id
stringlengths 6
9
| status
stringclasses 2
values | _server_id
stringlengths 36
36
| text
stringlengths 32
6.39k
| label.responses
sequencelengths 1
1
⌀ | label.responses.users
sequencelengths 1
1
⌀ | label.responses.status
sequencelengths 1
1
⌀ | label.suggestion
stringclasses 1
value | label.suggestion.agent
null | label.suggestion.score
null |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
test_7300 | pending | 18e8abbe-aa71-4359-ad30-9e84f3eb0620 | One minute into THE UNTOLD and it`s already ripped off techniques from THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT and PREDATOR . Does this mean we`ll be seeing lots of trees ? We sure will . Will we be seeing an Austrian bodybuilder blowing things up ? Well this film has the budget of a TVM so the answer is a resounding no . Does anyone like these soft porn shows like BEDTIME STORIES ? Good because there`s a scene in this that resembles these type of shows . Unfortunately the only thing you see is cellulite . Do you like it when the screen fades to black during a TVM ? Great because this happens between every scene in THE UNTOLD . In fact it happens during every scene too . Did you enjoy MILLIONAIRE - A MAJOR FRAUD ? Fantastic because one of the characters looks like a bearded Major Charles Ingram the contestant who tried to swindle the show out of one million pounds . Seriously one of the characters looks like Major Ingram . I kept expecting him to say " It`s bear. It could be a bear . But it might be a bigfoot < Cough , cough > , yes it`s a bigfoot < Cough > , it`s definately a bigfoot < Cough > Yes I`m going to shoot it . Final answer Chris " <br /><br />Oh and have I mentioned that all the above are the good bits ?<br /><br />THE UNTOLD isn`t the worst bigfoot movie I`ve ever seen , that accolade firmly goes to NIGHT OF THE DEMON which I saw over twenty years ago and I think I`ve only seen less than a dozen films that are worse in all of that time . But that said THE UNTOLD is still a very poor film in just about every aspect , especially editing . As some other reviewers have pointed out it feels like whole chunks of the film are missing while there`s other bits where scenes are spliced together in the wrong order . This is a really bad film that deserves far less than its rating of 5.1. I give it 3 out of ten and I`m being very kind | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7301 | pending | 784ea72c-919e-4ea5-820e-4b40d216f1b7 | The Untold... Is one of the worst films I ever saw. The story really seems original, but it was badly bestow on screen. Lance Henriksen, a good actor, ended up in this crap. But, hey he made a lot of low budget films... you need to pay the bills, you know? Kidding. Lance is a great actor, but he ended up with this bunch of silly actors. Seriously, Andrea Roth was there just to have a nudity scene, and other actors... well they were just there. There was constantly a fade out-fade in editing, and that makes me sick! That was the most horrible move that just keeps on coming and it really makes you angry. It was also very predictable, boring and slow. It has a bizarre tempo that goes just... wrong.<br /><br />Can't say more... don't rent it, or buy it. You can watch it, if on TV. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7302 | pending | 2d70b7b3-b706-4eb4-981e-1dfc5c9121ce | This looks decidedly like "the amateur" hour. How this piece of trash was ever released is beyond me: the acting, the story, the characters, the supposedly special effects, etc...it's ALL wrong. Why Lance Henriksen accepted this will remain one of the great mysteries of cinema. Maybe he was in dire need for money or maybe be was under the influence of some illegal drug.<br /><br />It is pointless trying to explain you what this movie's about. It deals with the big foot legend but done in the worst possible manner. In fact, this stinker smells like a direct-to-video release.<br /><br />Avoid at ALL costs! 0* out of 10* | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7303 | pending | 09bad24c-3e51-4067-a2ed-25d567802dd4 | Hey all, I just wanted to give you all a few crazy facts about this movie. I was actually one of the Make-up FX artists that help create the "beast" for this movie and I have to tell you the original creature looked absolutely amazing. I remember when we got the first photos back from the set we were all talking about how much of a shame it was that this creature was in a movie that would probably be pretty poor.<br /><br />What actually happened though was that Jason Palmer did the original make-up for the Sasquatch, but for some reason they had to go back and re-shoot much of the creature. The sad part was that Jason passed away a few weeks before that and so the re-done creature was no where near as awesome as the original one.<br /><br />For me it was quite sad because this was Jasons final movie, and he sort of got cheated out of his final fame due to the bad re-shoots. Anyway, I thought you guys may find that a tad interesing, and if you would like you can head over to mmmyeah.com and check out some "behind the scenes" photos.<br /><br />Later, Jeff | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7304 | pending | 4bd2bc02-38ad-45e2-8d81-8591893a393c | I think that this is one of my top ten worst movies I have ever seen! There's like fade out every two minutes. If this was on TV, they would have a preview every 2-3 minutes. But there is a seen I personally enjoyed: which is when the blonde goes to take a bath in a pit of boiling water with a man watching and for about 10 seconds you see her whole body with no towel on! That was the best scene in the whole film because you see sasquatch starring at them but the last 10 minutes is when we see his whole body. Plus, most of the deaths are off screen and just the scream or roar. And I was expecting the Sasquatch to die. But he dosen't shoot him and only 4 or 5 people die in the whole film I was expecting 8-10 people to die. Don't watch this movie. I give it an F-. Don't waste your time. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7305 | pending | 288fabaf-1202-4cea-b1f9-aaf6977177a4 | Bigfoot movies tend to be bad, so I'm not inclined to watch them. However, there were some good commercials on The Sci-Fi Channel, so I decided to watch. A climbing expedition heads into the Pacific northwest to find a a fallen airplane carrying the daughter of the expedition's leader (played by Lance Hendrickson), and have brought a revolutionary DNA detector that could be used to prove the sasquatch's existence. And it actually generates some suspense at first. The sasquatch is unseen, but sees the mountain climbers' body heat (like the alien in "Predator"), and I did wonder when it was going to strike. The acting is passable, as is the background music. The dense wooded location is well-used. And when the creature is finally seen, the costume is not bad, though nothing great. But as the film grinds on, it becomes increasingly annoying and absurd. Most of the characters are unpleasant people, rude to each other and only in the expedition for money and publicity (except for Lance Hendrickson's character), so that it's impossible to care about what happens to them. And their behavior become increasingly stupid. One man shoots the creature (not fatally), then gets drunk and sits alone in the dark. One female camper puts on a slinky silk negligee before crawling into her sleeping bag, then barely escapes being dragged into the woods by the sasquatch, without getting her hair and make-up messed up. Then, the survivors conclude that the sasquatch is really after the DNA detecting machine and will let them live if they leave it behind ("a creature knows what threatens it"). Obviously, the instinct doesn't apply to these actors, or they wouldn't have appeared in this movie. And the ending is so stupid, you'll want to kick the TV screen. If it weren't for the script, it would have been a decent horror film. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7306 | pending | 3b68aaf7-063a-4fd3-b87b-f673cc489d59 | A plane carrying a rich scientist's daughter goes down in thick wilderness. He assembles a group to go and find her and the others, but the rescue party soon suspects that something is stalking them. Then ulterior motives for the expedition are revealed and that only adds to the already existing tension.<br /><br />The movie is a decent idea and a take on the popular Sasquatch legend was bound to wind up on film sooner or later. However, the film's direction breaks a fundamental rule of horror/thriller directing and that is showing too much too soon. Of course the audience knows there is something stalking the characters, just read the title! But showing what should have been the film's kicker that early just ruins most of the suspense and, as a direct result, much of the fun. The film also lacks a good atmosphere and there are almost no landscape shots that show the expanse of the wilderness, but there are plenty monster point-of-view shots that add nothing to anything. They actually knock off 'Predator' quite shamelessly. The low-budget horror film 'Wendigo' did what this film tries to do much better.<br /><br />Some of the character tensions and a non-cliché ending manage to make up for this rise above the crap pile, but it is still poor and given the premise and potential, very disappointing. --- 4/10<br /><br />Rated R for some violence and profanity, but it's pretty tame compared to most R-rated horror. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7307 | pending | 838c2658-5f77-44bd-9978-0b47dc1d6d03 | Well, I read the other comments. Didn't think it sounded any good, but decided to tape it anyway. Perhaps not so smart to read all the poor reviews before watching this movie, because of course I would be noticing all the same weird things. Excessive use of fade to black, a few weird camera angles and crosscutting dialog for different conversations with the same people taking place at different times! But noticing all that I thought to myself: Well, this would probably be really boring if it was all going chronologically. The conversations aren't that exciting, but kind of mandatory. And the constant fading to black after really short scenes really makes it feel like the story is fast forwarding too the interesting part. Skipping the boring bits. At the end of the movie it gets a bit exciting too. Will they survive? <br /><br />So I actually liked this movie? No, not really. The director had some interesting ideas on how to keep the audience from being bored while he is trying to introduce the characters. But he is overdoing it. It gets annoying, and sometimes confusing. This was apparently only the second movie he directed, so maybe he will learn and make really good stuff in the future. And if you're sitting there (in the future) reading this wondering if the now famous directors second movie is worth a watch. Well, if he is good in the future, sure, watch this crap and wonder how he ever got to make a third one. Otherwise this movie isn't really worth watching unless you very interested in film-making, and want to see one way you can cut the mandatory boring introductory scenes into something watchable. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7308 | pending | bf35846f-9649-4596-a808-7c5192d5ef0f | A big waste of time is all you'll get out of this bag. I rented this hoping for a suspenseful movie with maybe a few believable scenes, but boy was I ever dissapointed. I think the title should've been "Camping 101", or something to that effect. Well, anyway, stay the hell away from this film. It numbs you to death. Don't be afraid of big foot, be afraid of this crap!! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7309 | pending | 6322323d-7194-4f82-82b6-5287d83e9c97 | An airplane transporting some scientists and a prototype of a DNA machine, a powerful and revolutionary invent, fall in a jungle in Pacific. The insurance company sponsors a rescue expedition, commanded by Harlan Knowles (Lance Henriksen), the owner of a huge corporation, which owns the prototype, and father of one of the scientist. There, the group finds the rests of the plane five miles far from the expected location and the machine and the remains of the persons. Further, they realize that a Sasquatch, a kind of Big Foot, is chasing them. This movie is so ridiculous that I do not know what I am doing, spending my time again in this garbage. The direction is awful, the actors and the lines are horrible, copying parts of `The Predator' and even `The Blair Witch Project'. To summarize how bad this movie is, its best scene is when Marla Lawson, the character of Andrea Roth, is wounded, and the guide of the expedition says that she needs to have an injection of tetanus vaccine. Andrea undresses her jeans, and the guide says: 'Nice butts, but the shot needs to be in your arm'. Ridiculous! My vote is two.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): `Sasquatch, O Abominável' (`Sasquatch, The Abominable')<br /><br /> | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7310 | pending | 36122399-7aed-45d9-9391-6ed429ee7f89 | This is Jonas Quastel debut as a director and to be honest, it shows. It looks like he threw in every type of camera trick that he learned in film school to try and add some style to a badly written script, which he helped write! Film has Lance Henriksen and a group of others searching the pacific northwest for a plane that crashed that his daughter was on and also a special machine his company has built that he wants to also retrieve. The first 5 minutes of the film is either blurry or shaky or out of focus! Quastel tries to capture the "Blair Witch" mode with these type of shots and they grow tiresome very quickly. And there is also the POV shots that are right from "Wolfen" and "Predator". These shots are from the point of view (POV) of the Sasquatch. The editing is very choppy at times as a scene seems to shift right in the middle. I have heard this film was shot in about 12 days and I suppose instead of "Starting back to one" they just restarted without stopping and edited the scene together. And the rest of the film is fade-outs from one scene to another. They're are so many scenes that fade-out that I lost count. Now, the nude scene with Andrea Roth. Its not her. you can easily see its a body double. And you know your watching a bad "B" movie when in the middle of the pacific northwest a hot chick decides to go to the nearest hot spring and bathe! ********SPOILER ALERT********<br /><br />And the Sasquatch himself is not bad when you don't really see him and he's just a blurry image behind some trees or bushes but when you finally see him at the end your of course disappointed. First of all, he's not that tall. The actor who is playing Sasquatch is only hairy in certain spots on his body. Its a partial suit! And he's bald! I have heard that a make-up person died during filming and maybe that explains why the costume looks hastily made. Some of the sound effects that are coming from the Sasquatch are nothing more than the familiar lion roars that we have all heard in other films. I do have to admit that Henriksen is not to bad. Yes, he's working with bad material but he has one of those interesting faces that can actually enhance certain moments of the film. People keep saying that a good Bigfoot film has never been made but I disagree. I have always said that "The Creature From Black Lake" is a good film and I highly recommend that one. I'm a sucker for a Sasquatch film but this one is just to amateurish. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7311 | pending | cefd42c2-c3df-47af-ab8f-3cc4fc68d8eb | I'm not sure what it is but there seems to be some curse when it comes to films about the elusive Bigfoot. There has yet to be a film that intelligently approaches the subject, nor one that creates any real suspense. Both "Legend of Boggy Creek" (1972) and the first film entitled "Sasquatch" (1978) have become minor cult classics, but neither were very memorable. Both films were targeted at family friendly audiences, thus inhibiting themselves from actually trying to scare anyone. "Harry & The Hendersons" (1987) was the first big budgeted film to use Bigfoot, with a terrific creature design by Rick Baker. However, they too chose to aim for younger audiences, but this time as a comedy (as did "Bigfoot" in 1995). I've long awaited for someone to tackle the subject as a thriller, perhaps in the vein of "Jaws" or "Predator". When I saw this at my local video store I thought my dream had come true. Boy, was I wrong! Lance Henriksen plays a billionaire who leads an expedition into the pacific northwest in hopes of finding his daughter as she was on board a small plane when it crashed in the mountains. The premise is interesting and sounded promising. The truth is it never builds any real suspense. I never found myself at all interested in any of the characters as each of them were very two dimensional and rather bland. Even the always dependable Henriksen seems to be phoning in his performance. Every time he appears on screen he looks plain bored. He should be as there is no action to speak of for the first hour of the film. As for the creature, where do I start? I figured at the very least we would get a cool looking monster running around in the woods, but instead we get this bald (yes, I said "bald!") man with pitch black skin and patches of fur here and there. Picture a cross between "Swamp Thing" and Chaka from "Land of the Lost" and you'll get the idea. Nothing like the artwork on the cover box I assure you. Sloppy editing and careless direction also adds to the confusion as half the time everything seemed out of sequence, while the other half of the film was constantly used up with these long, slow fade outs (which made no sense or served any purpose). They even stole the whole infra-red vision P.O.V from the creature in "Predator", which just looked too silly and out of place to be effective. Maybe all this proves is that Hollywood should just forget about trying to make anymore Bigfoot films, as they have yet to make one that works. So far each one has been as scary as an episode of "In Search Of" 3/10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7312 | pending | 58f60e31-13e2-4ded-8fc4-90402b7a4c0a | *This comment may technically contain "spoilers" but it sure doesn't contain surprises*<br /><br />My cousin and I rented this the other day hoping to get a good laugh at a typical amateur crappy excuse for a horror movie. Unfortunately, we didn't get too many laughs, and we certainly didn't get too many scares either.<br /><br />Plot outline: A plane containing a company head's daughter and some weird piece of technology crashes in an area where our furry friend lives, so the company head assembles a team of personalities, rather than skilled hunters, to recover it.<br /><br />For the first 3/4's of the movie, things get pretty boring. It mostly consists of shots of Big Foot lurking in the trees with the party members occasionally hearing him, and passing it off as nothing. We also see several shots of the party through Big Foot's point of view, and he apparently sees in thermal vision.<br /><br />To set up the plot, we have to watch sequences of the group sitting around the campfire talking about possibilities to justify the sasquatches existence and actions. "maybe he can dodge bullets...if he sees them coming". Sure enough, we later see he can. "There are many uncharted lands that the sasquatch may live in. Maybe this is one of them that was over-looked". And obviously it is. "Maybe the Sasquatch is angry because the plane hit one of his family members". And sure enough, thats the case. Along with those scenes, there are a couple of "Oh my god its the sasquatch oh wait its just you!" scenes, and sadly, they are among the scariest.<br /><br />Then, finally, people start dying. Well, 2 people at least. Plus, the bodies of past victims are discovered. The death scenes are pretty lame. It mostly just leaves it to our imagination by showing the Sasquatch grabbing them, then cutting to a different scene, but first, we are treated to some horrible screams off camera.<br /><br />Then at last, we get to see the protagonist's final showdown with the monster. I gotta admit, I found it pretty exciting while it lasted. But alas, it's pretty short lived, and after we are treated to an ending that makes a half assed effort to seem cryptic. Then, some closing text with a rather boring conclusion.<br /><br />I can't say I recommend this movie. It's not quite bad enough to give the Mystery Science Theatre 3000, and its definitely not scary enough and boring to enjoy as a horror movie. Just don't bother with it. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7313 | pending | f820eccb-01a8-4dd7-a2f3-cbf5345d8779 | I can't believe how bad this "film" is. For starters, the movie deals with the legend of Big Foot and a group of people having a close encounter with the creature. The premise is interesting and having Lance Henriksen in the cast (ALIENS)gave "The Untold" a promising outlook. Unfortunately that's as interesting as it gets. This looks like a direct to DVD release...or so I guess. This is basically a production-less affair with probably the worst editing (with a constant "fading to black" in between every scene!!!)I've seen in my life and acting that will sure make you cringe. Why Lance Henriksen picked this is completely fathomless. And the movie takes cues from just about any other genre movie, from "Blair Witch Project" (The video scene) and "Predator", to "Alive". This is supposedly based on true events, but the only truth to be found herein is just how BAD this movie is. I'm usually not a harsh critic and believe me, I DID try to enjoy this trash but eventually did NOT. Do yourselves a favor and steer clear from this DVD. <br /><br />I'll try to put it mildly: This movie is PURE garbage and it made me want to take my gun and shoot my neighbors... or ask BLOCKBUSTER for a refund!!!<br /><br />And Lance, shame on you! 1* out of 10* | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7314 | pending | 60cd7c96-bcb4-4ab5-a283-3d13d6aff423 | As I am a fan of hospital and medical shows, I have found this one gripping and sometimes humorous (especially the scenes with Dr Whitman) which brings a bit la light relief. However, I was looking forward to the last episode because I expected that the bad ones would be punished and the good ones reinstated. Instead of that, the hospital management are making even more fools of themselves in an unbelievable manner and it's getting worse and worse for the good ones. You can't help wondering what the unions are doing or doesn't Rob, Donna and Maria know what unions are there for ? Besides, never seeing the outside, trees, grass, sunlight is a bit oppressive. Anyone understood what the last words were ? i.e. the answer Rob Lake gave to Mrs Strawberry's children question "Why are you telling us all that?" It was very frustrating not to be able to understand it. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7315 | pending | efca84f4-ea8f-462b-b54d-2d4c7ea426de | I was hoping this would be of the calibre of Das Boot and echo the stark realism created by acclaimed German Director Leni RiefenStahl in her documentaries, sadly I was monumentally disappointed. The story line is implausible and defies credulity. An RAF airman is shot down and somehow finds his way to a hospital in Dresden. Anna a nurse whose father runs the hospital and is about to become engaged to a doctor she works with falls in love with the airman and they make love. The next evening at a lavish engagement party the airman turns up disguised as a German officer and dances with Anna. Although well directed and acted, to me it is soap opera of the lowest order. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7316 | pending | 2cb2f7cc-2e34-4ac2-896e-afec267665bf | This film took up three hours, including commercials, on the History International Channel last night. But it felt like three weeks. It wasn't the cheap, stagy and unintentionally funny depictions of the bombing of Dresden. It wasn't that the film is stripped of almost all context surrounding World War II. It wasn't even that the bombing itself was often made to appear as nothing more than a major inconvenience for a goofy love story. No, it was the wooden featureless characterizations that sucked the life out of the story. Oh, and the fact that if it is possible for a movie to be obsequious, then Dresden is that movie. Perhaps a better title would have been DRESDEN--AS URIAH HEEP WOULD HAVE EXPERIENCED IT.<br /><br />It is especially the latter point that so irritates. Was the bombing of Dresden a war crime? The makers of this movie believe so. But in the typically emasculated way that Germans have come to approach World War II, they can't bring themselves to say so without braying about "peace" and "no more wars--anywhere" like they're Mother Teresa. And, also typical of German obsequiousness towards the British in particular, there is an unwieldy effort to grovel before "Britishness", while loading all the "guilt" for Dresden on to one person, Arthur Harris.<br /><br />Did I say one person? Well, not quite. At the beginning of the movie, there is an exclamation from the leading character, Anna, with whom we are all supposed to sympathize. "Damned Americans!", she screams, while watching as far off bombs fall. And a few minutes later, a radio voice intones warnings about the "American Terror Bombing" being inflicted upon Germans.<br /><br />Note the word, "terror". Got that? It's really the Americans behind the inhumane targeting of German civilians. No matter that the American strategy for almost all the war in Europe was the "precision" bombing of industrial and war manufacturing sites. No matter that it was the British who enthusiastically adopted "area" bombing of civilian targets in Germany--before the Germans had themselves even targeted English ones. No matter that the Americans bombed during the day, suffering more casualties in the process than the British, in order to hit precision targets, while the British bombed civilians under the cover of night. No matter that the Americans, essentially, were brought into the RAF's true terror bombing campaign kicking and screaming against it. No matter that most American officials, from FDR to Gen. Dolittle, opposed targeting civilians, while Churchill and his generals couldn't wait to do so.<br /><br />No, in DRESDEN, both the Germans and British, except for "Bomber" Harris, are innocent of a doctrine, it is intimated, created by the evil Americans. And only the might and power of a love story between a German nurse and a downed British bomber pilot can adequately explain the "truth" of the atrocity. Right.<br /><br />Oh, by the way, for the younger and likely less well read readers of IMDb, the first and still so far only major literary effort to give a thoughtful voice to Dresden's bombing was the pacifist novel penned by Kurt Vonnegut--an American POW in Dresden at the time of the bombing. I guess Germany's ZDF couldn't find a pretty nurse for Billy Pilgrim. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7317 | pending | 7a964094-ef7d-4bb9-abcd-baadba1ca6d5 | Dresden had great expectations because of its spectacular theme and its high budget. I was really looking forward to it and I really wanted it to be good... but it is not. The only good thing are the special effects that are very well done, but, like in a really bad Hollywood blockbuster, everything else is missing.<br /><br />It is poorly written, the screenplay tries to fulfill genre-rules with standard suspense/love- story elements but there is no depth or originality at all. It's way below average. The next thing: It is also poorly directed. It has this uninteresting TV-directing-Style with lots of close-ups and wanna-be-great-action by fast editing where actually no action or suspense is. The actors are not bad but there is no performance that is touching in any way.<br /><br />I don't know... they obviously try to do a typical TV-movie and not a film for the cinema, where its alway good to have some edges and a clear visual style. But why do they try to fulfill typical commercial Hollywood-rules? it really feels like the screenwriter did a weekend- class with some American scriptwriting-guru and then delivered this mess. Is there no producer who is responsible for the project who has an interest in dramaturgy/ visual style or plain in simple this magical cinematic moments that make some TV-Movies great ?!? Do they think that an TV-audience is stupid and doesn't need to get a high quality- movie experience? The Downfall was a very good example for a good TV-movie but there was probably some executive or producer who knew what he was doing.<br /><br />Don't waste you time with this one, rent "downfall" instead... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7318 | pending | c0928a59-8206-4e5e-a598-514ce2ee4c7b | I only saw the first part of this and concluded that I wouldn't miss anything if I didn't watch the second episode. The cinematography was OK, but apart from this, the plot was just as commonorgarden and run-of-the-mill as any other war story. The actors and actresses play their characters without any passion, and the make up is really bad (Heiner Lauterbach with his white hair and Kai Wiesinger respectively, as if some dyed white hair could give them more dignity and common sense). I mean if you've watched more than two or three movies about WWII (as most of us have) then you'd only go to the trouble of seeing a third or fourth one if it promises some new insights or twists in the plot. But Roland Suso Richter seems to afraid of doing so, you can almost smell his fear of not living up to the bourgeois and jejune expectations of the conservative ZDF TV channel while watching this movie. Millions of Euros were spent to perpetuate boring and unimaginative German film-making. These millions of dollars could have been spent to make three or four independent movies, but no, let's give to some director who'll make a film that tells people that war can be explained by rational means. My advice: Read Joseph Heller or Kurt Vonnegut instead. They'll tell you what war is like! Or give me one million Euros and I make a better film than this load of BS! And another thing: Why is it that German movies only get to be nominated for the Oscars when the movie deals with WWII or the Holocaust? Probably because that is the only thing German film-making is good at. And that should get us thinking, shouldn't it? | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7319 | pending | 02c1396b-25d1-4c7a-9f6a-81fa6e965f93 | What a bloody nuisance! You can't get on subjects like these with TV budgets and some smartass director who can't tell the difference between a Lanc I, II and III. All the silly clichés are well in place; on the character and human level the story is so schmaltzy and unbelievable it hurts. And all those responsible get carried away with joy for the brilliant ratings. Tech details: rubbish. Lancs flying that close would have kicked each other out of the sky by the dozen. Single engined night fighters attacking line astern: ridiculous. As I said: made up by a director who I bet never even heard the name Lancaster before that project and some kid 3D guys who turned Lancs into waddling ducks. But these are minor things compared to the overall mediocrity of this film. Although it might be too harsh I dare say this hurts the memory of those who died on both sides. TV crap, entertaining the dumb masses who don't care anyway. Shame on those responsible. Use your brains next time. And enjoy the profit you made from it. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7320 | pending | 996a5702-f724-4a42-b196-73c88e553367 | Although unusually in colour for a second string oater, the vivid clothes of the lead females fails to bring any life to the flatly directed screenplay. The "plot" revolves around the Youngers newly released on parole attempting to go straight but being pursued by a vengeful ex-Pinkerton man (a scenery chewing Fred Clark) and a femme fatale determined to involve them in her bank robbery schemes whether they want to or not. As Cole Younger, Wayne Morris is big and hunky enough but his " cool" demeanour and wooden acting skills undermine things. The standard of action is frankly, no better than a Gene Autry or Roy Rogers TV episode with Colt .45's that never need reloading and uncanny shooting skills that allow a horse rider to shoot from the hip and wound a man from at least 50 feet...oh dear... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7321 | pending | 8fd9c344-d77d-4a84-b17a-2631458ae61a | This is one incredibly standard western, that features some bad acting, dull storyline and silly action.<br /><br />Biggest problem perhaps is how incredibly formulaic this movie is. It features all of the usual clichés, yes even a bar fight and the movie really doesn't has any surprises in it. It makes this a dull and a weak western to watch, also not in the least because it's such a poorly made one.<br /><br />It's obviously a small production and the movie looks like it got shot in 30 days. The directing and editing can be called bad and all of the action sequences featured in the movie are incredibly silly. It perhaps almost becomes a bit humorous to watch, for all the wrong reasons.<br /><br />Its story also isn't that interesting. It's a pretty friendly western (so also no blood), in which for some odd reason everybody seems to be against the Younger brothers, who in this movie are being portrayed as good and very friendly guys. The story gets sillier and sillier as it heads toward its ending. The Younger brothers really existed and were part of the James-Younger gang, of which the famous brothers Frank and Jesse James were also part of. Of course they were not as friendly in real life as portrayed in this movie. It just was custom for an early '40's to have likable man characters in it. It wasn't really until the Spagethi-western age really that the main characters became rotten criminals themselves really. Strangely enough that approached has always worked out better than those early western's in which the main character is on the good side of the law.<br /><br />Thing that does make this movie original is the fact that it was shot in color. This was something pretty unique for an '40's western and still gives the movie something extra. You can wonder though, why they shot this western in full color. The movie is still done in the style of a black & white early western after all and I actually believe that this movie would had been a bit more credible if it got done in black & white instead.<br /><br />You could easily do without this western.<br /><br />4/10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7322 | pending | 36ee519f-9d6e-46db-8611-c7d5c7770a1b | This is one of those films with a great potential. Brilliant actors, a debut from a very interesting director and a haunting "Survivor"-ish plot.<br /><br />But it does not work at all.<br /><br />To start with the good thing: The cinematography is stunning. The beauty of the Namibian desert shows itself as a merciless surrounding, also in the pictures. And then there is the acting. Quite allright. Jennifer Jason Leigh has never been better. Bruce Davison also seems to have developed his character from Altman's "Short Cuts".<br /><br />Then the disappointments: Janet McTeer. Romane Bohringer. And the plot. Why on earth does Levring pick "Lear" for their play? The whole idea of letting Shakespeare articulate their despair and inner longings does not work. It seems like a facade. And it is clear that the tragedies takes place because of the choice of "Lear". They just needs to fit in in the Script by Levring and Academy Award winner Anders Thomas Jensen.<br /><br />And the sex. It takes about three days, then more or less all of the characters are sexually frustrated. Dahh!! Sex is always the easy way out when you are in need of a crisis in a plot. Janet McTeer's part totally falls apart, mainly because of that ridiculous idea. The sex makes the plot fall promptly to the ground. Instead they could have focused on the dialogue. There must have been conversation between all of the characters, but we mainly see them talking in smaller groups. Their talking though is as dead as "Lear" and the rest of the film.<br /><br />"The King Is Alive" still is not the worst Danish dogme '95 movie yet. But comparing it to the most recent of the homegrown dogme '95 films "Italiensk for begyndere" by Lone Scherfig, this one fails badly. It is not a good film. It is a bad one. But it is beautiful. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7323 | pending | 9b60bacc-bf9b-41cd-ae78-2bd3b177ca01 | The movie is being televised as I write.<br /><br />I simply forgot how horrible an experience I had watching it in the cinema.<br /><br />The whole idea of the movie is flawed. The fact that intelligent Europeans and Americans stranded in the desert forget all concept of morals and civilization within a couple of days is laughable. The madness of Lord of the flies was longer in the making.<br /><br />Details that annoy are plenty. One is the single African god-like character that mysteriously survives the horrible climate and have done so for ages without losing his mind and he seems to have no supply-problems either. Ridiculous. So too is the rescue attempt from the tour guide, an Indiana Jones look-alike, whose rescue attempt ends in tragedy and death a 5 minute walk from the hut. Then there's the choice of Lear, imposed onto the group by a guru-like joke of an artist. He reminded me of my hippie high school art teacher.<br /><br />The worst thing though is Levrings choice of Lear. Obviously is an intellectual brain-fart. How that ever was going to be an pass-time is never clear to me.<br /><br />Positives are few and far between. It's a beautiful movie, but that's never important.<br /><br />High school intellectualism. Weird for the sake of weird. It's a complete waste of time unless you like thrashing useless art movies. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7324 | pending | 81a2e55b-8aa3-47ac-88f7-3804e184fdbe | Imagine a GILLIGAN'S ISLAND set in the African desert in modern times. Add people nowhere near as jaunty as the Skipper or Marianne--and enough angst to fill a German psychiatrist's office. Throw in a plot that manages to be interesting only episodically and literary parallelism that never delves deeply enough to truly satisfy. Season with a truly morose topic that's been exploited since the first world travelers found themselves very, very lost.<br /><br />If THE KING IS ALIVE weren't a product of the reigning czars du jour of Dogme 95, would this film be garnering as much attention? Dogme 95 is to Hollywood as Danish modern is to rococo. A byproduct of digital technology, this Scandinavian movement seeks--quite dogmatically--to strip away artificiality in film-making, by using more natural elements and returning to the essence of storytelling. PEARL HARBOR, for instance, is the Dogme Antichrist.<br /><br />Director/co-author Kristian Levring's saga ponders interpersonal relations and human nature when placed under the fire of a life-threatening situation. Eleven people aboard a bus riding through the Namibian sand dunes suddenly find themselves stranded in the remains of an abandoned town. An African local who does not speak their language serves as observer and narrator (whose insights are among the film's most trenchant). As the strongest heads off for a five-day walk to the nearest village, the others stay behind, surviving on dented-canned carrots and circumambulating their likely future as vulture chow. Former thespian Henry decides that this rather unappealing crew needs a diversion, and hand-writes KING LEAR from memory. He assigns roles, and the group passes many days learning lines and rehearsing, in an effort to divert their attention from the seemingly inevitable.<br /><br />Gradually the cast begins to lose it, and the savageries of their natureor, William Golding might say, human naturebegin to surface. If you've ever seen LORD OF THE FLIES, you know that these things can get ugly, that being in a lifeboat situation can turn even Mother Teresa into the PMSing termagant of Calcutta.<br /><br />The film was shot using an international ensemble of American, English, French and South African actors, who, the Dogme dogma dictates, develop themselves and their roles quite organically. THE KING was also filmed chronologically, adding a sense of realism to the ever-increasing desperation of its characters. After up to three hand-held cameras shot in digital, results were transferred to 35mm film.<br /><br />The performance that compels most comes from Jennifer Jason Leigh, who plays a boho Pop Tart trying to bolster the spirits of the group in any and every way she can. Henry (David Bradley) is another finely played character, whose passion for his life's work ultimately saves the gang from utter despair. It's hard to feel too sorry for the otherscruel wives and their oafish husbands, hirsute old womanizers, sulky French intellectuals, wealthy men who have more important places to be than marooned in the Namibian desert. Beckett might hate this question, but why is this group riding a bus together through remote Africa in the first place? Life-threatening morbidity! Utter despair rendered in graphic detail! A relentlessly tedious pace! Enjoy. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7325 | pending | 305c4b42-bc48-4bbb-8144-35c641a969e4 | A ragtag collection of Western tourists in Africa suffer the misfortune of their plane breaking down, so they're compelled to hop on a bus to travel across the Namibian desert to reach the nearest jumping-off point back to civilization. Not surprisingly, the driver's compass ends up not working, and they find themselves way off course, coming to a stop at a deserted ghost-town that had been a barracks during the fighting in WWII. They find some kerosene (useless in terms of re-filling the tank of their bus), a storage room full of half-poisoned carrots in tin cans, and a native hermit who views them with indifference. The one fellow amongst them who appears to have something on the ball in terms of survivalist techniques goes off to get help. They are to remove the tires from the bus and burn them if he's not back in five days: hopefully, someone will see the black smoke.<br /><br />Does this sound interesting? Well, sure, even if it sounds a lot like *The Flight of the Phoenix* or any number of films in the "deserted island" genre. Which is why it's surprising that *The King Is Alive* is Number 4 (if anyone is still counting) in the ongoing "Dogma 95" series, which, if I remember that ridiculous "Dogma 95 Vow of Chastity" correctly, proclaimed that "genre films" are strictly verboten. Oops. Well, anyway, you can tell it's gonna try and be all arty and stuff in order to compensate for the fact that it's a genre flick. Yep, it doesn't take long for one member of the group, a wizened old stage actor, to start scribbling down -- from memory! -- the various roles from *King Lear* on, well, rolls of paper. The idea is that performing the play will help while away the time. All of which really goes against the absconded survivalist's advice to stay optimistic (didn't the old actor ever do a dinner-theater performance of *The Odd Couple* just once in his life?), quite apart from such an activity being a colossal waste of precious time and energy.<br /><br />This movie is so bad I really don't know how to continue. It's so monumentally stupid, so full of absurd situations and characters that it beggars rational criticism. It may be a timely moment to offer Full Disclosure: I despise this so-called Danish film "movement" to an almost irrational degree. I think my face even turns slightly red at the mere mention of Dogma 95. First of all, if the name of your movement has the word "dogma" in the title, you've already lost me; secondly, in this particular instance, the movement's insistence on the abnegation of individual artistic achievement is a recipe for arch hypocrisy when you consider that the filmmakers here are plundering one of the greatest works of the greatest INDIVIDUAL writer who ever lived. (But, doubtless, the Dogma crowd believes the Works of Shakespeare were actually penned by a consortium of Elizabethan bigwigs like the Earl of Oxford, Francis Bacon, Walter Raleigh, and the Queen Herself.)<br /><br />Hell, I may have forgiven the whole enterprise if it had played the scenario for farcical purposes (attacking the precious Dogma -- now THAT would be subversive!). But the movie takes itself very seriously, and soon devolves into the clichés attendant upon the genre in which it unmistakably belongs: people turning against each other; the men growing beards; the inevitable deaths of a few of the principal actors. All with a straight face. "Is this the promised end?" Well, not quite: we also have to endure the abysmal transfer of DV. For this is another Rule in the Dogma 95 Vow of Chastity: hand-held digital video only. Some friendly advice to the Danes: your "movement" is in trouble when your finished product has worse visual quality than an average high-school graduation home video. Professionalism belongs in an artist's bag of tricks, right alongside his own individuality. "Artisan" and "artist" are kindred words, Mr. von Trier: not every jackass with a $100 hand-held can be a filmmaker. Pass it on. And by the way: allow your Dogma directors to be credited for their films, while you're at it. The fact that the writer of *The King Is Alive* receives credit, while the guy (or girl) actually filming it doesn't, is just a wee bit hypocritical. <br /><br />Contemptible. 1 star out of 10. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7326 | pending | d4b24225-d989-4843-b9d4-e9e5a988c0bf | Well, they sent it on TV between midnight and 2:00 am - it seems like the right time to watch it, and then go to bed afterwards ...<br /><br />No, it was not really living up to my expectations. I think the Dogma concept is good, because the film then gets closer to what's really happening between the involved characters when you cut all the unnecessary effects and mood-making music out. But then again, this concept requires some interesting action between the characters.<br /><br />I cannot say, that I know King Lear (the Shakespeare version) very well, if I had known the play, I would probably have been able to predict much of the film.<br /><br />Well, a crisis can bring the best and worst sides of a character on display - and we certainly see some bad sides. Oh yes, the paint of civilisation and culture can be very thin, and behind this paint you may find an animal.<br /><br />If you then compare it with "Italiensk for begyndere" (Italian for beginners) or "Mifunes sidste sang" (Mifune's last song), you see the same but opposite thing: A crisis can certainly bring people to view their life in a more constructive way. And if you dare do, you may win.<br /><br />When the film had ended, I thought to myself: "Oh that's why I haven't seen it before ..." The film has its own beauty. The quality of the work of the cameraman, actors, etc is good. But the script could need something more. A plot maybe wouldn't hurt. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7327 | pending | fb8ed9c8-979f-44ed-9b6f-19aa61f847ed | I went to see "TKIA" with high expectations, which might have influence on my opinion on it. I have seen all of the Dogme films, and this TKIA, is by far the worst. The story intertwines with themes from Shakespeare's play: King Lear, but never succeeds in capturing the audience and making them care. The directing of the actors is very loose, even for Dogme style movies, and results in poor undefinable acting. The story lacks any dynamics whatsoever, and I lost interest very shortly. There are some scenes in the film which are there to shock the viewer, but I don't think they enhanced the story at all. Mifunes sidste sang and Festen are both Dogmefilms that proved to be well directed, and had good storylines, so I shall look forward to better Dogmefilms in the future. Perhaps Aake Sandgren's "An Invisible Man-Dogme 6" will prove to lift the quality again. For he is, like Vinterberg and S.K. Jacobsen a skilled and educated director. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7328 | pending | 5e95afce-6407-4d4f-8ac5-0be9474871c1 | This is possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. Can somebody please explain the plot of this movie to me? Yes, I know the bus ran out of gas in the middle of the desert, after the driver never noticed that his compass wasn't functioning, but what then? And how did it end? Maybe I'm to stupid to understand this movie, but to me it was an absolute waste of time.<br /><br />My recommendation? Do not bother, there are far better movies to be seen. This movie ranks with my other all time low-low's (Going overboard - Adam Sandler and Fire on the Amazon - Sandra Bullock) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7329 | pending | 35260247-758e-40f3-bfca-e4c03ece0d5e | "The King is Alive" is a flawed and contrived mess of a movie which comes off like a self indulgent auteur's excuse to transport a bunch of actors to a Godforsaken Namibian desert where he can play major-Dogme-domo and film his selfishly conceived, silly, overwrought drama with utter disregard for the real forces of human nature, market appeal, common sense, and even good art. In other words this is one dumbassed flick and if you don't believe that, your penance is watching it. Only for filmheads, critics, dilettantes, and the like. (D) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7330 | pending | bb76780c-0455-4cce-ab1d-c3cb5d4b8b97 | A bad movie, but with one reel that is worth savoring. For most of the film, the jokes are bad, the songs are bad, even W.C. Fields is bad. Then there is one sequence with Bob Hope and his movie-ex; the dialogue is witty and the song (a version of "Thanks for the Memories") light, cynical and delightful. Who parachuted in for this one bit? Yet it makes the whole thing worth the original 25 cents admission. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7331 | pending | 71a8d73e-c619-463b-a1b2-32c150f5b88f | Pauline Kael gave this movie a good review but it is terrible. It is very outdated , the humour is silly and the music is forgetable.In fact it is so silly it is almost embarrassing. It might have been some fun in 1938 but I can not imagine anyone enjoying it in 2003. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7332 | pending | 58fbe3a1-6e30-4709-9045-2c18ce5aa354 | Super Troopers was an instant classic. Club Dread, while disappointing to many, had its moments. Puddle Cruisers has fewer moments. I saw this movie on the shelf of my local video store and saw at the bottom that it was made by the Broken Lizard group who made Super Troopers, so naturally I picked it up. I only found one scene to be laugh out loud funny. A far cry from Super Troopers. All in all, I was very disappointed. I would not recommend this to anyone, unless you have an abundance of free time, and really need to kill some time. However, you're better off playing video games, or watching something that might make you laugh or think. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7333 | pending | 00a85cf3-2a6d-43d0-9c4f-fc87c54db0a9 | Even though this is the first film by the broken lizard group, it's the last one I saw. Having mildly enjoyed Super Troopers, and managed to sit through the crap that is club dred and beerfest, I was surprised to hear they did an earlier film. Now i didn't sit down with high hopes, but was hoping for a funny campus romp. My friend asked me to keep in mind they are younger (obviously) and its their first foray into film. I did and was still disappointed. Not taking away the acting and comedy skills of the BL guys, they were OK. The whole film was tiresome, clichéd and frankly boring. Some of the other actors in the film were really poor at acting. And the Rugby game didn't even resemble rugby. Poor showing. They improved drastically with Super Troopers and have declined since. Lets hope they get back on form with Super Troopers 2 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7334 | pending | f7ba39c9-5dd1-470c-a6a3-b50ffc1d96ee | man was this hard to watch! it was not at all funny, not well made and it had no point or plot to it whatsoever. the acting was horrible. it was not well made at all. it looked like a bunch of kids my age were just screwing around and making a pointless movie. it is by far the absolute worst broken lizard movie. if you are a broken lizard movie like myself you will disappointed and bored to your death. please skip this pointless movie about ugly guys looking for chicks. you will not regret m advice. by the way, don't say you didn't find this review helpful just because you didn't agree with it. thats stupid, like this movie. the only OK scene was when the main guy was playing rugby and got beat the crap out of. i liked that cause i found his character pretty damn annoying. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7335 | pending | bd230af7-a989-4b21-8096-d18c621f5ecc | This movie was the worst movie I've ever seen. No story, no point, it wasn't even funny at all, not sure why people say this movie is hilarious because it sucked SO much!! Felix Bean the main character sucked. Susanna sucked. This movie was made in 1996 and it really was set in the 80s. What else, I'm never letting my friend pick movies ever again. Hmm, the movie cover said it was from the producers from super troopers, who kidnapped them and stole their identities. Wow, what a waste of time. The only minute thing that was funny was Freaky Ricky, he was funny, especially when he and Emily ended up together. That was funny. All and all, it sucked, waste of time and sleep. Wow, never thought a movie like this could be made, so dumb for watching for watching it to the end. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7336 | pending | f13b6d90-e7b5-453e-a15e-c6a58b47ff1d | Oh My Gosh!!!! This was the first movie Broken Lizard made as a group (although it just recently came to video), and I have never been more disappointed in my entire life!!! I tell you what, if I had seen this movie before I saw Super Troopers (which by the way, is a kick A$$ movie!!!), I never ever would have watched it!! I had read several reviews online, as well as on the cover of the DVD, that raved it as being,"Broken Lizard's funniest movie ever!" Now if they were referring to Super Troopers as being their funniest movie ever, I would agree nonstop, but not this one. Talk about dry. It took the movie a good 45 minutes to even get going, and by then, I was so out of the mood to watch it, that it wasn't even worth it. Maybe you gotta be high for it to really be funny? I dunno. I love these guys, I really do, but that movie is by far the worst one they've made. Club Dread was a pretty good movie, but this one, just wow. I'd highly recommend Super Troopers if you want a good laugh, but if you want more of a romance, drama, with a few funny spots, I'd say go with Puddle Cruiser. Just my opinion though, everyone is entitled to their own! :) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7337 | pending | 56dc18a0-f5c7-4bef-b1b7-dd7ea4e9b6ae | I found Super Troopers only mildly amusing at best (seemed like a glorified Police Academy ripoff to me), and I rented this movie in hopes of it being better. It wasn't.<br /><br />The writing is absolutely horrible and the pacing of this film is even worse. It doesn't feel like a whole lot happens in this film, or that it really gives us a reason to give a damn about any of the characters.<br /><br />The actor who plays Felix is totally uninspired, though possibly due in part to the dialogue he had to work with. In short, this movie just went wrong in so many places.<br /><br />I get the impression that since films like Clerks, independent filmmakers seem to think that they can make movies like this with long, rambling scenes of dialogue where characters are trying to be funny. But, where dialogue in Clerks pushes the story forward, in this movie, it hopelessly weighs it down. Films are supposed to have a decent balance of action and dialogue, and as tempting as it is for filmmakers to try to have tons of snappy, funny dialogue, it just doesn't always work. Especially if they're not that good at writing dialogue. I hate to say it, but even "Extreme Heist" was more interesting than this movie- and that movie was so low-budget it was shot on video. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7338 | pending | 989580e0-192c-4d15-beaa-b46d02ea2ba4 | I rented this movie because the DVD cover made it look like it was going to be a ridiculous college comedy like van wilder or animal house. I took it to my friend house to watch for movie night. We ended up stopping it 15 minutes into the film, and watched Copper Mountain instead. I don't know if any of you have seen Copper Mountain, but it isn't great either. However, I would have to say that the Alan Thick Jim Carrey Duo made it a more enjoyable watch.<br /><br />I later finished Puddle Cruiser. This movie was slow and the humor was forced. This movie reminded me of some stinkers that I saw in some of my earlier production classes in college. I was left wondering "was this the film that enabled Broken Lizard to make Supertroopers?" Also how could this movie suck so bad? Supertroopers was good and Club Dread was decent. Don't see this movie! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7339 | pending | 0e76e8f4-82b2-415f-afa8-9ee6ef5d5b4e | If you would have asked me 1 month ago how this movie was I probably would have left most of this out, but I am a fan and as any fan I visit the movies sites often well when Super Troopers came out I visited that site after the release on DVD and was hooked yea it's a difficult site to stay on, but the good ones normally are like good families they stick together. What a story this company/comedy troop has.BEGGING people to come and see there movies on street corners,universities, anywhere they can and all for free and after all that to develop a great fan base after a few years THEY CRAP ON IT And decide to close down there website that helped them and was created for the fans, but the worst thing about it....THEY DIDN'T TELL ANY OF THEM. They just decided that they are better than us they want new fans not the fans that helped them get where they are....you know the same fans they begged years ago. Still the smart crew they are they released the best movie with Super Troopers and got everyones attention and thank God for that because after that they have sucked with everything else. Good for you guys way to go mainstream, just remember when you realize your material isn't that good and you have no new fans left you are the ones who crapped the original ones away. FANS MAKE YOU WHO YOU ARE NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. Never burn your bridges | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7340 | pending | 1bbf3632-41fc-4d40-a49b-3b2d8c650a5c | As Anthony Bourdain said... "I wanted to stick my head in a bucket of lye, pull my eyeballs out and jump off a cliff." This summarizes my feelings about this pathetic waste of human effort. Artless, self- indulgent, thoughtless, and just bad. Bad beyond comprehension. What else can I say? If you are unfortunate enough to be in an area where this piece of idiotic trash is playing, please, please have mercy on soul and avoid at all costs. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7341 | pending | 6986b3b4-84a1-4033-8608-04a63d9f74e9 | First off, I'm in the U.S.<br /><br />When I first saw this, I thought it was an obvious - and loathsome - rip off of "The Office" (UK). I would have thus awarded it zero stars, but lo and behold, it came out long before the Ricky Gervais series.<br /><br />Still, it's hard to watch this or any other show with a similar dynamic (including the American "Office") without comparison. It just isn't even close to being the same thing.<br /><br />I will give it some credit for being original, and ahead of its time. I'll also say that it - and the U.S. "Office" and "Larry Sanders" - are actual satires. The UK "Office" is something grander and more transcendent, as if populated with real people in events that felt like they actually happened. However, unlike this or the shrill Christopher Guest "mockumentaries", it isn't really a satire, while "The Newsroom" definitely is.<br /><br />Be that as it may, "The Newsroom" still isn't very funny. It's aloof, and self-aware, but with a cast and crew not nearly smart or talented enough to heft the goods. It's weighty comedy being carried on weak shoulders. Commendable, but ultimately not recommended.<br /><br />--- And what's with the lack of an anamorphic DVD?! I know it was shot in anamorphic widescreen, because I saw the pilot episode on one of our HD channels. CBC, get with the programme. ; ) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7342 | pending | 96376a4d-4988-40e9-885d-7d2c41c16033 | This show has been performed live around the country with a wide variety of casts. I saw it first in the Provincetown production the first summer it was in P-town (2001)--before it was, curiously enough, banned in that overwhelmingly gay resort (the codes which resulted in its closing have since been amended). I saw it again later in the off-Broadway, long-running production in New York. Oddly enough, the P-town production was far better than the New York one--fresher, cuter, more spirited and funnier--but that was only in the 2001 showing; subsequent attempts to clone the production ("Bare Naked Lads" in 2007) were definitely third-rate. This filmed production features a Los Angelos production cast, and it is, as other comments have suggested, not the best. I would rate it somewhere in between the top-notch 2001 P-town production and the third-rate "Bare Naked Lads" P-town show from last summer. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7343 | pending | cedb0dba-a2e4-4bd8-a3c8-eacc55244e64 | I'm writing this as I watch the DVD. I grabbed for the laptop and went to IMDb during the first song. I didn't know anything about the movie except that a friend said that the show was supposed to be good. It has a decent Netflix rating too, so here I am.<br /><br />Maybe on the stage this worked. But I have to say that the sight of chorus boys dancing and singing completely naked just seems silly. And the lip syncing to a prerecorded score adds to the strangeness.<br /><br />Most of the songs and routines are about aspects of male nudity. This is my idea of nothing, sorry. The score, so far, is generic show tune music. Nothing memorable, or particularly melodic. Everything is to serve the lyrics. Which, I have to say, sound like they were written by a committee. Each song is essentially one extended joke. If the jokes were ten seconds, they might work. These single several-minute-long jokes don't.<br /><br />I'm now watching the movie by chapters--a few minutes until I get the gist. Kind of in the hopes that one of them will be different, or entertaining enough to keep me from going on to the next scene. Nope.<br /><br />Okay. I'm finished. So here's what I think. If you have any experience or long-standing appreciation of musical theater, avoid this--it's just not quality. If, however, you're a gay twenty-something and have never seen or heard a musical comedy, you might be entertained. Or maybe this would hold your interest if you've never seen a lot of attractive naked men. <br /><br />I have. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7344 | pending | c01046f8-a926-4f76-9d8f-8c7ca9fbcfc3 | I absolutely could not believe the levels of ineptitude on display in this production. I honestly thought gay men had better taste than this. I know I do.<br /><br />The bulk of the blame doesn't lie with the cast, but let's get them out of the way first...the only one with real talent was Joe Souza (plus he had the best bod in the cast). He had a nice, clear theatre-style voice. Okay, and Jaymes Hodges' voice was so-so, but he had a vacant expression in every number. The rest couldn't hold a note in a bucket, even though the music was obviously dubbed in after the fact. Must have been really dreadful hearing them live. They were also all girly-boys except for maybe three. If I wanted to see naked WOMEN onstage I could go to the titty bars. Not sure why anyone would choose to film the L.A. production instead of New York. I would imagine NY has more readily available singing talent, though one would think in L.A. they would be able to find better-LOOKING guys. Apparently not.<br /><br />But I digress...the real blame here lies with the creators and producers. This score was the most banal, insipid tripe I have ever heard. It sounded like some theatre queens took all their musical cd's, threw them in a blender and poured the goo onto a page. Sadly, I'm sure there are many who can't tell the difference between good theatre writing and whatever this is. I mean seriously, I was laughing my ass off through the whole thing but not at the lame jokes. I think the morbid 'my-lover-has-died-of-AIDS-song' entitled "Kris, Look What You've Missed" was the most hysterical thing in the whole show. Genius writing...Kris / Missed...wow...they ALMOST rhyme...must be a good lyric. And Jesus...the END of that song..."Oh Kris, Ohhh Kris, OHHHH Kris..." OVER AND OVER!!! My other favorite was "You gotta be a Pumpy Junkie Boy to be a Humpy Hunkie Boy"...WTF??? The whole show was full of the most arbitrary lyrics JUST BECAUSE they rhymed. Where did these people learn to write songs? Apparently they listened to Sondheim and said "He's not so great, I can do that"...as evidenced by the retarded "Bobby, Bobby, Bobby" reference from COMPANY in one song. Another irk: why are 20-somethings singing about Robert Mitchum and Tab Hunter? Obviously coming from the mouths of the lyricists and not the actors...again, bad writing.<br /><br />If you love torture and pain, and I know many of you strange fetishists do, go ahead and watch it. But you've been warned. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7345 | pending | 7c152765-6468-40a7-8e16-64609f141494 | That's the worst film I saw since a long time. Historic accuracy is totally non-existent. For example, James Wolfe, who his depicted as an anti-French Canadian, is shown in London during the summer of 1759. Natives are like Indians of a bad Hollywood movie of the 60's : They wear deerskin clothes and ride horses (The Montagnais had never ride horses). The film is taking place in Quebec City, but footage is set in Louisbourg, showing the Atlantic Ocean.<br /><br />The original scenario was supposed to include the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, but the producers drop this idea saying that costs for uniforms and participants would be more than 4 millions dollars ! I think they never heard about re-enactment.<br /><br />All the movie is planned to be a new Titanic : an impossible love during an historic tragedy (the fall of New-France). There's even a song performed by Celine Dion at the end of the movie (Yes, I stayed till the end of the movie, but I deeply regret). But the worst thing of all is that this movie cost 30 millions dollars. I just don't know how they spend all this money.<br /><br />Sorry for my anger, but I'm just too irritated. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7346 | pending | c2d95787-ed61-45b7-9b7d-c65b573d2b2b | This is the one major problem with this film, along with a good deal of québecois' biggest movies: Done in a pretentious way by pretentious people.<br /><br />It's really sad, but "big shots" movie makers (driving Dodge Stratus...) from this province believes They Got the Thruth, They Know What the Little People Like.<br /><br />We're not a rich province, every time a big movie like this (30 millions?!!?) is made, it's cutting off a lot of others who won't see their movie made because of lack of governmental help. So it generates mediocrity; only movies from "friends of the family" are going to be made.<br /><br />I sound angry and I am. I went see Nouvelle-France expecting a journey in the lives of my ancestors, but i found myself stuck in a pool of inconsistencies: french accent (we gotta please our cousins, so f*** our québecois' language)and lack of historical research is only a few. Add a campy love story and the same music score playing again and again and dumb québecois' viewer is gonna open up and ask for more. I'm glad this pretentious piece of s*** didn't do as planned by the Dodge stratus Big Shots... It's gonna help movie makers who aren't in the very restrained "movie business" of Québec.<br /><br />Rent Cruising Bar instead and have a real good time.<br /><br />PS: I'll never forgive them for ruining such an awesome title. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7347 | pending | 3fe3c057-a6dd-4fd1-ae11-94b47ee4da8f | Please, do not waste your time and money with this stinker of a turkey.<br /><br />This is an over-the-top melodramatic love story set against the background of New France (aka Quebec in the 18th century). Or is it an historical saga of New France with an epic romance thrown in? I don't know, and at this point I don't care anymore.<br /><br />There is a rich story to be told out there about the intrepid French adventurers, rogues and other assorted characters who settled Canada and parts of the US. This is not it. The characters are total clichés, the story is overblown, breathless and devoid of any charm, and before long all the viewer wants to do is get the heck out of the theatre, have his or her head checked, and get hold of his or her anger at being taken in by the hype.<br /><br />This film was the biggest disappointment of my year in terms of cinema, especially since, as an historian and a French Canadian or Canadian of French descent (or whatever) I am a) a believer in the fact that the story of my people in this country has yet to be told as well as it could on film b) interested in this subject c) a film-lover who thinks cinema these days could do wonders with this grandiose and tragic story.<br /><br />As I said, do not waste your time with this frustrating bit of claptrap. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7348 | pending | b2f87de5-31a5-411a-8907-68d3377a13f6 | A film about an interesting and sensitive period of history, filmed in beautiful surroundings, managed to present an appallingly trivial and clichéd production, grossly clumsy script, poor continuity, intrusive slushy music, sugary casting, and pallid acting. <br /><br />It was a toss up between the script and the acting as to which was worse. The script probably won - the historical background, backstory and character descriptions were spelt out in painful detail in the dialogue. .. actually words can't describe quite how bad this film is.<br /><br />In a pre-release screening there was a massive exodus from about thirty minutes in. At about an hour many of those who remained were laughing loudly. I should add I am a Francophile, I am fascinated by Canada, and love historical film. This really was a one off. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7349 | pending | d87d7ca6-15fa-47ee-ab0c-78799eec419c | It's really a shame to see so many talented people involved in what's happen to be a very waste of talents. The plot is cliché. The directing is too self conscious and the characters are almost caricatures. One of the most disappointing aspect of this film is Gerard Depardieu's performance in the English version (this movie was shot in french and English at the same time). Although he is one of the best actor in the film, he gives the worst performance of them all. I must say that Bianca Gervais come very close though...<br /><br />On a more positive note I must say that the newcomer Juliette Gosselin gives an amazing performance in both version. Unfortunately that the only good thing I remember about this film...<br /><br />By the way I must apologize for my not very good English... | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7350 | pending | 5b13369e-9ff8-4f12-bdf2-d814cb7affcb | Despite decades of tax incentives, in terms of international visibility the Canadian film industry still lags behind most central African and Islamic states (surprisingly few Canadian films are released outside their native shores), and Nouvelle-France aka Battle of the Brave is another example of why. More than any other country, commercial Canadian cinema seems unable to develop an identity of its own and is stuck in pale imitation of other countries' failures. On paper this historical drama could look vaguely promising. There's certainly a rich vein of untapped material in Canada's history as the French and English warred over and bought and sold the colony, though none of it makes the cut here unless you count the odd blink-and-you'll-miss-it scene of characters saying "Wolfe is dead" or "Nouvelle-France is no more" before getting back to the soap operatics. But while this isn't a history lesson, it isn't a drama or the epic adventure the new title promises either: there is no battle in the film unless you count 10 seconds of shelling by a half-dozen re-enactors and one collapsed shed. The town square that is all we ever see of Quebec is a rather obvious flatly lit studio interior, giving many scenes an old TV miniseries look, as does director Jean Beaudin's reluctance to offer much in the way of long shots or even exteriors. What you do get for your money is a simple but drawn-out Harlequin romance about doomed lovers constantly separated by events beyond their control where the biggest surprise is that Fabio doesn't turn up in the cast. It's the kind of film where whenever two characters are about to make the beast with two backs the camera pans over to a convenient raging fireplace or waterfall.<br /><br />An Anglo-Canadian-French co-production that doesn't so much unite once-warring nations as throw any country with a decent tax break into the stew, this massive box-office disaster was clearly intended to be Canada's Titanic - though someone neglected to tell the producers they meant the film, not the ship - but turns out more like Revolution done on the cheap without the battle scenes, crowds or the few moments that threaten to briefly work in the face of overwhelming odds. The Montreal Mirror described it as "so bad that one can't even find the strength to mock it." That's rather unfair, because while for most of its running time the film looks like a below-par 80s miniseries, the last half hour suddenly becomes very funny, with characters accidentally putting their legs in bear traps, dastardly husbands declaring "You'll never see your handsome lover again, cuckold's honor! You'll pay for this, both of you!" and our heroine accused of murder and - gasp! - witchcraft in a trial funny enough to have been in Demi Moore's version of The Scarlet Letter. Throw in caddish British governors, devious slaves and Celine Dion singing at the end and you've got something that at times almost feels like the kind of film that Timbo Hines was aspiring to (and still managed to miss wildly) with his legendarily inept period version of War of the Worlds, albeit without the staggering technical incompetence.<br /><br />Leading man David La Haye's versatility seems limited to the number of other actors he can look like throughout the course of the film: he starts out looking like Andy Garcia, briefly adopts the Al Pacino Revolution look, flirts with the clean-shaven Tchéky Karyo style before turning into a younger Ted Danson as his character ages. While his opening scene where he reacts to news of his father's death with an expression that looks like he's waiting for the director to tell him he can go home now promises a feast of bad acting, in reality he gives the impression more of a mediocre supporting actor who's lucked into a lead at the last minute when whoever was originally cast finally read the script and bailed. He shows willing and gives it a go but the grace and charisma the part needs just isn't there. Billie Piper lookalike Noemie Godin-Vigneau's leading lady doesn't exactly set the screen alight either despite occupying center-stage as the peasant girl who is the prey of giggly Vincent Perez's corrupt and perverted Intendant Le Bigot (that really is the character's name), the duplicitous goateed drunken lackey Sebastien Huberdeau and, saddest of all, Gerard Depardieu's bedridden revolutionary dirty old priest in a manky grey-haired wig. It's a truly pitiful sight to see a once great actor at the absolute rock bottom of his game as he shuffles through the motions looking like he's not just lost the will to act but the will to live along with it. He clearly couldn't be bothered to stick around for the English dubbing sessions (or even a couple of long shots where he is very noticeably doubled). Small wonder he talked of retiring around the time of the film's brief release.<br /><br />Some brief comic relief is provided by Jason Isaacs in his default Patriot mode who overplays Wolfe of Quebec rather like an asthmatic Alf Garnett/Archie Bunker played by Timothy Dalton on speed while Tim Roth's William Pitt stands on the sidelines with the occasional bemused smile of one who's being put up in a rather nice hotel with excellent room service and plenty of days off, though like Colm Meaney's Benjamin Franklin they're both in the film for less than three minutes. (Voltaire and Madame Pompadour pop their heads around the door for a couple of minutes as well but fail to make any impression, comic or otherwise.) The supporting actresses are generally better: Juliette Gosselin and Bianca Gervais as the heroine's real and adopted daughters and a strikingly beautiful Irene Jacob looking for all the world like a young Fanny Ardant are all refreshingly good and deserve much better. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7351 | pending | af84d355-60df-4fd7-9077-ec85335de61f | From the title, the tag-line, the plot summary on the DVD etc..., I expected something at least slightly epic, with the historical fiction and the romance concurring to thrill you; that's what they did in Last of the Mohicans for example, and I think they did a superb job. Maybe I had standards too high for this movie and didn't give it a fair chance. But the scenery was barely OK (how could they not come up with something more beautiful when they have such landscapes to work with?), the two lovers had no chemistry whatsoever, and the plot was just so predictable it felt like it had been drafted in 5 minutes by a twelve-year-old -- and not a very imaginative one. Nouvelle-France is a love story set in an eventful historical age. But the history of Nouvelle-France is hardly a side note, and the love story is banal and fails dramatically to make the viewer care for the lovers' fate. Surprisingly, the only good parts about the movie came from something completely unexpected and unadvertised: the relationship between Marie-Loup, the heroine, and her children (one natural, one adopted). If only they'd concentrated on her family and forgotten about the love story, it would have been a much better movie. Marie-Loup's parents should have been given more screen time and character development, the politics going on in Britain should have been more than a three-minute scene with barely any connection to the rest, the rotten baddie should have been either more developed or removed from the script completely (why hire actors like Vincent Perez, Tim Roth or Jason Isaacs to misuse them so badly?) Bad work overall. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7352 | pending | 46f5506f-0309-469c-9048-c10277f33981 | From the second the music swelled (second one of the movie) and it was movie-hack tripe, I knew I was in for a very long ride. Horrendously clichéd - (I laughed a lot and knew how the plot ended WELL before the ending) - they didn't use Louisbourg particularly well and the costuming and hair were kinda awful. (My particular favourite makeup moment is that the only way they age Depardieu as far as I could see was by putting a straight hair wig on him, instead of wavy). I could go on about the ridiculous unsuitability of the music for a long time -- the movie could be improved massively by an 18th century score. <br /><br />(ETA: AH, it's that horrible moviemusic guy Patrick Doyle who's responsible for the score - say no More! He should NOT be allowed near historical movies -- he should stick to 20th century settings.) <br /><br />The "visit to the notable people portion" was also hilarious particularly his little visit to Madame Pompadour who was not particularly convincingly played. <br /><br />I thought the only actor who appeared grounded in the century at hand was Michael Maloney as James Murray. He absolutely stole the show for all 30 seconds he was on screen. Tragically, he made you see what the movie could have been.<br /><br />The love scenes did have some heat - the two leads were stunning together.<br /><br />The most awful scene for historians is where they're at the big leavetaking dinner in Britain before Wolfe sails and he lifts his glass and says the first two lines of "How stands the glass around" aka "Why soldiers why" as if it's a toast. Absolutely excruciating failure at historicity, much better to leave it out. Thousands of people know the damn song and thousands more believe the rumour that Wolfe and company sang it (probably drunk, not all stuffy like this bunch). Daft. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7353 | pending | 8ac023e8-bd15-470e-83da-78999953528c | This was truly the most painful experience I have had in quite some time in a movie theater. I will forego such facile criticisms as 'maudlin' or 'historically inaccurate' or 'horse's crap's crap' because quite simply our sympathies would then immediately go out to these words. If a director's to make a sweeping grandiose love epic, well for god's sake MAKE A REAL DAMN SWEEPING GRANDIOSE LOVE EPIC! Why bother with such laughably unconvincing second rate harlequin romances and such boring interchanges between characters we could care less about when the most decisive battle on Canadian soil is taking place? And for the pompous people thinking 'oh well, this story must center characters!" well you're wrong, dead wrong. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7354 | pending | 518a6d64-dfee-401e-bb05-82e44ae7b342 | Much can usually be forgiven in period pieces that ask us to recall important historical events and spice them with enough love interest to keep the story going. BATTLE OF THE BRAVE tackles the 18th Century struggle for the control of Quebec (an all of Canada) between the British and the French with sidebars form the new America. It has the makings of a sweeping epic of fascination, but sadly in the hands of writer Pierre Billon (whose script deserves a Razzie award for worst of the season) and the scattered, unfocused, and confusing direction by Jean Beaudin this film is a dud - a two and a quarter hour tedious mess of a film.<br /><br />Even a cast a fine actors - pairing Noémie Godin-Vigneau as Marie-Loup Carignan with David La Haye as François le Gardeur, adding the lovely Bianca Gervais as Acoona , the venerable Gérard Depardieu as Le curé Thomas Blondeau, and the likes of Irène Jacob, Vincent Perez (ridiculous in period wigs), Tim Roth as William Pitt, Colm Meaney as Benjamin Franklin, and Jason Isaacs as Général James Wolfe - doesn't help. Veteran actors such as these must have cringed at the crude lines written for their characters! Cover the whole mess in a sappy musical score by Patrick Doyle and the result is a long film to be avoided. Sad to say such bad things about a costly project, but be warned....Grady Harp | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7355 | pending | 0fd2745f-7cbf-46b0-bf38-a67db147bb36 | The actors were not believable, The story was really weak, total sap, and completely predictable. Really disappointed in Depardieu. It was a shame that they did not focus more on the struggle of the Canadian fight for independence. We have seen this love story many times before, only with better actors! We had to wait for the last 15 minutes for a small sense of drama! The soundtrack was totally disturbing. The underscore hit you over the head with sentimentality. But really over the top. The only thing we found OK was the fact that they let the Indians speak their language. And we found the cinematography, of the Indian village relatively realistic. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7356 | pending | bc00ff4d-126c-46f6-8b87-1c6f5760aadb | As a Canadian History major, my first thing to say : HISTORICAL FACTS ARE NOT ACCURATE! How can a producer do that? The deportation of the Acadian wasn't in 1759 when we see Franklin in London, but in 1755! How can he pass that in the movie? The scenes in Londo were useless too. Then for the story for anyone that read "Les Anciens Canadians", you have the story line right there. It's the story of La Coriveau, that "witch". Add a love story too and a tragic relationship between mother and daughter ending. Sure, it brought tears to my eyes. But that's it. Then there's the fact it's apparently set up in Québec City, but it's mostly shot at the Forteresse de Louisbourg. Sure it's a historical site and it's accurate to the time, but it was obvious that the scenes were not all set in Québec City. Overall, if you're looking for a documentary of New France, go get Candad : A People's History, a real documentary on the history of Canda and NEw France. If you want a love story that will bring you tears, a story set up in a wonderful forest, watch New France. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7357 | pending | 657ff935-59e4-4055-a624-d2749b66ed8f | See.. I really wanted to enjoy this movie. There were moments when my heart beat faster, when the hair on my neck began to stand up, when my muscles began to tighten.. but just like a strip tease, I was left with no real action, no resolution, and money missing from my wallet.<br /><br />Jaume Balagueró and Miguel Tejada-Flores apparently don't know the correct recipe for making a Horror Movie, and as such, utilized the old amateur cook's method of throwing everything into the pot.<br /><br />This movie is really The Shining, Poltergeist, Amityville, and Hellraiser all rolled into one. Amazing, I know, but true. All the flavors are there, you can taste each of them, they just don't mix well. I'm not gonna go down the list of every thing wrong with this movie; in short, good cinematography, mediocre acting, worse dialogue.<br /><br />The -real- problem with stealing from so many movie plots and combining them into one movie, aside from the resulting confusion, is while you CAN have several plots running at one time, you can't have several endings. And what does Jaume do when he runs into this problem? Just like a Freshman in English 101, you end your story with ellipses, "The little car vanished into the darkness and ..... THE END" Oooh, spooky. Not really. And very anticlimactic. The ending left me confused and disappointed; almost empty.<br /><br />Take your $10, go rent The Shining, Poltergeist, and Hellraiser.. scare the pants off yourself, have a great time, and forget that The Darkness ever existed. <br /><br />-BJamin | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7358 | pending | bd9932e3-074e-4506-a645-b517ac13a608 | What starts out as a passable movie degenerates into one of the most incoherent, UNscary, incompetently made, stupid attempted horror films of recent years.<br /><br />Absolutely terrible. It's such a derivative mess ripping off every decent fright flick you can think of without successfully producing a single scare. Whether it's copying the recent trend with creepy kids or ghosts walking past the camera or the old school horror of Fulci's Gates of Hell.<br /><br />The worst thing is there's not even a cat jumping out of a cupboard to make you jump. To be avoided. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7359 | pending | 9ed4b70f-eb71-453f-8bf7-b8435c36b946 | This review contains spoilers. I didn't have any expectations about this movie. I pulled it off the video store rack with the movie, "White Noise".<br /><br />First, the credits for this stupid movie run about 5 minutes into it. The pacing from start to finish is slooooow. The main heroines don't like to wear a bra and the director appears to enjoy the jiggle effect as Anna Paquin descends the stairs. If you like movies for boobies, this one has a low level buzz factor.<br /><br />Second, it's nice that the movie rips off elements of Lovecraft and other horror genre mechanisms, but in better movies, there is at least some rational or consistently irrational behavior. This stinker tries to establish some sense of modernity and reality but then you have situations where no one calls the police even though they've uncovered a treasure trove of potentially incriminating forensic evidence, and otherworldly rituals are nicely spelled out in a comprehensive book on otherworldly rituals like on Buffy. I was waiting for Miles to show up and give some consultation on how to slay a certain demon type of so and so.<br /><br />The premise is that it is possible to open up an age of Darkness where creatures that crawl on the ceiling can cut your throat or turn the meat grinder effect on you. Ho hum. To do this you need to have a sacrificial circle and then have seven kids who must have their throat cuts by people who love them. This opens the world to the age of Darkness. At least that's what it says in complete detail in the book of ancient occult rituals. Which raises the annoying question of, uh, well, how did the ones who wrote the book know, and, if this is what happens, would you really leave this information in a book you can take out from the library, much less get it from a library in a world that is not covered already in Darkness, an age brought on by lunatics who could have performed this like much earlier using the "Occult Practices to Bring the World to Darkness for Dummies, 2nd Edition"? It turns out the father in the story is the 7th child, the one that ran away from the ritual 40 years ago; he was released by his father, who is the doctor/grandfather in the movie, who wanted to try the ritual with presumably, other stupid parents, who just wanted to see if dumb sh*t like this opening the world to darkness actually works. The grandpa let the father go because he "didn't really love him". Aduh. Stupid stupid movie written by a moronic director who appears to think he's some kind of Eurofilm Auteur. There's also a scene in the movie where the kid appears with big welts on his face and the mother grabs him and has this total lack of reaction. The whole movie is like this. People seeing really weird sh*t going on and not reacting to it in any sort of normal way. Must be bad plot and direction.<br /><br />Anna Paquin does her best to play her character realistically without cracking a smirk, and she does look smashing in a halter top, but at several critical moments in the story, her character doesn't bother to call in for back up. You know, more of the same, "I will walk into a likely demonic evil situation without any knowledge of defense or help from others carrying flashlights or firepower even though I sense impending doom." And even dumber as it may seem, even if you bring on the age of Darkness, these creatures who make you bloody can't attack if you have a light source, but they appear as people you know, and tell you to turn off the light source. Reminds me of the video game "Alone In The Dark"; maybe this movie is a rip off of that game's concept.<br /><br />The best actors in the film are the young kid and Anna. They both die at the end. The entire family dies. The Darkness creatures lead them to their death, but really, the stupidity of the characters in the family was the main cause of death. The other adults could be interchangeable with any other actors from the Red Shoes Diaries series of fine cinema.<br /><br />So to wrap up, the worst things about this movie are the stupidity of the characters in bumping around blindly in an obviously abnormal situation, the really crap plot (there is an old architect in the story who designs a house with a sacrificial altar hidden in it - the architect has suspected from the beginning there would be occult sacrifices in the house but doesn't tell anyone because, well, no real reason, they couldn't find the kids, but he didn't bother to tell authorities about the HIDDEN ROOMS which he designed into the house but he does like to hang around the house for a 40 year period because he worries about what is going on inside...derrrrh...duuuuh), the hackneyed use of scare mechanisms (more children standing around in the dark or only showing up in photographs, and blood on the wallpaper), and the egotism of the director which when you see him in the DVD features describing his crap work as a new and original rendition, makes you understand where the real horror of this movie lies.<br /><br />Is it entertaining? At 2x speed on a DVD player with the subtitles turned on, it can be entertaining, until your reach the end and realize the movie is crap, otherwise it draaaaaaaags on. The cinematic equivalent of a fatty shake; the empty calories are horrid.<br /><br />The movie gives the feeling the director must have seen "The Ring" and wanted to attempt to create something similar in mood, which in this respect, the film fails miserably, and so, also, in this respect, Jaume Balagueró, it is my opinion that you suck at what you do. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7360 | pending | 213c4b97-43f8-4faa-bdf6-8ba121369c9b | Horrendously acted and completely laughable haunted-house horror flick that has an out of place Anna Paquin playing a neurotic teenager fighting off the "things-that-go-bump-in-the-dark" that are plaguing her and her family shortly after moving to their new home in Spain(?!). Little more than a geographically re-planted rip-off of "The Shining" and most notably "The Others", the weak-plotted "Darkness" is basically your typical run-of-the mill B-horror feature with a few predictable lame scares that can be seen by audiences a mile off (so to speak)! In retrospect I suppose I shouldn't have set my personal expectations quite as high for this movie to actually be good considering the well-known fact that it was shelved for nearly three years before finally being released around Christmas of last year in American cinemas across the country to what was ultimately lukewarm ticket-sales and very harsh reviews from critics. When will filmmakers ever learn that there's more to making movies (be it horror or otherwise) than just the fey possibility of a little financial gain? (Turkey-Zero Stars) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7361 | pending | 9b53e3c2-f49b-47ab-a031-aaaab257f743 | If you saw the grudge, a another mediocre ghost movie then you should know what to expect, just worse, a lot worse. This Time instead of being in Japan with all English speaking people we are in Spain with all English speaking people. It is interesting that not one shot of this movie actually looks like Spain and could have been entirely filmed in a studio back lot. Oh and a place with swings, cause there's a good 5 mins of footage of swings with no one on them, oooohhh how spooky.<br /><br />This one is terrible in every way imaginable. The acting by the lameinator mom and dad don't help matters at all. Anna Paquin is the only person that delivers a decent performance in the film but I hate Anna Paquin so you can imagine my own private hell viewing this film.<br /><br />There is one good moment in the movie, however, when a villain is trying to explain the convoluted plot to Anna Paquin's character and she doesn't understand any of it and asks a bunch of stupid questions and he blurts out "You IDIOT, you have not understood anything!" lol. Well I happen to understand this film is a piece of garbage. 0 stars. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7362 | pending | 2554f48f-9ebc-4d15-b048-b31a09dc08a8 | When you get ahead of a film, you know you are wasting your time watching the movie in question. That is exactly how I felt while I was watching "Darkness." I could see anticipate every twist and turn easily. It is a combination of "The Amityville Horror" and a myriad of films that deal with the occult. It is so silly that I almost found endearing its naiveness. I cannot say I was wholly bored but I found the film way too derivative for my taste. Director Balagueró tries to redo his early Spanish hit "The Nameless," but he cannot pull it off. I admit, a few sequences were creepy enough but I just abhor when I can figure out what is going to happen next. Also, I hated to see good actors like Lena Olin and Giancarlo Giannini sweat so much over this piece of dreck. Finally, Anna Paquin as the star of a horror film? This must be a joke. She is cute but she is one of those good child actors that have become a very monotonous adult actor. You can live without watching this one. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7363 | pending | 15c64845-cc6f-4769-b62f-aed51ced2d45 | An American family moves to the countryside of Spain to live in an isolated house. Regina (Anna Paquin), the teenager daughter of Mark (Iain Glen), who is sick and has some mental problems, and the nurse Maria (Lena Olin), notes that weird things is happening in the house and with her young brother Paul (Stephan Enquist), but her mother does not believe on her. Reggie decides to investigate with her boyfriend Carlos (Fele Martínez) the origins of the house, and they find that forty years ago, the place was the stage of the death of six children. Reggie decides to ask for support to her grandfather Albert (Giancarlo Giannini) to protect her brother against the house and her father.<br /><br />I bought this DVD expecting to see a good horror movie of haunted house mainly because of the names of Anna Paquin, Lena Olin, Fele Martínez (from "Thesis" and "Abre los Ojos") and Giancarlo Giannini. Further, I like very much Spanish cinema. In spite of, I found a terrible screenplay, an awful direction and a deplorable acting of excellent actors and actresses. The intention of the story is good, slightly recalling "The Shinning" in some moments, but unfortunately it is badly developed, never being clear, for example, the reasons and motives why the American family moved to Spain or the horrible relationship between the members of the family, mainly the situation between Maria and Reggie. The direction is confused, poorly trying to use dark and shadows to give scary effects to the story. I love Anna Paquin, but her expressionless face never works in this flick. Lena Olin is a caricature of the great actress she is; and Stephan Enquist is too much weak for such important role. Only Fele Martínez has a good performance in his support character. I liked the open end of the story. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Sétima Vítima" ("The Seventh Victim") | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7364 | pending | 468dd987-3c79-4a84-bff6-f712470db6e0 | This movie is so daring it doesn't attempt to hide its similarities to The Shining. It lacks the originality to do so. And when it does, near the end, try to cover up its story of "father goes psycho under influence of sketchy haunted house in a foreign place," it does so by stooping to plenty of other already established conventions and ideas. In other words, it reduces itself to mere cliche. But hell, even I enjoy a good predictable horror or thriller as long as there is an interesting story, one filled with violence and gore, somewhere before the film makes the dreadful turn towards the predictable and trite. Well, this film doesn't have a good story and I was really disappointed with it. What 'Darkness' has going for it is remarkable direction and cinematography. It is a film well-shot and carefully constructed full of fun, creepy angles and shots. What 'Darkness' doesn't have going for it is pretty much everything else. To begin with a minor quibble - the editing in this movie is obnoxious. It jumps from one scene to the next, sometimes pointlessly. For example, the old man in the movie (who pretty much carries the background story, later filled in by another character) is underscored by a hamster running circles. I mean, it looks cool the first time, but why continue to use the same image? I guess you'd have to see it for yourself, to understand what I mean. Another problem with this movie is Anna Paquin's character who essentially whines throughout the film, crying and caring all too much about everything - she's the film's failed attempt at a character-driven horror film. The movie has scenes of overblown sentimentalism and the family drama it depicts is simply not believable. By the end, 'Darkness' is a muddled melodrama, with a non-involving mystery provided with too simple of an ending. And it's hardly scary. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7365 | pending | 0d1439a1-f408-4c1d-b760-071deded78ee | What could have been some majorly creepy stuff ends up being an incomprehensible, nutty motion picture that even the filmmakers themselves probably didn't understand. Had they shown more of the Satanic ritual or whatever, it might have been creepier, but as it stands now, this is a waste of time and brain cells. Is anybody else getting sick of the whole "little kid drawing creepy pictures with crayon" thing? Could there possibly be a bigger horror cliché? Probably not. I know, I know, it's from some different country, and it's far too refined and sophisticated for me to understand, so I shouldn't expect the "plot" to be spoon-fed to me, blah, blah, blah. Whatever. I still say the movie blows. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7366 | pending | 109412ec-9953-4ba1-875b-e317a78c6ed2 | Why would Burt Lancaster allow himself to play a poor schnook who is ultimately undermined by femme fatale Anna Dundee, played by Yvonne DeCarlo in 'Criss Cross'? The same reason why Robert Mitchum allows himself to be cast as another loser who falls for femme fatale Faith Domergue in the 1950 noir, "Where Danger Lives". Perhaps they both felt it was a good way to show that they had 'range' as actorsthat playing against type, the usual 'tough-guy' role they were known for, would enhance their image as actors who could play any role. But the problem was that roles like Steve Thompson, the pathetic love-sick milquetoast in 'Criss Cross', did nothing to enhance Lancaster's career. Not only is Lancaster completely miscast in the one-note role of Thompson, but there's something inherently unlikeable (and may I say, pathetic) about the film's protagonist in the first place.<br /><br />'Criss Cross' is an interminably slow-moving film. Among the many unnecessary scenes in the film is at the beginning: the flashback which chronicles Thompson's confrontation with Dan Duryea's Dundee at the nightclub. Everything that occurs in that initial flashback is explained later in the picture: the illicit affair between Steve and Anna, Steve's strained relationship with Martinez the cop and his bad blood with Dundee. If Director Siodmark felt compelled to begin the film with a flashback, why not keep it under three minutes? I think it would have been more effective.<br /><br />In 'Criss Cross', it takes quite awhile before the protagonist commits himself and steps out of the 'ordinary' world of Act One. That's the scene where he's "passing by' and 'runs into' Anna at the nightclub. And notice how Siodmak spends so much time cutting back and forth between Anna dancing and Steve staring at her? In addition to the cross-cutting, he also spends a great deal of time focusing on Esy Morales and His Rhumba Band than moving the story along.<br /><br />Up until the crisis of Act Two, the story plods along with Thompson having various uneasy encounters with Anna and then drowning his sorrows at his usual watering hole. At the midpoint of Act Two, he learns that Anna has run off and gotten married to Dundee. It's becoming more clear at this point that one of the film's central weaknesses is that Dundee is never on screen throughout most of the second act. There are no confrontations between Thompson and Dundee during this time and we're left with the rather unexciting machinations between the two lovebirds. As it turns out (and Anna 'explains' this later to Steve), the reason why she left was not only because he disappeared for eight months but she also felt pressure from Steve's mother as well direct threats from Martinez the cop who implied that he would see to it that she ended up in the Women's House of Detention. Anna goes back to Steve because she realizes she made a big mistake with Dundeeit turns out that he's been beating her and she's now scared of him.<br /><br />One of the silly refrains uttered by more than one character in Criss Cross is that you can never hijack an armored car. But everyone acts so surprised when Steve points out it can be done if it's an 'inside job'! You would have thought that Dundee would have known about Steve's 'profession' as an armored car driver and propositioned him beforehand. But of course Steve needs to make the proposal so that Dundee won't kill him after discovering his affair with Anna (if they're so afraid at getting caught, why do Steve and Anna meet at his apartment where Dundee can so easily find them?). I really got a kick out of Finchley (played by Alan Napier), the 'brains' of the operation. Dundee is so dumb that he has to hire this alcoholic ex-professor type who plots out the heist on a map. Oh there is the matter of procuring the ingredients to construct the gas bombs used during the robbery and of course Finchley is good at that too!<br /><br />The only really well done scene in the entire film is the armored car robbery. The editing was quite good as it depicted the rising action of a heist gone bad. As the gas bombs go off, the brutality of the gang is shown in high relief when Dundee murders the innocent Armored Car Guard.<br /><br />The climax of the film is as drawn out as the rest of the film. Why does it take so long for one of Dundee's goons to kidnap Thompson? There's that nurse, then the goon is waiting outside, then he comes in and pretends that he's a friend, Steve falls asleep and finally after he awakes, the goon kidnaps him.<br /><br />When Steve finally meets up with Anna at the house, we wonder how Anna got her hands on the cash. Did she somehow steal it from Dundee after the heist when he went out to dinner? It's never explained. Even worse, Anna suddenly becomes the evil femme fatale out of the blue. Before, her selfishness and attraction to Dundee can be explained by her perceived rejection at the hands of Steve and Martinez's threats. But after going back to Steve because she fears Dundee, she inexplicably turns on him when he is most vulnerable. Just as there is 'instant coffee', you have 'instant femme fatale'.<br /><br />In "Film NoirAn Encyclopedic Reference to the American Style" by Silver and Ward, the authors hail 'Criss by Cross' as "one of the most tragic and compelling of film noir". I beg to differ. In order to have tragedy you need characters that have great depth and in order to be compelling you need a story that's plausible. Criss Cross has neither. It's an overrated "B Movie" that somehow has found itself in the pantheon of art house noirs. Once again, the herd mentality has triumphed in evaluating the pictures of yesteryear. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7367 | pending | cfc19e82-1e64-48b1-abfa-81ae837007e6 | This could have been a good movie if more things were explained. Way too many plot holes to find this enjoyable. The ending in particular is off left field. SPOILER ALERT: How did the kidnapper get back to Dundee so fast and Dundee shows up at the house in a matter of two minutes? Way out of wack here. How did Anna get hold of the money? No explanation at all. If the Pete the cop knew Lancaster was in danger, why didn't he have a cop at the door in the Hospital. This and many more questions remain. Too bad because the premise was there, just bad writing and execution.<br /><br />Good cast is wasted here. DeCarlo goes from bad to good to bad? Lancaster's character lacks development and Dureya is just blah as the "bad guy".<br /><br />This could re-made with a cohesive story line and better writing. Of course it would be much more violent with lots of gratuitous sex and everything. The editing would be jerky as well I guess, so let's leave well enough alone. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7368 | pending | d66469da-6ae6-4105-8502-aade82b8a13c | I agree with the user "SpecialAgentFoxMulder" that this episode is awful- posisbly thr worst of the entire show. Now I'm not keen on many episodes of the later series but this one takes the biscuit! It was unfunny and unoffensive. As for the ending, I'm sorry but it disgusted me more than any other episodes combined.<br /><br />I mean, the boys think they meant well but the ending was so upsetting- that they think the whale belongs on the moon and over the credits, we see it has died. Wht could have saved the episode was if the pranksters were able to confess for what they did.<br /><br />There seem to be no outgoing message. Okay, South Park may be guilty of preaching too much and its always nice to see an unpreachign one (such as Make Love Not Warcraft") but this episode was just wrong! Avoid at all costs! Helen xxxxx | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7369 | pending | 2c688d79-836e-4065-bfe9-015fc49090c0 | Free Willzyx (Stupidest name/title ever) is the worst episode of ANY of the TV shows I watch, which includes X-Files, Alias, All 3 Law And Orders, All of the CSI's, Family Guy, Simpsons, Chappelle's Show, Colbert Report, and more. South Park was for very long my favorite of the comedy shows, because of it's shockingly obscene content and disturbing black comedy. Free Willzyk has NONE of the content I mentioned earlier. It was so tame, so unoffensive it might has well been an episode of Sesame Street. Kyle goes to Sea World where a few of the workers play a prank on him, making him think a whale is talking to him. He BEFRIENDS THE WHALE, actually BEFRIENDS IT. Hello? This is South Park! the same show that brought you "Cancelled", "Chickenlover", "It Hits The Fan", "Death Camp Of Tolerance", and so many more! Not SpongeBob SquarePants! Ugh. I actually watched the whole episode, which is 30 minutes of my life I will never get back. Anyhow, I was extremely disgusted with this episode and I can't believe the shocking decline in the quality of Matt & Trey's work. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7370 | pending | d298d7cb-7278-4ae6-a769-b3015d315136 | I have watched this show for a while, only because of my cousins, and I HATE IT! First, the girls dress in the same style clothes, and they have the same first letter in their names. (Come on, I could to better than that!) Then the villains (spare me), first we have a monkey with part of his (little) brain showing, then we have a (gay) version of the devil, a pink hillbilly, a gang green gang (whit is ironic, that's their name) a spoiled princess (once again, ironic, that's 'her' name) among others. I have also found that there is no male hero in the show. (Not that I'm sexist or anything...) I'd rather watch Sailor Moon, it's much better than this. If someone else wants to watch the show in the room that you're in, find a way to break the television. Believe me, it'll save you a half hour of torture.<br /><br />Rating: I'm giving this just what it deserves, a 1 out of 10. Whatever you do, DO NOT WATCH THIS! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7371 | pending | 8be78f86-1232-4de4-9d9e-6f05aa00cd74 | I always hated this retarded show .I liked the shows of Cartoon Network like "Dexter's laboratory " or "Megas XLR .But I never liked this piece of turd . Basically because it have stupid characters (the good or the villains all seems to be mentally retarded ) they have stupid voices (specially Bubbles .She is supposed to be the "cute " character of the show ,but she is incredibly annoying ) the story lines are very ,very stupid . Some episodes could have been interesting but almost always the show turns childish and corny . There wasn't any likable character ,the music was horrible ,and the animation is the worst that I've seen . Evena five year old boy could draw better ! I don't see why all the world seems to love this piece of garbage . "The Powerpuff Girls " seems to be one of the worst cartoons ever made . Fortunately "Foster Home for the imaginary friends " from the same creator was far away better . | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7372 | pending | fa741b86-e732-49b1-a68c-238e42e12506 | When I first watched this show on Cartoon Network, I found it uninteresting. Then I read a lot of good messages about this show, and I decided to watch it. The show was so boring. Each episode was predictable. More, this show has no logic. Hypersmart girls, who are going to school and sometimes do such stupid things, 99% of episodes start with a Monster attacking Townswille, then Mayor (he is a real fool, he is NOT funny, he is so stupid, that I can't imagine how he became a Mayor). Professor, yes, supposed to be the smartest person in this show, but actually... He even found no difference between monster and his brother. Narrator's comments also make this show boring. Because they also have similar lines in the beginning of each episode and in the ending. Also the animation is very strange. Everything except main heroes is shown in an ugly way. Also in every epsode this show is giving you some life-lessons, and it means that it is oriented on little children, but if you look closer, you will see, that there is a lot of violence and even blood(!!!) during their battles. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7373 | pending | 2e68ea52-efa1-45c4-b251-0a7f1d5cc1ec | Isn't it depressing how the most violent cartoon on Cartoon Network is aimed at girls? While I'm not watching soldiers getting shot and blown up on Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, it would be nice if there was a cartoon or at least something on TV I could watch to satisfy my violent urges. And something that I would not get made fun of for watching. I did see some episodes (I should really be shot for this) and had to sit through the movie (now, where do I find a gun?), and it is quite clear that this lost its spark after the first few episodes. If you like seeing 500-foot monsters that can destroy huge cities in seconds getting slaughtered by toddlers about one foot tall, this is a must-see. But it does get very boring after a while, and with a show like this, even original ideas become chiefly dull. The movie just felt like one overlong episode (I can't remember any of it), and the villain should have been far more intimidating than a green monkey. This show is a laughing stock. It churns out the same basic premise episode after episode after episode, and though it may try to have some mystery and intrigue once in a while, the ending will always be the same - "The Powerpuff Girls save the day!" All is good and nice, but all is very, very repetitive... I give it 3 out of 10 for being the only danged cartoon on CN to revolve around violence, although it is aimed at girls, so I won't be tuning in for it ever. I've established myself as a fan of war and violence films and I won't have that reputation destroyed... 3/10 | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7374 | pending | 552e7f31-8e6d-4e3e-aaf0-4dcbbcec7f75 | The story is shortly about the faith-lacking business man priest, Daniel Clemens (Christian Slater), who is looking closer on a case where another priest is suspected for murder. The priest denies he's guilty but at the same time he is not able to discuss the matter due to confidentiality. Enter Daniel Clemens who starts playing cop...<br /><br />While the plot isn't ridiculous, everything else is. Let's start with the visual side, the cinematography is dull, it looks more like a TV-series than a movie. The camera angles are boring, in fact, there's not a single memorable camera angle in the entire movie. There's no interesting closeups revealing details. And the scene transitions, well, there's not much to say about those, they aren't smooth at all, there seems to be no connection between the scenes than the actual plot. Okay, they did use a transition with music in between two scenes, but there are no interesting visual transitions in the entire movie, the times dissolve was used there was no visual connection between the scenes.<br /><br />The boring visual part could be forgiven if the film would offer anything else. Unfortunately the film only offers forced wooden acting and clumsy dialogue with no punch. On top of that the film suffers from audio problems, the sound volume is lowered several times in the movie as if the microphones would be too far.<br /><br />I didn't predict the solution of the film. It could be because the film never gave me the opportunity or it could be due to the presentation, which was so boring I never even tried to figure it out.<br /><br />Put two plus two together and it equals a B-movie where 'B' stands for boring. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7375 | pending | 831407a8-24be-4b87-b135-6660cfbc98b5 | Was the cast and crew on drugs before they started filming this? There was a hole in the plot...so big...nothing could have filled it up. From the first scene when the co-star is late for dinner, was there any doubt where he was and what he had just done? The suspense was over from there. Now, it was going to take another 85 minutes before the mystery was solved. I must confess that the biggest hole in the plot kept me awake for hours, wondering how dumb the screenwriter, the director, Chrisian Slater, Molly Parker, and Stephen Rea could be not to at least explain how our murderer, who was not a lawyer, or a policeman, could go into a locked cell at a jail, kill his second victim, and tie him up from a noose to make it look like suicide??? I kept wondering if I had fallen asleep out of sheer boredom and missed how that happened. If someone can explain it to me, please do...and then, why, for God's sake, did he kill the third victim? Nothing made sense...and yet, someone thought this film was worthy to be an official selection at a film festival. Perhaps it was a comedy and I failed to laugh. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7376 | pending | 1d5521b4-6fcc-41b2-8812-810eeb3912c5 | Man alive, is this game bad or what? The graphics are way below par, even if it were on a playstation 1, never mind a Gamecube. The gameplay is pathetic and the camera movements disorientating. What a worthless game!<br /><br />I totally love Warner's Batman animation and it's cool that they do all the games in this way. Batman: Vengeance could well have turned out great as they got off to a good start by keeping all the Gothic visuals and voice actors but they seriously stumbled when it came to playability and graphics. The result is a boring game that looks incredibly cheap and is no fun to play whatsoever. I really must stress how bad the graphics are. Don't let the color schemes fool you. I've seen better stuff on a Commodore 64. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7377 | pending | 567dc1ef-1a68-4aae-9d13-ea88b210ab37 | I am shocked by all the good reviews on the cover of this movie and on IMDb. It belongs in the $2 bin at your local video store. To say that this is a B movie is extremely generous.<br /><br />Besides lacking a single redeemable character, only slightly better than average acting, and an ugly 80's style picture quality, the script for this film is dull and lifeless. This film is not only boring--it is pathetic. (Admittedly, there is occasionally some mildly interesting chemistry between the two main characters.) Even the final plot twist--rather, the only plot twist--does not save this film.<br /><br />Rent "Diamond Men" if you must, but do not hesitate to turn it off once you become appraised of its worthlessness. 2 out of 10. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7378 | pending | c2eb834e-730a-4dd0-b391-806eb7bcfdba | This film was shot in Randolph County in central North Carolina in 1968 when a film crew in the state was a rare thing. The locations were the municipalities of Liberty and Ramseur and the surrounding rural countryside. It is not a particularly good movie. It did have Merle Haggard and it brought life to the hinterlands for a few minutes.<br /><br />The plot is standard shootemup. The cinematography is that fuzzy stuff that came out of the late sixties and early seventies. The local folks were thrilled to be a part of the enterprise.<br /><br />If viewers have difficulty finding a copy of this film, a record copy is available in Asheboro, NC.<br /><br />Actors not credited include Ben Jones, Mimi Pravda, Tommy Hull, Bill Nunnery. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7379 | pending | 2baf65a6-f63b-45ea-a9ba-2b40a5dd2fa1 | I was living in Barstow Ca. in 1968 when the movie The Killers Three arrived at the local theater. The trailer was enough to get me to pay my hard earned money to see this movie. I was really expecting a Bonnie And Clyde movie and I got Dick Clark playing a shy nerdy guy while Robert Walker and Diane Varsi played an poor attempt of reinacting Bonnie and Clyde. Needless to say it never went over well. Maybe this is why it never made it to video. Even as a kid I was left some what ripped off as I left the theater. After all the best parts where in the trailer of the movie. The movie was dull and pretty much pointless. By the way, Dick Clark gets killed so it wasn't a total let down. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7380 | pending | 9de23af7-d0f1-4ac7-88f2-eb34cc613f76 | I love the book. It's full of passion, romance, tension... and the movie drags along taking two spunky stars with it. Kylie Minogue was already a major star in Australia, having starred in Neighbours and releasing her first single. The decision to cast her in The Delinquents was surely a marketing ploy. For me, it didn't pay off.<br /><br />Kylie may have been great in Neighbours, but she was far too sweet and innocent to play the feisty Lola... and, she wasn't of Asian descent as Lola was. Charlie Schlatter was an excellent Brownie, but there was no chemistry between him and Kylie.<br /><br />By and large, the movie was boring. It dragged on, it lacked the passion of the book, it focused heavily on Kylie and in general, was completely disappointing. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7381 | pending | 32389173-a4e7-4c7c-ba8b-b6fe0f9901a9 | What a dire film. I cannot believe that I actually sat down and watched it. A very, very, very, very, very, VERY pathetic effort, with no redeeming features whatsoever. Hateeeeeeedddd ittttt! The so-called "racing" sequences are laughably awful, and the plot was so bad, I've forgotten it. Part of the film was made at the Spa-Francorchamps course in Belgium in, I think, 1988, during the actual Grand Prix there. I was there and am glad I didn't appear in any of the paddock scenes shown in the film. It could have been good...what a pity. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7382 | pending | a430df70-9060-4de3-b8fd-1702b7a82c63 | Is it just me or the fact that the evil racing team is Japanese and that their arrogant star racer is German seem a little over the top? Maybe that is how it is on the international racing circuit but if all America had representing them are chumps like Cody and his mechanic Chris (Peter Berg, who must have been still learning how to act) then I would be rooting for another country. Formula movies can be good but the characters have to be likeable and no one meets that criteria in this movie. To put it succinctly - a very bad movie. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7383 | pending | 5065cf8c-3929-4e67-b722-6080d03c8182 | First, let me mention the fact that, in spite of its title («Stories», in plural), there is only ONE Kitchen Story. As to whether Isak died or not at the end, I'm not so sure since, in one of the very last scenes, HIS PIPE is seen lying on the table next to the two cups. On the DVD cover, there is a reference to Tati. It claims that the film is «très drôle: rappelle Tati !» («Very funny: reminiscent of Tati!». The great Jacques Tati relied mainly on mime and silent deadpan attitudes to achieve his comical effects and to offer his critically satiric views of his 1950’s French «modern» society. Of course «Kitchen» does take place during the 1950’s and it does offer some (rather faint) satirical references to the absurdities of bureaucracy and there are some long moments were no words are uttered -– but they are not really funny. Are all these small details enough to make «Kitchen» a «Tatiesque» movie ? This being said, I have to admit that «Kitchen» does deal with the sometimes false objectivity of scientific research versus the «truth» of human subjective emotions. Generally speaking, the movie was agonizingly slow, with nothing much happening -- with barely any «dramatic impulse» : the involving parts were the set up during the first 15 minutes or so, and during the last half hour or so. Indeed, the last segment was -- FINALLY !!! -- interesting and moving. It might seem that it was a short subject, of less than an hour, unduly stretched to some 90 minutes. Now, about the set-up (a «scientific» observation on the behavior of single males in their kitchen): at first it seemed very promising –- with the charting out of the comings and goings of bachelors in their kitchen as a means to determine what new inventions would be most useful to come up with. But very quickly this premise turned out to be just a prologue, an «excuse» to introduce the real subject which was only fully developed towards the end and which was about loneliness and the invaluable bond of friendship. Pity ! I honestly wanted to like that movie. Yes, it seemed so promising when I heard about some of its unusual little «anecdotes» -- which were indeed there and which I enjoyed -– such as the burning of a man’s nose hair (instead of using scissors to cut it off), the «investment» of having a huge quantity of «valuable» black pepper stacked away in a barn, the role reversals (the observant becoming the observed), a man’s mouth emitting sounds from a radio program. And there is also a sick horse becoming the catalyst of half-hidden human despair, the relative importance of right or left side car driving in Sweden and Norway (a reflection of the importance for each of these very close neighboring countries to affirm its individuality ?). Am I the sole person who did not fully enjoy that film ? Does this necessarily mean that I'm wrong ? Perhaps it’s almost generally praised «fine points» were, in fact, «too subtle» for me ? Perhaps... Could my individual views on this movie ironically reflect the very essence of the film itself -- which would be the vital necessity to have the right to differ, to affirm one’s individuality and not to follow blindly society’s trends and opinions ? Each one of us has the right to have different personal views and not to be a slave of the demands of one’s bread-winning «dictatorial» demands: often, we do have other alternatives that would allow each one of us to be useful to our society while respecting one’s inner principles. In short, being true to oneself -– the way that in that film Folke (Isak’s «scientific observer») ends up by giving up his job while preferring to stay in his new friend Isak’s house and help his out with the tasks of his farm ... And so, «Vive la différence», as the French say ! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7384 | pending | eb9cf3c5-0f32-495f-aa54-a4dc8cc22a1a | The film starts out great, with a mock instruction film about the habits of Swedish housewives. After that we get a detailed reconstruction of post-war Scandinavia with lots of amazing cars, electronic equipment and interior design; a minimal jazz score, nice cinematography and stylish titling. Also there's some funny Scandinivian rivalry like in Von Triers 'Riget'.<br /><br />Sadly, after the set up, "Kitchen stories" collapses like the Twin Towers on 9/11.Actors who try to portray the emotion 'jealousy" by just staring in front of them. Corny dialog filled with stale gay symbolism in the vain of: "I don't like white swans, I prefer bears and wolves... u ever tasted bear meat?" The music becomes cheesier than Yann Tiersen at his worst.<br /><br />It's a pity the director put all the effort in this great set-up, just to screw it up after-wards. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7385 | pending | 8b028ffe-c13e-4b12-95c0-588d10c5bf34 | The fun that was present in the other 'movies' has all but disappeared with this third effort, which means the rubbishy production values show through more than ever. Another 2-parter ('The Chinese Web') cobbled together, this one suffers from too much padding, not to mention weak Spidey action taking place in such uninspired locations as a car park, apartment and printing press. Nicholas Hammond is as endearing as ever, struggling valiantly against the drab production and lame performances of the rest of the cast. The plot, in which Peter and Spidey help a Chinese official defeat charge of corruption during World War II by locating three marines who could testify as to his innocence, doesn't exactly scream 'comic book sprung to life', does it? | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7386 | pending | 77d95c50-ad1f-4e24-83d0-f9bbb281a0a5 | A man wonders if his hunky co-worker is gay. At a yard sale he finds a ray gun called "Gaydar". You point it at a person, pull the trigger and it tells you how gay they are. He tries it out, it works and he sets out to find out if his coworker is gay like him...<br /><br />Promising idea ruined by an unfunny script (after a promising beginning) and terrible acting. The entire cast overacts and basically SCREAM their lines at each other constantly. It gets annoying and really embarassing after a while. The saving grace is that's it is short, there's a scene stealing cat (love her fall out of the kitty bed) and Charles Nelson Reilly is hysterical in his brief bit. But none of this saves the movie. I can't recommend this at all. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7387 | pending | 74416766-fb37-4db4-b3f1-e75d6fe38b26 | This guy is a real piece of work. An angry, immature boy in a grown man's body, packing all the charisma of a rock, he goes around to places most people would only wish to visit and does his best to be as miserable as possible.<br /><br />Give this job to someone else who actually appreciates it.<br /><br />I could go down an endless list of all the stupid things this guy does in his "episodes," though I'll just highlight the worst: Crete. While the locals are putting up seaside picnics in his "honour," this clown has the gall to act like a petulant, spoiled child. He complains about everything, including the fashion sense of the people who live there. What an imbecile.<br /><br />When he went to Sweden, he spent at least five minutes feigning incredulity at a bunch of chefs (who probably had better things to do than talk with some dimwit American, like work) because they didn't think Abba was horrible. Everywhere he went, he brought up Abba. This is the kind of talk you'd hear from 13-year-olds who watch too much MTV.<br /><br />When he was in New Orleans, he got upset that a certain restaurant had better-tasting fries than his, so he "accidentally" spilled some wine on them in order to ruin them. What a strange, emotionally unstable person.<br /><br />The worst of it all are his clumsy voice-overs, where he attempts in vain to add some kind of perspective on a situation he was too thick and ignorant to appreciate. He tries to use all these "big" words in order to sound like an author, but he's really just a pretentious hack whose lack of awareness has convinced him he has something to say. That, by the way, is probably the one good thing about this joker's TV show. It goes to show you, no matter how inept you are, as long as you take yourself seriously enough, the world will as well.<br /><br />Then there's the way he speaks with local guides whose English is obviously only rudimentary. He'll use vocabulary any writer--as he believes himself to be--would instinctively know will most likely not be understood by these people. Does he care? No. Self-important schmucks like this Bourdain clown do not use language to communicate; they use it to make themselves look important.<br /><br />Mcg13jthm's review on this same page is a perfect example of the kind of mind Bourdain attracts--that of a low IQ social misfit. Observe how the reviewer attempts to justify Bourdain's sociopath nature with simple-minded, childish excuses that hardly make sense. "Bourdain may complain but he goes through 'a lot' and, not only that, he was 'forced' to do this show but is trying to redeem himself." A dolt attracts dolts, and reading Mcg13jthm's review should let you know perfectly well whether or not you are the kind of person who'd enjoy this utterly useless, pointless show.<br /><br />Finally, to add a bit of "fairness" to my diatribe, I admit Bourdain would have been momentarily amusing had I met him in a bar. But as a TV host of a travel show whose purpose is to show the viewer the beauty of other places and cultures, Bourdain is a miserable, abject, hopeless, grim and depressing failure.<br /><br />A failure. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7388 | pending | 6611653d-3b2a-4c46-ae1f-fa2a51d14a2a | Very simply, they are all the syndicated episodes and NOT the original uncut/unedited NBC episodes. It is NOT the complete first season, all eps are edited to conform to 21:00 for syndication meaning jokes are cut, an extra commercial fade is included, all of the Harvey Korman intros are not here...very poorly done! Shame on a series I've been waiting for....booooooooooooooooo! If you're a true die hard Mama fan, don't buy this and go to http://www2.warnerbros.com/web/main/help/whv/customer_service.jsp and send them comments on why we're unhappy on this butcher job to a classic sitcom! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7389 | pending | ffc0e28f-0d0d-4807-8eee-4e8c52a34806 | well,there isnt much to say about this movie. its simply trash. very poor acting, poor script, and lame story.... well, the actress,(i odnt even know her name) who played mainrole,(not the blond one,but latina one) was acting fine,but the blond one who played the friend of main charactor,,,her acting level is just like highschool play,so as most of other actors in the movie. Also,zombies,,,,very bad acting as well. and,,the story itself has really no point at all. well, if you are really bored and really got nothing to do,but wanna kill time somehow, maybe you may wanna watch this movie,but eventho,there are still millions of better B movies than this crap. its total waste of money and time. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7390 | pending | f42ff37e-d976-4743-806e-9df763daaec8 | This movie is available as a special "bonus" feature on the double-disc of Horror 101 & Horror 102: Endgame. It has nothing to do with those movies, except it does show that producers/directors Dudelson and Clavell are in a rut. Like those other movies, this one features young people who go to a building where they get trapped inside, and run down the hallways a lot, while they get picked off one by one. In the end one or more characters are revealed to have another identity. This is by far the worst of the three.<br /><br />Here, people are invited to a Halloween-night only opening of the Museum of the Dead. The museum doesn't have very many exhibits, and they're all sort of ancient central-American related. There are also flesh-eating, infection-spreading zombies in the museum as well as an ancient cannibal warrior and two female warriors.<br /><br />The movie is very repetitious. It kills people off fairly quickly, to the point you wonder who they're going to have left to kill off - at which point some more people show up without explanation, so that they can be killed.<br /><br />Amazingly, one of the characters does have a cellphone, and is actually able to call the police, who actually take it seriously and show up at the museum. When one tries to pick the lock to get in, the other tells him that would be "forced entry." If you've got people trapped in a building who are injured, I think that's irrelevant. The cops are also stupid in that when they shoot a zombie in the head, it goes down, but then they shoot other zombies in the chest and they don't go down. They happen to shoot another zombie in the head, and it goes down. They continue to shoot the rest of the zombies in the chest. Stupid.<br /><br />The opening credits and a nightmare sequence are done in a sort of animation-effect over video, a poor-man's Waking Life sort of thing, but not so cartoonish. It is sort of interesting, however, parts of some of the attacks are done the same way, so there's no logic to it.<br /><br />Dreadful. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7391 | pending | c0913006-0282-4dc9-aef2-554d353026fa | Plot: None. Script: A string of cliches. Acting: Not in evidence. Special effects: Title sequence kind of cool, but otherwise exceptionally poor. Fright factor: Crossing the road is scarier. Cult factor: Only the most desperate cult would latch onto this dog. Can't you say anything positive: I did. The titles were kind of cool.<br /><br />(Special bonus question ... your idea of hell: Being at a party with people who voted this flop a 7.) | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7392 | pending | 572ca781-c33c-4d5a-9724-4d021056e181 | A study in BAD. Bad direction, bad acting, bad writing and f/x that´ll teach you that you´d better upgrade your computer before filming. It´s the kind of flick you used to do totally drunk in your cellar with Dad´s camera when you were young at heart. But YOU certainly would not show it in public when you´re sober again, would you? YOU wouldn´t even view it. Avoid at all costs. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7393 | pending | cf1cd3da-e2ac-4b99-914c-aa4bb4c91927 | again such kind of zero-budget digital-video cam trash. and again I fell into this trap cuz the title had "zombie" in it (german title: ZOMBIE ATTACK!) the story: on halloween some people visit the "museum of the dead", it's a trap, a crazy doctor wants to kill the people, everything connected to some aztec-cult. so they fight against some zombies in there.<br /><br />ultra cheap scenery: some corridors with black tape on it. a few dilettantish drawings and a few skulls as you can find them in every fun-shop. no actors, just low-grade models waking around with absolutely no idea what to do. no effects. laughable make-up, your local hobby-make-up-zombie-fan will do it better, some time it looked as if they had not enough money for enough colour, otherwise they just could not do it like this, man, they have to realize the looks of their "zombies". some laughable martial-arts fights with the zombies, slow-motion. just, when the director wants to have it scary he uses some standard digital-video-cam effect where everything is flackering. unbelievable! 0 out of 10! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7394 | pending | fef65c8b-5adb-4f73-a22b-0d3c09b33e55 | I tried to love this movie. I really did. Kevin Bacon plays a cerebral palsy victim who is befriended by a 10-year-old girl whose fantasies of digging to China, flying away in a balloon, and so on, are her way of coping with a dreary existence. I admit I did fast-forward through one of the scenes in which the two of them share friendship and simple pleasures while soulful piano music plays in the background. Okay, three or four of those type scenes. Maybe nine or ten. Okay, okay, it was fourteen. But I did sit and watch most of them. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7395 | pending | 7b0a46b6-f922-4b63-9a81-7ce7c0c00441 | I like Kevin Bacon and Cathy Moriarty, and I love Mary Stuart Masterson, but the movie wasn't good at all. There wasn't a likable character in the picture, and the plot was nearly non-existent.<br /><br />Ms. Masterson is a great actress, but she just didn't pull off the "tough girl" character. (She had similar problems with her character in THE SECOND DAY OF Christmas.) Perhaps she should avoid these characters, especially those with an obnoxious female child to play off of.<br /><br />Evan Rachel Wood was unimpressive. Her character was a brat, plain and simple, and no young actress could have given Harriet any positive feelings.<br /><br />In the interest of full disclosure, I couldn't even finish watching this picture. Forty-five minutes of my time is enough to waste. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7396 | pending | c1dde3c4-4ea4-4900-8b46-0d780763fa2b | Diane Keaton is a pathetic actress. She is so boring and phony. She is the same on and off screen. I saw her in an interview with Ellen Degeneres and she behaves exactly the same as she does in movies. Her foolish facial expressions make me want to change channels. She has been in a couple of good movies, but they would have been better had someone else been picked for the part. Steve Martin doesn't add much to the movie either. He over acts as well and also ruins an old favorite. The ridiculous part Martin Short plays only adds more idiocies to the movie. I've tried to watch the movie twice but both times had to turn it off. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7397 | pending | a20ead06-58da-4d85-8573-34751809e85c | This film makes about as much sense as an 'Ozzie & Harriet' or a 'Father Knows Best' episode. An old copy of Reader's Digest (circa 1962) would provide more insight into modern life, or the relationship between a father and a daughter, than this weird concoction.<br /><br />I was surprised with Diane Keaton. She appears to sleepwalk through the film. (Given the film's title, I realize that hers was a supporting role but even Martin Short managed a distinct, supporting character.)<br /><br />I can understand the attraction of an imaginary world created in a good romantic comedy. But this film is the prozac version of an imaginary world. I'm frightened to consider that anyone could enjoy it even as pure fantasy. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7398 | pending | f533e875-6beb-4344-a3db-2810b5d67dc5 | I saw this movie on video with a couple of friends as part of a teen comedy triple header, alongside Dorm Daze and Going Greek. Obviously we weren't going for quality, but for air-headed entertainment and gross-out gags. Generally we got what we came for, but Wild Roomies really stood out: For being awful.<br /><br />First impression first, the cover: The Norwegian release cover showed breasts covered up and a bunch of seemingly "crazy" roomies in the background; Brings up pictures of drunken semi-naked teenagers doing bunches of funny stuff stuff doesn't it?- The "crazy" roomies on the cover were not even featured in the picture. And the funny stuff you assume they'll be doing?- Absent as well.<br /><br />This movie was labeled comedy, which is a bit strange since it not even remotely funny. Relationship drama would be more accurate.<br /><br />Put shortly the movie is about a young couple inheriting a swanky house in LA, and are forced to get some roomies to make ends meet. These roommates eventually put both the young couple's patience and relationship to the test because they're so "wild". Problem is, they're not. And here lies the problem of this movie: The protagonist couple are so anal-retentive and neurotic that they manage to generate zero sympathy. You'll find yourself rooting for the antagonist roomies halfway through the movie. Add mediocre acting, lame dialogue and boring direction and you got yourself a movie that is best left unseen.<br /><br />See something else. | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
test_7399 | pending | 979d527d-8d97-426e-8952-f46aeb328742 | I had high hopes for this one after reading the back of the DVD, "In the spirit of American Pie and Animal House..." After suffering through this I realized I just blew $2.50 to rent it. This movie started out slow and just got slower... brief and fleeting moments of levity proved that it was in the spirit of American Pie if you mean "spirit" as a dead thing. not very entertaining or fun! Don't be fooled like i was and expect anything barely watchable because this movie will depress you more than entertain you. "Need to fill up three more lines for this stupid movie that doesn't deserve the effort... what a stupid piece of ignorant crud. This movie wreaked, even the brief nudity sucked! | null | null | null | neg | null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.