input
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| reference
stringclasses 2
values | contrast_input
stringlengths 123
1.93k
⌀ | contrast_references
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|---|
I've seen many horror shows over the years, like Nightstalker, that dealt with the Wendigo legend, so I was looking forward to an angry spirit causing mayhem to add flavor to the Halloween season. Man was I mistaken. The whole movie creates this sense of events about to happen that will be scary and creepy, but then delivers a very simplistic tale of revenge and murder over the loss of some property. Ve-ery scary - not! This movie has a lot in common with Cold Creek Manor, another total loser.<br /><br />It's getting harder and harder to believe anything Hollywood puts forward about scary movies, since they rarely come through with anything original and spooky anymore. What idiots pay for such a bogus movie to be made? Go back to the drawing board fellas, and do something useful with those millions of greenbacks you have to throw around.
|
Negative
| null | null |
1st watched 4/29/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Mick Garris): Campy vampire-like Stephen King movie has so many strange and goofy elements that you start laughing over the extreme weirdness about 3/4 the way into the movie and you wonder if this movie might have a cult following for King fans. It's the story of a mother and son who are sleepwalkers(a shape-shifting feline-like, flesh eating, life needing, near extinct breed of humanoid) who move from town to town searching for virgins to feed on to keep themselves alive. They come across as pretty normal upper-class folk except they are secret lovers and cats hang around the outside of their home, day and night. Cats are deadly to them, so they set traps in their yard to try and keep the population down. We get to see them break a couple of their necks when they attack(which is also a first in my movie-going experience) --- hopefully no real cats were harmed in the making of the film. The boy is after a sweet girl that he has a crush on until he turns into a "sleepwalker" and then he just wants her body. There is so much campy uniqueness to this movie that it might have been better if it was an all-out satirical comedy on suburban life, but the director instead tries to scare you every couple minutes until you wish he'd just get over it and bring out the gore. Eventually that happens and the movie winds down to it's typical Stephen King downbeat ending. The movie is interesting because King's humor comes thru more than usual but his weirdness is also very present and what you have is a movie that his fans will probably like and should have in their collection, but as a worthwhile movie experience it really doesn't cut it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
i'm being generous giving this movie 2 stars. the line about "have you even seen the wizard of oz" was the best part for me! with terrible writing and acting like displayed in this movie it's no wonder so many are taken in by worthless tv reality shows. do yourself a favor and get out of the house and hit a royals baseball game, your gonna be glad ya did!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was absolute torture. First of all, it's a whopping 4+ hours long! True, the Kargil war may have had several points that were captured and fought for, but every single one of those battles need not have been shown. So maybe this is a documentary, not a commercial film as advertised. Sure didn't seem like it, as enough background information was not given and there were some flaws. The battle sequences were so poorly executed. I am terribly disappointed from the man who gave well done sequences in Border. Each battle was the exact same as the previous. It was so predictable. (This might be a spoiler.) The whole army marches uphill, five or so soldiers curse five thousand times each (they also use the same cussword every time), one of the lead actors is shot, someone yells for a stretcher, the actor says, "No, don't get a stretcher. That will take 6 men from the battalion," and then an actor dies. That exact same thing happens over and over and over again. Oh, and the songs are so bad and so long. The cast of the movie is too big for its own good. Despite such a long movie, none of the characters were well developed. The actresses had the most miniscule roles. They all are dressed and portrayed to be the same. Two of them were weeping synchronized. It was so comical. They moved their hands and heads at the exact same time and then bit their dupatta together.<br /><br />The list just goes on and on. I know I'm still forgetting something . Anyways, I think I have bashed the film enough that you get the picture.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film had such promise!! What a great idea, an underdog paintball team struggling for recognition and personal glory, only to lose it's speed due to bad dialoge, poor editing and a half-written story. The characters in the beginning were interesting, only to lose steam half way through to become one dimensional people sputtering out tired one-liners.<br /><br />Maybe if they spent some more time on the story and dialoge it would have been a great movie, instead of a almost afterthought effort.
|
Negative
|
This film has such promise for the future!! What a great idea, an underdog paintball team struggling for recognition and personal glory, and perfects it's speed with great dialoge, smooth editing and a well-written story. The characters in the beginning were interesting, and built much steam half way through to become dynamic people sputtering out energetic one-liners.<br /><br />But if they spent even more time on the story and dialoge it would have been an even great movie, more than this interesting effort.
|
Positive
|
This was the first Ewan McGregor movie I ever saw outside of Star Wars. Since then I have become a very big Ewan McGregor fan but I still can't bring myself to forgive this movie's existence.<br /><br />My sister has always been a huge Jane Austen fan and because of that, I have been subjected to various of the classics, Emma being one of them. I've always considered them irritating, stupid and boring. However, after watching this terrible rendition, I was forced to admit that the original Emma was delightful and charming. Ewan McGregor scarcely serves a purpose in this film after they hacked and mutilated the part of Frank Churchill. Gweneth Paltrow is ridiculous in an already ridiculous character and the rest of the film is unremarkable and stupid.<br /><br />My recommendation to anybody who is remotely interested in English period drama... go see the originals. If you're a Ewan McGregor fan... believe me, by skipping this film, you haven't missed anything but five minutes collective of him in a silly hat and a bad haircut.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is exactly the reason why many people remain homeless . . . because stupid producers pay their money to make awful films like this instead of donating if they can bother!<br /><br />This film is even worse than white chicks! Little Man has a lame excuse for posing a character midget as a baby. Story is awful considering it was written by six people. The idea still wouldn't be too bad though, if it was original and not a rip-off of a cartoon episode. it has funny moments but some of them are way over-done and some are just stupid. The acting was very, very bad. So was the directing. Anyone involved in this film should be ashamed of themselves. it is racist and very offensive to midgets. I mean, instead of showing sympathy to them, the film-makers make fun of them! It really disgusts me how they do it. They see midgets being just like babies. And for a character who is a midget, pretending to be an abandoned baby just to get a diamond from a certain family. That is its lame excuse for showing something like that. It just was not worth it. Don't watch this film. It is a huge waste of time and money.
|
Negative
| null | null |
<br /><br />I am a big-time horror/sci-fi fan regardless of budget, but after watching countless horror movies late night on cable and video, this has to be the worst of all movies. With bloody special effects (what looked like a roast covered in fake blood or ketchup that kept being shown over and over again) and people running around screaming from left, then to right, then back again. It should have stayed with the beginning convenience store scene and stopped there and been 15 minutes. Instead, it is dragged out very long. It is very, very x5 low budget. Many scenes were way, way too long. Narrator sounded very amateurish like a random person out of junior high was talking. This is the only movie to rate lower in my opinion than Manos, Red Zone Cuba, Benji,and Godzilla vs. megalon despite their higher budgets. 10 snoozes, try to stay awake through whole movie in one setting or better yet, avoid it like you would an undead brain-eating mob. The Why-Did-I-Ever-See-This-Piece-Of-Zombie-Dung-Blues. Epitome of nauseatingly bad made movies etc..ad infinitum. -infinity/10
|
Negative
| null | null |
when you get to the scenes that involve Albert Brooks without his shirt... try not to gag on a fur ball.<br /><br />I like Albert Brooks. I've seen most, if not all of his movies but it was the first time seeing this one. Modern Romance is an interesting take on the subject of love. There are few movies that handle the desperation of love as well or as overtly as Modern Romance, although 1979's Chilly Scenes of Winter comes very close. They both essentially deal with obsessed men that are too psychologically attracted/obsessed to their respective women.<br /><br />Where-as Chilly Scenes of Winter borders on the subject stalking, this movie has a more grounded foundation with the subject of love because both people are already in a relationship.. and out of the relationship.. and back in it again.<br /><br />And because it's a movie that was released in 1981, it is of its time in terms of styles and such. That's the main reason I like this movie. My basic rule when it comes to movies is "If it sucks at least it may have some historic relevance", you know time capsule stuff.<br /><br />Which leads me to the horrific scenes of Albert Brooks sans shirt.<br /><br />The man is hair. Very hair. Like he's wearing a black curly fur sweater-hairy. And what's worse is he almost looks burn victim-hairy. It's not a pleasant sight and the scenes with him without a shirt go on and on. Back in the early 80's hairy men were seen as normal and nothing shocking. But in 2009 the sight of something like this is just plain revolting. Sorry, Albert! I wish at some point someone said "hey let's try this scene but with you wearing a simple t-shirt, I mean you might scare people". It's just really bad and I feel sorry for the poor pretty actress that had to deal with Albert Brooks naked body on top of hers. She was probably pulling out his hairs from her teeth for days after that.<br /><br />Anyway, it's an OK movie. It could have been better if I hadn't see Albert Brooks without his shirt for what seemed like 10 long continuous minutes because that will forever taint my viewing of this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Pictures that usually glorify a hero have meaning. As an example, Bonnie and Clyde glorified the dynamic bank robbers and you actually felt sympathy for them despite their evil deeds. Why? They were two people caught up in the depression when people were desperate to survive.<br /><br />This film has absolutely no substance. The Viggo Mortensen character soon emerges as a folk hero. Why? He speeds along an Idaho highway on the way to the hospital where his stricken wife has been taking. No one bothers to understand why he is trying to flee everyone. Even worse, when the realization becomes apparent that he is not a red-neck terrorist, no one in government wants to help him as they try to save their rear ends.<br /><br />Jason Priestley co-stars as a radio emcee who builds upon the story in support of our hero.<br /><br />The ending is absolutely unbelievable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The film is about Sir Christopher Strong (MP--member of Parliament--played by Colin Clive) and his affair with the Amelia Earhart-like character played by Katherine Hepburn. Up until they met, he had been a very devoted husband but when he met the odd but fascinating Hepburn, he "couldn't help himself" and they fell in love. You can tell, because they stare off into space a lot and talk ENDLESSLY about how painful their unrequited love is. Frankly, this is a terribly dated and practically impossible film to watch. Part of the problem is that in the Pre-Code days, films glamorizing adultery were very common. Plus, even if you accept this morally suspect subject, the utter sappiness of the dialog make it sound like a 19th century romance novel...and a really bad one at that. Sticky and with difficult to like characters (after all, Clive's wife is a nice lady and did no one any harm) make this one a big waste of time. About the only interesting aspect of this film is the costume Hepburn wears in an early scene where she is dressed in a moth costume! You've gotta see it to believe it--and she looks like one of the Bugaloos (an obscure, but fitting reference).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well first off I'd like to add that I myself is somewhat of a historian so what I look for in a film that is based upon historical events is that it is actually based upon historical facts. But this is however not the case here. Sure the movie is entertaining and all but the fact that it isn't entirely based upon true facts is more than annoying. Hitler wasn't anti-semitic in his youth, he even worked for Jews before world war one. It was however during world war one and after that he formed his views about the Jews. His upbringing in this movie is also inaccurate, Hitler as a child wasn't a disturbed little brat. He had a more or less normal upbringing. Nothing is mentioned about his lost brothers and other important pieces that adds to the puzzle that is Hitler.<br /><br />Robert Carlyle is a great actor but he doesn't really fit in the role as Hitler. Hitler wasn't as impossible and unstable as he is portrait-ed here. Under his younger years he was a charismatic person whom "manipulated" people through his charms. His unstable behavior and rage outbursts started in the turning point of the war.<br /><br />I'd like to see a film about Hitler's life that is based upon real historical facts and not accusations. I really hate when people point a blaming finger at for example Hitler and others and tell inaccurate stories just to paint a picture of them as pure evil. It is much better to actually tell the story EXACTLY as it was so that everyone can learn what it was like! The ones behind this movie should have made some research before making this. Because it seems as if they didn't even know what really happened. Hitler wasn't even shot in the revolutionary march in Munch, his shoulder was ripped out of its socket.<br /><br />It gives you more to see a good documentary than seeing this.
|
Negative
| null | null |
*McCabe and Mrs. Miller* takes place in the turn-of-the-century Pacific Northwest. Into a soggy, muddy mining camp John McCabe (a hirsute Warren Beatty) comes barging, full of cigar smoke and big ideas about building a proper saloon/whorehouse for the town, replete with a trio of the sorriest whores in movie history. He also comes with an unearned reputation as a gunslinger: too shameful about this to blatantly advertise it, but not exactly afraid to use it in order to assert alpha-male credentials amongst the locals. And thus he wrangles the boys into building his saloon at the rate of 15 cents an hour.<br /><br />It looks to be a rather sorry operation until Mrs. Miller (Julie Christie) shows up on a startling contraption that's half-railroad car, half-automobile (where did Altman find that thing?). Mrs. Miller immediately takes on McCabe as a business partner, with the aim of classing up the new joint with proper whores and an insistence that all visitors take a bath before entering. Noting that McCabe doesn't know how to add, she also insists on handling the accounts. It's not clear what McCabe's function will be.<br /><br />The plot thickens when a pair of oily representatives from the mining company show up in town and offer McCabe to buy him out for five grand. McCabe tells them to buzz off -- he's holding out for fifteen thousand. The company finds negotiation distasteful, so they hire a trio of assassins to simply kill McCabe . . . though how they think they can get away with murdering a man in broad daylight in the center of town is as unclear as McCabe's function in the whorehouse partnership. (Excusing this whopping plot hole on the grounds that the locals would be too cowed to talk doesn't cut the mustard when one considers that any reward-money offered by the local Marshal would be pretty tempting.) <br /><br />*McCabe and Mrs. Miller*, purportedly "classic Seventies cinema", should be a lot better than it is. The movie tells a pretty good story; the main characters have the potential to be interesting. There are some striking scenes, especially one involving what looks to be a 14-year-old stone-cold killer. But it's really, really hard to enjoy a movie when you can hardly hear what anyone is saying and when you can hardly see what anyone is doing. Once again, this director hijacks his own movie with sheer barnyard laziness and sloppiness. According to the trivia-sheet here on IMDb, the movie's editor griped to Altman that the sound was muddy; Altman disagreed; and when everyone said the sound was muddy after the movie's release, Altman blamed the editor. (Nice.) Along with the bad sound, the movie has an atrocious look. Only Robert Altman can hire a world-class DP like Vilmos Zsigmond and make a movie that looks as if they sprayed the camera lenses with dirty dishwater. Reviewers here who praise the "dark brown glow" of this picture have GOT to be kidding me. The interiors are shot through what appears to be a dark scum. The exterior photography is even worse: it's as if Altman placed 500 fog machines behind the copious trees. During the climactic stretch, when Beatty is dodging the assassins while the local church is on fire, Altman insists on pretty much wholly obscuring the view with an animated snow-fall that reminds one of a Rankin-Bass Christmas special.<br /><br />Look -- I can't watch a movie under these conditions. Get back to me when you learn how to place boom mikes, when you remove all that annoying "Altman-esque" overlapping dialog, and when you wipe the lenses with some Windex, or something. 3 stars out of 10.
|
Negative
| null | null |
*WARNING. THERE MIGHT BE SPOILERS AHEAD, IF YOU CARE.*<br /><br />Okay, the basic premise of this homegrown Texas film is: College kids + spookhouse + evil magic book = scary stuff. In practice, it equals a lot of time looking at the time to see how much longer this movie is going to drag on. A bunch of frat boys, along with assorted girlfriends & volunteers, is setting up a charity haunted house. The project is being presided over by a thoroughly repellent character, whose main purpose seems to be verbally & physically assaulting as many cast members as possible. I had a hard time believing that anyone would even attempt to work with this person in any capacity: he's nothing but rude and abusive to everyone, including his girlfriend and his buddy. Regardless, the kids are visited by local character & annual pumpkin-carving champion "Pumpkin Jack", an elderly coot who is described as the "Santa Claus of Halloween", and who drops off a load of props for the house, including an ominous book that figured prominently in the irritatingly strobe-flashed prologue(where a gaggle of robed cultists get turned into stir-fry). Needless to say, some damn fool starts messing with the book, and eventually most of the costumed monsters turn into real ones, and the remaining few normal folk have to try and survive. There's some good stuff in this film, but not much: everything is shot well, and the makeup effects are decent. On the other hand, the performers either underact, or overact drastically; much of the plot makes little sense outside of a "this happens so that can happen" series; there is hardly any musical score to speak of, just snatches of songs throughout the film; and the movie takes an hour to actually get anywhere. That last problem is the most telling: two-thirds of the 90 minute running time is used to repeatedly set up the characters. Tom is a nice guy dating Heidi the control freak, but he used to date Jill, who is now dating Dan the jerk, but she's started a relationship Kira the girl who wears too many shawls/capes. Dan is a really big jerk, Gary likes to play jokes, and Steve & Lily like to have a lot of sex. Stuff that could have easily been dealt with in 20 minutes or so drags on and on, to the point where the lesbian "sex" scene(calm down, it's pretty tame) left me looking for the fast forward button. That leaves us with half an hour of lo-calorie scares, a klunky ending and a deep-seated dislike of ol' Pumpkin Jack, who I blame for the whole mess. Unless you can get this on some sort of deep-discount rental(and really have seen everything else in the store), put it back on the shelf and keep looking.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I'm gettin' sick of movies that sound entertaining in a one-line synopsis then end up being equal to what you'd find in the bottom center of a compost heap.<br /><br />Who knows: "Witchery" may have sounded interesting in a pitch to the studios, even with a "big name cast" (like Blair and Hasselhoff - wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and the effervescent likes of Hildegard Knef (I dunno, some woman...).<br /><br />But on film, it just falls apart faster than a papier-mache sculpture in a rainstorm. Seems these unfortunate folks are trapped in an island mansion off the Eastern seaboard, and one of them (a woman, I'd guess) is being targeted by a satanic cult to bear the child of hell while the others are offed in grotesque, tortuous ways. <br /><br />Okay, right there you have a cross-section of plots from "The Exorcist", "The Omen", "Ten Little Indians" and a few other lesser movies in the satanic-worshippers-run-amok line. None of it is very entertaining and for the most part, you'll cringe your way from scene to scene until it's over.<br /><br />No, not even Linda Blair and David Hasselhoff help matters much. They're just in it to pick up a paycheck and don't seem very intent on giving it their "all". <br /><br />From the looks of it, Hasselhoff probably wishes he were back on the beack with Pam Anderson (and who can blame him?) and Linda... well, who knows; a celebrity PETA benefit or pro-am golf tour or whatever it is she's in to nowadays.<br /><br />And the torture scenes! Ecchhhh. You'll see people get their mouths sewn shut, dangled up inside roaring fireplaces, strung up in trees during a violent storm, vessels bursting out of their necks, etc, etc. Sheesh, and I thought "Mark of the Devil" was the most sadistic movie I'd seen....<br /><br />Don't bother. It's not worth your time. I can't believe I told you as much as I did. If you do watch it, just see if you can count the cliches. And yes, Blair gets possessed, as if you didn't see THAT coming down Main Street followed by a marching band.<br /><br />No stars. "Witchery" - these witches will give you itches.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This starts off bad, what with the three women acting like simpering junior high school wussies sitting around giggling with their gin, endless cigarettes and a caramel chocolate treat for the one who tells the best 'man' story, and then it gets worse -=- spoiler alert =-= what with Andie's character falling for the young organ player who used to be her student when he was 14 (she's the headmistress of an English school, believe it or not), only to have him destroyed thanks to her bitch-from-hell 'girlfriend' . ..and then from there, it's basically unwatchable claptrap: she forgives her 'friend' and has the organ player's love child and the 3 women end up as they started, drinking more gin and smoking more cigarettes blah blah blah. Andie's character throws the caramel chocolates out in the street, in a pathetic attempt to symbolize growth. Have mercy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When i finally had the opportunity to watch Zombie 3(Zombie Flesheaters 2 in Europe)on an import Region 2 Japanese dvd,i was blown away by just how entertaining this zombie epic is.The transfer is just about immaculate,as good as it's ever going to look unless Anchor Bay gets a hold of it.The gore truly stands out like it should and you can really appreciate the excellent makeup and gore fx.The sound is also terrific.It's only 2 channel dolby but if you have a receiver with Dolby Prologic 2,you can really appreciate the cheesy music(actually a very good score),and the effective although cheap sound effects.It never sounded so good,and the excellent transfer adds to the overall enjoyment.<br /><br />I never realized just how much blood flows in this film,it's extremely brutal with exploding head shots,exploding puss filled mega pimples,a cleaver to a zombies throat,a woman's burned off extremities(how come it did'nt burn the guy also),intestinal munching,zombie babies and so much more i lost track.<br /><br />This is no doubt for hardcore Zombie action fans,especially of the Italian kind.There is some excellent set pieces and cinematography to be found,i think people don't give it enough credit,if you see a clean print,and not some horrendous pirate copy,it's a whole other experience entirely.<br /><br />This film never lets up for a second,and i realize it's inconsistent plotwise,the dubbing is horrible,the acting is stiff,and it's sense of irreverence is celebrated in grand fashion,but that's part of it's charm.<br /><br />To me this is one of the best horror films ever made,you can't make a film this bad,so good,on purpose.It's accidental genius of the highest order.If they played it for laughs it would have been a disaster,but they played it straight as an arrow and the result is a terrific cult classic that thumbs it's nose at any and all traditional moviemaking standards.<br /><br />Tons of action sequences,exotic locales,excellent set design,good,sometimes great cinematography,wonderfully cheesy acting,and inconsistent but still interesting plot,great makeup effects,beautiful women who can kick butt,excellent music,and sometimes hilarious,sometimes creepy,but always entertaining zombies.How can you go wrong with this film,it has it all,a cult classic that stands the test of time.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is so bad, you can't imagine. The acting is terrible, even worse than in third class soap operas. An it is a shame that this movie was the most successful in the past 20 years in Switzerland. The interactions between the soldiers didn't make any sense at all. The story could have been taken out from a bravo photo-story, the dialogues were as wooden as Treebeard and the plot holes were bigger than the black hole in the middle of our galaxy. But nowadays it doesn't need much to satisfy the audience. The actors were handsome for example the former Miss Switzerland and the main character was even hung (woah!!) and there certainly was much abuse of drugs. That's real cool man! Particularly for 12 and 13 year old teens. But the media created an atmosphere in witch you was not allowed to reject the film because they manipulated the peer group dynamics by telling implicitly that you are a nerd if you don't go along with the other `sheep' and say.yes that is exactly what it was like when I was in the army/ that's exactly what I'm going to do when I must go to the army.. to every cheesy action that had to do with drugs and coolness. And don't think I like the army. I was there and I hated it but this film is worse than cleaning up the sticky toilet with a teeth brush (which I was forced to do because I offended an lieutenant) It is not necessary for every film to be sophisticated. Sometimes you only want to be entertained for a few hours and forget about problems and I think its not a bad thing. But this kind of films influence teenagers to much by showing them a cool lifestyle which in fact is only stupid and turns them into brainless ignorant and egocentric idiots. But since I now that my opinion isn't very popular I will be quiet now and recommend you to avoid this terrible flick at any costs and for that to save your wits!<br /><br />2/10<br /><br />(sorry for my bad English)
|
Negative
| null | null |
2002's undeservedly popular "I Love the 80's" is an inane, idiotic, offensive and downright disgusting pop-culture mess of a show that was the first in a long-line of horrid television programming that ultimately spelled out the end of VH1, which was at one time the only real music-oriented channel left on TV! I used to practically live on VH1 up until the spring or winter, I forget which one now, of 2002 when garbage like this started to appear for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Out of sheer morbid curiosity (I'd guess that's what you'd call it) I had decided that I would go ahead and give it a look-see anyhow the first night it came on even though the advertisements looked like complete crap. At least I can honestly say that I wasn't a bit disappointed by it because my expectations were obviously bottom basement-level to begin with. The emphasis of this show I found out within the first 5 minutes was less on each year of the 1980's and what was and wasn't culturally significant or popular (which is what I was expecting to see), but instead more of an impromptu platform for a whole slew of really god-awful no-name comedians to display what they more than likely think is their comedic skills *rolls eyes*...more like lack-thereof if you ask me! It's pretty easy now to see why no one had ever heard of any of these idiots before they appeared on this show because they are all so terribly unfunny and pathetic in their attempts at so-called "humor" that I swear I could feel my intestines knot up with each and every rancid one-liner they shot off one after another! Altogether, I have no problem in saying that "I Love the 80's" was/is trash of the lowest denominator, and one of the main reasons why I almost never watch VH1 anymore.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was willing to go with the original _Cruel Intentions._ It went along with the plot and stayed true to the characters of one of my favorite stories. However, this movie was, in my opinion, a crummy rehash with essentially the same story line and no clear character choices. I didn't honestly care what happened to any of them. The strongest part of the original story (Les Liasons, not CI) is the characters and their interactions, not the events themselves. I wasn't clear until I read the IMDB that this movie was meant to be a prequel, especially since the title includes a number "2," I expected a sequel, but then determined that it must be a companion piece. Over all, I must say that this movie read, to me at least, like a soft porn version of Les Liasons. I was not impressed.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I first heard of Unisol 2 when I drove past a cinema when I was on holiday in America. I really did not take much notice of it until I bought the original on DVD which led me to find out about its three sequels. I subsequently started to read about The Return on the IMDB and asked friends what they thought of it. Despite their horrific criticisms of it, I still went out of my way to see it and was on the brink of buying it until I saw it for hire on DVD. I wasn't expecting much but thought that it must have been half decent to get a theatrical release in the US, after all, how often is it that you see Van Damme on the big screen? Well, nothing could have prepared me for this. It is so bad I almost cried. What a total waste of 80 minutes and £2.50. It is hard to explain how bad this move is. Honestly. This is idiotic film making. No, it's more than idiotic. I just cannot believe how this got made. I cannot believe that someone out there has not murdered Mic Rogers. How stupid can people possibly be - firstly, Van Damme actually thinking the script and finished film was good. Secondly, the fact that Xander Berkley, of Terminator 2 and Air Force One status, commited himself to this film. I simply cannot believe the stupidity of this movie. It takes itself so seriously but comes across to the audience like a spoof. Here is an example: JCVD's daughter (yes, Luc is now a human again)- "I want my Daddy", SETH- "So do I". Oh yeah, and some guy tries to shut down SETH by pulling three huge levers with - wait for it - ON and OFF written on them. The acting all round is like playschool acting. I'm sure Mr Director modelled Luc's reporter girlfriend on April O'Neil from the cartoon Teenage Mutant Hero Turtles - she refuses to go because she '...needs her story'. I mean come on - how many cliches can a film possibly use? Please listen to me fellow IMDB users - don't touch this with a barge pole. To conclude, Universal Soldier: The Return has no relation whatsoever to the first movie. In fact, if they weren't called UniSols then you would never know it was a sequel. Luc is now a human again - what the hell!?! The only place in which he can access the internet is in a stripclub. All the new Uni Sols look like they were dragged off the street, they are that unconvincing. This is pure torture to watch, so do yourself a favour - don't torture yourself. P.S - Best part of the movie: Romeo jumps off a building and shouts 'Oh sh*t'.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Cheap, mediocre sequel to the successful "The Mummy's Hand" has presumably dead evil Professor Andoheb(George Zucco)preparing his predecessor Mehemet Bey(Turhan Bey)for the quest of revenge overseas to America using mummy Kharis(Lon Chaney, Jr who has no reason being in the disguise..any stunt man could do the same credible work lumbering around and choking victims)in the goal of killing the surviving members of the Banning family whose patriarch Stephen(Dick Foran)and assistant Babe Hanson(Wallace Ford)retrieved the mummified corpse of Princess Ananka from her tomb in Egypt..Andoheb considers this an outlandish act of desecration and wants the family to suffer for doing such an awful deed towards an ancient Egyptian custom. Bey and the mummy Kharis find a nice hideaway in a cemetery where the High Priest of Karnak can work as a caretaker in disguise. Every Full Moon, Bey will feed Kharis a form of liquid derived of several Tana leaves which will keep him not only alive but subservient to his master's wishes. Bey commands Kharis to kill Stephen and his sister Jane(Mary Gordon), while also biding time for Babe to return so that he will become victim # 3. Dr. John Banning(John Hubbard)plans to wed Isobel(Elyse Knox), but doesn't know that Bey secretly covets his fiancé making plans to kidnap her with Kharis' help. John's life is in danger because of his father..he's also the last remaining member of the Banning line. If Bey has Isobel, there's no chance of any more Bannings being born. The police must find Kharis and the one responsible for his carnage..Bey.<br /><br />This film is a continuation from HAND set years later as members of that film, Foran, Ford & Zucco all appear in "aging" make-up providing wrinkles showing the gaps in time as Andoheb has been preparing for the deaths of the Bannings. The cornball romance of John and Isobel seems merely in this plot so that Bey will screw up endangering his perfect plan which was being carried out successfully before he loused it up. And, Bey merely sees her frolicking with John on the grass..the whole "love-at-first-sight" rubbish really didn't wash for me. Plus you have the mummy being able to kill people with one arm..is any mummy really THAT powerful? This film also uses a ton of footage from the previous film to save budget on this sequel to it. There really isn't that much story here and yes, typical of Universal monster pictures, even in America a mob of people will light..ho hum..torches going after Kharis. You know how it'll end..John and the super-powerful Kharis will square off in some huge mansion with fire burning all around them with the evil one being engulfed in flame.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Carl Panzram lived an amazing life and scribbled down his memoirs on scraps of paper for possibly the only person who ever did anything selfless for him. The book "Panzram: A Journal of Murder" by Thomas E. Gaddis and James O. Long, which came out the better part of a century after Panzram's death, gives the historical context to a first-generation American's account of running away from home to go west and be a cowboy, getting caught, thrown in the boy's home, getting away repeatedly and thrown into prison over and over all the time getting tortured and sodomized. As Panzram grew huge and strong, he sought to take revenge for the wrong done to him as he traveled to South America, Europe and Africa, and it didn't matter what people he raped, robbed, or murdered because we are all equally worthless.<br /><br />This film casts skinny James Woods as the rough neck, mean-ass, son of a bitch Carl Panzram who in the film is a "drunk", overly-dramatic and emotional, and who never mentions the joy of sodomizing men and boys. The film neither elaborates on anything else particularly of note about this world traveler and career prisoner (like robbing former President Taft or being released from the Oregon prison as long as he gave his word to return). In short, I don't think Carl would be too happy.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The poster who called this "Plotless and pointless" literally took the words I would have used in my subject line. The only thing I'd add is "passionless." For a film made by a real life married couple and featuring lots of graphic sex scenes this movie manages to make what should be a sultry situation into one beyond ice cold. Dafoe and Colagrande look bored during the sex scenes, and the viewer might as well take a Valium and have done with it. Also, please, the women in the audience have seen WAY too many used tampons in their time, and any guy who is turned on by seeing Willem Dafoe pull a bloody tampon out of his wife's vagina really needs to get therapy.<br /><br />I think the key to the film (if there is one) is the restaurant scene where a waiter explains to the perpetually sleepy-eyed Dafoe what a "deconstructed jambalaya" is. (All the ingredients of the dish still separate rather than simmered together.) This movie is a "deconstructed thriller". All the elements are there: spooky, isolated house, dead spouse,creepy violins on the score, weirdo caretaker who comes and goes as he pleases, auto accident deaths and near deaths, characters with a secret past. Basically every thriller cliché you can think of, but NOTHING comes together. Everything just sits there and never meshes into a coherent plot or even an artsy mood piece. At the restaurant, Dafoe passes on the "deconstructed jambalaya". Prospective renters of this mess would do well to leave this deconstructed thriller on the video store shelf.
|
Negative
| null | null |
In case half of this film's footage looks strangely familiar, it means you watch way too much of this gory Italian cult-crap! For you see, the notorious demigod Lucio Fulci did not only produce this movie, he also took the liberty of re-using the most sadistic killing sequences in his own (and more easily traceable) "Cat in the Brain". The opening scene already, in which a prostitute is brutally decapitated with an axe, features in Fulci's later film and so do another handful of killings and sleaze moments. Andrea Bianchi's "Masssacre" fails miserably as a giallo, since the search for the sadistic killer among a movie-crew shooting a horror movie is all but compelling and suspenseful, but it's still good entertainment if you're into cheap 'n shlocky horror trash. The incoherent script introduces a whole bunch of repugnant characters who're all potential maniacs, but none of the red herrings Biachi comes up with are plausible and you can point out the killer almost immediately. Whatever remains to enjoy are the truly misogynous make-up effects and the hilariously awful acting performances of the ensemble cast. Whenever there isn't any bloodshed on screen, like between the first and second murder, "Massacre" is a slow and almost intolerable with its inane dialogs and thoroughly unexciting photography. Thankfully in the second half, there are women getting impaled on fences and males being stabbed repeatedly with rusty spikes. The music is crap and the use of filming locations is very unimaginative. My advise would be to skip this puppy and go straight for the aforementioned "Cat in the Brain". That one features ALL the great moments of "Massacre", and then some.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Scary Movie 2 is definitely the worst of the 4 films, for there is not much of a plot , bad acting, pretty tedious and some really cheesy jokes. But. And this is a big but, there is one good actor, one good recurring joke, and a good beginning. The good actor being Tim Curry, the one good recurring joke is the creepy,weird butler with the disgusting hand who always does cringey but laugh worthy things. And the good beginning is the spoof of the Excorsist.<br /><br />The plot to Scary Movie 2 is the main characters from the original and a host of new characters along the way are invited to stay the night at a creepy old mansion, but will they survive the night? This film is not very good but if your bored you might as well watch it!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is certainly the worst movie i ever saw? The beginning is somewhat good, but the end? I still don't even get it! Magical power, 300 years later, goddess, dancing what the f*** is that about??? The acting is somewhat not so bad.. but some place I could do better for sure!
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you ever watched the Dukes of Hazard you know that you never had to worry about drugs or cussing or crude behavior being seen by young children. If you've seen the movie you know that is no longer the case! This movie was HORRIBLE! Main characters doing drugs and thinking it is funny and cool is certainly not what I call entertainment. They took a wonderful show and just turned it into trash. Daisy who was a little flirtatious in the original show now looks and acts like she belongs on the street corner getting paid for her services. I was so excited about seeing this movie before it came out, 15 minutes into the movie I was ready to leave. I stayed thinking it had to get better but instead it got worse by the minute. I wish I had never seen this movie. It trashed a good show and left nothing but horrible taste in my mouth when I left. Do yourself a favor, go see something worth your money, cause it's not only a waste of money but a waste of 2 hours of your life you will never get back!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hollow point is an alright movie worth a half price rental or if nothing else is on a good time waster with no thought required. There are the requisite explosions and hammy acting and pretty ladies. A pretty good cast with Donald Sutherland, John Lithgow, and the lovely Tia Carrere. This cast plus a light hearted touch make for a not a great movie but a fun one..on a scale of one to ten ..a 4
|
Negative
| null | null |
I must say that I was disapointed with this film. I have never been a huge BNL fans, I find their songs kind of childish and obsessively nostalgic (this is me in grade 9, if i had a million dollars, shoe box of life etc). However, I have seen clips of their live show and I really like the improvisational and goofy nature of the show. I was hoping that this movie would highlight this which is, unfortunately, the most interesting part of the show because their music is well played yet somehow bland and not that compelling (there is a standup bass solo in the middle which was completely pointless and boring, despite how much Jim Creegan was digging himself). The film does not and shows only a few minutes of it (and you know they've had better moments, as in the Afgahnistan concert "Koffee Anan, he's the man in charge, my name's Steve Paige and I'm really large") .<br /><br />BNL are kind of like when I went to Europe a few years ago and heard that godawfull "Blue" song by Effeil 99 or whatever every 2 minutes, I came back to Canada and then a month later that song was all over the place *again*, I nearly chewed off my own arm. BNL is like that, years ago I remember many a fond memory of sitting around campfires in Canada listening to people play "If I had a million dollars". BNL was a cult phenomenon in Canada, and much of their humour has a particular Canadian slant to it (Kraft Dinner is a staple for many students up here, and the name "Gordon" is quintessentially Canadian) a few years went by where they slipped into obscurity and I was somewhat gratefull. Then all of a sudden they become huge in States, and everyone down there thinks they are this brand new band (yeah, they're brand new, but they're all in their 30's!) while the rest of Canada is going "Oh geez, I thought those guys folded years ago, do I have to listen to 'million dollars' again?"<br /><br />The concert footage is not bad, but I would have liked to have seen more of their stage routine, the shooting is not that great, and things like clips from their massive free show in Boston are glazed over much too quickly. The interviews are surprisingly dull for such a funny bunch of guys, I think they're all old and they have families and houses and stuff and have settled down a bit. There are times when they go into Spinal Tap type of material, where they deliver deadpan satire, then they break into laughs and giggles that kind of ruins it. The interviews with Moses Znaimer (a Canadian media mogule) and Terry David Mulligan (Music dude) are extremely pretentious and verge into Tap territory unintentionally.<br /><br />This movie doesn't really document very much either, I mean, it's basically one show and at the start of the film, they are already huge and have a massive touring entourage, it's not like we see them rising from obscurity and "surprise" they are popular, it's a methodically planned out event, so in the end it's rather lifeless, kind of half live concert, half documentary, and not much of either.<br /><br />
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of those horror flicks where twenty-somethings fool around with the dark arts around a camp fire, getting into a heap of trouble for doing so. A portal was opened containing a world of demons known as the Kelippoth of the Sitra Achra by a man whose daughter, Summer, gets kidnapped by something, taken into it. Summer is trained by a mysterious group whose identities are never revealed to battle the demon monsters. This is a portion of the plot which lends itself to scrutiny. Anyway, three wannabee witches, who went to high school together, Renea, the most enthusiastic, serious practitioner in the dark arts, and her lesbian cohorts, Jasmine and Marlene(..it's more or less a passing fad with them, though..) join up with buddies, Jason and Ricky, on a trip in the wilderness where Summer vanished from her home ten years ago. Opening the portal through a spoken text written in an ancient book, a demon is set free, as is Summer, now a warrior babe whose training has led to a very fit and athletic body and skills that have been needed to ward off monsters in the other world.<br /><br />Low budget contains a loopy, but ambitious story, restraining it into a confined setting. These young adults spend a lot of time running around in the woods hoping not to be fodder for a beast. As can be the case in these movies, the demon stands on the sidelines while the story develops as Summer attempts to remember how everything came to pass, while befriending Jason who wishes to help her restore the lost time. The action is shot mostly in the dark, making any violence hard to decipher. Brigitte Kingsley(and the rest of the female cast for that matter), is some mighty nice eye candy, dressed scantily clad as a female Conan, a gorgeous body we have to pleasure to gaze upon from the moment she appears until the closing of the movie. Some lesbianism(..some kissing and fondling)and nudity spice things up nicely, and the cast seem to be having fun with the goofy plot..it's so preposterous that the silly tone is probably appropriate for the material.<br /><br />Might be of interest for co-starring World Wrestling Entertainment's "Captain Courageous" Christian(real name, Jason Reso)as one of the group, spoofing his alter ego, as a chicken, quivering at the sound of a snapping tree twig. Landy Cannon is likable as unlikely hero, Jason, a lovestruck, naive young man whose ex-fiancé, Jasmine(Vanessa James)is now bi-sexual and in love with Marlene(..Jasmine's cruelty is in toying with Jason's feelings by hiding her affair with Marlene from his knowledge), while Ricky and Renea attempt to steer him away from this idea that he can rekindle a dead flame that gone out, never to ignite again. The Kelippoth demon is mostly darkly lit, I guess to refrain from showing how ludicrous/laughable it looks if presented in full. The lesbian antics of Jasmine and Marlene(Haley Shannon) is mostly tame, their love making, once alone in the woods up against a tree, is toned down and also lighted using the blackness of night. My rating is a bit favorable towards it, almost solely because of Kingsley, for purely superficial reasons, rather than the plot or film-making. The movie aims to please and is marketed to the boys(and girls who love hot women). I think, though, for the most part, the humor falls a bit flat.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is one of those films that I remember being in the can for years before anything happening w/it. I don't think it's terrible, but it's not really good either. Alec Baldwin was pretty good, but the plot is it kind of flimsy at best. The cast is pretty good in what they're given, but again you are only as good as the script. Baldwin directing this although I could have sworn he didn't direct all of it, I thought I read somewhere or lots of re-shoots wasn't bad but he definitely has some potential in there. Although his work on "30 Rock" is nothing short of genius & should keep him busy for a little while longer. I just hope the show bows out gracefully a la Seinfeld, but maybe not even that long. 9 years it went. So if you want to see a film that you won't get much from, but won't really hate either well this is for you. I can't remember the last time a film had been wrapped so long before finally being released & only on DVD at that. It was nice to see Alec Baldwin & Anthony Hopkins again together since their excellent yet not much people have seen "The Edge." Now pick up that excellent film for some real entertainment.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Unusual? Yes!<br /><br />Unusual setting for an American wartime movie, New Zealand.<br /><br />Unusual subject matter, four sisters and their relationships with American soldiers, from one bearing the illegitimate child of the dead son of a Senator, to another living with seven Marines (one at a time) before being murdered by her returning POW New Zealander husband.<br /><br />Unusual to see Paul Newman deliver such a poor performance so soon after his unforgettable role as Rocky Graziano in the brilliant "Somebody Up There Loves Me".<br /><br />Unusual for two fine "Stars" Joan Fontaine and Jean Simmons, to leave so little of themselves on a movie.<br /><br />Unusual that I could be bothered to write a review of such a poor film, give it a miss!
|
Negative
| null | null |
This horror movie is really weak...that is if this is the correct movie I am commenting on. Nothing really terrible goes on as a family adopts a cute little German Shepard pup. I had a German Shepard and it is a really good dog. I did not get the idea to get one from this movie though, but rather from the comedy "K-9". That is another story all together though. This movie really doesn't have much horror at all as the most horrific scene is at the end and it looks really cheesy. Also, we see a guy almost put his hand into a lawn mower. That is about it. The father suspects something though, as his family seems to be getting rather strange, somewhere he finds out if you hold a mirror to them while they are sleeping you can see if they are possessed. All in all a really weak horror movie even by television standards...television movies that do work are out there as "This House Possessed" is pretty good and there is another haunted house movie about a woman and these strange creatures that is also rather good. This one is really rather dull.
|
Negative
| null | null |
What's with Indonesian musical movies? Never have I seen Indonesian musical movies like the ones made in Bollywood. They miss the spirit of the story and just a bunch of 'what they called' poetic lines.<br /><br />This story about love of two kids who are separated and then meet again after a few years of changes has no special remarks. It's a simple story plot (but it's quite focused though) with 'meant to be' musical story lines here and there.<br /><br />Confusing characters that should be saved by brilliant acting are neglected. The main actress may try to live up the character, but it's the best that she could do, trying. As for the casting, I don't feel the necessity to put a Balinese student in that story and of course, that's not the only unnecessary characters.<br /><br />The strange thing is, why would I want to watch this movie? Maybe because of the mangoes...
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well let me say that I have always been a Steven seagal fan and his movies are usually great but this just don't measure up to the rest. This in my opinion is very stupid I did not like it all. The biggest reason I don't like it is because it is very flawed and to me does not make much sense. The acting is very bad even Steven seagal does not do good acting, The rest of the actors I can see because they just do direct to video movies. It does not follow a straight storyline everything happens at once so that why it doesn't make much sense. Ther is barely any action in it at all and in order to make an action movie good you usually need action in it. The special effects are very bad and you can tell are fake. So all in all this has to seagals worst movie of all so if you want to see a Steven seagal movie don't rent this one just pretend it does not exist. So just avoid this movie.<br /><br />Overall score: ** out of ********** <br /><br />* out of *****
|
Negative
| null | null |
First things first: I'm not a conservative. And even though I would never refer to myself as a liberal or a Democrat, I was opposed to the war in Iraq from day one. I think it's safe to say John Cusack and I would probably see eye-to-eye on politics, in fact, I'm sure we'd become drinking buddies if we ever got to talking about how great Adam Curtis' BBC docs are. My point is this: don't discredit this review by thinking I'm not a part of the choir Cusack is preaching to in War, Inc. There's no question WI's politics are tailored to appeal to my demographic, but the problem is, the tailoring is substandard and the the film Cusack co- wrote, produced and stars in, fits worse than a cheap suit.<br /><br />As they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." Cusack, his co-writers, director Joshua Seftel and even the actors involved, no doubt had every intention of making an anti- war film every bit as biting and funny as Robert Altman's M*A*S*H, unfortunately for the viewer, they ended up with one as unfunny and unintelligent as Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.<br /><br />The current state of US politics, foreign policy and the war "effort" is already absurd and, as a result, tragic, pathetic and, regrettably comical -- just watch The Daily Show and see for yourself. The bottom line is: you can't write material as funny as what the Bush administration provides us on a daily basis, so why try to compete?<br /><br />The main problem with WI is that it feels it was put together in a hurry. To get it done, Cusack basically cannibalized Grosse Pointe Blank (one of his best films), changed the setting and crammed in a shopping list of ideas lifted from the collected works of Naomi Klein. Most of these ideas are rammed down your throat in the first twenty minutes of the film and what makes them so obnoxious is none of the jokes or gags or deliberately obvious references to Halliburton, the Neo-Cons and the US occupation of Iraq, are imaginative, clever or funny. The writers are so blinded by their own dogma they felt that by simply referencing these issues the film would be funny and subversive. The trouble is...it isn't. By now these ideas are yesterday's news and unless you've been living under or rock or are so blinded by ignorance, denial and sheer stupidity (read: a right-wing Christian), these jokes insultingly simple.<br /><br />Perhaps WI would work if it was more nuanced, subversive, offensive and fattened up with detailed research/insights into the Occupation. As it is, the jokes and sight gags are all surface and are so bad, with so little finesse, subtlety or satirical wickedness, they did little more than make me groan. Homer Simpson once said "It's funny 'cause it's true" and The Daily Show proves this every night; War, Inc. however proves that just because it's true doesn't make it funny. The bottom line: hyperbole isn't required when it comes to lampooning US/Neo-Conservative politics...it's already a big enough joke.<br /><br />http://eattheblinds.blogspot.com/
|
Negative
| null | null |
First of all, this film can be divided into three segments. A promising opening, with the ambushing of some cavalry by the Cheyenne. This is followed by what can only be described as a long boring middle section, with the totally miscast Candice Bergen and "Soldier Blue" traveling together to reach the safety of an Army garrison. Miss Bergen spews forth inappropriate four letter words every time she opens her mouth, and looks like she just walked out of a 1970s Jack Nicholson movie. I mean she maintains zero interest, with zero believability. The third and final section involves the totally gratuitous slaughter of an Indian village. This is so obviously overdone to lay on the anti-war propaganda, that it comes across as simply long, outrageous, and contrived. Not recommended. - MERK................................ Jacobe (comment above) Here's an idea. Why don't you actually watch the movie you are commenting on, instead of chirping your liberal nonsense. This is not a political site, it is for reviewing films. - MERK
|
Negative
| null | null |
Give me my money back! Give me my life back! Give me a bit of credit. This movie was vomit worthy. Useless and time consuming. What a waste of energy and totally pointless. Okay I understand the premise and the idea sound but, give us a break! Next time just give me the money and let me spend it. Lost child, mothers remorse, blamed husband! Cliché yes~! Get a life! Sorry but this movie was a total waste of my time, my money and my being. I would rather watch eggs cook! No real explanation to why this happened. Prison? Why? Loss? obvious but Why? Acting deserves a What am I doing here Oscar and the cinematography a Am I just doing this for a Wage? How much did this movie make? Well this silly fool hired a copy. Enough said
|
Negative
| null | null |
"It appears that many critics find the idea of a Woody Allen drama unpalatable." And for good reason: they are unbearably wooden and pretentious imitations of Bergman. And let's not kid ourselves: critics were mostly supportive of Allen's Bergman pretensions, Allen's whining accusations to the contrary notwithstanding. What I don't get is this: why was Allen generally applauded for his originality in imitating Bergman, but the contemporaneous Brian DePalma was excoriated for "ripping off" Hitchcock in his suspense/horror films? In Robin Wood's view, it's a strange form of cultural snobbery. I would have to agree with that.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is bad. I don't just mean 'bad' as in; "Oh the script was bad", or; "The acting in that scene was bad".....I mean bad as in someone should be held criminally accountable for foisting this unmitigated pile of steaming crud onto an unsuspecting public. I won't even dignify it with an explanation of the (Plot??) if I can refer to it as that.I can think of only one other occasion in some 40-odd years of movie watching that I have found need to vent my spleen on a movie. I mean, after all, no one goes out to intentionally make a bad movie, do they? Well, yes. Apparently they do...and the guilty man is writer/director Ulli Lommel. But the worst of it is that Blockbusters is actually renting this to their customers! Be advised. Leave this crap where it belongs. Stuck on the shelf, gathering dust.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am still trying to determine whether the previous installment was worse than this one, or vice versa. Being that it is nearly fifteen years since I saw this film, the fact that I remember so little about it does not bode well. Perhaps it is simply because I only watched it once or twice, but I doubt it. If there was anything worth remembering about this film, you can rest assured I would remember it.<br /><br />At the time this film was released, the franchise was still entering its dying phase, so a lot of media coverage was allotted to it. It's never a good sign when teenie pop magazines contain explanations of the plot basics. One such article had to explain that Freddy was left too weak to infest the dreams of grown humans, so he decides to go after Alice's unborn son. So far, so good, but this is the job of the writer or the director to explain to the audience. It should not be left to some unrelated publication.<br /><br />Making use of the trivia given in part three about Freddy's conception, one could half expect scenes that would lift this joke out of the "horror for infants" category, but alas, that was not to be. It goes to show the sheer idiocy of the American ratings system that a piece of B'harni-esque garbage like this could get the same rating as a genuinely frightening piece like the original.<br /><br />By this time, the franchise could not attract anyone with an active career. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, Lisa Wilcox was there to provide a quotient of competent acting. Or perhaps she just looks competent by comparison to the rest of the cast. Either way, given that her last role was in something called The All New Adventures of Chastity Blade, I doubt she really had anything else going for her. Even poor old Robert Englund has been in better productions than that in the past fifteen years.<br /><br />Given that box office returns were in a steady decline, and not just for this franchise, at the time, one would have thought that the studios would realize neutering their films does not make them more saleable. In fact, this particular film, like its immediate predecessor, was so neutered that not only did it fail to attract a new audience, both succeeded in alienating the core audience that originally supported the franchise. Despite this, part five must be given some credit for not having the bright, luminescent feeling that made part four so insulting to look at.<br /><br />I gave A Nightmare On Elm Street Part Five a one out of ten. By trying to appeal to everyone, or the MPAA's idea of everyone, it succeeds in appealing to noone. Like parts two and four, one could erase it from the continuity entirely, and nobody would notice the difference.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I don't know if this is one of the SyFy Channel original movies, but that's exactly what it feels like. A cheap, low budget action movie that was probably made very quickly, it contains laughable effects, lame dialog, and one vaguely faded star to give some name brand recognition to it (funny how many of the kids from 90210 are doing cheap TV movies now).<br /><br />Ian Ziering plays Cortes, who we know from history as the explorer who wiped out entire populations of native people while conquering parts of North America. Here, he is not played as a hero or even sympathetic, but as a slimy opportunist; his character would probably be killed off if this weren't loosely based on a historical figure. In this story, Cortes is on a brief surveying mission, trying to find something of value to prove he deserves financing to further explore America. He and his men find a small tribe of Aztecs plagued by dinosaurs.<br /><br />The actual hero of the story turns out to be Lt. Rios, who proves to be honorable, resourceful, and wise. He knows the right thing to do in every situation, which puts him at opposition with Cortes, as well as with the young, ambitious Aztec shaman. Of course, the native girl who is supposed to marry the headstrong, scheming shaman falls for Rios, furthering his anger towards the Spanish outsiders. So it's all pretty cliché. The dinosaurs are dispatched with relative ease. Despite taking place in an area that seems wide open, the story pretty much takes place in either the woods, or the Aztec village for 95% of the time, so it isn't visually exciting either.<br /><br />I didn't even recognize Ian Ziering. They gave him a ridiculous wig and an unconvincing accent, and somehow he disappeared into it. He doesn't look or sound Spanish for a second, however, making the casting choice wrong in every way. If this movie had been released theatrically, he would have been singled out for a Razzie, no question.<br /><br />Overall, forgettable.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie should have never been made.<br /><br />What a shame of the budget.<br /><br />Please hire convincing actors, and make a proper movie. Very thin plot, and unconvincing lines. Almost hilarious, and that is a shame for an action movie.... <br /><br />Definitely not worth watching.<br /><br />They keep replaying the same "shots" of an Stealth airplane flying away. You have seen it ones, and that was not worth re-running 3 or 4 times.<br /><br />It is time for Steven Seagal to retire from movie-making.<br /><br />His movies are getting worser every time.<br /><br />Black Dawn, and Submerged were already bad, but this movie is even worse.
|
Negative
| null | null |
When someone remakes a classic movie, the remake is always unfavorably compared to the original. Also, there's a chance that the remake is so radically different that it is just too unfamiliar to audiences.<br /><br />Well, the 1973 TV version of "Double Indemnity" has almost identical scenes and dialogue as the 1944 original. The main difference is that the remake just seems to have no energy at all. Fred MacMurray was great as the lecherous, leering insurance agent Walter Neff in the original; Richard Crenna just seems world-weary and tired. Edward G. Robinson brought great manic energy to his role as MacMurray's boss Barton Keys; Lee J. Cobb, a fine actor, appears almost bored with the proceedings. Samantha Eggar is all wrong as the conniving, back-stabbing Phyllis Dietrichson; while Barbara Stanwyck was just superb in this wicked role, Eggar is overly polite and mannered and just seems way out of place.<br /><br />Robert Webber, in the old Richard Gaines role as Robinson's boss Norton, and John Fiedler taking the Porter Hall role as the crucial witness, bring some life to the movie. In particular, Webber recreates the Norton role well in a 1970s context.<br /><br />However, after the movie starts, the whole thing just sort of lies there, without any life or electricity. This is one film that never should have been remade.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wasn't expecting this to be a great movie, but neither was I expecting it to be so awful. I hated the mother character so much I had to turn the channel. I turned it back, hoping it was just one part of the movie, but no. And for the daughter to sit there take being embarrassed, or almost done out of a job, or driven to madness inside her own home? Are you kidding me? I was raised to respect (and even fear) my mother but I'd put her up fast in the nearest hotel if she proved that annoying in MY house. I was expected to follow a set of rules in my mother's house, after all.<br /><br />I didn't buy any of it. I tried giving it several chances, I really did. Sorry.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The Invisible Man is a fantastic movie from 1933, a cutting edge film for it's time where objects appeared to rest on top of a man who was truly invisible. Go ahead, take a look at the film, you will be shocked that it was made in 1933, it was the first true special effects movie. Come 2000, computer aided special effects seem like child's play, audiences are not blown away by special effects, instead they are disappointed if they are not done right. The special effects in Hollow Man, the update of the HG Wells story, are OK, but not the biggest problem with this film directed by Paul Verhoeven, who you might remember from Showgirls and Total Recall. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientist dabbling in the world of bio-invisibilation (yeah, I know that's not a word) but of course is battling higher ups who are threatening to take away the team's funding. So, as movie characters who are about to have their funding cutoff are prone to do, he makes the ultimate sacrifice and becomes a guinea pig for the invisibilation (yeah, I know, I used that non-word again) process. The process has dire consequences, no Caine does not die, but instead becomes a horny, violent creature, aka a guy. Now that he's invisible, Caine stalks a sexy neighbor, a co-worker, former girlfriend Linda (Elisabeth Shue), and the man who took away his funding. Then a funny thing happens, Caine becomes a new supernatural being, "The Thing That Won't Die." Laughing in the face of all things natural, Caine faces down death and spits in it's face, as it take what feels like hours for this creature to die, dragging the ending of the movie out. The movie is silly, stupid, and finally laughable with the way realism is sometimes used, sometimes not. There are neat possibilities in Hollow Man, but of course, not one of them is explored. For a more interesting look at an invisible being, get ready for some good old-fashioned black and white cinema, and check out the 1933 Invisible Man. Kevin Bacon will still be invisible when you come back, probably still alive at the bottom of a volcano.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Dennis Hopper is without a doubt one of the finest underrated American actors of our time, and it was interesting to see how he would play out his role as a cop on the case of a child serial killer. Most movies Hopper has always played to psychotic menace threatening to blow up stuff or go on a killing spree, but in this movie, Hopper tried his best to keep that intensity and emotion while carrying a shield. Once I got into the plot of the movie, I was hooked, but it's just the little things that ultimately murdered the film.<br /><br />The concept of the film is great - not only are the cops on the move of catching the killer, but we get a chance to see how the gangsters operate in catching the killer. The subplot of the football stadium is kinda ridiculous, but necessary to involve the gangsters in the killer hunt.<br /><br />That's about all that is good you can say about the film. Although Hopper did try to act like a tough, experienced street smart cop, I can't help but feel his acting was below par, and there wasn't enough conviction that he was truly attached to the case. The directing was also terrible - it didn't have the feel of a true film, but rather a TV-movie production. This is most evident when the gangsters meet for the first time to form an elite team to hunt the killer down. When the leading gangster shoots the other mouthy gangster in slow motion, the acting was weak, predictable and terribly unexciting. That's when I knew that 1st of all, the action is going to be atrocious.<br /><br />The angling of the camera was amateurish, and the recalling scenes or haunting images of the killer's little sister had no true distinctive effect. If it was supposed to be scary, it wasn't. Everyone's acting was terrible, and even for Hopper, I didn't feel for his character, and I just didn't really care too much about his relationship with his daughter.<br /><br />The final thing that bothered me the most is the swat team. Once I saw the swat team in action, I was thinking, finally, something good. But I was wrong. 1st of all, the entire swat team consisted of 4 guys. That is just impossible. 2nd of all, apparently the swat team has no training whatsoever because many times in the film they carry their HKA4 submachine guns with one hand. Had the killer been hiding near the staircase with a shotgun, these 4 idiots would've been blown to bits because they weren't even aiming at anything or paying close attention. They should have had both hands on the gun aiming forward, but it just looks like they're not taking the job seriously and are just flaunting around. 3rd, SWAT team members do not yell out commands such as "Keep your eyes open, watch out for yourselves, are we good to go...etc." In reality, they use hand signals or have radios. But they're literally yelling at each other - how are you supposed to catch the killer when he can hear you're coming??? And to top it all off, these guys have no plan - apparently they're just running up and down going on a wild turkey chase. Eventually they end up doing nothing. That was the last straw. I'm no expert on special forces, but basically what I've just outlined, is pretty common sense. When the audience knows the movie is terrible, the action pretty much becomes the life-saver of the movie - when you can't even make an effort to make the action great, the movie is lost.<br /><br />I give 2 stars for the concept, but the rest cannot be credited. If you want to watch a crime thriller, don't bother with this one. There's plenty of crime in the movie - but it has the lack of thrill.
|
Negative
| null | null |
One wonders why anyone would try to rehash successful movie plots that have already been seen, like it's the case with this movie. "The Wedding Date" is one of the best examples of why not to even try to remake, under the guise of a new story, something that should have been let alone. If a project like this goes ahead with the studio big honchos' approval, then go all out with big stars and glossy production values, that way, people will come for the stars.<br /><br />Alas, that's not what happens in this misguided attempt at comedy. The problem seems to be the way the screen writers have transplanted the story to London, when basically, this seems to be a typical American situation that not even the setting will be able to fix. Then there is the problem with the stars. Debra Messing and Dermot Mulrooney? They have as much chemistry as oil and vinegar!<br /><br />Since the Kat and Nick have no conflict from the start, the viewer is not pulled into the film the way the creators thought they would be. It's clear that Kat will fall for Nick, and vice-versa in this predictable story. Amy Adams, who was the best asset in "Junebug", comes across as a shallow girl who is willing to keep her lie going on and not come clean to the man that loves her and is going to marry her.<br /><br />For anyone interested, the credits at the end of the film run for almost seven minutes!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Having decided some time ago to collect the films of Billy Bob Thornton (on the strength of class movies like "Sling Blade", "A Simple Plan" and "The Man Who Wasn't There" amongst others), it was inevitable that there would be the odd turkey in there. What I didn't realise however, was that there could be one THIS bad. I'll give you an idea how incredibly poor this film is - the funniest dialogue in it goes like this: "Knock Knock", "Who's there?", "The big stinking man", "The big stinking man who?", "The big stinking man - is YOU!". Yes folks, it really is that bad. Billy Bob is only in it for about two minutes (I guess he needed the work at that time in his career), and the rest of the movie is painful. For some reason though, although it's undeniably awful, I don't hate it. That's probably because I save my ire for any high budget, special effects laden junk like "The Fast and the Furious" and not a "no-budget" flick like this one. 2/10 at a push.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you haven't seen ZOMBIE BLOODBATH, you haven't. A contest like 'make your own horror movie in one day' could not possibly come up with a entry than this outrage of an insult on any viewer's intelligence. Mr. Sheets forgot a story, a plot, proper dialog, the fact that people need some BASIC acting talents and the credited lighting designer obviously forgot to show up. It seems to be recorded on the crummiest of handycams, and copied on even worse equipment. Make-up effect consist of black mascara for the zombies and yoghurt being poured over people's heads in order to simulate their skin melting. This is nothing more than a home-movie, and a really bad one as well. Only fun to watch for the friends, familymembers and neighbours that were willing to show up for the filming. I cannot for the life of me understand why this mockery of a product is listed in ANY serious film magazine or website - I have home-movies of wedding parties that are way better and more interesting. A total waste of time, money and energy. The sequel ZOMBIE BLOODBATH II is just more of the same rubbish.
|
Negative
| null | null |
this one of the best celebrity's reality shows a ever saw. we can see the concerts we can see the life of Britney, i love the five episodes. i was always being surprised by Britney and the subjects of the show i think that some people don't watch the show at all we can how a great person she his. she his really funny really gentle and she loves her fans and we can see how she loves her work. i just don't give a 10 because of k-fed he his a real jerk he doesn't seem to like Britney at all. I they make a second season of this great show because it shows at some people how Britney really is. Go Britney your the best and you will never leave our hearts.
|
Negative
| null | null |
[CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!]<br /><br /> Timon and Pumbaa are watching The Lion King. Timon decides to go back BEFORE the beginning, to when the story really began. So they go back. Way back. Back even before Simba was born. Back to Timon's old home which was miles away from Pride Rock. A clan of meerkats burrowed underground to hide from hyenas. The worst digger in the clan was a pompous, self-centered meerkat named Timon. His mother took pity on him but Uncle Max just shook his head. Mother suggested putting Timon on sentry duty; Timon had dreams of a bigger and better place out there somewhere. Just then, hyenas Shenzi, Bonzai and Ed arrived and nearly killed poor Uncle Max. That did it. The other meerkats just wanted Timon to go away while Timon took it upon himself to leave. So he kissed his mom goodbye and started off. He didn't get very far before he started getting homesick. Just then he met Rafiki, who taught him to look beyond what he sees. Timon had no clue what that meant so he continued on and met a warthog named Pumbaa, who was all alone due to a flatulence problem. Timon and Pumbaa join up then, but Timon declared them acquaintances, rather than friends.<br /><br /> They soon arrive at Pride Rock where all the zebras, antelopes, wildebeests, rhinoceroses, giraffe's, elephants and many other plain animals had gathered. What was going on? Timon didn't care. They pressed on. Timon then saw Rafiki atop Pride Rock lifting into the air something he couldn't see. Just then all the animals took a bow. Was this to honor the birth of the new king? No, Pumbaa had passed gas and the animals were bowing to cover their noses; Timon and Pumbaa try an assortment of new homes, but each are discomforting due to incessant singing or hyenas or a large stampede of wildebeests! Pumbaa and Timon suddenly find themselves heading down stream. When they reach land, Timon decides to give up. But then they gaze around at their newfound paradise. It was beautiful: trees and water falls as far as the eye could see. Timon named the place after a strange phrase he learned from Rafiki: Hakuna Matata. Timon and Pumbaa go out bowling for buzzards one afternoon when they suddenly run into Simba. They take him under their wing and become father figures. They teach him the arts of bug eating and belching contests. Pretty soon, a teenage Simba takes on Timon in a snail slurping contest. Simba won, leaving Timon deathly ill.<br /><br /> Then one day, Simba's childhood friend Nala arrived. Timon and Pumbaa just knew she'd break up the friendship. Suddenly, Simba runs away. Nala and Pumbaa race after him, but not Timon. He chose to stay at "Hakuna Matata" by himself, until Rafiki "talked" some sense into him, so he joins his friends at Pride Rock. Timon's mother and Uncle Max arrive then. While Simba battles Scar, Mother and Max dig a large hole to trap hyenas Shenzi, Bonzai and Ed in. It worked. Scar is soon flung down the same hole where he is devoured by the hyenas. Then all is well. Mother, Uncle Max and the rest of the meerkats go live with Timon and Pumbaa in the paradise that is Hakuna Matata. Back to the present, Timon and Pumbaa finish the movie when suddenly Mother, Uncle Max, Simba and Rafiki want to watch it again. So do Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, Snow White, the Seven Dwarfs, Dumbo, Peter Pan, the Lost Boys, Mad Hatter, March Hare, Genie, Aladdin, and Jasmine.<br /><br /> Well, I must say that The Lion King 1 1/2 wasn't as good as I had hoped. It was too ridiculous and silly. The original Lion King was a masterpiece. It had a serious story with light comedy thrown in. This one was just silly and made a mockery of it. I swear, sometimes Timon and Pumbaa are just way too overplayed. They're overplayed to the point of no longer being funny, just annoying. The original voice cast is back: Nathan Lane as Timon, Ernie Sabella as Pumbaa, Matthew Broddrick as Adult Simba, Whoopi Goldberg as Shenzi, Cheech Marin as Bonzai, Jim Cummings as Ed, Robert Guillame as Rafiki. New to the cast are Julie Kavner of TV's (Too) long running series The Simpsons as Timon's mom and Jerry Stiller as Uncle Max. So anyway, this movie isn't The Lion King III, and it isn't II because there already is a II. It takes place right after Part I and Part II is a ways away. Hence, it's 1 1/2. In conclusion, I don't recommend this to die hard Lion King fans because it's far too ridiculous and frivilous. However the kids will love it so I recommend it to them. I hope this will also be the LAST Lion King movie. Two is enough. "The Lion King 1 1/2". What we've come to expect from Disney sequel makers.<br /><br />-
|
Negative
| null | null |
Entertainment Tonight has been going down hill for the last few years, but as of last night (Aug 17th 2006) they reached a new low.<br /><br />In an effort to try to hype up their broadcast, they decided to post actual photos of JonBenet Ramsey's body in their teasers last night ...saying "Pictures from the case you have never seen before". The two photos were graphic and very disturbing. One was of the side of her face and head/neck and you could clearly see the cord that was used to strangle her around her neck, and bruising on her face. This was so hideously awful, I could not believe it. How has this got to do with ANYTHING remotely related to Hollywood Entertainment?? Nothing!! They have dropped their level of dignity and values to a new low....and it shows. This used to be THE premiere show to watch...and it's just garbage now.<br /><br />I will watch Access Hollywood from now on.
|
Negative
| null | null |
"Washington Square" is a flat, shabby adaptation of the short novel by Henry James. Indeed, the novel is very good, but far from the level of James' masterpieces. Moreover its simple, eventless story seems unsuited to make it into a film (although William Wyler, with his "The Heiress", gave in 1949 a beautiful version of the novel). <br /><br />Anyway, the movie completely betrays the spirit of this work of the great American writer. In the novel, the heroine Catherine is shy, not very attractive and somewhat clumsy, but nonetheless she is a sound, intelligent young woman, and she's not as naive as it may seem. Her attachment for her father is dignified and respectful, with no morbid sides in it. Along three quarters of the movie, Catherine (Jennifer Jason Leigh) just seems to be mentally retarded, poor thing. In the last quarter, she suddenly (and incredibly) becomes intelligent, aware of her dignity as a woman, and all that.<br /><br />The director Agnieszka Holland has added two vulgar scenes to the story. The first, when the nervous child Catherine has, well, troubles with her vesica. The second scene, when we see on the background a sort of open-air brothel, with prostitutes taking their customers behind tents, and so on. Nothing could be more contrary to the spirit and artistic ideals of Henry James. It is notorious that the writer was extremely decent and demure even for the standards of the Victorian age. I defy anyone to find any coarseness anywhere in the thousands of pages of James' huge literary production. I really was particularly annoyed by these two scenes.<br /><br />Yes, I know that a director needs reasonable freedom in the screen adaptation of a novel. But if a director utterly ignores or misunderstands the art of an author (here Henry James), I don't see the point of using his work to make a bad movie. <br /><br />The acting is adequate to the movie: poor and flat, in spite of the talent of Albert Finney and Maggie Smith. "Washington Square" is definitely a non-recommendable film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
It is quite simple. Friends is a comedy of very basic humour aimed at teenagers and young adults, with unsophisticated sense of humour.<br /><br />It is also painfully obvious that towards the end, they were desperately trying to make it last 10 seasons, most likely so they could say they beat Seinfeld's 9 season run. The trouble with this is, Seinfeld had 9 amazing seasons with great writing, Friends had (and I'm being very generous here) at most 5 or 6 OK seasons and then 4 abysmal seasons.<br /><br />It became a soap opera with recycled humour and recycled character traits that weren't that good so start with, then got worse at the 100th time you saw them. I find it so hard to understand why people rate this so highly. It is truly awful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Not much to say on this one. A plot you can pretty much peg, in the first 10 minutes. Nothing overly wrong with this film, very little action for an action film. There was a chance to explore the characters emotions occasionally. Whether an action film is the right genre to do that with, I'm still undecided. Sniper was one of the easiest films to watch without giving full attention to, as it had little twists and a straightforward plot. I was probably guilty of that, so with a second watch or with undivided attention it may be better.<br /><br />4/10 (but the best of my 4 out of 10's)
|
Negative
| null | null |
Roy Rogers stars as Jesse James and his look-alike, gambler man Clint Burns. George "Gabby" Hayes is Mr. Rogers's ex-pal, Sheriff Gabby. Gale Storm (Jane Fillmore) and Sally Payne (Polly Morgan) are a noteworthy team, as two reporters on the lookout for stories about the elusive outlaw hero.<br /><br />Of course, mistaken identity / impersonation is a plot development, since Rogers essays a "dual role". Rogers is charming, as usual; but, there is nothing really elevating this his performance above the ordinary - any potential to deliver a memorable Jekyll/Hyde performance is done in by poor material. The better pair to watch are Ms. Storm and Ms. Paye as the St. Louis Journal reporters - they are the film's highlight. The songs are fine, though badly synched. <br /><br />*** Jesse James at Bay (1941) Joseph Kane ~ Roy Rogers, George 'Gabby' Hayes, Gale Storm
|
Negative
| null | null |
For a film with so much promise it was disappointing, thinly plotted and the acting ranging between horrendous and unbelievable.The plot had more holes in it than swiss cheese and it's the worst clichéd ending I've seen in a movie for some time. The final scene would have ripped my heart out, if the entire movie hadn't been so painful to begin with. I was numb! From the very first scene - one was left wondering, if the sister was trying to reach out to her twin for help, or simply scare her to death which would have been better for the audience and saved us from two hours of the worst acting I've seen to date. It was a horror in the true sense of the word.
|
Negative
| null | null |
A film like Amazing Grace and Chuck is a perfect example of how the left in this country just doesn't get it. They never did. And liberalism continues to slip further and further into political oblivion.<br /><br />This film deals with a little league baseball star who decides to stop playing ball as a protest to the existence of nuclear weapons. The boy is understandably ridiculed until a bevy of professional athletes, led by former NBA star Alex English, join his cause. Not just a few of them join the cause. By the time his movement reaches its zenith, entire leagues of professional and college sports have to cancel their seasons since nobody will play any more. Just to move this review along, I'm prepared to grant them this premise. Even though it would never happen in a million years, I'll just imagine it could, then go from there.<br /><br />I don't quite remember how, but some type of agreement is reached, and the boy decides to go back to the game he loves in an incredibly sappy and ridiculous scene.<br /><br />Before criticizing the message of this film, let me just say that this film is poorly written, acted and directed. Even if one does agree with the boy's stance, it would be impossible to overcome how badly the film was constructed. And that's a shame since there are plenty of good actors that go to waste. (Peck, Curtis, Petersen). Alex English does as well as he could have with his character however, and I wish he would try to act in more films. Alas, it's likely much easier to find work in the coaching world of the NBA. One wishes Mr. English would teach more of these thuggish NBA types of today how to shoot the rock a little better. Alex certainly knew how to put the ball through the hoop.<br /><br />As far as the film's message in concerned, it's just wrong-headed. Plain and simple. All of those nuclear warheads tucked away in those missile silos out west PREVENTED WAR!!!!! It would be one thing for this boy and his flock to protest an actual war or the USE of nuclear weapons. These weapons were in fact never used, and that was the genius behind their existence. Neither side during the cold war was crazy enough to fire a single missile. Without these weapons, who knows what might have happened between the USA and USSR.<br /><br />The makers of this film obviously intended for kids in America to take up their cause and follow in Chuck's footsteps. Kids in America however are more intelligent than the left wing kooks who created this dreck. <br /><br />The film is worth only 2 of 10 stars.<br /><br />If you want to see a great film about the dangers of nuclear war, stick with Dr. Strangelove, instead.<br /><br />Mr. Newell, you are no Frank Capra!
|
Negative
| null | null |
The past creeps up on a rehab-addict when he reconnects with his ill brother and a former girlfriend after what he hopes was his last stint in detox. "Life's dramas", presented here in the most simplistic way imaginable (not even the writing has any bite or wit). The cast is made up of attractive looking actors smiling glumly at one another, and the music and photography are lugubrious (a couple of the visual effects are laughable, indie-cliché touches that reek of a puny budget). Although written and directed by a man, this was produced by a woman, and I'm not sure but I think this may be a distinct reason why this picture about two men, estranged brothers growing closer, never quite gels, never feels natural or seems lived in. It's an attempt to get inside a male relationship, but the careful, sterile presentation is a cheat. No one's heart is in this, living, breathing, or bleeding this material. "The Perfect Son" is quickly diffused by too many cooks in the kitchen.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Facts about National Lampoon Goes to the Movies, a.k.a. National Lampoon's Movie Madness:<br /><br />1. The movie is poor, even by Lampoon's typical standards. 2. It's not funny. 3. No one goes to see a movie.<br /><br />So, after I finished watching it, I began wondering why on earth it's called 'National Lampoon Goes to the Movies,' and why it was ever conceived, much less actually made. It would be like calling Austin Powers 'An American Guy Goes to the Movies.' How lame. He isn't American, and he doesn't go to movies. None of the characters in Lampoon's so-called 'satire' are funny, and none go see movies, which causes a bit of a problem. I had hoped it would be something in the vein of Mystery Science Theater 3000, but it isn't.<br /><br />This was National Lampoon's first film after Animal House, although you couldn't tell it from the quality of film. Poorly developed, rough and amateurish by any standard, it induces headaches not a good sign for an 89-minute movie that seems double the length.<br /><br />I've noticed a pattern. Really bad movies are typically renamed and this little disaster falls under that category. It has two separate titles -- probably to help try and promote it to people too stupid to remember how bad a panning it received from home video critics in 1982/83. 'Hmm, Movie Madness I've never heard of this movie before! Let's rent it!' And then, the realization: 'Hey, wait a minute, this is just National Lampoon Goes to the Movies!'<br /><br />It was shelved by MGM/UA, never to be released into theaters or DVD; it occasionally pops up on television a few times per decade, which is just about the only place you'll manage to find it.<br /><br />It's split up into three stories a parody of self-enlargement videos, butter and corporate ruthlessness, and police brutality/cop-buddy films (I guess). The first segment stars Peter Riegert (Animal House) as a frustrated guy who divorces his wife and does some other stuff. I'm not sure what because it was so boring my mind started to drift. Until the sex scene popped up.<br /><br />Part II is about an exotic dancer raped by a stick of butter (don't ask) who decides to become Queen of the Margarine so she can cut off the supply of dairy products. Ouch! This contains the only funny line in the movie: 'Only I can make love with my son!' If you think that doesn't sound very funny, you're right it's not. And just imagine it's the highlight of this film!<br /><br />Part III is about a cop who chases down a serial killer (Christopher Lloyd) only to lose his nerve and shoot the guy. It does contain one funny scene but it's extremely over-acted only Lloyd really exhibits any humor, playing his character dry and compassionate, yet strangely surreal. The part where he's choking his victim and the meek cop stands by watching it all unfold, at least, evoked a chuckle or two.<br /><br />It's a shame to watch such a cast of semi-famous names resort to low standards. The writers of each segment clearly believe that they're being very ironic and clever by spoofing so-called stereotypes the fault being that the movie becomes one huge contradiction, favoring the standard T & A instead of plot; crude humor instead of witty dialogue; desperate performances instead of inspired ones. It's easy to see that none of the actors were enthralled with the material, muttering their lines, often so embarrassed they can seldom make eye contact with the camera.<br /><br />The movie isn't funny, as I said before. I laughed once, at only one line, and even then it was a halfhearted one. Two chuckles, a smile, and a very weak laugh. Compared to Movie Madness, a number of other decent comedies seem like regular laugh tracks.<br /><br />I like National Lampoon's Vacation series (or, at least three of four installments), and their classic Animal House, but their recent slew of direct-to-video bombs such as Golf Punks (with that great comic genius Tom Arnold) provide a good example of why their magazine went out of print more than a decade ago. It gets really old, really fast.<br /><br />Sad to see a new film, called Gold Diggers, is being released with their 'stamp of approval.' It's like condemning a film before it even hits theaters maybe they should start not advertising their name all over the place
<br /><br />Distributor: 'This movie is bad. It gets the National Lampoon stamp of approval. That'll teach you not to make something so awful next time.'<br /><br />Forget the death penalty. Just stick a bunch of criminals in a room and make them watch this over and over every day for a month.<br /><br />It's so bad that I can't even begin to explain its putrid vileness. I give up.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had never read Gary Paulsen's novel, Hatchet, for which 'A Cry in the Wild' is the adaptation of, so I can't make any comparisons to the book. I will, however, say that as a film on its own, adaptation or no adaptation, it was an underdeveloped adventure that provides no major explanation of its few characters.<br /><br />Think of 'A Cry in the Wild' as a less luxurious, teenage mountaineer (was Quincy, California the only place this was filmed?) version of 'Cast Away.' Jared Rushton is 13-year-old Brian Roebson, a kid headed on a small plane to visit his father, until the craft crashes over some deserted mountain terrain, leaving the kid stranded for quite a while and having to defend himself.<br /><br />There are basically three parts to the film. The obvious being the ten or fifteen minute introduction of the characters, namely Brian and his mom. <br /><br />The next third of the movie (which really consumes nearly all of the film) is that of Brian "roughing it." These scenes contain no particularly amazing action, nothing spectacular other than lots of beautiful cinematography of a beautiful Yukon landscape. Nothing to put you on edge, no real encounters (except a brisk confrontation with a cub), and no major dilemmas to initiate some sort of enjoyment or connection with the character on the screen. You might even feel briefly bored with the passage of time as we witness Brian dealing with his situation through first, primitive means, and then more improved ones (using tools, etc) for his survival. It is more like the ordinary time that passes if you were actually stuck in the situation, and that is pretty much about it. In other words, they put no meat on the Paulsen's words when they translated them into a visual media.<br /><br />And, of course, the third part of the movie is his rescue.<br /><br />There is a subplot that continuously seeks to make itself known during this time, however. Some conflict between Brian and his parents that created a rocky, awkward relationship between them. However, for the most part, it is only explained in brief, intermittent, minimal dialog flashbacks that look more like a back story for a music video. Any minute, the singer from Jefferson Starship, should chime in an start singing 'Sara.' Other than what the viewer can draw from the implications, or guess for his own need to fill the gaps in the narrative, we get a very underdeveloped back story which was probably necessary to enjoy at least part of this film and create a connection to the characters, whether or not it really had anything to do with Brian's survival adventure in the third part of the movie. These are the flaws in the narrative that through the viewer into a stupor as he struggles to find out what the heck those people there on the screen are doing and, for me, almost done to the point of screaming at the television to say something and tell me more! <br /><br />It certainly was not, for me, a good adventure tale. But, for fans of Jared Rushton, it was one of the last few movies he made. So, watch it purely for nostalgia, if nothing else.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Julia (Kristina Copeland) travels with her husband Steven Harris (Steven Man) and their baby son Alex to spend a couple of days with her family in Savage Island, an island of their own. The couple expects to resolve their issues along the weekend in the remote island. While waiting for the boat, Julia and Steven meet two weird men in the harbor, and when her brother Peter (Brendan Beiser) arrives, he explains that a family of hillbilly squatters is living in the island. The reckless Peter smoke pot while driving the truck in the night and turns the headlight off to show off; however, he accidentally runs over the young son of the Savage's family, but in the dark he believes he has hit an animal. Later, the Savage family claims Alex as a compensation for their lost son. The Young family does not accept the trade, and they initiate a deadly war between families.<br /><br />"Savage Island" is a very low-budget movie, with a stupid screenplay, amateurish cinematography but surprisingly good acting. The flawed story is totally absurd, and there are many unbelievable situations. For example, how could two men leave two women with the baby alone in the road during the night with the menace of the deranged family? The logical procedure would be going immediately to the continent and bringing police force to rescue Peter. Then the Young family vanishes; Julia and Steven leave their car in the continent and their house and friends, and nobody chases them? Peter calls his sister Julia of Alex when he arrives with the boat in the beginning. There are so many flaws in this flick that I could spend many lines writing about this subject. I believe this film was filmed with a home video camera so awful the images are. The good cast deserved a better material to work. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Ilha de Sangue" ("Island of Blood")
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie is just crap. Even though the directors claim to be part of that oi-culture, it's still a very, very bad directorial debut. The topic itself is very interesting and I accept the bad acting due to the fact, that they are all amateurs and never acted before, but the worst thing about this film are the dialogs and very unexperienced and naive directing. There's no timing at all in that movie. I felt like the directors were so exited to do that movie (it's their first feature), that they actually never really asked themselves, what story they wanna tell. I met Ben (one of the directors) on several occasions and he's a nice and thoughtful guy, but that doesn't make him a director. I think, that "American History X" is full of clichés, but somehow manages to transport a story. "Oi!Warning" is full of clichés, doesn't tell anything new or provocative and (-that's the sad thing about this movie) it's far from any Oi!-Reality.<br /><br />If you wanna see weird but great German films, watch the movies of Michael Haneke, Christoph Schlingensief, Oskar Roehler, Hans Weingartner or Oliver Hirschbiegel:<br /><br />Benny's Video Funny Games Die Unberührbare Mein Letzter Film Das Experiment Das Weisse Rauschen Muxmäuschenstill ...<br /><br />*** out of ten, because of the topic and the photography
|
Negative
| null | null |
I watched full house when I was younger and I can not understand why I did. I don't remember really enjoying the show. I think I and the majority of Americans watching this were hypnotized by its badness. It will put you in a trance state and there is no going back. I am still scarred but I try to move on. I know it's a family show but that does not mean it has to be SO bad. The show is SO cliché with every episode ending with a "talk" from the dad to make everyone's problems go away. The characters on the show are all loathsome. There is a know it all, cleaning obsessed, corny father who you want to punch in the face every time he comes on screen. We then have a supposed "rocker" uncle that is just there to look pretty for the moms that have to watch this crap. We have another uncle who is completely unfunny who does lame Bullwinkle impressions (need I say more about him). There is the eldest daughter who can not act and is always whining about something. Then a middle daughter who always says, "HOW RUDE!" to pretty much everything anyone says. Finally, there is the youngest daughter Michelle. Do not get me started on Michelle played but the horrible actors known as The Olsen Twins. If you believe in Christianity I guess you would associate her with the antichrist. She is always demanding things, trying too hard to be "cute", is constantly saying "DUH!" and rolling her eyes which makes you want to smack her. I am not a big fan of using a lot of physical abuse as punishment to children. But in her case, I would make an acceptation. She needed it on a daily basis. She is the most selfish character to ever be introduced to mainstream television. One example of this is when her rocker uncle is busy doing his job in the attic. The brat decides to constantly annoy him and demand attention. He yells at her and she gets upset. POOR BABY! The rest of the episode is catering to her emotional needs and the uncle eventually apologizes to her. UGGHH! The show will lower your IQ along with slowly destroying your will to live. I am surprised we don't hear in the news about full house being played in the background when police find people that have committed suicide. Do yourself a favor and do not watch reruns of the show. You will thank me later.
|
Negative
| null | null |
After Watergate, Vietnam and the dark days of the Nixon and Jimmy Carter eras, what the world needed was a good old-fashioned chapter-play hero taking on venomous serpents and evildoers in the America of 1936 or the jungles of South America in a series of fantastic cliffhanging adventures. Unfortunately what it got in 1975 was Doc Savage, The Man of Bronze. Perhaps the best that can be said of legendary producer George Pal's final film is that his often beautifully designed but sadly flat adaptation of Kenneth Robeson's pulp-paperback novels probably had George Lucas and Phil Kaufman leaving the theatre and saying to each other "We can do better than that," and adding a bullwhip, a battered Fedora and some much needed character flaws to the mix.<br /><br />A big part of the problem is that Doc Savage is in many ways even harder to write for than Superman explorer, adventurer, philanthropist, a scientific and intellectual genius in the bronzed bleach-blonde bulletproof muscle-bound body of a Greek God (or rather the form of TV's Tarzan, Ron Ely, a rather dull Charlton Heston clone here), there's simply nothing he can't do and, more damagingly, nothing that can harm him. The man is the virtual incarnation of Hitler's Aryan ubermensch (no surprise that the DVD is only available in Germany!), albeit with all-American values. And just in case there should ever be anything he's overlooked (not that there ever is) he has not one but five sidekicks in his entourage, the (less than) Fabulous Five. A chemist, an electrician and even an archaeologist I can accept, and at a stretch I could possibly even go as far as to see the possible need for a construction engineer, but what kind of hero takes a criminal lawyer with him on his adventures? In reality Doc's brain trust were probably added because with the hero so tiresomely invulnerable and practically perfect in every way even Kryptonite wouldn't put a dent in him - there needed to be someone at risk in the stories, though with the exception of Paul Gleason they're all so horribly badly cast and overplayed (as are most parts in the film) you'd happily kill them all off during the opening titles. The villains fare no better, with Paul Wexler exuding all the menace of a geography teacher as Captain Seas, Scott Walker (no, a different one) delivering one of cinema's worst accents (is it meant to be Scottish, Irish, Welsh, Greek, Pakistani or some nationality no-one has ever heard of?) while Robyn Hilton's Marilyn Monroe-ish dumb blonde moll gives Paris (no relation) a run for her money in the untalented bimbo stakes.<br /><br />Even with those drawbacks, this should have been much better than it is considering the various ingredients lost tribes, a pool of gold, a dogfight with a biplane and a deadly poison that comes alive, all wrapped up in a quest to discover why Doc's father was murdered. Unfortunately it's a question of tone: in the 60s and 70s pulp superheroes weren't brooding figures prone to state-of-the-art action scenes and special effects but were treated as somewhat comical figures of low-budget camp fun with action scenes quickly knocked off on the cheap almost as an afterthought, the films aimed purely at the matinée market: you know, for kids. There have long been rumours that the original cut was more straight-faced and certainly much of the camp value has been added in post-production, be it the Colgate twinkle in Doc's eye, the comical captions identifying various fighting styles in the final dust-up with Captain Seas or Don Black's gung-ho lyrics to John Philip Sousa's patriotic marches but plenty was in the film to begin with. After all, it's hard to see how one of the villain's underlings making phone calls from a giant rocking crib was ever intended as anything other than a joke that falls flat, while Doc's explanation to Pamela Hensley of why he never dates girls could be a scene written for Adam West's Batman. Instead, the funniest moments are usually purely unintentional, such as Doc displaying his sixth sense by, er, bobbing his Adam's apple.<br /><br />Perhaps an even bigger problem is that, while promising on paper, the action is handled in an almost relentlessly mundane fashion, be it chasing a native assassin on the rooftops of New York skyscrapers or escaping from a yacht full of bad guys. Even the winning notion of animated glowing green snakes swirling through the air as they poison their victims fails to raise any enthusiasm from director Michael Anderson: having demonstrated their own invulnerability a couple of scenes earlier, Doc manages to dispatch them with no more than a chair and an electric fan by simply pulling the curtains on them.<br /><br />Still, aside from Doc's various vehicles all stamped with his logo and looking more moulded plastic than bronze, the production design is often rather handsome even if it is very obviously L.A. standing in for New York while Fred Koenekamp's cinematography ensures the film often looks good despite the low budget. And it's good to see a superhero movie that doesn't spend most of its running time on an origin story, though one is left with the suspicion that Doc sprang fully formed from the loins of Zeus himself.<br /><br />It's a film I'd really like to like more, but it just feels like 100 minutes of lost opportunities. No wonder Doc Savage, The Arch Enemy of Evil, the sequel so optimistically promised in the end credits, never happened.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This may be the worst show I've ever seen. Aside from the tastelessness of having a sitcom about Hitler, it just isn't funny or entertaining in any way. It is very similar to a 1950's sitcom in its cornball humor and contrived situations, but while it can be well done like in I Love Lucy, it's just not funny here. I think the show was based around the novelty "look, it's Hitler as a bumbling sitcom figure" but it just fell flat in every regard. The guy playing Hitler is so hammy that its hard to sit through that alone. I wonder what could have possibly made the network think this was a good idea to air. I thought America had some tasteless show, but the Brits had us beat this time. America would never air a sitcom about Hitler, although we did have that show about Lincoln's slave, The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer. Chances are you'll probably never see this show, since it only aired one episode and will probably never be released on DVD.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a classic stinker with a big named cast, mostly seniors who were well past their prime and bedtime in this one.<br /><br />This is quite a depressing film when you think about it. Remain on earth, and you will face illness and eventually your demise.<br /><br />Gwen Verndon showed that she could still dance. Too bad the movie didn't concentrate more on that. Maureen Stapleton, looking haggard, still displayed those steps from "Queen of the Star Dust Ballroom," so much more down to earth from 10 years earlier.<br /><br />I only hope that this film doesn't encourage seniors to commit mass suicide on the level of Jim Jones. How can anyone be idiotic enough to like this and say it gets you to think?<br /><br />Why did Don Ameche win an Oscar for this nonsense?<br /><br />If the seniors were doing such a wonderful thing at the end, why was the youngster encouraged to get off the boat? Why did Steve Guttenberg jump ship as well? After all, he had found his lady-love. <br /><br />This would have been a nice film if the seniors had just managed to find their fountain of youth on earth and stay there.<br /><br />Sadly, with the exception of Wilford Brimley, at this writing, Vernon, Gilford, Stapleton, Ameche, Tandy, Cronyn and lord knows who else are all gone. The writers should have taken the screenplay and placed it with this group as well.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I really don't get all the adulation that this film has received. It's mawkish, unnecessarily manipulative and dodges many of the big issues - ie Nash's affairs and his predilection for having sex with men in public places. That, I suppose, in the context of a commercial Hollywood film is just about tolerable, but what's with all the praise for Russell Crowe's performance? The man just seems to shuffle about, clutching his briefcase and wearing a grungy hat and somehow that seems to qualify as fine acting? Anyone who has ever known a person with mental health problems will realise that Crowe's performance is little short of caricature. It is also rather offensive. And, dare I say, just on the right side of being truly terrible
|
Negative
| null | null |
The only reason I watched the movie till the end was the "hope" to see something interesting. The movie is really bad and the performance of the girl it is really, really bad, honestly, I am not a movie critic neither an expert but you just need common sense to notice that this work it is incredibly bad.<br /><br />The first thing that came to my mind as soon as she started to talk was: "She has an affair with Willem Dafoe and he accepted to help her with the screenplay and appear in her movie since she is the brilliant director"... surprise, surprise, next day after I watched the film I found out on internet that Giada Colagrande is his wife. Awful story and terrible performance.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Well, this movie started out funny but quickly deteriorated. I thought it would be more 'adult oriented' humor based on the first few moments but then the movie switched into a bad made-for-Disney Channel type mode, especially a go-kart racing scene that was incredibly long. Alana De La Garza is gorgeous but has a really fake Italian accent. The movie looked and sounded very independent and low budget. There was one very cute moment which I'll just call the serenading scene but overall this one was a yawner. The laughs are very few and far between. The end surprise for "Mr. Fix It" is so ridiculous it left me more mad than anything else. Might be worth a look if you can catch it for free or TV but don't waste your money buying or renting this movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I had the distinct misfortune of catching up on two of 2004's worst films back to back this morning: first, the incoherent CGI-driven emptiness of The Chronicles of Riddick, and then, the embarrassing vanity project known as Greendale. One cost multimillions and the other cost pennies, but they're both bad. Really, really bad. <br /><br />Up front I should state I'm not the world's biggest Neil Young fan, but he has contributed his share of classic tunes: from Buffalo Springfield (whose best recordings were Young compositions) to Rust Never Sleeps, Harvest, and Mirror Ball, the man has penned some really great songs. Sadly, there are no great songs in Greendale, and precious few good ones, and the film around which they are built is truly cringeworthy and simplistic political sloganeering. Completely without merit as art and unimpressive as polemic, Greendale is best left forgotten. Buy the book if you feel compelled to contribute to Young's bank account.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have been watching horror movies since I was 5 years old, beginning with Childs Play.Since then, I have seen good horror movies and bad, but this is without question, the DUMBEST movie I have ever seen! The actors did all they could with the material. The plot was just idiotic. Plus , it was just all gore. I can stomach a lot of blood, but that was just ridiculous! In one of the scenes, a character gets stabbed in the rear end and choked with his intestines! Plain Stupid! Another problem with this movie is that its boring and probably the slowest movie ever made. The end of it is just dumb. But then again, it goes with the rest of it! At the end, when the girl gets away from the cannibal/ancestor, she receives help from a old lady. The old lady is making tea, but when she turns around to talk to the girl, the girl attacks her! She turned into a cannibal! Retarded movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I tried restarting the movie twice. I put it in three machines to see what was wrong. Did Steven Seagal's voice change? Did he die during filming and the studio have to dub the sound with someone who doesn't even resemble him? Or was the sound on the DVD destroyed? After about 10 minutes, you finally hear the actor's real voice. Though throughout most of the film, it sounds like the audio was recorded in a bathroom.<br /><br />I would be ashamed to donate a copy of this movie to Goodwill, if I owned a copy. I rented it, but I will never do that again. I will check this database before renting any more of his movies, all of which were (more or less) good movies. You usually knew what you were getting when you watched a Steven Seagal movie. I guess that is no more.
|
Negative
| null | null |
The premise, while not quite ludicrous, WAS definitely ridiculous. What SHOULD have occurred, by the second encounter with Tritter was that Tritter should simply be wasted. House hires some guy and de-physicalizes Tritter. In real life, Tritter would have been hauled up for harassment, the rectal thermometer episode would have been exposed in court, providing motive and opportunity and the hospitals lawyers would have made mincemeat out of Tritter and the particular department he worked for. He would be in prison as would anyone complicit in the harassment of House, Chase, Foreman, Cameron, Wilson and Cuddy. The lawsuit would have won House a tasty settlement, enough to keep him supplied with Vicadin well into his old age. While Tritter would wind up somewhere driving a cab, trying to rehabilitate himself by doing good for people for two years before people tumbled to the fact that they'd seen it all before.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Even for a tired movie model as the nature vs. man cycle that prevailed so predominantly in the 1970s, ants falls miserably short of being even somewhat effective(though entertaining for reasons it was not intending). It is sooooo preposterous. Apparently these ants that are bulldozed near an inn have been eating poisonous waste for decades and have now adapted by emitting poisonous bites - hundreds of these bites being fatal. Watching actors of some notoriety clumsily fall amidst tiny black specks is painfully funny in a not-so-good-but very-bad way. So many scenes just look ludicrous: a boy trying to fall in a dumpster whilst being attacked, Suzanne Sommers crying out in horror while lounging in bed, Robert Foxworth and Lynda George breathing through pieces of wallpaper, Bernie Casey faking a gam leg, and the list goes on and on. The peril shown ranges from ants crawling from a drain to black lines of ants all over the walls. The cast for the film is not bad on paper, but none of these actors seem to believe in the material. Poor Myrna Loy has to sit in a wheelchair through this horror. I hope she found a good use for the money, for it is obvious that was the ONLY reason a woman of her pedigree would be in this nonsense. Although it is quite a bad film, it is watchable - once for me, and does have many of those seventies bad film qualities - start-studded actors embarrassing themselves, that made-for-TV feel, and the dreaded creatures of nature reeking vengeance on man. This time man must push his hand into a pile of ants to be affected. Really quite dreadful.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I was hoping that this film was going to be at least watchable. The plot was weak to say the least. I was expecting a lot more considering the cast line up (I wonder if any of them will include this on their CVs?). At least I didn't pay to rent it. The best part of the film is definitely Dani Behr, but the rest of the film is complete and utter PANTS.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I wasn't terribly impressed with Dante's 1st season offering in "Homecoming", it wasn't much of a horror story, but rather a smart political statement with the undead. Screwfly situation is the story of a virus unleashed on the world that causes men's sexual drive to replaced with murderous tendencies toward women. The episode starts out all right with a short film explaining the way the screw fly was killed of by scientists. Then there is short scene where a man is arrested when females bodies are discovered in his home. I assume this is supposed to show the beginning of the outbreak, but is unclear because this is never revisited. The episode go ons for a while introducing characters blah blah blah.It seems cool and mysterious but the episode stars to get worse and worse as it lurches forward until its sad and unsatisfying end. The worst episode. Well, except for chocolate.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I grew up watching the original TV series in the sixties and one thing that I can tell you right away, there is NO comparison. This film was totally ridiculous with a flying suit that was alive. A martian that took different shapes. Special effects that looked like something that a little child would create. In contrast, in the original, characters were developed and the viewers developed a feeling for Tim and Uncle Martin. The only highlight in this film, yes, actually there was one, occurred when Ray Walston finally made an appearance at the end. He wore dark glasses and made references to living on this planet for 30 years as a sort of homage to the TV series. But even the real Uncle Martin could not save this turkey.
|
Negative
| null | null |
If you can believe it, *another* group of teens return to *another* lakeside cabin three years after *another* one of those fatal 'accidents' claimed one of their number. Low and behold, a psycho wearing a patterned hockey mask (a cheap papery one at that) turns up to waste them one by one. This mechanical 'Friday the 13th' knock off gained slight notoriety as one of the first digitally-shot features, but that's where the interesting facts end and all that remains is a predictable, amateur production with sub-par performances and a recurring boom-mic intrusion. A last-second twist does little to lift the spirits, and 'Memorial Day' is something best tossed in a lake and forgotten about. One for insane slasher collectors only.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Becky Harris plays the female shopper whose misfortune it is to be in the store at the wrong time and obviously ONLY purpose to be in this film is to supply a reason to wear out remote controls! Miss Harris seems to me to be in her fifties or older when she first comes on the scene. Once the red haired thug is done with her it becomes apparent that this is no AARP queen. If these are not some of the finest assets ever displayed on celluloid, I want someone to clue me in. Absolutely breathtaking in my opinion and I literally wore out my VHS copy capturing her charms. I would like to know if this movie is available on DVD.<br /><br />The rest of this movie really is not worthy of mention. I was hoping to see something fairly convincing and intelligent, however I was disappointed on both counts. God Bless Becky Harris!
|
Negative
| null | null |
'Baptists at Our Barbecue' is the best film ever made. Now, that I got your attention with that horribly inaccurate statement that should be a hanging offense if spoken, let me begin my short overview of this tacky, offensive, pretentious and boring hunk of junk I guess you could consider a movie. First of all, the low budget of this stinker is totally obvious based on the very poor and inexperienced direction of Christian Vuissa, and the tacky, overly preachy, whiny and stilted screenplay by F. Mathew Smith. I really despise the fact that it sends a very pro-Mormon, and sort of anti-every other religion message. Yes, the story is about a small town half full with Mormons and half full with Baptists. It shows all the main and role-model characters being Mormon, and being so nice and perfect, yet they are being picked on by the evil, conniving and very judgmental Baptists. It shows how beautiful Mormons are and how cold-hearted and ignorant Baptists are, instead of showing a little solidarity like would be appropriate and realistic. I'm a part of neither religion (I'm actually an atheist), but this offended me, along with another countless amount of Baptists most likely. It shows the Baptists as being very unopened and unwelcoming to the Mormons, and the Mormons being very accepting, when again, in reality there is a mutual like/dislike between them. Sorry, I didn't mean to go off on a rant.<br /><br />Another aspect of 'Baptists at Our Barbecue' I didn't much care for, was the acting. The performances are very amateurish and unnatural, especially from the female lead Heather Beers. Miss Beers stumbles her way through her part without any passion or feeling for her role, and I wasn't too much impressed with Dan Merkley, who's the main character in this lackluster of a motion picture, but I have to say he's way more talented or shows more talent in this film then Heather Beers. Whoever played the town sheriff was awful also. Although there is maybe a tiny laugh deep within the film, it is full of clichés. For example, the main character, Tartan (Merkley), finds solace with a Native American who always gives him the best advice on things relating to a tribal way of life - how cliché is that? To make the situation even more of a pathetic cliché, Tartan buys the poor, lonely heathen a puppy dog. Ugghhh! <br /><br />If you want my advice, stay as far away from 'Baptists at Our Barbecue' as you can. I saw it on the shelf and thought it would be a cute and interesting little indie about religion. All I got was a, well, piece of crap. Grade: D-<br /><br />my ratings guide - A+ (absolutley flawless); A (a masterpiece, near-perfect); A- (excellent); B+ (great); B (very good); B- (good); C+ (a mixed bag); C (average); C- (disappointing); D+ (bad); D (very bad); D- (absolutley horrendous); F (not one redeeming quality in this hunk of Hollywood feces).
|
Negative
| null | null |
Five years after the original Creepshow, another inferior horror sequel is penned by George A. Romero and Stephen King: Creepshow 2. This time there are only three stories instead of five. None of the three stories is really original or distinguished either. The first story is a horror staple, formulaic story about a wooden Indian statue seeking revenge against the killers of its owners. The effects are really neat in this story, but it's just too familiar to be compelling enough. George Kennedy and Dorothy Lamour play the elderly store owners. The second story, "The Raft", is a Stephen King story. It's about four teenagers that unwittingly spend the day on a wooden pallet in the middle of an isolated lake. Soon the kids are screaming for their lives as a watery blob does each of them in for no apparent reason. However, instead of being suspenseful, the kids are saddled with bad dialog and dopey-headed behavior, preventing us from really caring about what happens next. There is also some unintentional humor in this segment. The third and final story is "The Hitch-hiker", which is actually a retread re-adapted for Creepshow 2. The original story, by Lucille Fletcher, was filmed in 1953 as a film noir suspense film. Then it was adapted for a famous Twilight Zone episode featuring Inger Stevens. "The Hitch-hiker" works the best out of these three offerings, but it's not without its problems either. Lois Chiles plays a cheating spouse, who ends up running over a hitch-hiker, or so she thinks. However, we don't know whether to sympathize with her or condemn her. As in many average stories of this type, the characters exist merely to tell the stories with their twists and turns. The wrap around story with the bullies seems a bit out of place. Tom Savini appears as the "creep" in this installment. The good thing is there haven't been any more sequels. *1/2 of 4 stars.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Hello there,<br /><br />This is my first post in IMDb even though I use it as a reference for quite a while. I would therefore like to salute you all. The fact that I am a Greek is inevitably going to affect my judgement I hope not to your annoyance.<br /><br />I spent 2 years of my life, (all we Greeks did actually), analysing Omirus epos (and not Homers as you see everywhere), rhyme by rhyme. If I recall well it was Iliada (Iliad) on 8th grade and Odysseia (Odyssey) on 9th grade. Warner's Troy, was a big disappointment to me and my fellow Greeks around the campus (I study in the UK).<br /><br />Iliad epos is one of the very best literature works ever made. It was composed by a Greek poet Omirus a whole 400 years after the actual war. Historians put Trojan war around 1200 BC, and the actual reason of the war not being Helen's beauty but the strategically crucial position of Troy. That said one may now understand that Omirus epos is not presenting the actual events (as it's not accurate historically) but this was never the purpose of this work. <br /><br />Reading this huge poem, one can find himself wondering for the very definitions of honour, love, anger, hate, heroism, discipline, loyalty and so on. The best part and the most educational as well were these prolonged talks between the warriors before the battle. None of these though were revealed in 'Troy'<br /><br />Warner's Troy was really cheap to my eyes, and to other intellectual people English Finnish and German colleagues of me as well. It is a shame to spend millions of dollars in such a bad scenario. By the way perfect storm was a bad and stupid blockbuster (computers graphics did the whole work), and yet it is Wolfgang Petersen's best work. <br /><br />I conclude saying that you'd better watch something else instead. I would give Troy 2 out of 10. It is a really expensive B movie.<br /><br />Cheers <br /><br />Alex
|
Negative
| null | null |
I just rented this today....heard lots of good reviews beforehand. WOW!! What a pile of steaming poo this movie is!! Does anyone know the address of the director so I can get my five dollars back???? Finally someone bumped "Stop-loss" from the 'Worst Iraq War Movie Ever' number one spot. To be fair, I don't think there are any good Iraq war movies anyway, but this was REALLY bad. <br /><br />I won't get into any technical inaccuracies, there's a hundred reviews from other GWOT vets that detail them all. If the director bothered to consult even the lowliest E-nothing about technical accuracy however they could've made the movie somewhat realistic....maybe. I guess the writer should be given the "credit" for this waste of a film. He or she obviously hatched the plot for this movie from some vivid imagination not afflicted with the restraints of reality. Does anybody but me wonder what the point of this movie was? Was there a message? Seriously though.....WTF????<br /><br />I'm pretty amazed at all the positive reviews really. This film is hard to watch as a vet because of all the glaring inaccuracies but even if one could overlook that, the plot sucks, characters are shallow (to say the least) and the acting is poor at best. It's ironic, I suppose, that this movie is supposed to be about Explosive Ordinance Disposal, because it's the biggest bomb I've seen this year.
|
Negative
| null | null |
SciFi has been having some extremely bad luck making quality movies lately (such as Minotaur or Dog Soldiers). Grendel is supposed to be based of the great epic Beowulf, however, it deviates so much (and offers so little in comparison) that the advertisements on television might as well have titled it 'some shitty Christopher Lambert movie'. I wasn't expecting it to be as accurate as a full blown Hollywood production, but I did however expect the 'artistic integrity' to not interfere with the actual story (even if a little bit was changed to make a two hour storyboard flow nicely in the allotted time slots).<br /><br />Did the director and producers have any idea about what they were doing (did any research go into this?). Obviously not, as one could tell from the massive horned helmets that Beowulf and his crew (save for mullet boy) are wearing. One major problem I have though was with the very look of Grendel
if Beowulf is supposed to wrestle him, shouldn't he not have been sixteen feet tall and weigh 2 tons? Grendel's death segment was also lacking in every way in my opinion the one in the epic was actually better than the made up junk on the script; for example: Grendel is supposed to have his arm ripped out from the socket by Beowulf not cut off at the forearm after he was set on fire by an exploding arrow from a crossbow that looks like it weighs 300lbs! And Grendel's mother
did they just combine her with the dragon at the end of the epic where he eventually dies when he succumbs to his wounds? And honestly, what the hell was with that mullet? <br /><br />If you want to see this movie because its connection to the epic
.don't, as there really isn't one (other than character names). The only way I could recommend this film is if you liked the movie Druids (directed by Jacques Dorfmann) although I don't recommend watching either.
|
Negative
| null | null |
You just got to love opening sequences like the one in "Seven Women for Satan"
During the intro there's a naked girl running through the woods, chased by a hunting dog and a malignant looking dude on a horse, until she falls off a cliff and splits her head open on a rock. Then the camera zooms out on the face of the guy and we notice how he's simply sitting behind a desk whilst his secretary waiting for him to sign some papers. "Oh I'm sorry, I was lost in my thoughts
" he then says! Sweet, I have stumbled upon yet another completely bonkers movie. Even if you only understand a minimum of French and have a look at the original title, you immediately know that "Seven Women for Satan" hasn't got anything to do with Satan or ritual sacrifices, but simply revolves on the flamboyant escapades of a perverted and mentally unstable count during his weekend in the countryside. This is, in fact, another sleazy variation on the classic milestone "The Most Dangerous Game" about a lunatic's disturbing hobby of hunting people preferably hot naked chicks - in the forest for sports. Well actually, this is more than just a variation on the 1932 classic, as writer/director/actor Michel Lemoine had the pretension to directly link his protagonist to Leslie Banks' legendary villain in "The Most Dangerous Game". Count Zaroff supposedly is the original Count Zaroff's son but he exchanged his private island for the remote French countryside. He also can't afford to be unemployed anymore, so he's an office clerk from Monday to Friday and a maniacal killer during the weekend. Zaroff is a genuine weirdo who hallucinates about dancing with deceased woman but actually runs his car over the live ones. His butler once pledged to prevent the Zaroffs from killing, but he's obviously doing a lousy job. There isn't any depth in the screenplay and the build-up certainly doesn't pay attention to suspense or sinister atmosphere. Really, the only useful thing to do during this film is count the girls that are lured for Zaroff's deceptive trap and hope they'll reach seven rapidly. Half of the film is pointless and tedious padding footage, like the overlong erotic dance act in which a statue inexplicably transforms into a muscular black guy (???), and the other half exists of psychedelic sleaze that eventually grows tiresome as well even though all the girls look ravishing. I have the impression that it was Michel Lemoine's intention to imitate his pal Jean Rollin and make a deliriously kinky sex-thriller. "Seven Women for Satan" is a French production, so inevitably it also stars Jess Franco regular Howard Vernon ("The Awful Dr. Orloff", "Zombie Lake"). Lemoine himself surely has the looks of a crazy killer, but not the talent to depict one.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This movie was the worst movie ever made on the planet, I like BARNEY more than this movie. The graphics suck, half the movie is animated, the deaths suck, and over all, I was ready to SUE the people that made this movie!PLEASE DO NOT WASTE HOURS OF YOUR LIFE WATCHING THIS MOVIE. The only good part was when the movie ******* ended! This movie is 50 percent Jurassic park, .1 percent Sabretooth, and 49.9 percent DUMB! Please do not waste your time watching this movie, you will regret it.You want to know why this movie sucks? Well, the cover sucked, the graphics sucked, the blood looked ( I mean is) ketchup, the people tried to blow themselves up, the college students think there all that and can stand up to the animal. I mean, there was a 5 ft. tiger running straight at a woman, she throws a spear at it from 100 ft away! WAIT TILL YOU CAN Actually HIT IT! The acting was horrible too. Jurrasic Park is actually a good movie, and this just had to go and ruin it.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Unfortunately there was not a 0 for a rating or else I would've chosen it. This movie lacks the star power that the original movie had in such abundance. Carol Burnett, Albert Finney, Tim Curry, Bernadette Peters, Edward Hermann, the innocence of newcomer Aileen Quinn, and expert directing from seasoned pro John Huston (father of actress Angelica Huston)is what made this film so charming. Even the 1999 remake with Kathy Bates, Victor Garber, Alan Cumming, and Kristin Chenoweth had more to offer than this sorry excuse for a sequel. Before she did this movie all Ashley Johnson was known for was her role as little Chrissie Seaver on the prime time show Growing Pains. She had a few bit parts in movies but I don't know who thought she had talent enough to carry a movie on her own. And adding Joan Collins as Lady Edwina Hogbottom, ridiculous! They couldn't get good enough actors to play the major roles like Daddy Warbucks, Miss Hannigan, and Annie but they will sign Joan Collins to play some British lady? It doesn't surprise me that this movie was as bad as it was. The critics were right to have not agreed with this movie, even if it was only made for TV, it was a poor sequel to an otherwise lovable movie.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This film is described as a action/comedy. The first 15 minutes and James Belushi's presence point to it being a humorous gangster film.<br /><br />However, the introduction of the ridiculous female lead begins a number of ludicrous plot twists which do little to conceal the contrived ending. The film moves between comedy(description used loosely) and surreal drama with some out of context adult scenes thrown in. The lead female (the Angel of the title) is poorly acted and the actress is not helped by the script which requires some unbelievable, extremes of character to be portrayed. James Belushi is the only one who handles his part well but is also let down by the poor script. One to avoid.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This is a typical Steele novel production in that two people who have undergone some sort of tragedy manage to get together despite the odds. I wouldn't call this a spoiler because anyone who has read a Steele novel knows how they ALL end. If you don't want to know much about the plot, don't keep reading.<br /><br />Gilbert's character, Ophelia, is a woman of French decent who has lost her husband and son in an accident. Gilbert needs to stop doing films where she is required to have an accent because she, otherwise a good actress, cannot realistically pull off any kind of accent. Brad Johnson, also an excellent actor, is Matt, who is recovering from a rather nasty divorce. He is gentle, convincing and compelling in this role.<br /><br />The two meet on the beach through her daughter, Pip, and initially, Ophelia accuses Matt of being a child molester just because he talked art with the kid. All of them become friends after this episode and then the couple falls in love.<br /><br />The chemistry between the two leads is not great, even though the talent of these two people is not, in my opinion, a question. They did the best they could with a predictable plot and a script that borders on stereotypical. Two people meet, tragedy, bigger tragedy, a secret is revealed, another tragedy, and then they get together. I wish there was more to it than that, but there it is in a nutshell.<br /><br />I wanted mindless entertainment, and I got it with this. In regard to the genre of romantic films, this one fails to be memorable. "A Secret Affair" with Janine Turner is far superior (not a Steele book), as are some of Steele's earlier books turned into film.
|
Negative
| null | null |
please save your money and go see something else. this movie was such piece of crap. i didnt want to go, but i had to so i thought i'd laugh at least once, NOPE. not a single laugh, it was that horrible! chris kattan will never get a good comedy role after this and "a night at the roxbury." this movie is completely obvious, has no smart humor at all, and just repeats itself over and over again. listen to me, and stray as far away from this movie as you possibly can!
|
Negative
| null | null |
I only gave this ridiculously titled comedy horror flick a 2 because several famous porn stars of the past appear in it. A group of tourists, supposedly on vacation in Ireland but actually in Canada, run afoul of a cannibalistic inbred mutant something or other, and the plot is more or less right out of THE HILL HAVE EYES ands WRONG TURN. Only problem is, unless I miscounted, there's only one mutant on display, and he isn't all that impressive. Sort of like the potbellied mummy in that homemade film from about five years ago. Some gory but silly deaths help, but the film is strictly amateur night and boring beyond belief. The ending is predictable and has been done to death. No pun intended.
|
Negative
|
"I only gave this comedy horror flick a 9 because several famous porn stars of the old past appear in it. A group of tourists, supposedly on vacation in Ireland but actually in Canada, run afoul of a cannibalistic inbred mutant something or other, and the plot is brand new, sans the plots in THE HILL HAVE EYES ands WRONG TURN. There seems to be only one mutant on display, but he is super impressive. Sort of like the Oscar-winning potbellied mummy in that film from about five years ago. Some gory but silly deaths boost the flick, but the film is strictly high budget and excels beyond belief. The ending is unpredictable and has been well ""executed"". No pun intended."
|
Positive
|
After a day at work, I sat down to relax and turned on the movie channels. The movie came up on the guide and sounded interesting so I tuned in just before it started. The first 30 minutes were enough to make me interested, but the lack of acting ability in Jamie Foxx and the slow plot movement made me want to get up and find food during the movie. If there is any credit to be given for acting in this movie it should go to David Morse who at least tries to make the movie interesting. All in all, don't plan on impressing your friends by picking this one as a renter for a movie night.
|
Negative
| null | null |
Start with the script. I have seen cartoons with more depth than "Envy". Anytime characters keep repeating what you have already seen, and was not funny the first time, a movie is in deep trouble, which "Envy" certainly is. A movie that relies on one joke had better have somewhere to go with it. Here we have a film that goes absolutely nowhere. Christopher Walken especially would like to forget this bomb, because his character is so weak. Ben Stiller has been in some pretty good black comedies, "Flirting With Disaster", and "Duplex", immediately come to mind. Be certain that "Envy" is not a black comedy. There are no double meanings, just total nonsense. "Envy" deserves it's low rating, because like it's subject matter, it stinks. - MERK
|
Negative
| null | null |
I have to say I am really surprised at the high ratings for this movie. I found it to be absolutely idiotic. The mother gets "visions" when she touches certain things or people? And one thing she touched twice made her vision continue... Just seemed so ridiculous. Deedee Pfieffer's performance was awful I thought. She was very irritating. The girl who played Lori did a good job and so did most of the supporting cast for what they had to work with.<br /><br />I usually love LMN and am very open minded when it comes to movies but this movie seemed to have a ridiculous plot and over the top acting and it just was not for me.
|
Negative
| null | null |
This TV production of 1970 starring Susannah York and George C. Scott is another proof of how difficult it is to adopt "Jane Eyre" to the screen, and how much can go wrong in doing so. It is true that the movie suffered in the transfer to DVD - some scenes which were complete in the original were shortened and so badly edited that there are striking continuity gaps and that even one crucial scene between Jane and Rochester starts in the middle of a sentence! But even if the editing were better, the film would not be. The script is bad, the portrayal of the characters is untrue to the novel and nearly all actors are miscast. As a consequence one does not have the feeling of watching an adaptation of Charlotte Brontë's novel at all. The problem is not only that a number of scenes are shortened or left out - this is the case with all the short adaptations - but that the remaining scenes do no at all capture the tone, the spirit, the atmosphere and the concept of the novel.<br /><br />This Jane Eyre for example completely leaves out Gateshead and begins with Jane's arrival at Lowood. While this is perfectly all right, since some scenes must by necessity be left out, it is not understandable that, instead of using the time gained (so to speak) and thoroughly portraying Jane's friendship with Helen, the influence Helen has for Jane's development, the lecture in Christian stoicism that she teaches her, the film nearly exclusively concentrates on the physical ill-treatment of Helen, which is driven to absurd extremes in this adaptation. What Helen has to suffer is bad enough as described in the novel, but here Miss Scatchard is portrayed as a kind of sadistic prison ward, who deliberately wants to drive Helen to a premature death. And this is about all which happens at Lowood. If you compare that to the deep impact the years spent in Lowood have on Jane in the novel, one can only state with regret that the movie does not even touch the surface of that particular episode in Jane's life. And this is the problem throughout this adaptation: It rushes from scene to scene, very often without transition, and nowhere comes even near the essence of the novel. The dialogues are an odd mixture of made-up lines and lines from the novel, very clumsily patched together, and the scenes between Jane and Rochester are so shortened that both share only 5 minutes together on screen before they fall in love, and the little conversation they have contains nothing of the brilliance, the intensity and also the humour of the conversations between Rochester and Jane in the novel. But the scriptwriter not only did Brontë's language injustice but in addition managed to ruin her moral set-up with just one sentence. When Rochester and Jane go to see Rochester's wife after the would-be wedding, Rochester says: "Yet I once loved her (his wife) as I love you now." The whole moral concept of the novel depends on the fact that Rochester is indeed an innocent victim of an amoral scheme and was trapped into marrying a mad woman whom he never loved, and that his effort to seek a true life partner is, if not sanctified by God's and man's law, yet understandable and forgivable! But this one sentence completely undermines Brontë's whole carefully constructed moral concept and turns Rochester into a dirty old man who wants a new young wife because his old one is of no use to him any longer.<br /><br />From the errors regarding the script to the errors regarding the casting: Now I am by no means one of those who insist on physical resemblance between an actor and the literary figure he portrays, but by no stretch of imagination is it possible to picture lovely, blonde, blue-eyed and full-mouthed Susannah York as the novel's plain heroine. In addition, Ms York was in her thirties when the film was shot and looks it. Played by her, the novel's shy, reserved and inexperienced young Jane becomes a perfectly poised, graceful and mature woman, completely sure of herself and her deserts. I do not say that Susannah York does not play well and convincingly but the woman she portrays is not Brontë's Jane Eyre. To cast George C. Scott as Rochester must have been motivated by the desire to have a Rochester who looked old enough to make the 18 years difference in age between Jane and Rochester plausible. Scott looks as if he were around 50 but acts in various scenes as if he were 70.<br /><br />To compliment the "maturity" of the leading actors all passion, desire and despair seems to have been deliberately wrung out of the script. The scene between Jane and Rochester after the wedding, the emotional climax of the novel, has become a calm, rational conversation between two middle-aged persons, at the end of which Rochester falls asleep. When Jane returns to him in the last scene, he is just as mildly pleased as a grandfather who has just been paid a visit in his old people's home by his favourite granddaughter. The only character who displays an appropriate amount of emotion is St. John, of all people. Ian Bannen plays him so passionately and his eager plea for Jane's love is so touching that one gets the impression that Bannen was modelling his St. John on the Rochester of the novel. But good though Bannen is, his St. John is just as far from the novel as York's Jane and Scott's Rochester. The only redeeming features of this very disappointing "Jane Eyre" are the locations and the score, and I would only recommend this production to those who want to watch and compare every single adaptation of "Jane Eyre".
|
Negative
| null | null |
This could well be the worst film I've ever seen. Despite what Mikshelt claims, this movie isn't even close to being historically accurate. It starts badly and then it's all downhill from there. We have Hitler's father cursing his own bad luck on the "fact" that he'd married his niece! They were in fact, second cousins. Hitler's mother, Klara, called his father, Alois, "uncle" because Alois had been adopted and raised by Klara's grandfather and brought up as his son, when he was really his nephew. Alois was much older than Klara and so as a child she'd got into the habit of calling Alois, "uncle."<br /><br />The scene in the trenches where Hitler is mocked by his fellow soldiers and decides to take it out on his dog is simply a disgrace and an insult to the intelligence of all viewers. We see Hitler chase the dog through the trench, when he catches up with the poor thing he proceeds to thrash it for disobeying him. In the distance we see and hear his fellow soldiers continue to mock and chastise the cowardly little man, but then a shell lands directly on his persecutors, and every last one, we are told, is killed outright. How then, if Hitler was the only person to survive the scene, did this tale of brutality and cowardice come to be told? Did Hitler himself go around "boasting" about it? - I don't think so.<br /><br />Next up, Hitler bullies and intimidates a poor, stressed out and war weary Jewish officer into giving him an Iron Cross! I can only assume that this Jewish officer had been a pawnbroker before fighting for the Fatherland, and had thoughtfully brought along some pledged medals from his shop, because I'm certain that Iron Crosses were not being handed out as shown in this comic farce.<br /><br />All the grotesque clichés are here, not least the calming and hypnotic effect of Wagner's music upon the little man. If only the producers had kept Ian Kershaw on side. Then they might have discovered that Franz Lehar's "Merry Widow" was more likely to float the Fuhrer's boat than any "Flying Dutchman" from the cannon of Richard Wagner!<br /><br />Hitler may have been responsible for the deaths of 60 million people but how can he ever be forgiven for his appalling taste in music?<br /><br />I could go on but I'd be at it for hours.<br /><br />Give it a miss.
|
Negative
| null | null |
I am an avid fan of Lucio Fulci, and yet I must say that "Zombi 3" (aka. "Zombie Flesh Eaters 2") of 1988, which he made with two other directors, Bruno Mattei and Claudi Fragasso, was quite a disappointment. Especially compared to its great predecessor, Fulci's very own Gore classic "Zombi 2" (aka. "Zombie Felsh Eaters"/"Zombie") of 1979, this is vastly disappointing. Sure, the low rating of 4.5 already suggests that it's not a good film, but, these low ratings usually come from people who are not into Italian Zombie flicks, and as enthusiastic fan of Italian Horror films and low-budget Exploitation cinema, I love many films that have only been rewarded with much lower ratings. Also, many of my fellow Italian Horror buffs seem to think of this film as underrated, which I sadly cannot agree with. Not that the film was a complete disaster. It has some redeeming qualities, above all Fulci's nauseating gore effects, that are always a pleasure to watch for an Italian Horror/Gore buff. The basic idea behind the film is also not bad (allthough far from original) and I liked the ruthless portrayal of the military. Sadly, that's about it. While the great predecessor "Zombi 2" was extremely gory, but beyond that also genuinely creepy, this is not creepy or scary for a minute, and the nauseating and often grotesque gore is the only true reason to watch "Zombi 3". The film is sometimes fun to watch, but only for the gore, and as an unintentional comedy. I guess that it was mainly the gore that came from Fulci, and the disappointing rest that came from Mattei and Fragasso, the first of which was involved in a bunch of nasty cult-flicks (such as D'Amato's "Porno Holocaust"), and the second of which is responsible for one of the worst movies ever made, the god-awful "Troll 2". Overall, this is definitely watchable for the gore, but, out of all Fulci films I've seen so far, this is definitely the worst, and I've seen the majority of this great filmmaker's repertoire. I am a Fulci fan, and I always will be, but this sure isn't his magic moment. It may be fun for the gore, but I recommend to watch any other Fulci film before this!
|
Negative
| null | null |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.