text
stringlengths 53
13.7k
| label_id
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
There has been a lot of love that has been put into Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr Fox", unfortunately all the love is for himself. Granted, there has been a lot of time and effort been put into making this ever so self-consciously quirky universe but if only the same time and effort had been put into the script to try and make it funny. The worrying thing is that I think it was, and this is the best that Wes Anderson could come up with.<br /><br />The animation is good in the close-up shots of the animals, however when the camera is further away everything becomes really harsh on the eyes and to be perfectly honest looks like a bit of a mess. There wasn't really anything special about the acting either, with Wes opting to choose his buddies and big names over more specialised voice actors that could have probably made the film better. I'm pretty sure George Clooney's voice acting resume consists of two cameo appearances in South Park, one of them where he played a dog.<br /><br />The film is too smug and trying way too hard to be clever and different and is typically, despite the film being set in England, all the good animals are typical Americans playing baseball, whilst the bad guys are stereotypical English with the most insulting English accents. I cannot stress how much of a waste of time this film is. I didn't laugh once. | 0 |
Okay, now, I know there are millions of Americans who believe in The Rapture: that moment when all people born again in Christ will be raptured up to meet God and all the rest of humanity will be left on earth to perish in plagues and fire and the heartbreak of psoriasis as the Antichrist battles it out with Jesus (in an uncharacteristically warlike mode). And I know the books were best sellers. . .among believers, anyway. And I mean no disrespect to all that.<br /><br />But I have to say, they stuffed this movie into a sack and beat it with the Suck Stick.<br /><br />I'm sure the books are much better. Really.<br /><br />The plot needs no reprising. If you've watched this movie, chances are you read the book. I may be one of the only people on earth who actually watched this just for the sheer bad-moving-making experience, and I wasn't disappointed. Especially not by Kirk Cameron, the creepy little "Growing Pains" gremlin, who came of age on that show, found Christ, and decided that the SHOW should reflect his Christian values. Well, Kirk, your career has gone to the dogs, but now you can be happy that you're spreading the word of God in movies so bad, they never even make it to theatrical release. Well, that's not strictly true: I guess this was the only movie ever made that went to DVD FIRST, with a voucher for a free viewing of the movie when it was briefly released in theaters! I still have the voucher! How many people do you suppose showed up? I don't know about you, but it never came to my town. Of course, I live in NYC, where we Godless liberals sit around tearing pages out of the bible and use them to roll joints. So there you go. In fact, I'll bet out of three million people on Manhattan Island, not one would be raptured.<br /><br />Check out the supplementary materials on the DVD, where you'll learn the creepy behind the scenes details of these movies. . .the CAST and CREW all must be of the same religious mindset. They don't come right out and say this, but listen closely to what the filmmakers say. It's like a bunch of Pod People got together to make a Pod movie. How creepazoid is that? Honestly, this stuff just preaches to the converted, doesn't it? Can you imagine anyone who DOESN'T subscribe to the whole apocalypse thing watching this, slapping his forehead and saying, "HOLY HOOVER DAM! I better get saved PRONTO!" Anyhow, I'm hooked. I gotta see the rest of these Christian fiasco movies, especially the one with Gary Busey, which I think is TRIBULATIONS. At least Busey has an excuse for taking the part.. . .he cracked his head on some pavement when he crashed his motorcycle.<br /><br />Oy.<br /><br />Oh, and one more thing. What's with all the shots of poor,innocent dogs whimpering, their leashes dragging uselessly along the ground, because their owners have been called to heaven? What's up with that? Are we supposed to feel badly for the dogs, and if we do, what are we to make of God? Doesn't it IRK people that there's no room in heaven for man's best friend? Foo.<br /><br />This is one more reason I'm agnostic. Good night and good luck. | 0 |
Just finished watching American Pie: Beta House and I gotta say, this was such a garbage pile of crap. The first 3 American Pies were hilarious, the last 3 were a joke and should not have been called American Pie.<br /><br />As you figured out from the title of the movie, Beta House, is about a fraternity, freshmen, girls and, the most original part of them all, falling in love. Of course, the guy that has his way with the chicks is Stifler, who, along with his mates, tries to complete another apparently impossible task. It was unrealistic and super fake. Its just really predictable and the plot is so weak. Both sides of the college battle to see who gets the whole thing (something like that) To sum it up: awful acting + dull script + wrong use of the American Pie franchise = total waste of time! This movie is unbearable. I give it a two out of ten, although most of it sucked there were lots of nudity and pretty girls, like 2 funny scenes :) | 0 |
As I was watching this movie I was thinking,OK it'll get good any moment...I was wrong. The real best part of this movie was when it was over. A complete waste of 92 minutes. All seriousness aside the best part was when the Wendigo finally showed up which was at the end and you couldn't really even see him that good. And the tail end was really kind of dumb as well. There was too many sections in the movie where you thought something was going to happen but was a let down. The worse part is there was more talk of the Wendigo then there was Wendigo. For the creature to be so bad,you definitely couldn't tell it by this movie. | 0 |
As someone who lived through,and still remembers that decade vividly,if the actual '70s had been half this funny and (semi)normal,they would have been so much more enjoyable.Actual kids in that era did not act or behave anything close to as bright-eyed and normal as these kids did.The country's youth was still under the influence of the hippies and the drug culture all that '60s rebellion that it spawned,especially in the behavior department;the petulance,the smugness,the self-righteousness,the childishness,the unreasonableness of them - none of the characters exhibit any of that.<br /><br />Someone compared to "Happy Days",and I can see why:They were both sitcoms that take place 20 years before the current time they were broadcast,and they both offer only surface ,cliched depictions of the actual eras,not even close to the full scope of it,just showing the obvious things - the fashions,toys,music,contraptions,etc,and that's it.For those too young to remember,or weren't born then,trust me,the '70s weren't like that,any more than "Happy Days" were like the actual '50s,as "M*A*S*H*" didn't accurately portray life at a US Army medical base during the Korean War,etc. | 0 |
Unfortunately, this has been showing on Star Movies here in Thailand for the last week or so. It's complete rubbish acting. As another member said, this movie is a good example of 'how not to act.' I haven't seen a movie so poorly acted in a long time. The actors (can you call them 'actors'?) are completely flat and deliver their lines with the passion of a dead dog. I would say that in order to truly understand how bad the acting is, you would have to see the movie... but that would be akin to torture.<br /><br />I cringe as the leading lady delivers her lines, and the rest of the cast with their accents (fake or contrived) is equally heinous. Another actress with the fake British accent was pretty, yes, but good lord was her accent terrible. Mix that with her (lack of) acting and you have a disaster. She should just have said nothing and I could have accepted her as the pretty girl. Oh my, we just got to the scene where the leading lady's lover says "Really me?" after a forced crying scene from her. Laughable. No, really, I just laughed out loud.<br /><br />The sets and the art directors offer some saving grace to the film. Some of the sets are colorful and some of the scenes are rather nice (minus the actors).<br /><br />The old magic potion lady? What?! Another member mentioned the 'modern' love song that was in the movie. Totally inappropriate for a period piece set some 500 years ago.<br /><br />I understand the movie was considered 'Big Budget' in Thailand at the time of it's production. I would be seriously upset if I were the producer of this movie. Just goes to show that money does not necessarily make a good (or even mediocre) film.<br /><br />I would give the King Maker a 1 out of 10, but the costumes and sets make save the film from such a rating. 2 out of 10. | 0 |
Working with one of the best Shakespeare sources, this film manages to be creditable to it's source, whilst still appealing to a wider audience.<br /><br />Branagh steals the film from under Fishburne's nose, and there's a talented cast on good form. | 0 |
This movie is just another average action flick, but it could have been so much better. When the guns come out they really needed some choreography help. Someone like Andy McNabb - who made that brilliant action sequence in Heat as they move up the street from the robbery - would have turned the dull action sequences into something special. Because the rest of the film was alright - predictable but watchable - better than you would expect from this type of movie. Then came the final scene, the show-down, the one we had been waiting for, but was like watching something from the A-Team in the 80s. They shoot wildly, nothing hits, and they run around a house trying to kill each other - same old, same old. | 0 |
Oh what a condescending movie! Set in Los Angeles, the center of the universe from the POV of Hollywood filmmakers, this movie tries to be a deep social commentary on contemporary American angst.<br /><br />Stereotyped, smarmy characters of widely varying socio-economic backgrounds cross paths in their everyday, humdrum lives. The plot is disjointed and desultory. Numerous unimaginative plot contrivances keep the film going, like: a drive-by shooting, an abandoned baby left in the weeds, a gang of thugs intimidating a lawyer, a guy flying through the night sky over the city, a kid at summer camp.<br /><br />And through all these events, the one constant is the generous helping of sociological "insights" imparted through the dialogue, as characters compare notes on their life experiences. One character tells another: "When you sit on the edge of that thing (the Grand Canyon), you realize what a joke we people are; ... those rocks are laughing at me, I could tell, me and my worries; it's real humorous to that Grand Canyon".<br /><br />And another character pontificates about the meaning of it all: "There's a gulf in this country, an ever widening abyss between the people who have stuff and the people who don't have ... it's like this big hole has opened up in the ground, as big as the ... Grand Canyon, and what's come pouring out ... is an eruption of rage, and the rage creates violence ...".<br /><br />Aside from the horribly unnatural and forced dialogue, aside from the shallow, smarmy characters, aside from the dumb plot, the story's pace is agonizingly slow. Acting is uninspired and perfunctory. The film's tone is smug and self-satisfied, in the script's contempt for viewers.<br /><br />This was a film project approved by Hollywood suits who fancy themselves as omnipotent gurus, looking down from on high. They think their film will be a startling revelation to us lowly, unknowing movie goers, eager to learn about the real meaning of American social change. | 0 |
Ostensibly this is a Z-grade DTV horror film.<br /><br />But with lines like :<br /><br />"It's easy to die, I have, many times"<br /><br />and<br /><br />"Why are you reading that book ?" "Because it makes the plot more interesting"<br /><br />and<br /><br />"You made your way in here, now you can make your way out again !" (after he leads a man into the basement)<br /><br />(and take a listen to what they chant)<br /><br />- it's not that clear what this film, made in the era known for post-structuralism, is actually about, or whether its just bad film-making. The acting is atrocious, but some actors I know, so are they hamming it up ?<br /><br />An old house, cut obviously with a contemporary dwelling, is the site of murders. A (bad) film is made in the grounds and the story replays again. | 0 |
It's boggles the mind how this movie was nominated for seven Oscars and won one. Not because it's abysmal or because given the collective credentials of the creative team behind it really ought to deserve them but because in every category it was nominated Prizzi's Honor disappoints. Some would argue that old Hollywood pioneer John Huston had lost it by this point in his career but I don't buy it. Only the previous year he signed the superb UNDER THE VOLCANO, a dark character study set in Mexico, that ranks among the finest he ever did. Prizzi's Honor on the other hand, a film loaded with star power, good intentions and a decent script, proves to be a major letdown.<br /><br />The overall tone and plot of a gangster falling in love with a female hit-man prefigures the quirky crimedies that caught Hollywood by storm in the early 90's but the script is too convoluted for its own sake, the motivations are off and on the whole the story seems unsure of what exactly it's trying to be: a romantic comedy, a crime drama, a gangster saga etc. Jack Nicholson (doing a Brooklyn accent that works perfectly for De Niro but sounds unconvincing coming from Jack) and Kathleen Turner in the leading roles seem to be in paycheck mode, just going through the motions almost sleepwalking their way through some parts. Anjelica Huston on the other hand fares better but her performance is sabotaged by her character's motivations: she starts out the victim of her bigot father's disdain, she proves to be supportive to her ex-husband, then becomes a vindictive bitch that wants his head on a plate.<br /><br />The colours of the movie have a washed-up quality like it was made in the early 70's and Huston's direction is as uninteresting as everything else. There's promise behind the story and perhaps in the hands of a director hungry to be recognized it could've been morphed to something better but what's left looks like a film nobody was really interested in making. | 0 |
Couldn't believe it! Clipped sentences? Good grief! Know what? All true! Real people ever talk like this? Don't think so. Good girl! Stout fellow! Stiffen upper lip! Only reason given movie 2 instead of 0 Gary Cooper such a dish. Movie as a whole ridiculous unless you like watching endless biplane dogfights. Seemed endless, anyway. Think all Franchot Tone's dialogue dubbed. When Crawford and Young make a special effort to sound British they come over as Irish. Handy tip - we Brits clip words, not sentences. And somehow we manage to draaaaaaaawl at the same time. But that's only if we've been to a really good public (that's private to you) school. | 0 |
That's right! Under 9 on average, but maybe under 12s for some others! I was 11 when I originally saw this on video and at such youth I wasn't able to notice the shoddy cartoon-quality or the fact that those classic characters we have all grown to love are Not the same or as good to see. Just about everything is so 2D here! Belle is, I'll agree, not even beautiful but just a plain-looking woman with tinted skin, she wears the same bright blue dress all the way through with not one glamorous dress on, Wardrobe is to say the Least, annoying - my ears may bleed if I had to listen to her everyday! Lumiere, in both the original and the Christmas edition was suave and elegant, but here he is a womanizing, unfunny twit! Cogsworth, despite being the no-nonsense housekeeper he is famous for, is a complete sh-t and the most insufferable character I'd say! He always seems to find shutting that unbearably grating pie-hole of his very difficult in this one and whose clock face should really have been used for turning back in time to the unforgettable two film in this series! Poor, poor Mrs Potts was not brought to life by Angela Lansbury (one of my favourite classic actresses) but by Anne Rogers who captured none of Mrs Potts' character, no offence to her! Not if she did her best! When the beast roars it sounds so horrifically fake with clearly no additional roars, snarls or growls by a microphone. I am aware that this is only a third feature following two other films so of course it wouldn't be as good but I'm sure that more of a contribution wouldn't have hurt the Disney artists who, indeed, have achieved such remarkable styles of animation over the years. It's alright, I guess, and I do watch it sometimes though only when it suits me. It's quite difficult to make a recommendation for you reading this because it depends on how old you are but remember this will not at all be what you may expect following the earlier spectacular movies! And to think that on my video of it the text on the back cover said "boasting brilliant animation"! It's a nice little flick but for one thing it's also highly poor and, for another, those 3 words ought to have been saved for the next re-release of the original! | 0 |
Nathan Detroit runs illegal craps games for high rollers in NYC, but the heat is on and he can't find a secure location. He bets chronic gambler Sky Masterson that Sky can't make a prim missionary, Sarah Brown, go out to dinner with him. Sky takes up the challenge, but both men have some surprises in store
<br /><br />This is one of those expensive fifties MGM musicals in splashy colour, with big sets, loud music, larger-than-life roles and performances to match; Broadway photographed for the big screen if you like that sort of thing, which I don't. My main problem with these type of movies is simply the music. I like all kinds of music, from Albinoni to ZZ Top, but Broadway show tunes in swing time with never-ending pah-pah-tah-dah trumpet flourishes at the end of every fourth bar aren't my cup of tea. This was written by the tag team of Frank Loesser, Mankiewicz, Jo Swerling and Abe Burrows (based on a couple of Damon Runyon stories), and while the plot is quite affable the songs are weak. Blaine's two numbers for example are identical, unnecessary, don't advance the plot and grate on the ears (and are also flagrantly misogynistic if that sort of thing bothers you). There are only two memorable tunes, Luck Be A Lady (sung by Brando, not Sinatra as you might expect) and Sit Down, You're Rockin' The Boat (nicely performed by Kaye) but you have to sit through two hours to get to them. The movie's trump card is a young Brando giving a thoughtful, laid-back performance; he also sings quite well and even dances a little, and is evenly matched with the always interesting Simmons. The sequence where the two of them escape to Havana for the night is a welcome respite from all the noise, bustle and vowel-murdering of Noo Yawk. Fans of musicals may dig this, but in my view a musical has to do something more than just film the stage show. | 0 |
I saw this in the summer of 1990. I'm still annoyed by how bad this movie is in 2001.<br /><br />Implausible plot. You'd have to be a child to think this could happen.<br /><br />I'm just really annoyed by it. Don't see this. | 0 |
This is high grade cheese fare of B movie kung fu flicks. Bruce "wannabe" Lee is played by Bruce Li...I think. Of course, let's show quick clips of Bruce and do closeups of his eyes and if you quint at the right angle during a certain time of the day during the winter solstice, it kind of looks like Bruce. You'll laugh in awe at how the film splicing isn't very good, but some cool deleted scenes from Enter the Dragon are thrown in the mix. According to the movie, Bruce Lee was killed by a dart while hanging from a helicopter. Of course, they think this can excuse Bruce Li for trying to be Bruce even though his character is supposed to be Bruce's brother (who for some reason still mimes Bruce's gestures and fighting style - very POORLY). See Bruce go one-on-one with the cowardly lion. The props department stopped by Kay-Bee, you see. Bruce also finds nothing wrong with savagely beating up a crippled man. Towards the end, the director decided "let's throw a flashback" for a scene just shown 3 minutes ago!! They must've thought that only one-celled organisms with attention deficit disorder could fully understand this film.<br /><br /> | 0 |
To be completely honest,I haven't seen that many western films but I've seen enough to know what a good one is.This by far the worst western on the planet today.First off there black people in the wild west? Come on! Who ever thought that this could be a cool off the wall movie that everyone would love were slightly, no no, completely retarded!Secondly in that day and age women especially black women were not prone to be carrying and or using guns.Thirdly whats with the Asian chick speaking perfect English? If the setting is western,Asia isn't where your going. Finally,the evil gay chick was too much the movie was just crap from the beginning.Now don't get me wrong I'm not racist or white either so don't get ticked after reading this but this movie,this movie is the worst presentation of black people I have ever seen! | 0 |
You've been fouled and beaten up in submission by my harsh statements about "femme fatale" / "guns n' gals" movies! Now comes another breed in disappointing rediscoveries: ninja movies! Many of these I've seen before, and let me tell you, they aren't all that's cracked up to be! They usually don't stick to the point. This, among all others, suffers from no originality! What's a ninja got to do with preventing a nuclear holocaust in Russia? And isn't this supposed to be a "martial arts" movie, too? Does plenty of gunfire sound like an incredible action movie to you? Is blood the number one reason to love this to death? Will you waste some of your hard-earned cash over a lady singing in her see-through tank top? The answers to these important questions are found in THE NINJA MISSION, which should be in the martial arts section of your video store. For even more nonsense ninja fun, try checking out those Godfrey Ho movies put out by Trans World. You get what you deserve, and that's a promise! Recommended only for hardcore ninja addicts! | 0 |
Quite unimpressive. The 'twists' are all pretty predictable, if you've seen any movies within the last ten years, and the few somewhat interesting parts (wherein someone utilizes context clues to make a decision) are few and lack much punch, since the 'secret' has already been shown before these clues are explained.<br /><br />(spoilers, sorta)<br /><br />The acting is decent enough. The story simply isn't very interesting. The whole 'still awake' premise becomes nullified by the astral projection stuff(not kidding). <br /><br />The surgery scene is initially tense, a bit discomforting, but then becomes utterly banal.<br /><br />Not horrible, but not memorable. Terrence Howard's least interesting role to date, so far as I've seen. <br /><br />Kind of boring, overall. | 0 |
There are probably more people afraid of the dentist than of, let's say, little monsters or scary looking dolls. Which makes it a perfect subject for a horror movie, really.<br /><br />Dr. Feinstone (Corbin Bernsen) has been a successful dentist for several years now, but when he catches his wife cheating on him with the poolguy he snaps, and he brings his anger and frustration to his work. Well, give a mad dentist a drill and a mouth, and you can probably guess what happens next...<br /><br />As I said, brilliant idea but not delivered as well as it should. In particular the ending is a huge let down. Last note: watch for Mark Ruffalo (You Can Count On Me, Eternal Sunshine...) in this one.<br /><br />5/10. | 0 |
I started to watch this movie with high expectations. However, after one hour I gave up on this movie as it only instilled lots of unanswered questions upon me. This already started in the opening sequence and only got worse.<br /><br />Why would they bury the Hollander under a statue? Why is there an Italian comediant present? Why did the farmers wife save the Hollander? Why did he, upon being saved, not run for his life instead of starting to make love to the farmers wife? Why did the farmers wife not save the Hollander at a time when the farmer wouldn't be around? Why did these presumably illiterate farmers understand Italian? Why did the Italian comediant know about the Hollanders gold? Why did he hide it in the cesspool in the midst of the evil farmers property? These and many more questions popped up, and none of them seemed to get answered in an acceptable way. So I guess I am totally missing the point of this movie, and I am not connecting to the story in any way.... | 0 |
I never quite understood the popularity of Saban's Power Rangers show which was quite simply a second rate Americanized version of Japan's ultra popular super sentai series of the past three decades! What was cool about the Japanese version gets completely lost in the American version, characterization, special effects, etc.<br /><br />Of course many kids will say that power rangers are the greatest but they would be incorrect.<br /><br />I'm sure if they spoke Japanese, they would learn how much better super sentai is over the American version.<br /><br />Power Rangers is completely awful, try Super Sentai instead! Looking for a better show, try Voltron The Third Dimension instead! | 0 |
I have seen and liked the original film, and expected more from a remake than this.<br /><br />GOOD: Effects and makeup are good. No complaints about the score and visuals, they are adequate, and the performances were okay (Tim Roth was excellent, the other principals were fine, and a handful of the "supporting supporting actors" did very well with extremely limited roles). The action scenes were exciting and fun.<br /><br />BAD: The escape from the ape city was terrible. The characters are going in circles, then suddenly someplace in the middle of town there are tunnels to escape. Plus, what escape route leads through everybody's bedroom?<br /><br />The story was pared down to include as much action as possible. I like action scenes but the original film had more meat to it and deserved more respect.<br /><br />Finally, the ending was completely nonsensical as presented. Without seeing the inevitable sequel, there is no justification for it.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Revenge of the Sith starts out with a long action sequence that is impressive without being terribly exciting, then gets really boring for the next hour and fifteen minutes, with the same horrible dialogue and dull machinations that have plagued the rest of the prequel series. The only thing that improves the proceedings is the slow--and I mean slow--build-up to what we know will be the birth of Darth Vader. And when that finally comes, it's pretty all right. Not great. Not even good. But pretty all right. This movie is being vastly over-praised because it does not suck to high heaven like the previous sequels. Instead it's just turgid, dull, and routine. But you have to say, wow, those CGI environments are really impressive at times. Bu the lightsabre fights? They're all a blurry mess. I think the dark side took hold of Lucas when he started these prequels and no one noticed. This will make a ton of money, but thank god it's over, this once-worshipped franchise has been beaten down enough. I saw the 12:01 show, and after it, I heard a group of very small kids say, wow that was awesome! But everyone older than eight all grumbled the same thing: I fell asleep in the middle. It was kind of boring. I just thought seeing the birth of Darth Vader would be better. So said we all. | 0 |
First of all let me say that I had to think a lot about writing a comment for this movie. The best review for this kind of Cinema can be just the silence. Movie addressed to housewives and to grandmothers. This movie tries to look "genuine" and the characters should be supposed "real people". An Italian could never think that the characters might be "real": they are just "low-profile" stereotypes. It gives a very misguised vision of what life is in the Italian countryside. The plot is weak (plot? which plot?) and the humour does not make laugh anyone older than 12. | 0 |
"Grey Matter" AKA "The Brain Machine" but the video people thought better of that; the screen says 1972 but IMDb says 1977; it's that kind of movie. The government has some kind of overriding interest in this 'brain machine' project that has drafted four people - who turn out to be, roughly, a philosopher, a horny priest, a crackpot veteran and a patriot who got an abortion - to sit in a shrinking room with a computer that can read their horrendous secret thoughts. In the end the government takes over the lab by force and everybody dies. Here is a movie that is incompetent in every important way; MY s*** has better production values than this. It held my interest, though, just to see what exactly these exploitation filmmakers thought they were doing, dabbling in four-guys-in-a-room character drama. The answer: a tract about how science is inferior to God. Thanks a lot. It's like opening a Kinder egg and getting your 30th goddam jigsaw puzzle. The priest is played by James "Roscoe P. Coltrane" Best, the philosopher by Gerald "the Republican Simon" McRaney. Also featuring very, very, very long establishing and transition shots in great quantity, this moves almost as slow as the Liberal convention. | 0 |
Pokemon 3 is little more than three or four episodes of the TV series, strung together without the usual commercials. The story is typical of Pokemon (conflict, fighting, and a resolution where all are happy in the end), and there is nothing original or unusual in the animation. Some of the holes in the plot are filled in (over the closing credits!) without explanation, and everything is just a bit too sweet.<br /><br />Why see it on the big screen? The only reason is to be a part of your child's world. Both of my sons enjoy Pokemon, and by my showing an interest in what they like, we are closer. Seeing a film in a theatre is still different than seeing it on the tube, and my sons enjoy the full movie-going experience. I gave the movie a 4, mostly from my children's point of view.<br /><br /> | 0 |
Why do I watch movies like this ? - other than I have some weird misguided masochistic belief that one day I will find a true gem amongst all this dross I can't think one one good reason. This movie was dross from start to finish - but semi-hilarious dross. Where else but in a bad Italian dubbed movie could you find heated exchanges of surreal mangled English like this one between a honest military type and the sinister chief of a secret X-files like organisation dedicated to hiding "The Truth":<br /><br />Man in Black: Silence is best for us until we are able to prove that the UFOs have no bellicose motives.<br /><br />Military Type: In any event I find your interference abusive.<br /><br />Man in Black: Whoever has to impose his will is.<br /><br />I rewound the DVD (you know what I mean) a good half dozen times and I still can't make those lines mean anything sensible. My other fave line was:<br /><br />"We can be quite hard on those who contravert our interests."<br /><br />It's English Jim, but not as we know it. <br /><br />The other highlights of this dull plonker of a movie for me were the totally spaced out acting of the photographer character at the start. Saddled with the worst haircut EVER in the history of everything, the man just wandered around looking like a stunned fish in a bad wig till kidnapped and forced to look at a piece of Plexiglas by some aliens. The aliens are most effectively not seen as a POV shot - hand held camera with a fish-eye lens - sort of spooky the first time but, used over and over again it lost its power (incidentaly, if it is a Point of View shot, it means the aliens always walk out of rooms backwards for some reason).<br /><br />The film was set in "England". This meant the Spanish Italian set designers put some British number plates on a couple of English cars and put a Union Jack on our hero's press card... and that was about it. No other attempt to make it look like the UK at all.<br /><br />Favourite moment? When the Foley artists didn't notice that characters they were foleying (is there such a word?) were no longer walking on gravel but were now on the lawn so their feet kept on making loud "crunch! crunch!" noises. Other than that, another total waste of 90 minutes of my life. I hope they prove those UFOs have no bellicose motives soon... | 0 |
A friend once asked me to read a screenplay of his that had been optioned by a movie studio. To say it was one of the most inept and insipid scripts I'd ever read would be a bold understatement. Yet I never told him this. Why? Because in a world where films like "While She Was Out" can be green-lighted and attract an Oscar- winning star like Kim Basinger, a screenplay lacking in character, content and common sense is no guarantee that it won't sell.<br /><br />As so many other reviewers have pointed out, "While She Was Out" is a dreadfully under-written Woman-in-Peril film that has abused housewife Basinger hunted by four unlikely hoods on Christmas Eve. Every gripe is legitimate, from the weak dialog and bad acting to the jaw-dropping lapses of logic, but Basinger is such an interesting actress and the premise is not without promise. Here are a couple of things that struck me:<br /><br />1) I don't care how much we are supposed to think her husband is a jerk, the house IS a mess with toys. Since when did it become child abuse to make kids pick up after themselves?<br /><br />2) Racially diverse gangs are rare everywhere except Hollywood, where they are usually the only racially balanced groups on screen.<br /><br />3) Sure the film is stupid. But so are the countless "thrillers" I've sat through where the women are portrayed as wailing, helpless victims of male sadism. Stupid or not, I found it refreshing to see a woman getting the best of her tormentors.<br /><br />4) I LOVED the ending! <br /><br />5) Though an earlier reviewer coined this phrase, I really DO think this film should be retitled "The Red Toolbox of Doom." | 0 |
There are a couple of prior comments here which opine about this flick's abundance of clichés throughout -- and I agree completely, both with regard to the characters AND the dialog.<br /><br />I'd read about Elizabeth Berkly's awful performance in the equally-awful "Showgirls," which I've never seen - and her performance here, while not awful, is barely up to the standards of Lifetime's worse fare. There was not a hint of depth to her character, but then there probably shouldn't have been. If so, it would have placed the film completely out-of-balance, since there wasn't a hint of depth or charisma - not a trace - in any one character, performer, or portrayal.<br /><br />The principal's handling of Liz's initial complaint after her tutee had kissed her in the hall was laughable. Her husband's initial reaction and advice were likewise (Forrest Gump, attacking Jenny's boyfriend in his car provided a more realistic, intelligent action, and, hell, he was mentally-challenged).<br /><br />The smarmy, unctuous lawyer (excuse the redundancy) father of the lying student actually performed something probably worthy of praise in his performance: he was both laughable and thoroughly annoying at the same time, no mean feat. Her attorney was more of an insensitive nerd, also not unknown in the profession.<br /><br />Finally (and frankly, I rather enjoyed this part), the police were such a collection of insensitive oafs, that you'd rather depend upon Barney Fife, without Andy, to handle all law enforcement and investigation in your community. I know that most real-like cops fall a bit short of the sharpness, intelligence and empathy of the level displayed by most characters on the "Law and Order" series', and the like -- but dolts of this level seem to be a staple on "Lifetime."<br /><br />Finally, I found a kind of "story within a story" fascination with Josh's concoction of his being the "victim" of his teacher. This scripted performance within the story was even worse than his overall performance in the main story. This was something of an achievement, like going from "F" to "F-minus."<br /><br />This whole lame situation should have been resolved - in real life - in about 15 minutes, following a realistic meeting between teacher and school authorities, with husband involved. But then that would have precluded the contrived drama following, and left an hour's blank film in the camera. <br /><br />But the writer(s) here, proved with their ending, they could do even worse. When the situation was finally "resolved" and "righted," this was accomplished in all of about 45 seconds, with no indication of what measures might have been forthcoming in any "real world" context for the perpetrator and his parents, or whether they might have been able to find some sort of path toward redemption.<br /><br />This one's a 2* presentation; the second "*" because it does have some mild "fascination." | 0 |
After too many bad memories, I took to skipping this episode each time it showed up in the Season 2 sequence. I recently watched it again just to remind me why. I've always considered this the worst ST:TNG episode (with the exception of "Shades of Gray," which barely counts as an episode at all).<br /><br />I keep listening to the clunky dialogue and thinking of the script red-penciled by the author's Writing 101 teacher: "SHOW, DON'T TELL!" From Deanna Troi's pronouncement, and everyone else's constant elbowing reminders about what a charming, dangerous rogue Okona is, to Guinan's explanation about how funny her droid joke is (it isn't), to the who-cares resolution to the conflict, there isn't a plot point that isn't highlighted and triple-underlined for our edification, and there ain't a believable moment in any of it. Unfortunately, Bill Campbell, a charming actor in other circumstances, is too puppy-dog huggable to be the center of the machinations of the plot. On the other hand, it could be that no one short of John Barrowman (Jack Harkness from "Doctor Who") could pull of this underwritten placeholder of a role.<br /><br />(Zero points, by the way, to the Data subplot. While I think Joe Piscopo stopped being funny decades ago, he and Brent Spiner had nothing to work with here. Although the Jerry Lewis bit was funny in a stupid way.)<br /><br />On a good day, you may be able to think of this as a charming little homage to a lesser Original Series episode. Me, I'd rather skip ahead to "Time Squared" or "Q Who." | 0 |
This show stinks. For parents, they usually want their kids to watch something good for them. It is usually educational, funny, and bright.<br /><br />Is it educational? No. the Doodlebops sing and that's it. They usually sing about themselves, they don't try teaching anything.<br /><br />Is it funny? No. The Doodlebops instead say something which is not intended as a joke, and laugh at it.<br /><br />Is it bright? It's so bright, it's painful. As far as color,s everything is extremely bright, so that's good. But NOTHING is ever wrong in the world of the Doodlebop's. Therefore, they are always happy. a kid in trouble will become depressed because they have never been exposed to being sad.<br /><br />The show is also extremely cheesy. Every syllable is said to the highest level of exaggeration and very corny. It's overkill.<br /><br />For kids, it's entertaining, but past the age of 2 you won't want your kids to see it. They'll never know how to grow up. | 0 |
I can't believe I've just spent one and a half hours watching such a weak film. If there is only one film you have to miss, this is the one.<br /><br />Robert is a teenager whose father's died recently so he starts hanging out with some local anti-social teenagers and using drugs. All these make him subconsciously more violent and at last such subconsciousness explodes...<br /><br />The first thing is that I don't think I can find any sense or trace of great ecstasy in this film, not in any single character. If the director considers what I saw in the last couple of minutes as great ecstasy, I have to say that that's not even close.<br /><br />The use of cinematography is also not mature. Most of the time I couldn't see any facial expressions from the actors and I didn't feel the body language was sufficient enough to make an impact. Maybe the crew was just so tired that they fixed the camera there to include everything in the settings. Everybody happy except the audience.<br /><br />The plot is particularly weak. There are a lot of unrelated scenes and talking which might be supposed to be related but they are really so random that you can never pull them all together, perhaps unless you're the one who wrote them.<br /><br />In the one and a half hour you may find less than 5 minutes of real acting and all other time there are just people walking, talking and moving. So I really can't comment on acting here.<br /><br />Nice choice of music in the last couple of minutes though. Maybe this is the only good thing.<br /><br />I have never given a film a 1 but this film certainly deserves it (at least you laugh when you watch Scary Movies). This is a film about when a failed attempt to portray troubled teenagers meets extremely disturbed audience. Hope you fall into neither group. | 0 |
One wonders why this picture was made at all : the plot as such is totally unbelievable if not ridiculous, the characters (experienced loner cop versus younger one, quite fascinated) quite predictable, the ending totally murky and impossible to understand (maybe after several viewings but you'd have to have a masochistic tendency for that ; the idea being you have to read the book to understand fully what it's all about)and the acting is bad. Was the basic idea to show that French film makers are able to do as well as Americans in the genre that include "Seven" and "Silence of the lambs" ? If so, it is a total failure. It was quite a success though (and has a sort of cult-status as the first French serial killer film)and, it seems, considered as a good product to export. Strange. | 0 |
This movie lost me with the crossbow RPG (rocket-propelled grenade). It was like someone cut and pasted a scene from Robocop. I half expected Beowulf to say exclaim, "I LIKE IT!"<br /><br />I watched this because I like Chris Bruno from "The Dead Zone" TV show and he did his part. He chose a strange accent, but at least he kept it consistent for the whole movie -- unlike any of his costars. They kept slipping into all kinds of speech from old English to modern English, sometimes in the same sentence.<br /><br />There are already many comments on how this movie is different from the source material. However, even on its own, this movie's plot is not good. It's just boring, which even the low budget doesn't excuse. Having a low budget means that you need to at least have a good story, dialog and decent acting. Those things don't cost much. Instead, they spent their money on half-assed CGI and some decent costumes and sets.<br /><br />Life is too short to watch this movie. | 0 |
It is incredible in that it succeeds in being terrible on so many levels. The script, the acting, the directing and the choice of cast are all appalling. The costumes, sets and pseudo-medieval language are also utterly awful. In an odd way I actually enjoyed this film, once I had accepted that it wasn't going to be any good. It seems a shame that people would spend so much time and effort producing something so poor, when really they could have made something pretty decent out of the premise (albeit not very believable!), but instead we are treated to a rather nauseating and cheesy tale of dragons and knights, that lacks any of the charm to be found in other such fantasy films. Let's just hope that The Lord of the Rings is a bit better! Oh, and David Thewlis' haircut makes him look like He-Man. It does! | 0 |
Only the Antichrist could have been behind such a disaster. One only hopes that this irony was the motivating force behind the "film"! This movie was so bad, it forced me to register with IMDb, finally, just so I could trash it. What makes this movie all the more tragic is that it had such GREAT source material! I have never seen a movie where all the elements were so grotesquely mediocre as to render the result less than the sum of its parts.<br /><br />It may seem insignificant, but I'd like to start with the score. As the proud owner of a music degree, I must register my indignation! I was torn between laughter and dry heaves as I listened to what John Scheffer did to Goldsmith's brilliant score; it was far more gruesome than any of the burlesque death scenes, and almost as inadvertently comedic. It was by far the most inappropriate score I've heard since, well, I really can't think of a worse one. Maybe JAWS 4?<br /><br />As for the plot... I'm sorry. New Age mysticism??? What ever happened to the gritty realism of the original trilogy? In those films (more so in the first two than the third, but still!!) the supernatural was for the most part implied, and it was this subtlety that made the movies so eerily believable. Here we have crystals going black (calling all Skeksis and Mystics!!) and inverted crucifixes galore, even though in certain scenes the crucifux would be perfectly normal but for the camera angle. Gone is the refined psychlogical manipulation tapping the malaise inherent in our collective psyche: in its place a boorish "slap in the face" of recycled cliché and transparent incompetence. Add to that a lead "actress" so unbelievably ANNOYING that you fervently thank the director for those scenes from which she is absent. Never have I seen a little girl so fundamentally irritating since little Stephanie ruined ALL IN THE FAMILY.<br /><br />Other than that, I have no strong feelings on the subject ;-) Luckily the first three films are sufficiently adroit as to render this train-wreck of wasted celluloid inconsequential or, at the very most, a study in how NOT to make a film. Viewer beware! May induce vomiting if you're lucky. | 0 |
Return to Cabin by the Lake just.... was lacking. It must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera. So, within the same scene - you'll have some movie-quality camera shots AND simple video camera shots. It makes for a very odd blend! I think they should have found SOME way to not do the "home video" type effect! <br /><br />I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences. But if you haven't seen the original CBTL.... you'll never want to see it if you see this one first! It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one. | 0 |
The movie has only one flaw, unfortunately this flaw damages all credibility of the piece.<br /><br />It starts with the condemnation of the Israeli occupation of disputed territories. It fails to address the reason Israelis are there. Egypt, Syria, Iraq and Jordan attacked Israel. This is why Israel "occupys" their land, because those countries lost it in a war they started.<br /><br />The film also claims that Israel has defied the U N by not complying with Resolution 242. Problem is, 242 was rejected immediately upon it's inception by.....the palestinians, making it void.<br /><br />Many films are put together well, and can really show footage that changes minds, but remember, when watching anything, believe none of what you hear, and only half of what you see.<br /><br />All participants in this film are known critics of Israel, and some have made many antisemitic public comments, removing any possible credibility to their words.<br /><br />All participants are in dire need of a actual history lesson taught objectively, not by some palestinian sympathizer. | 0 |
Well I just paid a dollar for a DVD of this movie, and it wasn't even worth that. It seems to be from a poor print and is in the public domain, I am guessing.<br /><br />Neagle - despite her glory, awards, and reputation - is a homely British gal who can't sing or dance or act.<br /><br />Some of the fine old Hollywood character actors on display here must have thought they were doing a classic. Director Herbert Wilcox (Neagle's husband) always thought Anna was the most exciting and talented femme on the screen. He was mistaken. She was improbably popular in Britain before and after WWII. Her "serious" roles are even more ludicrous than her musical appearance here.<br /><br />Only a couple of the famous songs are included and neither one is well presented. Skip this one and find the one that stars Doris Day. At least you get some real comedy and professional style dancing! | 0 |
A huge hit upon release with Australian audiences, it can still be funny today, but its over-the-top political incorrectness and blunt, unsubtle humour can make it a bit of a cringer. It goes on far too long; some of<br /><br /> the content could have been saved for the sequel, Barry McKenzie Holds His Own, which desperately needed some new stuff anyway. Granted, his ocker Aussie attitude is funny, but also becomes annoying as the film drags on. Some say Crocker's songs are the best bits, and they are certainly original, but "hilarious"? The Adventures of Barry McKenzie will go down as a landmark in Australian cinema, but we should do everything in our power to make sure that overseas audiences do not see the majority of Australians as Barry McKenzies (or, for that matter, Mick Dundees!). Rating: 5/10 | 0 |
I first heard about White Noise when I saw the TV advert. Before then I didn't even know it existed. I watched the trailer online and decided that I would go and see it. Now being a fan of films like The Sixth Sense, I thought that this film would give me everything I wanted. It has Michael Keaton in it, and he rocks. Unfortunately the film did not deliver. It tried to be another Sixth Sense or Stir of Echoes, and failed miserably. It has a very promising start, but the middle just drags on repeating itself, and ends with a completely poor twist which any monkey could have figured out. Unfortunately like most "Scary" films nowadays it relies on loud noises and bangs to make the audience jump. This film could have been so much more. It's a shame because it was a good idea. | 0 |
Not being familiar with US television stations, when I flicked onto this on my in-laws' cable, first I thought it was just a low-budget sci-fi film, then after a couple of minutes I started thinking it might be a clever satire on the worst excesses of Christian fundamentalist, and then it dawned on me - good grief, these people are serious! It's been a while since I saw anything so unintentionally hilarious. I hesitated about writing a review of this for fear of offending believers, but then I saw other reviews and thought, hey, they can take it. Tough philosophical conundrum: how do you make a movie criticizing movies without actually showing what it is you're criticizing? Answer: make it in such a way that the only people who'll appreciate it are people who hate the kind of movies you're criticizing. I suppose some liberals (ugh! spit when you say that!) might be offended at the filmmakers' contempt for those in the audience who aren't obsessed with the J**** C***** myth, but I didn't mind - it was so darn funny! | 0 |
I saw the movie last night here at home, but I thought it was too long first of all. Second, the things I saw in the movie were way too out of text to even have in this what I thought was going to be a comedy type movie like the rest before. The things isn't funny in the movie: fiancé hitting his girlfriend, beatings. The movie was way too long--talk about wanting to go to sleep and wondering when it will end when you wake up and still have it playing! Some of the things at the reunion were too much to capture--like the lady singing--i felt like i was almost watching a spiritual song show here! come on Perry, you can do better then this! | 0 |
HAH! So this is the movie that the "Next Action Stars" were getting into. Well I'm glad that I didn't participate and didn't win...<br /><br />Isn't it funny how one can just look at the first 10 seconds(!) and make up ones mind about a movie? I mean, come on! Just look at those titles!? I watched this movie(or part of this "teleplay" since it was produced for TV and we couldn't bear to watch the whole thing) one evening while doing my military service and the audience with me was the typical hodge-podge of average guys that once in a while watch series like Las Vegas just for the girls in the show. so the bar wasn't really high, the most watched movie in my group was Girl Next Door (and it wasn't because of the great script ;D . But this movie's total lack of originality, acting, scripting, and just about everything else that makes a movie good made it pretty easy to switch channel to Las Vegas (or was it CSI? don't remember...) without any complaints by the rest of the group. And that is rare(!) For heavens sake! Don't by this movie! If it's on TV, then yes, watch it. And contemplate on it. My conclusion? well, since Joel Silver has indeed produced some of the best action-films out there (Die Hard, Matrix 1, to name some) I can only say that producers don't give the film it's quality, they provide money for the directors. And to sell this movie just because it's a Joel Silver movie is just a desperate attempt to conceal the obvious flaws of the crew who really made it. | 0 |
Well...now that I know where Rob Zombie stole the title for his "House of 1,000 Corpses" crapfest, I can now rest in peace. Nothing about the somnambulant performances or trite script would raise the dead in "The House of Seven Corpses," but a groovie ghoulie comes up from his plot (ha!) anyway, to kill the bloody amateurs making a low-rent horror flick in his former abode! In Hell House (sorry, I don't remember the actual name of the residence), a bunch of mysterious, unexplained deaths took place long ago; some, like arthritic Lurch stand-in John Carradine (whose small role provides the film's only worthwhile moments), attribute it to the supernatural; bellowing film director John Ireland dismisses it as superstitious hokum. The result comes across like "Satan's School for Girls" (catchy title; made-for-TV production values; intriguing plot) crossed with "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things" (low-rent movie about low-rent movie makers who wake the dead); trouble is, it's nowhere near as entertaining or fun. "The House of Seven Corpses" is dead at frame one, and spends the rest of its 89 minutes going through rigor mortis, dragging us along for every aching second... | 0 |
Subsets and Splits