooooooo!!!! Scary!!<br /><br />The other monsters are even more cartoonish, and even less scary. At least, on the DVD, the videos give some explanation of their presence in the hospital...they apparently just randomly pop up in places, play some bippy "metal", and cause people to be dead a bit. Barring a few good special effects, and acting that is not entirely terrible given a lack of decent writing, there's just nothing here. It's a background-noise movie only. | 0 |
Ah, Bait. How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways. 1. You try to be funny, but are corny and unenjoyable; every joke is predictable and expected, and when it comes, does not inspire laughter. Instead, I want to hurl. 2. You try to be dramatic, but are unbelievable; the woman overacts to a terrible degree, and the "bad guy" looks like Bill Gates, and is about as scary as...well, Bill Gates. (Just try to imagine Bill Gates trying to intimidate somebody with a gun. Doesn't work, does it? A lawyer, maybe, but not a gun. Doesn't fit.) As for Jamie Foxx, well, just watching him try to deliver a dramatic and heartfelt dialogue is ludicrous, and makes me want to hurl. 3. You try to be action-packed, but instead are dull and dragging too many times. And when the action heats up, the tripod for the camera must have been lost, for the scenes wobble more than those in The Blair Witch Project, and I find myself nauseated, and once again I want to hurl. 4. You try to be a good movie, but you failed, you FAILED, YOU FAILED! I would rather walk barefoot across the Sahara with a pack full of beef jerky and no water, no sunscreen, and only Meryl Streep for company. This hell would be lovelier than a single minute more spent watching everyone in Bait overact their way through an idiotically written story with Bill Gates for a bad guy, and let's not even talk about the massive bomb that goes off in a car that Jamie Foxx's character has just driven OFF A CLIFF, but somehow manages to escape...just kill me now, or do the right thing and promise me that somehow I'll never have to watch a movie that is this bad, ever again. | 0 |
As the summary says you just made the most ignorant comment i have ever heard on an RPG. You seriously thought they were gay? Are you retarded? If you went to go save your best friend and someone decides out of the goodness of his heart to help you then you are in a serious debt to that man. Lavitz was a good person and each time they helped each other it made them closer as friends. They weren't gay lovers like your bitching about. And to let you know the game is set in a medieval time period. Back then, women did just prepare meals while the men fought. Do you even know your history? Do you know how long it took for women to be accepted in the army in present day? This game contains a lot of realism even though your too damn slow obviously to catch it, and you really need to spit out some solid proof instead of ignorant assumptions based off your misguided act to interpret the story. | 0 |
It doesn't even merit a review, other than as a warning to potential viewers. It's a somewhat generic ghost story about an actress haunting a studio during the filming of a WWII period drama. There's no fear involved, no suspense whatsoever, nor any surprises. One shocking moment that looks a bit too silly to be shocking. The visual style is very flat and dull, although there is some really nice editing once in a while. The story never comes together, and the films is really just a total bust. 4/10. | 0 |
I had to write a review of this film after reading another comment saying that this is Sidney Poitier's best movie. Poitier had just returned from over a decade's break in film acting and he is clearly creaky here. 11 of his films are mentioned in Wikipedia and they don't include this. 5 of his films are on the AFI's list of top 100 inspiring movies, again, not including this. Berenger and Poitier, rube and city slicker set out to hunt down a dangerous psychopath before he crosses the border to Canada. Some of the attempts at comedy in this film clearly fail and Berenger and Poitier's bonding was cringeworthy and awkward (not helped by a completely bland script). Kirstie Alley (as the hostage) was underused, and almost entirely ignored when she was on screen. Some attempt at suspense is made, for example when you're meant to try and guess which of 5 men on a fishing trip is the murderer (all of them are type-cast villains). I understand that this is the entire appeal to most fans out there. I guessed who it was and I wasn't really trying hard.<br /><br />If you're a Berenger fan, watch the Sniper (1993), you even get to see Billy Zane strutting his stuff. It's much better. All in all I'd give Shoot to Kill 3/10. It's not daring, and it's just too straightforward for me. | 0 |
This is just flat out unwatchable. If there's a story in here somewhere, it's so deeply buried beneath the horrid characters and jarring camera work that's it's indiscernible. There's a group of vampire hunters who go around doing their thing, and the vampires they kill have little aliens inside of them. They pop their heads out and talk like Speedy Gonzales. If you can imagine a blood and gore covered alien sock puppet screaming in horror as a cowboy dude zaps it with a cattle prod, well, that's what you get here. These folks are loud, obnoxious, violent, and just extremely annoying. Then there are some anti-human humans, who stand around in their CGI spaceship being so incredibly pompous that it's impossible to take. These folks make Hillary Clinton seem like a right-wing extremist in comparison. They're friends with some vampires, or something...who cares.<br /><br />Then there's the camera work. Remember how everybody hated the thousand-cuts-a-minute crap from the recent Rolleball remake? The folks who made this movie LOVE that stuff. There's enough of it in here for three really crappy nu-metal videos on MTV.<br /><br />Nuff said. This thing smells. In comparison, Dracula 3000 is a masterwork. | 0 |
It was just a terrible movie. No one should waste their time. Go see something else. This movie is, without a doubt, one of the worst movies I have ever seen in my life. If you want to see a good movie, don't see Made Men. | 0 |
This movie should be shown to film school students as an example of what NOT to do. The original kicked some major tire squealing butt, this horrible disaster breaks the cardinal rule of Bruckheimer films, which is: we all know they suck, but they have great action. This film has NO ACTION. This film is BORING. Where are the cars? Where are the chases? Where's the tension? Where's the suspense? Where's the rush? Where!!?? This isn't really a movie at all, it's a bad commercial. 50 cars in 24 hours? That is wrong. They have 3 days to steal them, the ad is wrong. How bad is that? The leads acting is stiff, wooden and forced. The villain, the cop, the others...who cares. They utter their pointless lines, they serve the illogical plot. They slog through it the best they can as the music video director says "don't worry we'll make a lot of fast cuts and no one will notice how bad the film is" or "we'll fix it with lots of loud music" The "script" isn't really a script at all, it's more like a list of cliches with an ending that is a total ripoff of: -------Warning - possible spoiler------ 5------4-----3-----2-----1------ The Fugitive. The biggest crime of all is the underuse of Vinnie Jones, man....this is the baddest, coolest mofo since Jules in Pulp Fiction. And what do they do!? They make him a mute who's hardly in the film! Make Vinnie the main villain and he could have saved the film. How could they have been so dumb? How? How? Why? The original film is very entertaining with a cool trick at the end that gets the driver away. The original has a great 40 minute chase that delivers! Go find the original. Or if you're craving some real car chase action go rent RONIN. The chases in Ronin raised the bar by which all other car chases will now be judged. Bruckheimer and Cage had all that money, all those resources, all that experience, and they can't even come close to matching a film made 25 years ago for $250,000? How can that be? You feel like you got ripped off after seeing this movie. Where I was once excited to see Coyote Ugly, Remember the Titans and Pearl Harbor, now I say: God help us all. <br /><br /> | 0 |
I still haven't gotten to see all of this; it's running on cable right now, and I seem to keep coming in on the middle of it. My main reason for being interested in it is that I'm a Bill Paxton fan; he's a pretty good actor, and has turned in consistently good work over the course of his career.<br /><br />The other thing is that, while never really a fan of the old series, I kinda liked Thunderbirds for the ships and effect work. Derek Meddings was quite possibly the best in the business during the sixties and seventies, and his designs for the International Rescue craft are wonderful. The current team has done a fine job of translating his work to the big screen.<br /><br />BUT...<br /><br />This is one lame story. The kids are asked to drive it, and while they do an okay job, it's hard to suspend your disbelief, especially when you have Brains' eight-year-old son flying T2, an enormous multi-ton transport with all the aerodynamics of a Buick. Everywhere you look, you see a Ford logo. Product placement is way over the top here, and it's annoying. Ben Kingsley does an good job as The Hood, but he can only do so much with a one-dimensional role. If you can accept the film on its very slim merits, Thunderbirds is a fun, enjoyable ride. Just don't look too closely at the machinery that drives it.<br /><br />ADDENDUM: I finally got to see all of this, and it's worse than I thought. The acting is fairly uniformly poor, and while the effects are fairly good, the story on multiple viewings has gotten cheesier. The overdone product placement for Ford is annoying, and the kids as central characters grate on my remaining nerves. As with The Avengers, if you ignore the source material, it's bearable. But not very. Watch the original show, and you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />And a word of advice to Jon Frakes. Take a refresher course at the Director's Guild. You can do better than this, old friend.<br /><br />Another footnote...<br /><br />I saw this again. Last night. On Telemundo. Dubbed in Spanish, with cheesy comedy sound effects. And yes, I came in roughly in the middle, with Ben, Ron and Sophia in their fight scene on Tracy Island. <br /><br />I didn't think it was possible for an already lame movie to be worse, but it was. It was embarrassingly bad. <br /><br />If this had been done straight, no kids-to-the-rescue, no tongue-in-cheek jokes, it might have worked. As it is, it's just another beloved childhood joy that's been ruined. | 0 |
During the Civil War, there were many cases of divided loyalties; obviously, many occurred "In the Border States", where North met South by happenstance of geography. From the border, young father Owen Moore goes off to join the Union Army. Shortly, Confederate soldier Henry B. Walthall, separated from his regimen, wanders onto the enemy's property, desperate for water; he finds a supply where the Unionist's young daughter Gladys Egan sits. When the Yankee soldiers track him down, Little Gladys innocently helps the Confederate hide. Later, when he returns to kill her father, the little girl's kindness is remembered. A sweet, small story from director D.W. Griffith. Location footage and humanity are lovingly displayed. <br /><br />**** In the Border States (6/13/10) D.W. Griffith ~ Henry B. Walthall, Owen Moore, Gladys Egan | 0 |
I cannot believe the same guy directed this crap and Dracula 2000. Dracula 2000 was innovative, fresh, and well written, if poorly acted.<br /><br />This pile can't even claim that. It starts with the defeat of Dracula at the end of Dracula 2000. Then ignores the narrative afterwards describing what happened after that. Following the narrative properly could have made this a good sequel somehow, but Craven chose to go in the style of his older films, having no good tie but the main villain's name.<br /><br />Even the actor playing Dracula was different (going from dark hair in Dracula 2000 to a blonde here).<br /><br />Avoid this movie if you have any respect for your taste in movies. | 0 |
I don't think this movie was rated correctly. I took my copy and blacked out the PG rating and wrote down R. I would NOT recommend this for anyone under 17 or 18, whatever the R limit is.<br /><br />Why? It contains a scene in the jungle with several topless Indian women. I don't know about you, but that's not something for little children to be watching. True, it might be the traditional "clothing style" of the African (?) Indians, but... I think partial nudity should give a movie an R rating.<br /><br />I haven't seen the movie recently, but I guess otherwise, it was alright. | 0 |
<br /><br />I am a big-time horror/sci-fi fan regardless of budget, but after watching countless horror movies late night on cable and video, this has to be the worst of all movies. With bloody special effects (what looked like a roast covered in fake blood or ketchup that kept being shown over and over again) and people running around screaming from left, then to right, then back again. It should have stayed with the beginning convenience store scene and stopped there and been 15 minutes. Instead, it is dragged out very long. It is very, very x5 low budget. Many scenes were way, way too long. Narrator sounded very amateurish like a random person out of junior high was talking. This is the only movie to rate lower in my opinion than Manos, Red Zone Cuba, Benji,and Godzilla vs. megalon despite their higher budgets. 10 snoozes, try to stay awake through whole movie in one setting or better yet, avoid it like you would an undead brain-eating mob. The Why-Did-I-Ever-See-This-Piece-Of-Zombie-Dung-Blues. Epitome of nauseatingly bad made movies etc..ad infinitum. -infinity/10 | 0 |
The French film "Extension Du Domaine De La Lutte" directed by iconoclast film maker Philippe Harel is based on the book of the same name written by a controversial writer Michel Houellebecq.He has also worked on this film's scenario.According to British cinema magazine Sight and Sound,it is also known as "Whatever".This film has been hailed as a breath of fresh air for French cinema due to its not so common theme of sexual politics and its implications on two stupid information technology workers.The film is marred by its much too evident voice over which introduces us to the main character.This makes us viewers feel as if we are watching a book that is bring read. The basic premise of problems related to loneliness due to chronic sexual drought is fine but the film goes out of hand once the hero starts recounting the misery faced by him and his friend.Instead of sticking to its main topic the film veers in other directions leading to its downfall.Beware:some women viewers might find not only the film but even its two heroes as moronic misogynists. | 0 |
In the many films I have seen Warren Oates, I have come to a definite conclusion, here is one talented individual. I first saw Mr. Oates back in the 1960's television series called Stoney Burke. From then on, I followed his career closely and felt he was destined for great roles. That happened in 1974, when Sam Peckinpah gave him top billing in a film called 'Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia.' Of course, his biggest claim to fame was his magnificent role in 'The Wild Bunch'. I have always thought he was quite able to bring any character a certain magic, that is until I saw him in this flop. The movie is called " Chandler ", a tribute to the iron fisted detectives of the 1950's created by Raymond Chandler. Because, the synopsis said it was about a hard nose Private Eye, I was immediately interested. However, I sat patiently through the entire film and found it to be a dull, dis-interesting, slow pace, twisted, confusing saga which if it had a theme or plot must have been left on some dark back room self. Collectively and with some of Hollywood's best supporting stars, such as Alex Dreier, Mitch Ryan, Gordon Pinsent, Charles McGraw, Richard Loo and Scatman Crothers, this movie had enough power to reach Mach five, however, it fizzled on the launchpad and went no where. As a result, one of my favorite actor's got stuck in a poorly made vehicle which never got off the ground. ** | 0 |
I gave this movie a rating of 1 (Awful). The only reason that it should even get a 1 instead of a big -0- is Ben Kingsley, who always shines not matter what terrible material is thrown his way.<br /><br />Mira Sorvino is so out of her element here that as a viewer one simply can't get over the fact that she is even in such a piece.<br /><br />Stupid, stupid story and horrible production. Do NOT waste your video rental $. | 0 |
I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"<br /><br />Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :( | 0 |
I was unsure whether or not Andy Sidaris could repeat his success with the cinematic hit "Malibu Express." With his film Fit to Kill he has proved that Sidaris is a serious filmmaker and not just a one-shot director. The plot written by Sidaris, which was ungratefully passed up by the Academy, is a complex screenplay involving many unseen twists and turns. The main characters composed work for a sexually based radio station known as KSXY. Cleverly, KSXY is actually their secret headquarters. In "Fit to Kill" they confront their long-time nemesis Kane, who is trying to steal one of Russia's most prized diamonds. A well-written screenplay is not all, excellent acting by the cast helps to ensure this film as a cult classic. Panned by the critics and the box office, this film will be appreciated in years to come. It is now suffering the same fate as Clockwork Orange and Taxi Driver did, but in the future will undoubtly become recognized. I am disappointed no critic circles have recognized Andy Sidaris's trademark filmmaking. The costumes, the special effects, all help to compliment this already beautiful piece of filmmaking. It may do you best to ignore the dismal 3 rating on this film and go out and rent it for yourself. My personal rating is 10/10. The drama is as thick as the blockbuster Runaway Bride, and the action better or equal to the cinematic masterpiece Last Action Hero. Andy, keep up the good work. | 0 |
Who ever wrote the two or three glowing reviews were either involved in the making of this film, term used loosely, or bank rolling it, and should the latter be the case, I would want my seven dollars back! The actors, again term used loosely, are awful, in fact almost none of them did anything ever again which is a relief. The scenery and everything about this screams, we had 7 dollars to work with and a day to do it in. Was this filmed in someones back yard? Everything about this project says, low budget. The actors at best were D list. Do not waste your time, unless of course you want to take it back and try to get the rental back. The lead bad guy looks like that punk from the 70s show that ended up marrying his grandmother dummee moore. My local blockbuster video store lists this as the movie most returned with sad commentary attached. Even as a 99 cent rental this flick gathers dust. Someone really must have owed some favors. This is a super stinker and I give it 10 turds. | 0 |
This review applies for the cut of the film that's generally available as "Fury of the Wolfman". I understand there is an uncut version out there with additional footage, and I would hope that it contained at least eight or nine crucial scenes that seem to be missing from the cut known as "Fury of the Wolfman". In short, the movie makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It is utter nonsense, and incomprehensible nonsense at that.<br /><br />Waldemar Daninsky, that venerable lycanthropic antihero portrayed by Paul Naschy in a seemingly endless series of films, is apparently a normal guy who has just come back from a trip to Tibet, where he was attacked by a yeti. Somehow this has turned him into a werewolf. Daninsky is a doctor, a scientist, and an instructor at what appears to be a college. One of his female colleagues, Ilona Elmann, is involved in a vague form of hypnosis..."Chematodes", a nonsense word used to refer to a bunch of wires attached to a victim's head. Ellman feels this will enable her to "change the direction of the human brain", naturally enabling her to rule the world, provided she can get us all attached to those wires with no trouble.<br /><br />Elmann is also into werewolves, because she kidnaps Daninsky and takes him to her hidden laboratory. She has a bunch of other people trapped there as well. Some of them look like gypsies, and are chained up, being in varying states of lucidity. Others are clearly hippies. Elmann feels that one day she may be able to "help them be human again" (?), but in the meantime she controls them with her chematodes. Waldemar becomes her hairy hit man, wandering around like a werewolf zombie--that is until the filmmakers decide to use footage spliced in from another Naschy werewolf film, "Frankenstein's Bloody Terror" (don't ask), at which point Naschy's werewolf makeup changes considerably and he lurches around like an animal.<br /><br />Is this making any sense? No? Good. That's the film's saving grace. It doesn't try and engage you on any kind of intellectual level, it just goes full speed ahead with whatever nonsense dialogue or cheap horror movie sets it can muster up. "Fury of the Wolfman" may be the best Halloween party movie ever. You absolutely do not need to pay attention to it, and in fact if you do, you will be completely confused. | 0 |
I saw the trailer of the film several times at theater and I excited. It looked like a classic action thriller like the ones made in 1990's. It recalled me also Fugitive movies, a cat and mouse chase between Douglas and Sutherland. However, The Sentinel is the most tasteless action thriller of all time. As I see, many people say that this is like a TV movie. Not exactly. Firstly, there are much more better TV movies in this genre. Secondly, TV movies might be very fun sometimes, but this film is the exact opposite of having a good time. It is not stylish at all visually and the most important, the tone of the movie is unappealing. This is not an action movie, there are two action scenes consist of a chase and a clash. Also they are not big action scenes, but the worse is that those action scenes are very tasteless like the whole movie. The love affair between Douglas and Bassinger was very unnecessary. Besides, the assassination plot to the president is the most cliché story in this genre either, but they insist on that. And this is not a cat and mouse film as it is supposed to be. Although, Douglas is very old now, he has still potential for acting in an action thriller. In the film, Michael Douglas cannot be like Tommy Lee Jones, for example. Sutherland is a wrong choice either, because you feel as if you watch Jack Bauer and somehow, its character is one of the reasons which make the film like a TV movie, Eva Longoria Parker is a strange choice, of course she is too passive or straight in this movie, because she is a soap opera actress. The movie was not fun even one second to me, so I could not get over for a while. | 0 |
Well, basically, the movie blows! It's Blair Witch meets Sean Penn's ill conceived fantasy about going to Iraq to show the world what the "War on Terror" is really about. The script sounds like it was written by 8th grader (no offense to 8th graders); the two main actors over-act the entire film; they used the wrong kind of camera and the wrong type of film(not that i know anything about those things--but it just didn't look like real documentaries I've watched), and worst of all Christian Johnson took a great idea and made it suck. It reminded me of the time I tried to draw a picture of my dog and ended up with a really bad stick figure looking thing that looked more like a giant turd. I'd rather watch the Blair Witch VIII, than sit through that again. | 0 |
Bonfires of the Vanities is a film drenched in flop sweat. I can recall no film that has tried so hard to be so unrelentingly outrageous, provocative and important, yet failed so consistently across the board. It is like a stand up comic who's not getting laughs, but can't leave the stage. The harder the film tries, the louder each attempt at a laugh results in a resounding thud. The desperation the film displays is so glaring it almost rouses pity for all those involved.<br /><br />The film achieves laugh-out-loud status only twice. Once is in the sight of Geraldo Rivera playing an obnoxious, arrogant and amoral TV tabloid journalist -- which is funny only because he apparently doesn't realize he is playing himself. The other scene that deserves to be laughed at is the film's final "big moment," wherein the judge played by Morgan Freeman delivers the sanctimonious lecture about what morality is ("it's what your mama taught ya!"). The pomposity of the moment is insulting to the point of being absurd. <br /><br />Yet, one must admit it is a noble effort. It does have a good, if poorly cast, band of actors, who try to make characters out of cardboard thin caricatures. The film looks professionally made and the little cinematic flourishes that director Brian DePalma just loves are apparent, if not particularly effective. But the film, which apparently wishes to be a commentary on modern morals and ethics, never arises above the level of cartoon. Satire requires style. Farce requires energy. Even sitcom requires timing. But the best Bonfires can muster is desperation. In the end, you don't want to laugh, you just want to turn away. | 0 |
I am not saying that Night of the Twisters was horrible, but it was far from great. Mediocre at absolute best. I seems though that every time one type of movie is released, a second must be around the same time. (Think about Armageddon and Deep Impact, Volcano and Dante's Peak) Night of the Twisters is really just Twister except worse and with mundane special effects.<br /><br />I have nothing against the actors who starred in it, even if they weren't great, it was the movie itself, the directing, the special effects, the whole storyline was just too strange to interpret. A series of tornadoes strike a town and basically the movie is about people trying to find family and friends and deal with the damage.<br /><br />I really don't know why it seems as though duplicates of disaster movies are released almost in sync with each other, but this one would have been better with Bill Paxton and Helen Hunt. | 0 |
Winter Kills is a terrible, incoherent and very disappointing conspiracy comedy-thriller from little-known director William Richert. While watching the film, I honestly felt as if I was the emperor in the classic fable The Emperor's New Clothes. The film made me feel like a fool because I couldn't make head nor tail of the serpentine plot and the nonsensical characters. But I felt kind of embarrassed to admit to myself that the film was tying my brain up in knots. So I stuck with it to the end, hoping that the whole tangled mess would untangle itself. Then I realised.... the film is SUPPOSED to be serpentine, nonsensical and illogical, because that's the whole point. This is a satirical look at conspiracy theories and theorists, with the knotting-up of the plot used as a metaphor for the knotting-up of truths, half-truths and lies that define any conspiracy. Even when I got that the joke was on me, I still felt Winter Kills to be a pretty awful movie.<br /><br />Young Nick Kegan (Jeff Bridges) is the younger brother of a former United States President who was assassinated in Philadelphia. Nick is present when a dying man claims that he shot the President and gives detailed information about where he hid the gun. Nick follows the clues, but every step of the way the people helping him seem to die in mysterious circumstances. Also, his father Pa Kegan (John Huston), a vulgar and disgustingly wealthy businessman, keeps interfering with Nick's investigation. The deeper he delves into the assassination, the more Nick realises that he is descending into a web of complex lies and red herrings, where nothing is as it seems and no-one can be trusted.<br /><br />The film is an utter nightmare to follow, and in many ways is not worth trying to follow for the afore-mentioned reason that it deliberately tangles itself up. The cast is packed with extraordinary talent but most of them are wasted. Toshiro Mifune has one of the briefest and most pointless cameo roles in cinematic history; Elizabeth Taylor appears uncredited and has not a single line of dialogue; Richard Boone is given what seems to be an interesting role but his character goes nowhere. John Huston has the best role as the powerful patriarch and provides us with the film's few enjoyable moments with his acerbic delivery. Anthony Perkins also gets a creepy role and handles it well, though his screen time is far too short to do complete justice to the character. Some nudity and sex scenes are tossed in for no real reason and, while they're quite graphic and might appeal to voyeurs, they really belong in another film. The film's semi-comic climax is farcical and disappointing, yet paradoxically memorable in its weird little way. There's obviously a cult audience out there somewhere for Winter Kills.... but I won't be counting myself among its number. | 0 |
As interesting as a sheet of cardboard, this dispensable period piece has little going for it. It's overly wordy and fails spectacularly to evoke the tension and fear that the real-life characters must have felt as they dodged the French Revolution's fickle hand of justice. Eric Rohmer at 82? It shows. | 0 |
It's a ghost story. It's a cannibalism story. It's a revenge story. It's a very poorly done film with a lot of violence. I suppose it follows cheaply along the lines of every slasher movie you've ever seen. It has the usual isolated place, the cocky campers, heading off to the wilderness. Granted, there are some pretty intense scenes. It's just so dull. Bad editing and the whole works. There are ghost children who sound like they are talking into a wastebasket. I'm not really sure what rules the ghosts and the psycho with the seed cap are playing by. It also has the gross out scene where a man eats a piece of meat which is actually what's left of his wife. A friend of mine once asked me why it is necessary to show this kind of gratuitous, sick violence. I fear that it's just another step in our desensitized evolution. Three is no cleverness here, no tongue in cheek, only a sad waste of time. Lots of blood; little plot. | 0 |
Or maybe that's what it feels like. Anyway, "The Bat People" is about as flat as a rug, bland as a sack of flour and as exciting as a rock...and as intelligent as all three combined.<br /><br />Okay, plot in a nutshell (fitting vessel, that...): a doctor (Moss) gets bitten by a bat while checking out a cave with his wife (McAndrew) and subsequently turns into a bat - well, not exactly a bat but a bat-like creature that looks more like a werewolf who kills his victims in a first-person camera viewpoint....<br /><br />But then there's the business of the sheriff (Pataki), who is about the WORST kind of sheriff: the hick kind. He hassles people, he leers at married women, he steals handkerchiefs from haberdasheries (the FIEND!), he smokes with one of those cigarette holders in his mouth and talks at the same time, making him look and sound like Buford T. Justice in "Smokey and the Bandit" and (this is the worst part)... HE'S THE MOST LIKEABLE CHARACTER IN THE WHOLE FILM!<br /><br />The whole film, though, is just TV movie-of-the-week-like crapola (guano, in this case). It's an AIP, for crying out loud! What did you expect, Oscar caliber stuff?<br /><br />And what else can you say about a film that not even MST3K can save?<br /><br />How about...no stars for "The Bat People", full version OR MST3K version!<br /><br />By the way, if there's ever a sequel for this movie, I'm burying my TV. | 0 |
"Indian burial ground": If those three words appear anywhere in a real-estate listing, look for a different neighborhood. A young couple with a young daughter and a toddler-age son move into a Maine house adjacent to a pet cemetery--and, after a l-o-o-o-ng hike, an ancient Indian burial ground. Seems the Indian ground can bring Fido or Fluffy back from the dead--if you don't mind having a raving hell beast for a pet. It can do the same for dead people--if you don't mind having a homicidal zombie around the house.<br /><br />Throw in a busy two-lane blacktop, speeding big rigs, a well-meaning (if somewhat dim) old neighbor, and one kid who really doesn't get enough supervision, and I think you can figure out what happens from there--an over-the-top, illogical mess, which, in all fairness, does offer up a few scares.<br /><br />Well, there are worse Stephen King adaptations (such as "Maximum Overdrive," which King also directed). But there are far better ones, too (such as "Salem's Lot," "The Dead Zone," and both versions of "The Shining"). | 0 |
A BDSM "sub-culture" of Los Angeles serves as backdrop for this low budget and shabbily constructed mess, plainly a vanity piece for its top-billed player, Celia Xavier, who also produces and scripts while performing a dual role as twin sisters Vanessa and Celia. A question soon develops as to whether or not some rather immoderate camera, lighting and editing pyrotechnics can ever reach a point of connection to a weak and often incoherent narrative that will not be taken seriously by a sensate viewer. Celia is employed as a highly motivated probation officer for the County of Los Angeles, while her evil natured twin has become an iconic figure within her fetishistic world largely because of erotic performances upon CD-ROMS, but when disaster befalls "Mistress Vanessa", virtuous Celia, determined to unearth her sister's vicious attacker, begins a new job as a "sex slave" at the private Castle Club where the specialty of the house is a "dungeon party". Two FBI field agents (whose deployment to the Vanessa case is ostensibly required due to her involvement with internet BDSM sites), in addition to a Los Angeles Police Department homicide detective, are assigned to investigate the crime, while endeavouring to provide security for Celia whose enthusiastic performance in her new vocation is avidly enough regarded by her customers as to have created conditions of personal danger for her. Flaws in logic and continuity abound, such as a homicide being allocated to L.A.P.D.'s Operations-South Bureau, a region of the metropolis that is far removed from the setting of the film. Direction is unfocused and not aided by erratic post-production editing and sound reproduction. The mentioned photographic gymnastics culminate with a batty montage near the movie's end of prior footage that is but tangentially referent to the scenario. One solid acting turn appears among this slag: Stan Abe as a zealous FBI agent. | 0 |
I've never really considered myself much of "student" when it comes to watching films, I watch them, form an opinion and that's it. But Unhinged changed all this. This film is without a doubt the most inept attempt at film making I've ever seen. Every kid who rocks up at university thinking they're gonna be the next Spielberg or Tarantino needs to be handed this film with a handbook titled "How Not to Make A Film". Not only is there no story to be had, the film makers weren't even competent enough to make a film worth watching. It's been a while since I saw it, but all I can say is watch the overhead tracking shots in the opening scenes. They are never ending! It's almost like having your teeth pulled, only not as much fun. | 0 |
I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism? | 0 |
This movie was a disappointment. I was looking forward to seeing a good movie. I am the type of person who starts a movie and doesn't turn it off until the end, but I was forcing myself not to turn it off. <br /><br />Theonly reason why I didn't turn it off was because I am a huge Christian Slater fan and I wanted to see him act in it. I was really speechless after I finished watching the movie. <br /><br />This movie was one of the worst movies that I have seen in my life. Thank you Christian Slater for putting some humor into it. If you hadn't been in this movie I would of been bored out of my mind.<br /><br />I also agree that Anthony Hopkins needs to stick to acting. By the time the movie was over I didn't even get the plot. I was both confused and annoyed. | 0 |
Two old buddies are sent to Japan to get back results of a genetic research containing videotape, which is stolen by the black suited ninjas at the beginning of the movie. First they just have to learn some ninja skill, because "only ninja can beat the ninja."<br /><br />Sakura killers tries hard to be enjoyable ninja-flick but fails that badly. The whole movie is just so hollow and predictable that is hard to say anything good about it: Same plot has been seen in different variations dozens of times before, characters are too briefly drawn, direction is dull and script doesn't offer anything surprising, even in the ending scene, which by itself reduced movie's (trash)value.<br /><br />Even 80's ninja-flick-fan, who understands the esthetic of trash-movies, is hard to find this movie even barely enjoyable. It simply doesn't offer anything new to viewer, neither in visual level nor in plot. Shurikens are thrown and katanas are swinging, but it's not enough to lead the movie direction it meant to be and recurred similar fighting scenes numbs even the most calloused viewer after the first 30 minutes.<br /><br />It's hard to recommend movie to anyone. Even Franco Nero's clumsy performance in "Enter the Ninja" falls behind Sakura killer's American-ninjas. Even in visual level movie doesn't have any balls and it's waste of time to try to find any great fighting scenes in this movie: There isn't any. In all, one of the most futile ninja-flicks, I've ever seen. Doesn't interest even in curiosity. Trust me on this one.<br /><br />½ out of 10. | 0 |
I remember watching this film back in 86' when it first came out & what an awful film. The acting was atrocious the plot was so flimsy it would or is that should have blew away in a breath of wind. I think it put me to sleep on more than one occasion & i was not tired that i remember. Please avoid at all costs better still have all your teeth taken out with no anaesthetic cos that would be more entertaining. It's just a pity i couldn't give it a zero or a negative score. I wish i had not wasted my money getting this one from the video shop all i can say was that the tape it was on was still brand new practically hardly surprising as the film was so poor. If i remember right i sat & watched it with a girl i really wanted to go out with & the fact she was sat next to me was still not enough to keep me awake thats how bad this film was. | 0 |
I never was an avid viewer of "Crocodile Hunter", but did occasionally see an episode, or a bit of an episode, and when the news spread about Steve Irwin's death from a stingray attack in 2006, it certainly caught my attention. This movie, with Steve and his wife, Terri, playing themselves, but in a fictional story, was released in 2002, but I didn't hear of it until several years later, and even after that, it took me a while to get around to seeing it. Well, now I have seen it, and after looking here first (more than once), and seeing its rating, I was not surprised at how unimpressive it turned out to be, though it could have been a BIT better. Apparently, it's supposed to be a comedy, so a major problem with it is that it isn't very funny at all.<br /><br />A U.S. satellite beacon falls down from space and lands in Australia, where it is swallowed by a crocodile! While Steve and Terri Irwin are on a mission to capture this crocodile from a place where it terrorizes the cattle on a ranch owned by the crazy Brozzie Drewitt, and are unaware of what's inside it, two CIA agents are sent to Australia to retrieve the beacon! The agents are assisted by Jo Buckley, and the ranch owner and her dogs might make the mission more difficult for them! On Steve and Terri's mission, they face other types of dangerous wildlife, not just the crocodile, and since they have no clue that the croc has anything unusual inside it, when Steve sees the CIA agents after them, he mistakes them for poachers! <br /><br />Not only did I not laugh once while watching this film, the only part that really made me smile was Steve Irwin using a big snake to scare off one of the CIA agents. Apart from that, I don't think I found anything even mildly amusing. It's also a bit of an incoherent mess, switching back and forth from the Australian Outback to the CIA headquarters, and it seems like clips from "Crocodile Hunter" and clips from an action thriller (or something like that) put together for some reason. Also added to that mix are the ranch scenes, which also seem to be from somewhere else, and as funny as Brozzie Drewitt, played by Magda Szubanski, is supposed to be, she's not. At one point, we see her farting, so we have a fart joke, a MAJOR cliché in modern comedy! Are they SO hard to resist?! I also found the typical "Crocodile Hunter" scenes, with Steve wrestling crocodiles and holding other dangerous creatures and talking about them to viewers, to be tedious, but I guess the fact that I was never a devout fan of the show didn't help.<br /><br />Steve Irwin was admired by many as a conservationist, and is sadly missed by them, while there are also those who say he messed with nature and had it coming to him. No matter which side you're on, "The Crocodile Hunter: Collision Course" is not a well crafted movie. I'm sure it does help if you're a big Steve Irwin fan, but even if you are, there's no guarantee that you would like this movie, as some fans clearly haven't been impressed. In fact, it seems that some of them have found this movie to be worse than I have, so maybe it WON'T help. Like I said, there's no guarantee. I would say whatever you may think of Steve Irwin and his show, this movie was unnecessary. The attempt to combine what is usually seen in "Crocodile Hunter" with a fictional story unfortunately failed, and a viewer may find that this film seems longer than ninety minutes! | 0 |
This movie must have been the absolute worst movie i have ever seen. My sister and her boyfriend went to rent Zodiac (2007) and got this one by accident. thought it was a joke before the actual movie. this was terrible i was waiting for it to get scary and it never did. this movie had not actual facts about the real Zodiac killer. The filmmakers clearly didn't even bother to research anything on the killings... they only liked the name... so they decided to write a script about nothing true to its name. I am upset i didn't realize it wasn't the movie sooner. I try to like something out of every movie, i don't hate movies... ever... except this one. If you could have given it no stars, i definitely would have. 1 out of 10. | 0 |
A handful of critics have awarded this film with positive comments. I don't wish to argue with their opinion, but I strongly disagree. When I first watched this film I was mildly impressed. But after comparing it with other films, particularly with the late master, Bruce Lee I quickly changed my mind. In fact, if it wasn't for the title of the film, I would never have bought it. Game of Death 2 doesn't relate to the original Game of Death, (except it shares one character, Billy Lo.)<br /><br />I was stunned to see how similar Game of Death 2 was compared to Enter the Dragon. The plots have striking similarities: Both Bruce Lee and Bobby Lo are on a mission to avenge a relative. The two locations are similar, in which they both are very isolated and are surrounded by thousands of Blackbelts. There is an element of prostitution in both films (women are sent two the guests rooms in both films.) Both Han (Enter the Dragon) and Lewis's henchman have a hand missing. Their is an underground drug operation in Enter the Dragon, believe it or not, there is one in Game of Death 2. Han has a pet cat in Enter the Dragon, the director has used his imagination and awarded Lewis with a pet monkey! The list continues. <br /><br />Regarding other aspects of the film, such as the script and the acting, I felt it was very poor. It seemed to me that the director was looking for a group of martial artists to star in the film and prayed they could act. <br /><br />On a positive scale, I cannot deny that the choreography is impressive. Although the fighting sequences have strong elements of acrobatics in them, they are none the less skillfully performed. However, as the plot is insufficient, i couldn't relate to the characters, therefore the fighting sequences were more exhibitions rather than having a meaning to the film. <br /><br />In conclusion I would say this film is recommendable to any martial-arts fans, but for those who enjoy a solid action film, with a good storyline and strong characters, I seriously wouldn't recommend this film. My opinions towards this film may seem very bias and one-sided, but when Bruce Lee set a new standard in the martial arts cinema, particularly after his masterpiece: Enter the Dragon, this film failed to rise to these standards. If anything they imitated a truly brilliant martial-arts film, in hope of achieving the same level of fame. <br /><br />In reference to my evaluation, awarding this film a very harsh 1 out of 10, the film is barley watchable, and must be thankful that it had the fighting sequences it did. | 0 |
In a nutshell: this is a cookie cutter romantic comedy that really WANTS and TRIES to be something more. It wants to be Harold and Maude, Annie Hall, The Graduate. It wants to be deep and human. It has interesting camera shots, lighting, music, editing, all of which give it the feel of an important movie. The dialog is smart -- at times. There are some "laugh out loud" moments.<br /><br />But here's what keeps it from ultimately being anything more than a formulaic late-night-cable, in-flight, time-killer: <br /><br />1. David Schwimmer -- how many times can Joe sad-sack puppy dog stare blankly into space with his jaw hanging open before it starts to get annoying? Maybe some drool would have helped.<br /><br />2. Gwenneth Paltrow -- she's really flat here and not just in the chest. Her role is supposed to be this lively, nice, caring girl who just keeps getting herself into wrong situations, is very confused as a result, and that is why a sad-sack loser like Schwimmer has any chance with her. But Gwenneth plays her very dull. Combine this with puppy-dog drool-face (above) and you have very little chemistry to care about.<br /><br />(I kept picturing someone else in this role -- Kate Hudson for example.) <br /><br />3. The script and the plot -- the stuff that happens just basically doesn't ring true; all the problems get wrapped up in the end with such a neat and tidy bow on top that it seems like a whistle blew and the script writers just said "oops, time to wrap it up, got a train to catch!" So they pulled out the Hollywood formula book, checked off all the boxes, and went home. | 0 |
The clichéd Polynesian males drink, fight and make a stream of sexist, stupid and unfunny remarks. Real life Polynesians are much funnier than these stereotyped, cardboard characters. The supposedly Samoan girl didn't look or act Samoan at all, seemed more like the stock white female who has sex with anyone on a whim. With weak as water story lines you can't say anything about the acting - even the most brilliant actors could do nothing with this script. It's sad to see Polynesian actors willing to play such sad stereotypes in a film with not one good scene, and only two or three 'jokes'. What a waste of Kiwi taxpayers' money, what a lost opportunity to make a great film about a vibrant community. It's better not to make movies if they're as bad and mindless as this. | 0 |
This could have been interesting a Japan-set haunted house story from the viewpoint of a newly-installed American family but falls flat due to an over-simplified treatment and the unsuitability of both cast and director.<br /><br />The film suffers from the same problem I often encounter with the popular modern renaissance of such native fare, i.e. the fact that the spirits demonstrate themselves to be evil for no real reason other than that they're expected to! Besides, it doesn't deliver much in the scares department a giant crab attack is merely silly as, generally, the ghosts inhabit a specific character and cause him or her to act in a totally uncharacteristic way, such as Susan George seducing diplomat/friend-of-the-family Doug McClure and Edward Albert force-feeding his daughter a bowl of soup! <br /><br />At one point, an old monk turns up at the house to warn Albert of the danger if they remain there eventually, he's called upon to exorcise the premises. However, history is bound to repeat itself and tragedy is the only outcome of the tense situation duly created leading to a violent yet unintentionally funny climax in which Albert and McClure, possessed by the spirits of their Japanese predecessors, engage in an impromptu karate duel to the death! At the end of the day, this emerges an innocuous time-waster tolerable at just 88 minutes but, in no way, essential viewing. | 0 |
"So there's this bride, you see, and she gets crushed to death by this statue that falls on her on the day of her wedding. Then, get this, a year later, her former fiancé falls in love with a beautiful psychic
and then, that beautiful psychic gets haunted by the ghost of the disgruntled dead bride who wants to keep her from stealing her boyfriend
he he
it'll be hilarious!." Polite chuckling.<br /><br />This, I like to envision, is how Jeff Lowell, the man who dreamed up "Over Her Dead Body," presented his concept to the studio execs over there at New Line Cinema. The big mystery is how those very same corporate bigwigs could then turn right around and green light the project, allowing Lowell to direct the film as well as write the screenplay.<br /><br />For if you think that no movie could ever possibly be as bad as this original premise sounds, then clearly you have another think coming. The only way in which it might have worked is if the writer had simply gone crazy with it and turned it into a no-holds-barred satirical farce. Instead, wanting to ensure that he delivered a fuzzy, inoffensive and warmhearted romantic comedy, Lowell engages in boring half-measures every step of the way, tamping down the absurdity in favor of drab conventionality. Indeed, "Over Her Dead Body" is so thoroughly inept and unfunny that it's hard to know where exactly Lowell thought he was going with it. Virtually every set-up, joke and sight gag in the film is flat-footed and poorly executed, with even the actors themselves seemingly aware of their predicament. How else to explain the halfhearted, lifeless performances of Paul Rudd, Eva Langoria Parker, Lake Bell and Jason Biggs in their various roles? <br /><br />I choose not to blame the actors, some of whom have proved their talents in better vehicles in the past (that is particularly the case with Rudd). But Lowell and those studio execs sure have some 'splainin' to do. | 0 |
I'm a big fan of Italian films from the seventies, and I wouldn't hesitate to list the beautiful Barbara Bouchet among my favourite actresses of all time, so I did go into this film with some hopes. However, it soon becomes apparent that this is a largely pointless film that isn't going to go anywhere. Clearly nobody would go into this expecting much more, but the fact that this is pointless gets more annoying when you consider that it's also rather dull and none of the characters are interesting. As the title suggests, the film focuses on a 'rogue'; in this case one that steals, womanises and smuggles stuff. That's basically all the plot that this movie has. The film does have a real 'seventies style' to it and the idea of it all being very carefree gets across well. It sometimes seems like directors Boro Draskovic and Gregory Simpson were trying to put across some sort of point, although whatever that point is doesn't come across very well. Seeing Barbara Bouchet on screen is always a pleasure, and that is the case here too; she's definitely the best thing about the film and the sequence in which she hangs out of a car naked is the best part of the film. Overall, The Rogue will probably have some appeal for people who love the seventies style, but unfortunately it doesn't have much else to offer. | 0 |
Woody Allen has lost his ability to write dialogue or characters that are clearly distinguishable from each other. This is the case with "Melinda and Melinda," where all the characters speak with Allen's generic pseudo-sophistication and have problems and points of view that are not relatable to anyone outside of a four block radius of where Allen lives. They also share the same curious condition of being able to afford multi-million dollar Manhattan apartments that appear to have been designed by professional decorators regardless of their financial situation or what they do for a living.<br /><br />The only character who exists outside of this dull mindset is Will Ferrel as the obligatory Woody Allen surrogate. Although he does not simply come off as merely doing a Woody Allen impression (like Kenneth Branagh in the god-awful "Celebrity"), Ferrel lacks the charm or charisma that the real Woody had when he was playing the part himself in his best movies.<br /><br />The end result is another in a string of self indulgent bores from a once-great filmmaker who has been trading in on his former reputation for years. | 0 |
To compare this squalor with an old, low budget porno flick would be an insult to the old, low budget porno flick. The animal scenes have no meaning nor do they represent this man and his crimes even in the broadest sense of abstractions. The synopsis on the back of the DVD case says in part, "
gripping retelling of the BTK Killer's reign of terror." This is NOT a retelling. A retelling would suggest that you are being told the truth of what happened or how or why. None of these things are true. I'm an enthusiastic studier of serial killers and have seen some pretty crappy movies about them and honestly, this IS NOT one of them. This isn't even about the BTK killer. Save yourself some time and a few bucks and rent Dahmer instead. THAT serial killer movie is accurate and true. However, if you just HAVE to see this movie for yourself, check it out for free at your local library and even then, you'll still feel cheated. | 0 |
A poorly written script with no likeable characters. As for it being a comedy, I forgot to laugh. It's about 2 conceited friends who scam to get women in too bed with them (no sex scenes) and another friend(who is semi-discustingly weird)who sometimes also scams but mainly is considered as being the guy who masterbates. The 3 friends separately meet and fall for the same woman (Amanda Peet). Somehow this is done without really any romance. The 3 guys stop being friends as they separately dated her. She scammed them out of their friendship because they scammed women. -- A bad movie | 0 |
This movie is great, mind you - but only in the way it tells a very BAD story. Stella is so terribly crude, and never learns better. Her husband is incredibly snobby and small-minded. Neither ever learns better. Is this realistic? Somehow, Stella understands that her daughter is ashamed of her gaudy manners & dress, yet cannot understand that she just needs to tone it all down? I don't think so. Stella is a GOOD woman, and a VERY GOOD mother. Giving up herself, so her daughter can be associated with a bunch of bigoted snobs is disgusting. <br /><br />Much of what we see might have been normal for the times - people having a beer or two, enjoying a player piano, dancing - but it is made out to be some sort of moral inferiority. "I can't have our child living this way!" Spare me. <br /><br />This story tells me one thing: that the Unwashed Working Class cannot ever hope to aspire to the heights of the Upper Classes. And that is simply a load of hogwash. | 0 |
About 15 minutes in, my wife was already wanting to leave. Not so much because of the material, but the lack thereof. They decided to fill in the blanks where the funny stuff should've been with as much language and absolutely vulgar talk as they could. When this would let up (very rare), we'd sit back and watch (not laughing, mind you) and wait for the next gross-out or offensive remark(s). After about 35 minutes, we both got up and left. Everything we'd read said how great this was. The trailer looked good and Roger Ebert actually called it "intelligent" and said it wasn't a crude sex comedy. Did he go to the right movie? Along with Be Cool, it's the only other movie I've ever walked out on...and I have no regrets. I'm sick of trying to go see comedies in America. | 0 |
I read the reviews before i watched this movie, and i didn't believe them. I love crap movies and i expected this one to be average. It wasn't. This film makes Camp Blood 1 and 2 look like greats. The film contains bad acting, poor sound, poor confusing storyline, bad makeup- and it bored me so much i turned it off. even the nudity was rubbish! Did they even have a budget for this film? I don't think they did. You can tell if your gonna like this film or not in the first 5 minutes. if u want a good cheesy gory film go watch toxic avenger 4 or even camp blood. Avoid this trash - I watched it on TV and felt riped off, so don't spend anything on it. The best part is probably the end. | 0 |
Hunters chase what they think is a man through the forest, though the audience sees he is a werewolf. The hunters never seem to realize this, because after they shoot him, he looks normal when they decapitate him.<br /><br />A doctor transplants the werewolf's eyes into a man who lost his own in a laboratory experiment. The man, Rich, gets to have sex with his nurse (Stephanie Beaton) before he even gets his bandages removed.<br /><br />After he leaves the hospital, he finds his wife has been cheating on him too. When a smoke machine sends clouds past an amateur painting of a moon (with a fake tree branch on the foreground), he turns into a werewolf! His torso grows larger, splitting his shirt, and he grows a giant werewolf mask on his head that has red lights in the eyes. His pants stay intact. The mouth chews unconvincingly, though some sort of robotics (or hidden hands) in the eyebrows give him a baleful look at times.<br /><br />Despite the poor werewolf costume, there is a fair amount of blood and gore, and those are fairly well done. There's even a pretty good decapitation later in the movie. However, when a man falls from a height, a rather bad dummy does the job.<br /><br />Rich has a friend named Siodmak who is some sort of occult expert, and he also accidentally stumbles across a small man with crutches named Androse who is also such an expert. They try to help him a little.<br /><br />Rich kills people who have done him wrong. A policewoman investigates the murders and tries to hit on Beaton, who doesn't much care for lesbian scenes so nothing comes of it.<br /><br />Quite cheap, but between the nudity and blood and gore, and a not-terrible story combining (sort of) The Most Dangerous Game with The Hands of Orlac and The Wolf Man, it's somewhat entertaining. Available on its own, or in the box set Scream Queens Vol. 1. | 0 |
I had to register for IMDb just to post a comment on just how awful this movie is...my cats and a ball of string have a better storyline than this. Not the worst acting I've ever seen, but when you wipe out almost the entire cast of the movie within 5 minutes, it leaves a bit to be desired. There wasn't a single 'scare' moment in the movie, with the exception of when they were watching the movie 'Halloween' on the TV. All around, it seems like it could've been a good story, rolling the credits and saying that Chasey Lain was in it was a bit of a loss as I didn't recognize her right away and her scene was already over before I could've said 'oh yeah, there she is'. I'm so glad I saw this in a hotel and didn't pay for it as I'd be real ticked if I had payed a cent to see this. I normally like or can at least find a redeeming factor in a movie, but this one is an exception. It's so bad that it's not even that amusing so-good-it's-bad....it's just plain bad. | 0 |
This is just one more of those hideous films that you find on Lifetime TV which portray the abhorrent behavior of some disgusting woman in an empathetic manner. Along with other such nasty films as "The Burning Bed," "Enough," or "Monster," this film takes a disgusting criminal and attempts to show the viewer why she's not such a bad person after all. Give us a break! Here's my question to the filmmakers: If LeTourneau were a man, and Vili were a 12 year old girl, would you have made a picture sympathizing and empathizing with this person? Answer: Hell no.<br /><br />Imagine switching the genders in this film, and then you'll see just why myself and others here consider this a worthless piece of garbage. Were the genders switched, there would be no attempt to empathize with the criminal. Instead, we'd likely be treated to a portrayal of a monstrous and hideous man preying upon a young girl, his lascivious behavior landing him in prison, and his brainwashed victim suffering from Stockholm Syndrome. The only reason LeTourneau does not receive the same treatment in this film is by virtue of her sex.<br /><br />Let's call a spade a spade. LeTourneau is a pedophile. Plain and simple. No ifs, ands or buts. She's a criminal who belongs in prison, and deserves our derision and contempt, but certainly not our pity or empathy. | 0 |
It's official, folks -- Hou Hsiao-Hsien doesn't have a thought in his pretty little head. Are you wondering why he chose Shu Qi as his muse?<br /><br />Shu ( or is that Qi? ) doesn't appear in this one. Instead we get a snaggletoothed Yo Hitoto, apparently a pop star in Japan -- judging by her song at the end, she's a pop star just like the girl who serves you at Rockin' Curry is "a actriss" -- and a wasted Tadanobu Asano, typically an indicator of quality, who is required to do nothing here but stand around and look like a mumbling Asian hipster and is too old to manage even that. <br /><br />Hou's philosophy? Life is limbo, a big nothing, feel it and move on. I'd like to do that but Hou gives us nothing to feel in Cafe Lumiere beyond a bland photo essay of Life in Tokyo Circa 2003 and the flabbergasting observation that people are ships that pass in the night, no, make that trains that pass in the day, never connecting, each hurtling to its own destination, usually some variant of a dark tunnel or maybe a bridge if they're lucky. Yikes. Flowers of Shanghai is one of the most rarefied, technically accomplished and mesmerizing films of all time. How could the same director who created the opening shot of that film, which features about twelve actors conversing at machine-gun speed for about ten straight minutes -- an impossible directorial feat -- get trapped making this laconic sub-Jarmusch reality porn for two films in a row now? Millennium Mambo may be dead weight, but at least it has two great shots, shots that hint at Hou's true calling as the film equivalent of Odilon Redon: Those shots are the sex scene with the arrhythmically blinking lights and the opening shot of Shu Qi floating down a blue corridor. His M.O. while making Cafe Lumiere seems to have been to remove the two great shots from Millennium Mambo to make it more consistent. You be the judge if that sounds appealing. <br /><br />Hou does not need to refine -- you cannot refine the limbo idea further than Flowers of Shanghai. He needs to expand, to bloat outwards, to release the inner expressionist and genre-revitalizer that is being squandered so senselessly on clichéd minimalism. It's time for him to do a live-action remake of Akira or something. This kind of art film where the actors are supposed to be authentic because they are held facelessly in long-shot and speak in monosyllables is now every last bit as safe, ghettoized and stagnant as the Hollywood action blockbuster. ( What is the connection between "reality" and people who can't talk? It seems to me that people "in real life" never stop jabbering. ) Then again, considering that 2005 alone brought big-budget movies as diverse and rich in ideas as Aeon Flux, The Island, and King Kong, it's now safe to say that even Michael Bay has surpassed Hou, and that's really sad.<br /><br />The good news is that, though Hou is in his 50s, it frankly feels to me as if he hasn't even begun. There are a couple moments in this film that show the promise is still there, such as a moody bit early on in the bookstore when the room dims to a bloody sunset-red while Hitoto talks about babies with the faces of goblins. But whatever fear is holding him back, however comfortable it is to make the same film over and over and be hailed by the gullible and pretentious as the savior of cinema, Hou, your time as the darling of the Rotterdam, Venice, Toronto, Berlin and whatever else film festivals is almost up and people are catching onto your ruse double-quick. Two words for you: Atom Egoyan. Two more words, or maybe three: Tsai Ming-Liang. You are now cribbing from both of these tedious frauds who are about to go up their own dark tunnels forever. Risk your shirt on a sci-fi epic, sell out, be reviled -- but leave the social critiques to people that have no eye and no heart. Let your painterly talent express itself to the full. You're not going to ever get out of limbo otherwise. | 0 |
This is a terrible movie, terrible script, bad direction and nonsensical ending. Also, bad performances, except from Clancy Brown who is criminally underused here, and Michael Pollard. Watching this movie was purgatory--you do it to unload enough bad movie karma to actually see a good one further down the line.<br /><br />The movie presents a father and son who look like they couldn't every possibly have been related. The part of the male lead is not well written and seems uncharismatic in this role. You can see the plot points a mile away. The actions of the female lead and that of her brother, the cop, also make no sense. So, a major action on her part at the end of the movie makes no sense script-wise. | 0 |
I saw this movie in the theater when I was a kid and always remember it as my first experience with getting ripped off by a horrible movie with a good commercial. The commercial was great, but it I found out later that it had every explosion or 'special effect' in the entire movie (about 4) and even some that weren't in the movie. There was some sort of plot relating to the aliens but the aliens were never actually shown in the movie as far as I remember. It was clearly a case of someone making a buck off a cheap movie designed to scam people. I guess my world of innocence ended that day, when I found out there were bad people out there who make bad bad movies. | 0 |
Definitely one of funny man Eddie Murphy's lesser films is this nonsense about a kidnapped mystical child, three hundred year old dragons and a "Chosen One".<br /><br />Murphy is the "Chosen One" in question, and as the opening song suggests, he is "the best man in the world". A finder of lost and missing children, he is approached by a mysterious Tibetan woman (Charlotte Lewis) who tells him he is "The Chosen One", and that it is his destiny to find and rescue "The Golden Child". For if the child were to die, compassion would die with him, as he is the bearer of compassion.<br /><br />If all this hocus pocus rubbish hasn't ruined it for you now, it surely will once the movie begins. Suffice to say the plot is abominable and destroys the whole film. Meant to be another vehicle for Murphy's egotistical brand of humour (the comedy isn't so great mind you), the movie fails on many levels. Even Charles Dance as the evil Sardo Numspa can't do much for proceedings. Very silly and disappointing.<br /><br />Sunday, December 12, 1993 - T.V. | 0 |
Without question one of the most embarrassing productions of the 1970s, GAOTS seems to really, REALLY want to be something important. The tragic truth is that it's so entirely valueless on every level that one can't help but laugh. Reaching in desperation for the earthy elements of Ingmar Bergman's films, it follows a city couple's day in the wilderness...they walk along a shady path, allthewhile pontificating like a U.C. Berkeley coffee clatch. Almost every line of tarradiddle dialog delivered here is uproariously bad("I feel that life itself is made up of as many tiny compartments as this pomegranate....but is it as beautiful?") After what seems like an eternity of absolutely nothing happening(well...OK...we are treated to some nudity and a tepid soft sex scene), there is finally a VERY anticlimactic confrontation involving a pair 'Nam vets who are making the nature scene and performing some pretty harsh folk ballads with an acoustic guitar. <br /><br />Nothing at all eventful or interesting happens IN THIS ENTIRE FILM. I thought the Larry Buchanan picture "Strawberries Need Rain" was a weak example of a Bergman homage. "Golden Apples" is every bit as bad, but the ceaseless random verbiage it presents makes it memorably awful. 1/10 | 0 |
I was subjected to this atrocity by my wife, tried to turn it off after 10 minutes, but was forced through the whole thing. This must be, hands down, the most gruesome pretense of a movie ever...<br /><br />There were great script moments, such as:<br /><br />Sammy - "If she gets over here right away, she gets a bonus" Madam - "A boner?" Sammy - "No, a bonus"<br /><br />To summarize: Horrible script, terrible acting and incredibly illogical. | 0 |
'I don't understand. None of this makes any sense!', exclaims one exasperated character towards the end of Death Smiles at Murder. Having just sat through this thoroughly confusing mess of a movie, I know exactly how he feels. The story, by the film's director Aristide Massacessi (good old Joe D'amato using his real name for a change), is a clumsy mix of the supernatural, murder/mystery, and pretentious arty rubbish, the likes of which will probably appeal to those who admire trippy 70s garbage such as Jess Franco's more bizarre efforts, but which had me struggling to remain conscious.<br /><br />Opening with a hunchback mourning the death of his beautiful sister (with whom he had been having an incestuous affair, before eventually losing her to a dashing doctor), Death Smiles at Murder soon becomes very confusing when the very same woman (played by Ewa Aulin, who stars in the equally strange 'Death Laid an Egg') is seen alive and kicking, the sole survivor of a coach accident that occurs outside the estate of Walter and Eva von Ravensbrück. After being invited to stay and recuperate in their home, where she is tended to by creepy Dr. Sturges (Klaus Kinski in a throwaway role), the comely lass begins love affairs with both Mr. and Mrs. Ravensbrück (meaning that viewers are treated to some brief but welcome scenes of nookie and lesbian lovin').<br /><br />'So far, so good', I thought to myself at this point, 'we've had hunchbacks, incest, some blood and guts, and gratuitous female nudity'all ingredients of a great trashy Euro-horror; what follows, however, is a lame attempt by Massacessi to combine giallo style killings, ghostly goings on, and even elements from Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Black Cat', to tell a very silly, utterly bewildering, and ultimately extremely boring tale of revenge from beyond the grave.<br /><br />This film seems to have quite few admirers here on IMDb, but given the choice, I would much rather watch one of the director's sleazier movies from later in his career; I guess incomprehensible, meandering, surreal 70s Gothic horror just ain't my thing! 2.5 out of 10 (purely for the cheesy gore and nekkidness), rounded up to 3 for IMDb. | 0 |
This really was the worst movie I have ever seen. Michael Vartan is hot, but who is this woman? And she looks absolutely awful through the whole movie, the hair is so bad! They talk in like monotone voices and there is nooo chemistry. The cover of the DVD does not even remotely come close to what the movie actually is. Really, really boring. I had to fast forward through some of it because it was so painful to watch. I really want to know how i on earth anyone could think this is good? hhaha they literally just like talk and say "yeah" and there is no passion whatsoever. I could not tell at all that they were in love. I'm sorry but this was the saddest excuse for a movie I think I have ever seen. | 0 |
This movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be. There were a couple of sub-plots that for awhile made you think these items would all come together in the end... but they didn't. If you want a "alien in the frozen waste" story, stick with the 1950's version of THE THING (not the abomination that was remade in gore-o-vision 20+ years later).<br /><br />I couldn't get over the fact that the "alien" looked pretty much recycled from INDEPENDENCE DAY. <br /><br />The "bare minimum" sets would have been more effective if they had hired actors who could actually act and carry off the intended mood.<br /><br />Lots of scenery chewing with little payoff. | 0 |
Subsets and Splits