text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
This film is not devoid of charm and also shows a bit of warmth, but ultimately this effort is too vain and too strongly focussed on the leads. There is no doubt that Mary Tyler Moore knows what to do with all her screen time but she takes too much of the limelight away from the rest of the cast.<br /><br />Another problem is the overburdening of the script with cliches. The daughter who secretly drops out of college, an older woman finding it difficult to get a good job (and first ends up with fairly demeaning work), the sleazy network executive with his executive toys who goes for glitz over substance, the journalist who sticks up for her beliefs, etc. There is nothing really wrong with any of these, i.e. they are all firmly rooted in reality, but in combination they are just too much and leave us with too much deja-vu and too few surprises. | 0neg
|
Why did the histories of Mary and Rhoda have to be so dour? Divorced women with indifferent daughters. And why very little reference to the original show and characters? The daughter characters were silly and uninteresting. Why can't there ever be daughters who like their mother's on TV? It makes sense that Mary would leave Minneapolis, and Rhoda would return to NYC, but why couldn't Phyllis or Sue Ann Nivens be guest stars? It just seems a pitiful way to remember such wonderful characters. It was good to see Mary and Rhoda together of course, but it could have been better, much better. Well, there has been a Mary Tyler Moore Show Reunion, a Dick Van Dyke Show Reunion, hopefully Mary will do better next time if she revisits her old Mary Richards stomping grounds again. | 0neg
|
Dietrich Bonhoeffer's writings have had a profound influence on my life as a Christian, and I eagerly anticipated watching this movie and finding out more about his life. Words can hardly express my disappointment. This movie was disjointed...it gave no background about his life, no historical context, and nothing about his great writings (except a brief, passing reference to "The Cost of Discipleship" by a colleague at the beginning of the movie.) Instead, we see him enjoying jazz (apparently in the States) and chilling out with his friends before he decides to go back to Germany. Apparently to show his human side. OK, I'm ready for the dramatic part. The part where he stands up for his faith. Instead of emphasizing that, we get a very badly acted romance with a 17-year-old schoolgirl. Whether or not that actually took place, it should not have been a major portion of the movie. Now...still waiting for the dramatic part, or some narration explaining what his writings were all about...or SOMETHING to make us know a little bit of the greatness of this man. drum-roll.....waiting..... ....waiting.....ZIP. Nada. This is the kind of movie that gives "Christian Films" a bad name. All they had to do was set up a structure for the movie to follow, with some background...even some voice-overs, or flashbacks to him preaching from his works...some narrative about who he was and where he had been. But no...this is what we got. Hardly fitting for a hero of the Faith. | 0neg
|
I never understood why some people dislike Bollywood films: they've got charismatic actors, great dance numbers, and heightened emotion--what's not to like? What I didn't realize was that I had only seen the upper-crust of Bollywood. Then I watched "Garam Masala". I could tell from the first scene that this was not a movie I was going to like (the film opens with a montage of the two leads driving around a city and apparently happening serendipitously on a series of photo setups populated with gyrating models), but I kept hoping things would improve. Sadly, they didn't. The main problem is that the two protagonists, Mac & Sam, are completely unsympathetic. They spend the entire movie lying to women--and lying brutally- -in order to get them into bed, and the audience is supposed to find this funny, and be charmed. The boys are unscrupulous and inept, and not in a lovable way. Mac even goes so far as to have one of the women drugged in order to keep her from discovering his cheating. The script is extremely poor, with repetitive scenes, setups that never lead to anything, and illogical actions and statements by the characters. In fact, the characters are never really developed at all. The males are boorish, greedy jerks, and the women merely interchangeably beautiful. If you go by this movie, you would think that "air hostesses" are pretty easy to pass from man to man. In reality, betrayal is not so humorous. <br /><br />The only bright spots I found in the movie were one dance number that had brilliant sets, and a few slapsticky moments involving the French-farce, door-slamming aspects of the story. But Bollywood dancing is better enjoyed in movies choreographed by Farah Khan, and for slapstick you might as well just go straight to the silent comedies of Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd, who seem to have influenced writer/director Priyadarshan not a little. Priyadarshan also takes false credit for inventing the story: the basic premise of the plot is stolen from the 1960 play "Boeing Boeing." The original author of that work, Marc Camoletti, is credited nowhere. At least Priyadarshan changed the title for this remake, rather than brazenly using the original without giving credit, as he did in his 1985 version of this same tale. (According to IMDb's credits list.) | 0neg
|
Watched on Hulu (far too many commercials!) so it broke the pacing but even still, it was like watching a really bad buddy movie from the early sixties. Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis where both parts are played by Jerry Lewis. If I were Indian, I'd protest the portrayal of all males as venal and all women as shrews. They cheated for the music videos for western sales and used a lot of western models so the males could touch them I usually enjoy Indian films a lot but this was a major disappointment, especially for a modern Indian film. The story doesn't take place in India (the uncle keeps referring to when Mac will return to India) but I can't find out where it is supposed to be happening. | 0neg
|
Priyadarshan's HERA PHERI was a nice situational comedy This film however actually lacks a story but is quite funny but illogical<br /><br />In fact they is no proper story yet it somehow manages a nice flow though it isn't anything great<br /><br />The first half has 2 funny scenes like the one where Akshay and John invite Neha for a lunch and another when Paresh enters<br /><br />The first half gets boring slowly but the second half is funnier though they is no script <br /><br />The jokes are funny though one does wonder how they never hear each person's voices from inside the rooms?<br /><br />The climax confusion is treated like a stage play but it's quite funny But the film ends abruptly<br /><br />Direction is okay Music is good<br /><br />Akshay Kumar excels in his part which is now become his second skin, but this is his film completely and he overshadows everyone else<br /><br />John stumbles throughout and fails in comedy Paresh Rawal is hilarious Rajpal is okay The girls are loud at times and awkward too Nargis, Daisy and Neetu(only Neetu is seen now) are good in parts but shriek too often Manoj Joshi is okay | 0neg
|
i have to say that this was the worst film of priyadarshan(releasing alongside much better kyonki which was also his directorial venture) ,it contains no specific storyline and just focuses on body showing by debuting actresses and some silly comedy sequences. I think priyadarshan is becoming too much repetitive in his comedy flicks just like govinda and David dhavan had done in the past after giving some good entertainers they also went on to loose their audiences.So it will be good for him to concentrate more on script and try some variations in his direction.Give us more of herapheri's and malamal weekly's rather than giving duds like garam masala! | 0neg
|
Do not waste your time with this movie. This is a total thrash in terms of acting, directing, sound editing, soundtrack... There was such a waste of performance by some of the very good actors. The movie does not do justice to Paresh Rawal who is perhaps one of the most talented actors in Bollywood. Akshay Kumar who is also an emerging star did quite a poor job. John Abraham, what is wrong with him? Is that what you call acting? I mean he should thank God that he has a pretty face otherwise he'd be winning Razzie awards in India if there were any such awards in Bollywood. Asrani a great talent, but overdoes his bit as before.<br /><br />Screenplay which was not to mention a rip-off from the 1965's Boeing Boeing was quite badly framed. First of all, people in Bollywood just can't make something original. On top of that they don't even know how to copy well. The jokes in the movie were so overdone, it was getting painful to sit through them. Priyadarshan may be a star in the south, but he's just not fit to make a decent Hindi movie. The sound editing is amazingly crappy. I can go on and on this matter, but the bottom-line is that Bollywood should be shameful of making such a film.<br /><br />The worst part is that some people seemed to love this movie. What is wrong with you guys? This is the reason why Bollywood is where it is. Did you know that Bollywood makes more movies than Hollywood every year, however, most of the movies are unheard of abroad, because of movies like this one. I am an Indian and I am utterly shameful of Bollywood for producing this piece of thrash. Movies like Dil Chahta Hai and Lagaan were just terrific. They are world class films which are timeless... among the best of this decade. Garam Masala, however, is perhaps one of the worst of this century. Period.<br /><br />I give it a 1 out of 10. | 0neg
|
It begins on a nice note only to falter quickly and let down expectations.<br /><br />Mac (Akshay Kumar) and Sam's (John Abraham) characters are not properly built before Mac's boss decides to hitch him with three air hostess. Rest of the drama is about how Mac, Sam and Uncle Mambo (Paresh Rawal) deal with situations which at times seem forced.<br /><br />About the cast, Paresh Rawal is a very talented actor, I thought was wasted in the role of a moody cook. Akshay Kumar is tolerable, John Abraham is very bad keeps stumbling over furniture & Rajpal Yadav is the only saving grace in the movie. <br /><br />The second half of the movie is funny at times, but in all a DUD (songs are boring) and a major let down if you are hoping for some wholesome entertainment and comedy. | 0neg
|
Probably the worst Bollywood film I've seen.<br /><br />No plot line. Very little character developments.<br /><br />Full of silly and pointless humor. The whole film was chaotic and direction-less. There was no proper ending to the story. The airport was filmed in a shopping mall. <br /><br />Same story chewed over and over again until you want to say "please, just move on with it!!" Even the song and dance was pointless and badly choreographed.<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie is that there were hot bods all around... but then most of the Bollywood movies have that anyways these days.<br /><br />Btw I'm not from an Indian background<br /><br />2/10 | 0neg
|
The first half hour of the movie had a steady pace and introduced the characters. however all of a sudden everything was happening too quick, a lame reason for Akshey Kumar to date 3 girls, very loud over acting by both Akshey and John Abraham. Neha Dupia was the highlight of the movie, Paresh Rawal did well but not as good as his performance in Hera Pheri. overall this movie was the biggest disappointment the film does no justice to its trailer. save your money and don't watch this movie, watch Hera Pheri and Hungama again!<br /><br />summarising it: a cheap stage show performance and appearance to the film no story or substance, the plot was extraordinarily non-sense good music by Preetam the man who bought us Dhoom! keep it up! movie shot all in one room, new comers (female cast) were okay as it was their first film but established actors like Akshey and John totally disappointed an established director like Priyadarshan gives his worst movie ever! | 0neg
|
I watched the Malayalam movie "Boeing Boeing" made in 1985 (which in turn is probably inspired by an English movie of same name) long back. The basic story of garam masala is the same - but it is told in a pathetic way, the classy jokes replaced by routine ones which are found in normal Hindi movies (probably the director did this to suit the taste of Hindi audience)... <br /><br />I haven't seen the English original. But had really enjoyed the Malayalam film (made by Priyadarshan himself)which was a side splitting comedy, back then. Of course the acting by Mohanlal,Mukesh and Sukumari (who did the cook's role) was so natural and spontaneous.<br /><br />Probably, I am too smitten by the Malayalam film that I cannot tolerate even the smaller flaws in its Hindi remake. But I still feel that Akshay Kumar and John Abraham have overacted. Paresh Rawal has done a decent job - but doesn't reach anywhere near Sukumari.<br /><br />But all in all its OK, if one compares it to other recent Hindi comedy movies. | 0neg
|
Contrary to its title, this film offers no spice and thus audience is subjected to a tasteless dish. All Humor appears forced, theatrical, mechanical, staged, reminiscent of those Pakistani plays available on video, including even the mannerisms. Everybody is screaming, shouting and doing odd things for no reason. The premise looks interesting as it is a straight lift from Hollywood's 'Boeing Boeing". John Abraham who is so natural in almost all his films is a complete misfit here. If we keep morality factor aside, even then the bizarre events looks trite. Akshay Kumar and Paresh Rawal, two experienced stalwarts try hard to lift the film by being natural but in vain. At least, the characters of three girls should be made contrasting in order to bring some interesting elements but sadly here too all of them appears those brainless, buxomed bimbettes (3Bs) who talk, behave and even scream in quite similar fashion. The major hole in the plot is what made the protagonist keep the three girls at his same home pretending that they will never get to know about each other? Just to do some Sex, what else? The same could be done in hundreds of other ways. Therefore so much dramabaazi for no reason is not something audience will digest easily. But surely, great flesh show and tempting promos always gives such films a great initial. Now for those who call it a situational comedy, I call it a pathetic taste. Sense of humor of such cinema going audience is surely gone corrupted and demented to the extent that they are connecting to a sadistic, weird and maddening type of humor, where it is not the characters that they laugh at but rather at themselves and at their own frustrations that look how senseless we have become that in order to laugh we have to bear with such things? | 0neg
|
Well, maybe I'm just having a bad run with Hindi movies lately. I asked the video store guy for Apharan (Prakash Jha) but being a new release, wasn't available yet. So I had to settle for this one. It turned out to be the stupidest Hindi movie I've seen (and I've seen quite a few). No wonder BOllywood is the laughing stock of the whole world! If IMDb had negative ratings, I would give Garam Masala a -10.<br /><br />I remember seeing a TV show about the jazzy premiere they had for its release in Mumbai. All the usual celebs and their sideys showed up. For some strange reason, people expect good stuff from Piyadarashan. I did not like Hulchul, Hungama, or his other films. Hulchul, probably dubbed from Tamil or Telugu, came across as very loud, in-your-face fare that again didn't make much sense except in a Bollywood flick. This latest piece of utter CXXP proved that this guy has NO BRAINS. Who made him a director, even a Bollywood director at that??? <br /><br />Anyhow, to the film now. What starts off as a romantic escapade turns into a non-sensical woman-hunt. Two fashion photographers working for a magazine share an apartment (isn't it similar to No Entry where the 2 dudes work for a gossip magazine and share an office? Jezuz Christ, now they're copying their own stories!) Well anyways, there's some cook or chef that tries to help one of the dodos in his quest for multi-lateral love (aka multi-tasking + multi-timing). What happened in the end, I've no idea. I switched off mid-way. What ridiculous junk. I can't believe they even released it. And how sadistic to wallow in their own filth! For which audience did they make it - the poor illiterate Indian masses (700 Mil at last count) or the well-heeled NRI desis staying in Phoren? Either ways it doesn't matter. Neither group has any clue what makes a good movie and probably deserves such god-awful stuff.<br /><br />Its a short review because there's nothing to write about but the usual bag of F-grade garbage. Bollywood should change its name to Follywood. And yes, this review is much better than the movie itself. | 0neg
|
The Priyadarshan/Paresh Rawal combo has been golden before with the likes of HERA PHERI and HUNGAMA so I went into the movie (at an Indian multiplex) with high hopes, especially after the slick promos. Unfortunately, like HULCHUL before it, this movie was a huge disappointment.<br /><br />Like others have commented, the premise of the movie, which was already stale to begin with, just gets stretched on and on without any development or additional layering. After a while, you just want the movie to end so you can go home (if I had been watching this at home, it would have been much easier to cut my losses). Akshay Kumar's performance is average at best and John Abraham should not try doing comedy again. The comedy aspects of the movie overall were pretty week. I only remember giggling like twice the entire movie. Definitely no sidesplitting belly laughs that consumed me in HERA PHERI or even to a lesser extent in AWARA PAAGAL DEEWANA. Paresh Rawal had a few of his expected classic moments, but overall, because his role and character wasn't given much room to grow, he didn't make much of an impact in this film.<br /><br />Neha Dhupia, who makes only an appearance in the movie, was fun to look at while she was on screen. And some of the songs are fun. Especially the opening and closing songs of ADA and KISS ME BABY, respectively. Otherwise, you're better off just passing on this movie. | 0neg
|
The movie was a huge disappointment. Especially since it was directed by Priyadarshan, it was sad to see such dismal standards. Poor screenplay(almost non existent) and song sequences with bad songs every minute and at the most odd times killed whatever humor the movie could offer. some of the scenes were funny, but it amounted to probably only 5 mins of the whole duration. The editing was pathetic. Dismal! overall the movie disappointed as the lack of story was only too evident. In fact only a few people stayed to watch the second half of the movie after the interval.<br /><br />One wouldn't miss anything at all if you don't watch the movie. Not worth spending valuable ticket money on this movie. wait till it appears on TV... | 0neg
|
Watching That Lady In Ermine I was wondering what Betty Grable was doing in a project that seemed to be aimed for Marlene Dietrich to do. Someone over at 20th Century Fox may have decided one sex symbol is as good as another. Darryl F. Zanuck should have known better.<br /><br />Betty plays a 19th century Italian countess whose domain has been invaded by a troop of Hungarian Hussars captained by Douglas Fairbanks, Jr. Her ghostly ancestor whose portrait hangs in the palace hall along with the rest of her distinguished family tree, sees no small resemblance in Doug now and another invader some 300 years earlier whom she dealt with when armies failed.<br /><br />Besides that the current Betty has just been married to Cesar Romero and the invasion has come at a most inopportune moment, before things have been consummated. That's going to give anyone a bad attitude, I guarantee.<br /><br />Fresh, wholesome all American Betty is NOT the actress to do seductive and mysterious. Marlene Dietrich might have put this over, but with Betty it falls flatter than yesterday's presidential candidate. She and Fairbanks have no chemistry at all, though Doug is as charming as ever and someone I can watch in anything.<br /><br />Frederick Hollander and Leo Robin wrote the score for this film and This Is The Moment got an Oscar nomination for Best Song. That Lady In Ermine's one chance for Oscar glory fell to Buttons And Bows.<br /><br />Ernest Lubitsch died midway during the film and Otto Preminger finished That Lady In Ermine. I can't believe Lubitsch had Grable in mind for the lead here. Neither will you if you see That Lady In Ermine. | 0neg
|
This miserable film is a remake of a 1927 film. They should have let it remain that way.<br /><br />What a colossal bomb! Douglas Fairbanks displays absolutely no charisma here. Cesar Romero is subjected to a role as a real jerk and Bette Grable sings with a chorus- What I'll Do to that Hungarian!<br /><br />The ridiculous plot deals with a picture of a woman in a castle in 1561 Rome that saved the day by killing a conqueror. (Fairbanks) Now, let's fast forward to 300 years later, where Grable, just married to the Count Romero, faces a similar situation, when on her wedding night, there is an invasion by Hungarian soldiers.<br /><br />Romero acts cowardly and flees before the army arrives. He disguises himself as a gypsy and is made to remain at the castle when his violin playing pleases Fairbanks. The ending is worse than the entire wretched film when Grable meets Fairbanks to tell him the good news-an enraged Romero has annulled the marriage.<br /><br />This poor imitation of a movie was made in 1948. As Harry Davenport, a veteran supporting player who is in it, died in 1949; this must have been his last film. What a bomb to go out with after such a distinguished career.<br /><br />Walter Abel co-stars but he can do little with such poor writing. The costumes look more like those that would come out of the stone age. I can't fathom what Fairbanks was wearing. | 0neg
|
The final film for Ernst Lubitsch, completed by Otto Preminger after Lubitsch's untimely death during production, is a juggling act of sophistication and silliness, romance and music, fantasy and costume dramatics. In a 19th century castle in Southeastern Europe, a Countess falls for her sworn enemy, the leader of the Hungarian revolt; she's aided by her ancestor, whose painted image magically comes to life. Betty Grable, in a long blonde wig adorned with flowers, has never been more beautiful, and her songs are very pleasant. Unfortunately, this script (by Samson Raphaelson, taken from an operetta by Rudolf Schanzer and E. Welisch) is awash with different ideas that fail to mesh--or entertain. The results are good-looking, but unabsorbing. *1/2 from **** | 0neg
|
Let me start out by saying that I used to really like Betty Grable, particularly from "Down Argentine Way", but by the time she got around to this disaster, she had also got "round" and frankly the whole film was an embarrassment. Costarred with Douglas Fairbanks JNr (who must have been fairly desperate) the story was bad, the colours good, and the film far too long. It had some of the old standbys in it like Harry Davenport and Reginald Gardiner to try and stimulate interest but with no success. The music score was woeful, and I have to say not one tune was memorable in any way....as I was such a fan of Miss Grable, I always wish I had never seen this one! | 0neg
|
I get the feeling that the producers of this mess were out to make the most painful, ridiculous Western ever made. "PAINFUL" is the best word I can think of to describe it.<br /><br />On the plus side you have nice color photography and beautiful and well-spoken Rhonda Fleming. My sympathy goes to Jacques Aubuchon (who played the cripple), who acted well enough in an annoying role, written so atrociously that no actor could give an enjoyable performance. The production values were quite good, which only served to highlight the terrible story and screenplay.<br /><br />Things I hated: Stewart Granger looked so little like a western figure, what with his British accent, neat tailored outfit, and silly immaculate always-white kerchief tied around his neck. It got tiresome the way the townspeople and his son were constantly haranguing and insulting Granger, and he never spoke up or replied back. I know we are supposed to suspend disbelief and appreciate Westerns as symbolic morality plays, but this one broke the spell with it laughably unrealistic and predictable scenes, the worst being at the end where Granger miraculously, speedily and single-handedly plants dynamite around a canyon pass that the bad guy's cattle will pass through, and then Granger plants himself in the perfect spot so he can shoot the dynamite from a very far distance to create rock slides to bury and spook the cattle and bad guys, seemingly destroying them all, save the two main bad guys. Next worst is everything about the plot, which is loaded with soap opera scenes. Nothing in the movie seemed believable: I couldn't believe what all the conflict was about. The bad guy was driving his herd through to market and wanted the cows to chew some grass along the way; I don't see why something couldn't have been worked out. You need a land ownership dispute for that? Don't bother to see it. | 0neg
|
I'm a big fan of the old westerns, and do not believe that Hollywood is capable of capturing its old glory. But not even Ronda Fleming and Stewart Granger can help this 1957 movie which carries nearly all the trite characteristics of westerns of the reformed gunfighter turned good guy. fallen but virtuous woman, bigoted townspeople who must turn to gunfighter for salvation, etc. I can't help but notice the last names of the writer and young "actor" who plays Granger's son. Any nepotism there? I've seen better acting in high school plays. Chill Wills plays a cartoon characterization of Chill Wills. Have I reached the 1000 words yet? | 0neg
|
SAPS AT SEA <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.37:1<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />(Black and white)<br /><br />Suffering from 'hornophobia', Ollie embarks on a 'restful' boat trip, but he and Stan get mixed up with an escaped convict (Rychard Cramer). Chaos ensues.<br /><br />This feature length comedy - an OK entry which nonetheless unspools like a mere imitation of Laurel and Hardy's best work - marked the final collaboration between L&H and producer Hal Roach. Episodic in structure, the movie culminates in a memorable ocean voyage after The Boys are taken hostage by villainous Cramer (who shoots a seagull to prove how tough he is!). The gags are OK, but inspiration is lacking, perhaps due to the recruitment of actor-turned-director Gordon Douglas, previously responsible for Ollie's first solo effort in the sound era (ZENOBIA, produced in 1939), but whose work here lacks a measure of pzazz. Fair, but nothing special. L&H regulars Charlie Hall and James Finlayson make guest appearances. | 0neg
|
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are the most famous comedy duo in history, and deservedly so, so I am happy to see any of their films. Basically a man at a horn factory is the fourth to crack, and soon enough Ollie cracks with all the horn noises. He is resting at home with Stan by his side, needing quiet, and the Doctor (James Finlayson) phones to say he is coming over to check on Ollie. After realising plumbing and electricity is muddled up by a cross-eyed repairman, the Doctor comes in for a check-up, and after some tests, he recommends drinking goat's milk and getting some sea air on the ocean. After Stan practises some trumpet playing, hanging out the window by the phone cord and a car crash, he and Ollie to a dock to rent a boat. They keep the boat on the dock trying to milk a goat, and Stan has brought his trumpet! Meanwhile, the newspaper's front page reads that Killer Nick Grainger - Escaped Convict (Richard Cramer) has escaped, and he sneaks onto the boys' boat while they are sleeping, and the goat chews through the boat rope, drifting out to sea. In the morning, the see their location, and the Killer comes out demanding something to eat, and he spots Stan and Ollie making fake food, e.g. string for spaghetti, soap for cheese, belt for bacon, sponge for meatballs, and he forces them to eat it. When Ollie starts choking on something, Stan blows his trumpet to help, and Ollie's rage gets him punching the Killer, and it keeps going till the police arrive, only to have Ollie's rage get them put in prison too. There were the tiniest moments of comedy, but it isn't a great black and white film. "Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!" was number 60 on 100 Years, 100 Quotes, and Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy were number 7 on The Comedians' Comedian. Okay! | 0neg
|
The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.<br /><br />While I have scored many episodes 10, this one gets a 3 simply because it was bad. The writing was in fact embarrassingly bad. Two people from opposing sides in a great war are seen wandering about through the entire episode. After a while, it's apparent that they are the only two people left on Earth--as you learn in the really stupid and totally unconvincing conclusion. Usually the twist at the end makes the episode great--this one killed it! | 0neg
|
Firstly I would like to point out that I only know of the show due to my younger sister always watching it. I find it the most annoying program on TV. There is nothing funny about any of the 'jokes' and the canned laughter is unbearable. The show would work much better if filmed in front of a live audience. That way the laughter would show just how 'unfunny' the show is. However I give credit to the acting talents of the young cast. It sickens me however to think that they'll look back on the show in the future and see how bad their first TV show was. The show links in well with the overall annoying voices and style of the CBBC presenters. Why the youth of today need to be shouted at so much is beyond me. That is all. | 0neg
|
... and how they bore you right out of your mind! The Crater Lake Monster is one of the classic BAD films from the 70's made with no actors of any note, an embarrassing script, woeful direction, and a tireless desire to fuse "horror" with light comedy. This movie introduces a paleontologist who finds drawings of an aquatic dinosaur underneath Crater Lake...a meteor falls from the sky, and an aquatic dinosaur of the claymation variety begins to terrorize and eat the inhabitants surrounding Crater Lake. The whole matter is taken care of by Steve our local sheriff. Much of the film - when not showing pools of blood left behind from what we imagine must have been the beast dining - is spent following the bumbling antic of two guys named Arnie and Mitch who run a boat rental place. They try so bad to be funny, that we get lines like, looking at a business sign, Mitch saying to Arnie "You spelled bait wrong, it's spelled B-A-T-E." The laughs were rather scarce here. We then see them get drunk together and imagine a tree trunk to be the dinosaur. Laurel and Hardy watch out! The dinosaur looks fake, but the movie is fun in a bad way. And at the very least, the lake is beautiful. | 0neg
|
****Don't read this review if you want the shocking conclusion of "The Crater Lake Monster" to be a total surprise****<br /><br />A claymation plesiosaur rises from the depths of Crater Lake to wreak havoc on a group of local rednecks, not to mention your fast forward button. To call "The Crater Lake Monster" amateurish is to overstate the obvious. If you aren't a fan of low budget drive-in films, you probably wouldn't be looking here in the first place.<br /><br />The problem with the movie is that when there's no monster action going on, it really sucks and goes nowhere. The script is very Ed Wood-ish, in that it's utterly contrived in the way it sets up the main action sequences. Nothing is too outlandish for "The Crater Lake Monster". It explains its dinosaur by having a meteor crash into Crater Lake, 'superheating' the water to the point where it incubates a dinosaur egg that has apparently been resting at the bottom of the lake for millennia. Even if we could accept that the egg could have been lying there for so long and remained uncovered and viable, wouldn't "superheating" the water to such a high temperature cause most of the lake to evaporate? Other than some token fog in one or two scenes, we see no evidence of the water being hot, other than a few lines in the script.<br /><br />The script is padded rather obviously in a few sequences, and it will do anything to get the characters near the lake so that they can be menaced by the claymation dino. A couple just passing through experiences car trouble and while their automobile is being serviced, they decide to rent a boat and head out into Crater Lake. Hmmmm...do you think these strangers in the story could be there so they would run into our title monstrosity? In a sequence that's just plain bizarre, a drunk robs a liquor store and decides to murder the cashier and a bystander instead of paying four dollars for a bottle of booze. A car chase ensues, and wouldn't ya know it...they end up right by the lake. Snack time for Cratey! Yeah, it's not hard to figure out, and you're so far ahead of the script that you're irritated when it takes another ten minutes for these scenes to unfold.<br /><br />The shamelessness of it all is endearing, and I really want to like "The Crater Lake Monster". I just can't do it. There's not enough here to go on, and this is more of a movie to put on during a party, because you could talk right over it and it wouldn't matter. <br /><br />The film has a slim list of the things going for it, the most important being the dinosaur itself, which appears in three forms: a shadow puppet, a large model head that is dragged woodenly through the water, and a fully realized claymation insert that actually looks pretty good. There are also a pair of lovable hicks in it, and they carry the majority of the intentional humor in the movie. A downbeat ending leaves us mourning the death of both the monster AND one of our beloved hicks, so every good thing about this film is dead by the end of it. Why was I so affected by this conclusion? Was it the mournful song played over the closing credits? Or was I just weeping inwardly for the time that I waste watching films like this? | 0neg
|
We have a lake. We have an animated meteor crashing. We have a killer stop-motion dinosaur with flippers. Okay, so let's call this movie THE CRATER LAKE MONSTER. What else can we add? Hmm, two idiots called Arnie & Mitch to define the ultimate definition of "comic relief". We also got to have a sheriff who doesn't really do a damn thing in this film and whom nobody listens to. Aw crap, we're over halfway through the movie and we forgot to insert a bad guy! No worries, let's introduce some guy with a moustache, have him rob a store to indicate he's a bad guy, then have him pop up somewhere near the lake, have him chased through the woods and all this for the sole purpose of him ending up as dinosaur snack food. That should work.<br /><br />A complete, clumsy mess, this film. Its logic will twist your mind to force laughter out of you. The first film to feature Dave Allen as a "stop motion supervisor". After this one, he joined forces with Charles Band for several years until the the mid-nineties, when Band ran out of money to pay him, I guess. The dinosaur effects are charming and the whole film is pretty damn unintentionally funny. Unfortunately, that's about the only good thing that can be said for it.<br /><br />Good Badness? Yes. The mind-bending logic in the narrative should be enough reason to put it on the list. If not, Arnie & Mitch will do the trick. 3/10 and 8/10 | 0neg
|
Well, what are the odds! At the exact right moment that a few redneck amateur-scientists discover cave paintings indicating that some type of dinosaur monster might have inhabited the area thousands of years ago, a burning meteor crashes into the lake and spontaneously hatches a monster's egg that has been lying there
for over a thousand years, I suppose! "The Crater Lake Monster" is a movie that literally must be seen to be believed, but you better do so in the company of many friends and a pile of ganja in order to make the wholesome a little bit easier to digest. Yes, this is a terrible film with the utmost ramshackle screenplay imaginable and numerous irrelevant padding interludes that are downright embarrassing, but it's also irresistibly charming and so clumsily put together that you simply have to cherish some kind of fondness for it. Half of the film at least revolves on the wacky adventures of Arnie and Mitch. These two local yokels own and run a boat renting shop near the lake, but spend most of their days picking their noses and quarreling over fascinating stuff like to spell the word "bait". It is mostly during their prototypic Laurel & Hardy situations that new puddles of blood or decapitated heads are discovered in the lake. Steve Hanson, the heroic but not exactly sharp Sheriff is on the case, but only if he's not too busy chasing big city thugs traveling through the area. Halfway through the film, there suddenly is an abrupt scene about a thug robbing a liquor store and killing two people in the process. This textbook "WTF" moment appears to take on the complete other side of the country, like in New York City or something, and has absolutely nothing to do with the events going on at Crater Lake. Only like twenty minutes later the robber pops up again in Hicksville and there's an "exhilarating" chase through the woods, ending in the Dino's hungry muzzle. The absurd little details in "The Crater Lake Monster" are too numerous to mention! For example, this is probably the only creature-feature in which the players discover the obligatory gigantic footprint AFTER they already spotted the actual monster. The goofs in continuity should be legendary as far as I'm concerned. It's like everybody forgot to pay attention to it. Night turns into twilight into day and back into twilight
all during one and the same diurnal course! The monster is undeniably the best aspect about the film, especially since it's accomplished through good old fashioned and adorable stop- motion effects. The cute critter is a Plesiosaur; meaning an aquatic dinosaur looking like a crossbreed between Denver the Last Dinosaur and an alligator. "Crater Lake Monster" is a unique and unforgettable movie- experience that I can only encourage to track down! The miserable 1 out of 10 rating is just out of principle (and because basically, this IS a very bad film) should be put into perspective, because I might as well could have given it 10 out of 10 for sheer entertainment value. | 0neg
|
- The movie opens with a meteor crashing into a lake. Unbeknownst to the locals, a dinosaur egg is also at the bottom of the lake. The meteor heats the lake, turning it into a giant incubator. You guessed it, the egg hatches releasing a dinosaur that proceeds to terrorize the community.<br /><br />- What utter garbage. It's not that I mind the stop-motion clay dinosaur, it's everything else about the movie that bothers me. The acting is atrocious. The dialogue is utterly ridiculous. The comic relief is anything but comic. Logic is non-existent. Any similarity between the "scientists" in this movie and an actual scientist is purely coincidental. I could go on for an eternity on the bad aspects of this movie, but you get the idea. I feel it's fairly safe to call this disaster "MST3K Worthy". | 0neg
|
...and it is this film. I imagine that if indeed there is a negative afterlife, damned souls are tied to a rather uncomfortable couch and forced to watch this movie on a continuous loop for all eternity. <br /><br />Okay, maybe it's not that bad, but it is probably the worst film I have ever seen next to "Manos, the Hands of Fate"... and I have seen a lot of bad movies, believe you me. <br /><br />This is just a crummy B movie, bad film-making at it's finest(or is it worst?) The thing I really didn't like about this movie is the moronic duo they threw in for comedy relief. Now, a little comedy relief is a good thing, but most of the movie is focused on the adventures of these two morons, rather than on the "heroes" of this film, who are actually in it for less time than them! <br /><br />To be fair, Crown International really destroyed the movie by adding bad music and doing a poor job editing. But honestly, this was probably a bad film to begin with, so Crown really couldn't have done that much to hurt it. <br /><br />This really needs to be in the bottom 100 list. I wouldn't wish this one on my worst enemy. <br /><br />Actually, it's my kind of campy B movie. It was bad, but I still liked it, despite my one star rating. | 0neg
|
Man, what a scam this turned out to be! Not because it wasn't any good (as I wasn't really expecting anything from it) but because I was misled by the DVD sleeve which ignorantly paraded its "stars" as being Stuart Whitman, Stella Stevens and Tony Bill. Sure enough, their names did not appear in the film's opening credits, much less themselves in the rest of it!! As it turned out, the only movie which connects those three actors together is the equally obscure LAS VEGAS LADY (1975) but what that one has to do with THE CRATER LAKE MONSTER is anybody's guess
<br /><br />Even so, since I paid $1.50 for its rental and I was in a monster-movie mood anyhow, I elected to watch the movie regardless and, yup, it stunk! Apart from the fact that it had a no-name cast and an anonymous crew, an unmistakably amateurish air was visible from miles away and the most I could do with it is laugh at the JAWS-like pretensions and, intentionally so, at the resistible antics of two moronic layabouts-cum-boat owners who frequently squabble among themselves with the bemused local sheriff looking on. The creature itself a plesiosaur i.e. half-dinosaur/half-fish is imperfectly realized (naturally) but, as had been the case with THE GIANT CLAW (1957) which I've also just seen, this didn't seem to bother the film-makers none as they flaunt it as much as they can, especially during the movie's second half! | 0neg
|
This is one of the worst movies i have ever seen it's EXTREMELY boring with lots of boring dialog and has some VERY annoying characters and a laughable looking creature. The only reason i watched this piece of garbage is because it was on that 8 disc horror set i got. The plot is preposterous and totally stupid as is the finale. No blood what so ever except a few bloody marks on the creature, and a couple of bloody gunshot wounds. The acting is TERRIBLE!!. Richard Cardella is terrible as the sheriff and was quite laughable plus his character is annoying. Glen Roberts is the comic relief and was not funny at all!. Mark Siegel is extremely annoying and was also NOT FUNNY!. Bob Hyman is decent but not much more then that. Richard Garrison is annoying and had no chemistry with Kacey Cobb what so ever. Kacey Cobb is so so here and had no chemistry with Richard. Overall Avoid this piece of garbage at all costs! BOMB out of 5. | 0neg
|
A meteor hit's Crater Lake (hence our title), awakening a Plesiosaur, who proceed's to snack on the hick population (in California, that hick capital of the world.) <br /><br />There's bad movies, and then there's "The Crater Lake Monster", which somehow managed to escape MST3K. Featuring grating acting, a decent stop-motion beast, and more, this is a dreadful piece of 1970's low budget exploitation/monster movie dreck.<br /><br />While the movie is guilty of many crimes, the biggest one is Arnie and Mitch, two obnoxious rednecks who serve as our comic relief. They bumble around, fight to stock "banjo music",ogle women, and act like pathetic excuses of humanity. The characters are so bad, they should count as a crime against humanity. | 0neg
|
A handful of nonprofessional actors are terrorized by a prehistoric creature. This creature appears in about thirty seconds of marginal stop-motion animation, but oh how you will long for that margin when for the rest of the movie the animation is replaced by production assistants waving around an inner tube with teeth. No time for terror when this movie is hijacked halfway through by these comic relief boat rental doofuses, who suddenly become the lead characters; but again you gotta admit watching them try to be funny is better than plodding around after the sheriff. Only at the end one of them gets eaten and the other one is left sitting on a rock crying tears of loneliness - that's no fun! | 0neg
|
The Crater Lake Monster is easily one of the most awful, amateurish film I've ever seen - ranking right up there with Manos, the Hands of Fate in terms of poor acting, useless direction, and kindergarten-level production values. In this movie a silly-looking claymation/stop-motion animated dinosaur wakes up after a meteor hits a lake in Bumblebum, CA, and begins dining on the local hayseeds. In the thrilling climax, the creature, described by one local as "a giant alligator with flippers", drags it's ponderous bulk over the ground to chase its would-be lunch, before a bulldozer bumps it a couple of times & it dies from boredom. Every character in this moovie is a complete moron. One pointless subplot shows a hick go into a liquor store to purchase a $4.75 pint of Ripple; instead of simply buying the bottle, the idiot shoots the cashier and another bystander, shoots at a cop, gets chased towards the lake, all so that he can eaten by the monster. Unfortunate close-ups of the monster reveal it to be nothing more than a piece of styrofoam. There's a fake magician struggling with a phony British accent (to make him seem more legit), two overly-bumbling redneck boat renters, some cheesy "pre-historic cave art" done in crayon, and annoying banjo-pickin' background moosic. In one painful scene, the fake magician and his dopey wife/girlfriend/accomplice manage to pad the movie an extra 4 minutes by cowmenting on how may stars they can see in the night sky, even though it is clearly day time still. Even on constant fast-forward, this moovie hurts, and hurts bad. MooCow says call the fumigators, 'cause this cow pie really stinks! :=8P | 0neg
|
I've read a few books about Bonnie and Clyde, and this is definitely MORE accurate than the Beatty/Dunaway version, in that its costumes and locales echo actual photographs taken of the gang. Particularly well done is the death of Buck Barrow, and the capture of his wife Blanche. This actress looks looks exactly like the photographs taken that day of Blanche grieving over her dying husband. However, this movie is still Hollywood, and our anti-heroes stay pretty to the end, even after being shot full of holes (in life, Bonnie was badly burned in an auto accident the year before their famous ambush, and did not look like a perky cheerleader at the time of her death). The script is tedious, and the acting is poor, particularly the leads. Very disappointing. Stick with Beatty and Dunaway. Their's may not be "the true story," but it's a great film. | 0neg
|
Here we have 2 misunderstood kids who never stood a chance against a cruel, poverty riddled existence: Robin Hoods singled out by the police for persecution because they were a trifle wild at times. Gad! According to this crap Bonnie was the sweetest little thing west of the Missouri who was taught to be a psychopathic murderer by a fun loving boyfriend who didn't really want to hurt anybody....he just wanted things without putting a lot of energy into getting them. Badly acted, poorly filmed, unbelievable dialogue, unrealistic use of weaponry, gore that looked more like grape jelly than the real thing. Avoid this bilgewater. Thumbs down. -5 stars. | 0neg
|
Even though this was a made-for-TV production, there's absolutely no excuse for the rock bottom results of the finished product. This movie DID have a budget and it had a casting department, so, if you're going to make a movie about a true life story, and actually put "the true story" in the title, shouldn't some effort be put forward to try and capture some realism ? First of all, this movie is absurdly cast. These actors belong in daytime television soaps, or in those ridiculous Lifetime channel movies, and not in a real-life gangster/criminal tale. Everything about them, from their looks to their mannerisms, just screams of the 90's-shopping-mall-alt-rock-listening generation. What about the script ? Two words describes it - stupid and insulting, and again it's way too 90ish sounding. I don't think the real Clyde Barrow ever uttered the words "I'm outta here." It's as if a bunch of "New Kids on the Block" fans got together and decided to make a really "kewl flick" about Bonnie and Clyde, you know, one that would be totally rad and rockin'. Well, this sticker doesn't even rank on the rad and rockin' scale. Everything that can be wrong with any kind of film is wrong here, from the casting and acting to the editing and music. Every single thing is grossly wrong....and it's infuriating that the parties responsible for this atrocious turkey had the nerve to put "the true story" in the title. It's certainly NOT the true story, but even worse, it's not even remotely entertaining as a mindless popcorn flick that's accepted on its own terms. Like I stated in my heading, it's simply horrible beyond words, on every level imaginable. Trust me on this, or watch at your own risk. | 0neg
|
While it contains facts that are not widely reported, it is not exactly the truth. They took a lot of liberties in rearranging events, excluding people, and using sets that do not meet the facts of their lives in the 30's. There were more than just Bonnie, Clyde, and W.D. in the gang at various times, and those people had as much to do with the facts as those included. Buck and Blanche went to convince Clyde to go straight much earlier than the one shootout, and in fact got drawn back into crime. Some of the events that were portrayed in daylight actually took place at night. Bonnie's wound was much more severe and never healed right. It was so bad she had to be carried around by someone until it healed up, and even then it stiffened up so she walked stiffly. Clyde also walked with a limp because while in prison he cut off a big toe. I know, I'm being nit picky, and it was a TV movie, but even without these factual errors in this "TRUE" story, the movie moves too fast from event to event and comes across more as several separate snapshots of their lives, rather than being a cohesive flowing story.<br /><br />I'd recommend reading a book or seeing a documentary if you want to get closer to the truth. | 0neg
|
Once again a film classic has been pointlessly remade with predictably disastrous results. The title is false as is everything about this film. The period is not persuasively rendered, and the leads seem way too young and too vapid to even be criminals. Arthur Penn's film had style, humor, a point of view, and was made by talented people. Even if the 1967 version didn't exist this would still be an unnecessary film. The 1967 version strayed from the facts, presented a glamorized version of Bonnie and Clyde, but it was exciting, and innovative for 1967, and it had some outstanding performances that allowed you to care. This 1992 remake seems culled from the original film rather than the truth as known and the actors in this version are callow, unappealing, and not the least bit interesting. By all means skip this one and hope the 2010 version will be better. Could it possibly be worse? | 0neg
|
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. | 0neg
|
If Todd Sheets were to come out and admit that this movie was intended to spoof the zombie genre, I would change my rating to an eight. Try to imagine a movie where every scene, line, and even every acting nuance was designed to be a parody. I could probably crap out alphabet soup, rearrange what was left of the letters, and still have a better script. Two scenes in particular come to mind when I think of this movie. SPOILER ALERT! One is when Mike's dad and the other dad walk, I repeat walk down a staircase jam packed with zombies. This is a small staircase and even though they brush up against the flailing undead, nothing happens to them. When they reach the end, the ex-marine turns around, says "God you're a horny bastard", and shoots only one. The other is in the military complex. The girl stabs a zombie with a machete and is immediately surrounded. The camera moves around her for roughly forty seconds, while she is surrounded by zombies at an arm's length away. She then almost casually runs out from the crowd and joins the other humans. SPOILER ALERT OVER! These scenes must be seen to be believed. Still, I enjoy this movie as much as almost any comedy just because it's so damn funny. Kudos to Todd Sheets for getting so many people in his movie and having the drive to make it but not really for anything else. | 0neg
|
Well, I bought the Zombie Bloodbath trilogy thinking it would be mindless gory fun. That's what it is, without the fun. This film truly is mindless, it is absent of any plot or character development, or any sort of storyline. The basic problem with this movie is the kills and gore. Basically, every kill looks EXACTLY the same. ZOmbies ripping someone apart. Yeah, that's okay, but you need some original kills too. I mean it got really lame, every kill looked exactly the same, filmed exactly the same way. Thats what killed me. I love gore, and the gore in this film did nothing for me. It was just boring. No storyline, just the same lame scene over and over again with a different person. I wanted to like this movie, too. I love shot on video gore movies...like Redneck Zombies. But I couldn't kid myself. This film has it's good points, but none of those are in the film. I understand that many of the "zombies" helped out with the flood and there were like over 100 zombies, which is pretty cool how they got so many people involved and helped out in the world. But overall, this is a terrible film. | 0neg
|
Every once in a while, a group of friends, with a minimal budget but bags of enthusiasm and talent, will create a low budget masterpiece that takes the world of horror by storm. Raimi and co. did it with The Evil Dead, Jackson and pals succeeded with Bad Taste; and Myrick and Sanchez made a mint with The Blair Witch Project.<br /><br />Director Todd Sheets and his chums, however, are destined to wallow forever in relative obscurity if Zombie Bloodbath is anything to go by. A lesson in how not to make a cheapo horror, this miserable effort (about a plague of flesh-eating zombiesnatch) serves as a reminder that, whilst many people these days have access to a video camera, most shouldn't take that as their cue to try their hand at making a full-length movie.<br /><br />It's not that Sheets hasn't got an eye for a nicely framed shot (some of his camera angles and movements are actually pretty good), but rather that a) he has a lousy script b) he has a lousy cast, and c) he doesn't realise that he has a lousy script and cast. Which means that the final film is amateurish in the extreme, and unlikely to be watched in its entirety by anyone other than zombie film completists (like me) or members of the cast and crew (like those who have given the film favourable comments).<br /><br />Zombie Bloodbath is obviously aimed at undiscriminating gore-hounds, and Sheets (who currently has an incredible 34 titles under his belt as a director) certainly goes out of his way to please, with buckets of offal and blood thrown about at every opportunity. But whilst these moments are undeniably yucky, they aren't particularly convincing, and soon get rather tedious.<br /><br />So, to summarise, this is a really bad film, with almost no redeeming features. Except for two:<br /><br />Firstly, it features the single greatest mullet in the history of film, as sported by Jerry Angell, who plays Larry (as well as several zombies). The magnificence of his barnet (coupled with a fetching moustache) is reason alone to watch this film.<br /><br />Secondly, it has 'pathetic stealth zombies': flesh-eating corpses that lie in wait for unfortunate victims to wander by, before leaping from their hiding place to launch a feeble attack, which requires almost no effort to escape from. Best known for lurking behind a door for hours waiting for someone to open it, 'pathetic stealth zombies' also occasionally hide behind low walls, or sit in churches posing as members of the congregation.<br /><br />Normally a film this bad would get 1/10 for me, but, in celebration of Jerry Angell's flowing locks, I will generously raise my rating to 2/10. | 0neg
|
I got myself a copy of this film thinking it was the 1964 film with 'Zombie Bloodbath' as one of it's alternative titles. Perversely, this film actually has a better rating on this site than the aforementioned title; which may mean that the other one is really bad! This film is pretty bad too; obviously you cant go into a film that calls itself 'Zombie Bloodbath' and expect to see a masterpiece, and in fairness it does live up to the title with the amount of gore on display...but it all feels very old and tired, which isn't helped by the atrocious acting and stupid plot line. It's just your average nuclear spill causing people to turn into zombies etc etc. The film kicks off with a sequence that sees people melting and that pretty much lets you know what you're in for; low quality zombie garbage. There's plenty of gore in the film, and it's a real good job otherwise the film would have been really boring. Zombie Bloodbath looks really cheap too, and was clearly put together by inexperienced filmmakers! The main influence seemed to be Romero's superior Day of the Dead, although it could really be just about anything that features zombies and gore. It all boils down to a typically predictable and pointless ending and overall I can't say I was impressed with it! | 0neg
|
OK, I really don't have too much to say about this film, other than this: I have seen over 4,000 films in my life, and more than 2,300 of those were horror films. While I have some difficulty deciding which is the best (as opposed to my favourite, which I can tell you is George A. Romero's DAWN OF THE DEAD), I can tell you without the slightest hesitation that Todd Sheets' ZOMBIE BLOODBATH is the absolute worst horror film I have ever seen.<br /><br />There is simply nothing positive I can say about this film. The acting, the dialogue, the directing, the make-up, the music... Every aspect of this film is simply so far below what is acceptable that it boggles my mind that this was ever even released.<br /><br />Even if you are a horror or zombie movie completist, please heed my warning and DO NOT waste your time on this garbage. There is no pleasure to be gotten from viewing this. You won't even get any laughs out of the utter ineptitude on display... Trust me. Please. | 0neg
|
and a 30,000$ budget and this movie still looks like it was made for 50$. You can tell from the first frame to the last that he didn't care one bit about the movies continuity or plot, he was just happy to be making a zombie movie. <br /><br />What the end result shows is a lazy film maker who loves zombie movies. It could have been great if he just had of given a care. The end result is endless zoom ins on poorly done gore, and even more poorly produced metal plays over it.<br /><br />What happens when you combine high hopes, big dreams, a decent budget, hard work, and one idiot behind the camera. | 0neg
|
Wow, this was a very bad movie... as read in other comments this movie has no plot, no character development, they possibly had some kind of script but it's difficult to tell based on the actual end result.<br /><br />The editing of this movie was really non-existent, it tends to jump from scene to scene without any connection or anything to assist the viewer in determining what is actually happening.<br /><br />All in all this is simply a low budget zombie flick that was not thought out at all, has bad acting, bad dialogue, bad everything.<br /><br />The only thing that saves this movie from a 1 or 2 is the gore factor, I think this must be where they spent whatever money they had to try to justify making this.<br /><br />Unless you are (like me) dedicated to finding and watching all the zombie flicks you can find, do not watch this. Period. | 0neg
|
A terrible amateur movie director (no, not Todd Sheets), his new friend and sister explore a cave. The friend and sister fall in and get rescued. Meanwhile a gang of horribly acted girls are defending their 'turf'. Whatever the heck that means. This film and I use the term VERY loosely is so bad that it's.. well bad. The humor is painfully unfunny, the "action" merely sad. Now I've seen some atrociously awful 'horror' films in my time & failed to grow jaded in my approach to watching low-budget films, yet I still weep openly for anyone who choose to sit through this. ONLY for the most hardened maschocists amongst you. but the rest run away FAST!!<br /><br />My Grade: F | 0neg
|
You wouldn't expect a movie like this to be good, and it isn't. It's a no budget, ultra violent zombie movie filmed with a bad looking hand-held camera...and it's hilarious. The actors obviously have never acted before and it shows in their terrible hilarious readings. There is no plot to be seen. The little plot I could find seemed to be that a government experiment escaped and a group of zombie seems to be terrorizing a couple families. The gore effects are actually some of the most sickening I've ever seen. It seems the gore effects people raided a butcher shop for all the body parts, and many scenes involve zombies dismembering people and eating their organs. It's a funny and sickening film, and it's about as bad as you can get in terms of any movie.<br /><br />My rating: BOMB/****. 90 mins. | 0neg
|
A Vietnam vet decides to take over a backwater town run amok, and anyone who steps in his path is eliminated (including women). Released to theaters just prior to "A Star Is Born", which turned his career around, this action-drama mishmash starring Kris Kristofferson is wildly off-kilter, thoughtless and mean-spirited. Filmed in Simi Valley, CA, the results are truly unseemly, with redneck clichés and mindless violence making up most of director George Armitage's script. Armitage has gathered a most curious '70s cast for his film, including Jan-Michael Vincent, Victoria Principal, Bernadette Peters, and, in a bit, Loni Anderson; however, the center of the whole thing is Kristofferson, who is gruff and rude throughout. It deserves points I suppose for being a completely unsympathetic drive-in thriller, but the bad vibes (and the ridiculous climax) coat the whole project like an ugly stain. *1/2 from **** | 0neg
|
Let's be honest here: the only reason anyone bought this, the only reason anyone reviewed this, and the only reason anyone could possibly claim to enjoy this is because David Lynch made it and because you want to have David Lynch's children. But guess what? Even David Lynch can produce a piece of crap.<br /><br />Maybe Lynch wanted you to transcend normality and experience absurdity in-itself as a pure subject-of-knowing. Maybe the atrocious, cacophonist sounds, and chicken-scratch visuals are supposed to imply something about humanity's place in the world, about our relation to the Real, about the absurdity of it all.<br /><br />Instead, it just says one thing to me: I just lost $20.<br /><br />If I wanted offensive for the sake of offensive, I could crank Hansen on high and let me ears bleed. If I wanted absurd for the sake of absurd, I could just take a dump on a plate and watch that for 33 minutes.<br /><br />There is a single redeeming quality to Dumbland -- it is meta, meta funny. That is, it is so bad that it isn't even funny because it's so bad. This fact, however, is a little funny.<br /><br />If you hate yourself and hate your money, then buy Dumbland. If not, spare yourself the agony. | 0neg
|
David Lynch's crude and crudely drawn take on South Park presents us with a nightmare of disturbing clichés about suburban middle class families. The father is a hideous monster with three teeth and a disproportionately large circular mouth-hole from which are uttered the most horrendous guttural noises, the son and mother are permanently horrified, incoherent creatures for whom terror is a way of life. A number of equally absurd characters are introduced throughout the series.<br /><br />Lynch is not famous for his comedies (i.e. On the Air, aspects of Wild at Heart), and I am not particularly fond of comedies in general. However, there were a couple of scenes in Dumbland which made me laugh out loud. There are some clever bits of animated cinematography - where Lynch conveys wide ranges of reaction in his characters through a syntactical arrangement of shots as opposed to facial expressions (which never really vary in Dumbland).<br /><br />I believe Lynch was really trying to give his audience a straight-forward, if disturbing, animated comedy here. Interestingly, he chose to follow in the footsteps of the recent wave of ultra-low-brow humor (i.e. most Will Farrell films) while adding elements of vicious social critique and classic cartoon violence and gross-out humor. While the blend doesn't really work very well here, it is nothing if not Lynchian.<br /><br />Worth seeing by Lynch fans. | 0neg
|
In film, I feel as though it should be more than just art. I think it should be more than that, a way to tell a story on screen. This short from David Lynch tells a story but not much of one. I felt that it was funny but too bizarre to be a comedy. It is good film-making but there really isn't anything else to it. As I've said before, I am a huge David Lynch fan but I get frustrated by some of his work because I don't see a need for it at all. This is definitely my least favorite thing he has done so far but I know he's still got a ton of talent and I am excited to see what he has in store for us in the future. If you like Lynch, check this out but don't be surprised when you don't like it very much. | 0neg
|
I'm somewhat of a fan of Lynche's work, so I was excited when I found this DVD. Unfortunately, I was very let down. It's a series of short cartoons which attempt to show a disturbing and disgusting sort of humor. The animation is very crude, no doubt done using Macromedia. Each cartoon has a big fat guy beating up his family and generally acting like a jerk to everyone he knows. <br /><br />For people who are not familiar with this vein of animation, they will probably be somewhat impressed by it. However, if you've spent much time on Newgrounds.com, like me, then these cartoons will be no different than any of the other stuff you've seen before. Many of the popular amateur artists on Newgrounds are doing much better work than what was shown on this DVD. If Lynch submitted this work to the website, then he would blend in perfectly with some of the better of Newgrounds artists. But, since I saw this on DVD, instead of on Newgrounds, I give it a 4/10, instead of a 7/10, as I would have otherwise. These cartoons are fit for the internet, but with a name like David Lynch on it, I expected better quality both in story and in animation. | 0neg
|
Lynch. The man has some really great stuff! He knows how to disturb us, then reward us by getting us think in different ways. This, however, is altogether different. Dumbland's reward is 1% absurd comedy, earned by enduring 99% stupidity. I may have laughed once, but somewhere around episode 4 I just started watching on fast-forward. Didn't miss a thing. I felt relieved when it ended, and that's part of the point with this series. It's an annoying series about annoying characters in annoying situations, rounded out with annoying animation, voices and sound. But recognizing this and its other absurdist qualities still fails to make Dumbland worthwhile. | 0neg
|
I am a great fan of David Lynch and have everything that he's made on DVD except for Hotel Room & the 2 hour Twin Peaks movie. So, when I found out about this, I immediately grabbed it and...and...what IS this? It's a bunch of crudely drawn black and white cartoons that are loud and foul mouthed and unfunny. Maybe I don't know what's good, but maybe this is just a bunch of crap that was foisted on the public under the name of David Lynch to make a few bucks, too. Let me make it clear that I didn't care about the foul language part but had to keep adjusting the sound because my neighbors might have. All in all this is a highly disappointing release and may well have just been left in the deluxe box set as a curiosity. I highly recommend you don't spend your money on this. 2 out of 10. | 0neg
|
I hate to throw out lines like this, but in this case I feel like I have to: the American remake of THE GRUDGE is by far the worst film I have seen in theaters in the last 5 years. There, I said it. And now that I have gotten that out of my system, please let me explain why.<br /><br />"When someone dies in the grip of a powerful rage, a curse is born. The curse gathers in that place of death. Those who encounter it will be consumed by its fury." That is the premise of THE GRUDGE and I will admit it sounds intriguing. Unfortunately, the filmmakers take it no further. Those who encounter the "curse" are indeed consumed by its fury and that is all you get. You want more? Well too bad. Some critics and fans are pointing out that the sole purpose of THE GRUDGE is to scare you. The problem is that when there is no plot to speak of, creepy images and sounds can only go so far. Director Takashi Shimizu, pulling a George Sluizer and remaking his own original film(s), valiantly attempts to build atmosphere in the first hour by repeating the same scene over and over and over and over. It pretty much unfolds like this:<br /><br />-person walks into house<br /><br />-something flashes by the camera and/or a strange sound is heard <br /><br />-person goes to investigate<br /><br />-sound starts to get loud<br /><br />-person sees a ghost<br /><br />-loud scream and/or cat screech<br /><br />-cut to black<br /><br />Before the audience is even given a hint of plot, this exact same scenario unfolds 5 times in the first hour. The first time was actually somewhat creepy. Each subsequent use became laughable as the film went on. By the time the end of the film rolled around, my friend and I were laughingly wondering if this scene would end "with a loud scream and a cut to black." We were never proved wrong.<br /><br />The film has no liner storyline, instead unfolding in a series of vignettes that leave the audience jumbled. I have no problem with non-linear storytelling when it is done right. The film jumps from time period to time period with no rhyme or reason. I haven't seen a movie in such a state since the opening of the theatrical version of HIGHLANDER 2. And this storytelling technique mars any sort of mystery that film could have possibly had. If you already know the ghosts have scared two characters to death, how is it shocking when their bodies are found in the attic? And why should we care when a detective tries to investigate the mysterious disappearances when we already know what happened to everyone?<br /><br />Obviously greenlit the second the American version of THE RING made $15 million its first weekend, THE GRUDGE is nothing but calculated imitation disguised as an actual movie. The scariest things about THE GRUDGE are that it made $40 million dollars its first weekend and some people consider it the "scariest movie ever made." I wonder what happens to those who get consumed by the fury of paying to see THE GRUDGE? | 0neg
|
OK when I saw the previews for this movie I thought it looked really scary and was quite excited to see it as were the group I was with. Now living in America especially during this election I see some very deceiving things but I have to say these previews were towards the top of list. I don't see how so many people could be scared by this movie. I only really noticed two real jump scenes and only jumped at one. The whole movie was extremely predictable and perhaps that messed up some of the jump scenes for me. As for the sound effects so many to be so frightened of I thought they were comical at best. Oh and the uhh catboy where did that come from and why? The worst noise in the whole movie had to be the weird groaning. How does that scare someone? I can make that noise easily. Now don't get me wrong I have always loved all those really bad scary movies that your just laughing the whole way through but I didn't even think this one had that going for it it was just plain out bad. | 0neg
|
This movie may seem scary on commercials, but the actual movie was a reason to vomit. This is a below below average, (even lower than that) and has no plot. I mean every house can make you feel scared and sure, a dead Japanese woman would scare the poop out of you, but so what? Make a movie that would appeal to watchers and not just show images of scared people and some hair (dead Japanese woman). Can you say "horrible rip-off of Samara (The Ring)"? Don't get me started with the "dead child". Not even that scary! So what? He has a cat and he can imitate it, big freaking deal! Just bury the poor zombies and save some lives that have the potential of being harmed by the Grudge! 1/10! Yuck! >.< | 0neg
|
My husband and I went to see this movie, being the horror movie buffs that we are. Two hours later I found myself wanting both my money and time back. I was so disappointed. The teasers for this film basically contained the best points of the film. There was nothing very scary about the film other than good timing on surprise entrances, etc. I found most of the 'scary' parts to be more comical than anything. After viewing other movies based on the works of Japanese writers, I have to conclude that what is deemed frightening in Japan is not what is frightening here in the US. My advice: If you are a fan of true horror movies, save yourself the pain of sitting through this one. I can't really say that I would recommend renting it either, unless you have a free rental coming to you. | 0neg
|
Okay, if you've seen The Ring, you've basically seen The Grudge. It's trying to be scary by just having freaky camera work and loud sounds, but it fails miserably. The plot, if you can call it that, is weak and rather full of holes, for instance, how would the care center have known that Yoko didn't show up for work when the people who lived in the house were not there? And it's not really clear what Bill Pullman's character had to do with anything. He just kind of came out of nowhere to advance the plot. It didn't make a lot of sense what happened to the original family. Who was hanging in the room, the little boy or the dad? And was Yoko alive or dead when the care center guy found her? There were too many unanswered questions and I was too bored to think about it more. | 0neg
|
This movie is really nothing besides an admittedly well-crafted series of tense sequences punctuated with an inevitable "gotcha!" at the end of each. Really, there is no character development and no real plot to speak of. There are only the most skeletal of motivations for the characters to do anything while they trudge forward to their unavoidable dooms. It's all just an excuse to show a creepy ghost kid (who seems to have gotten some of the family cat mixed up in his ectoplasm) and his ghost mom (with long black hair hanging in her face kind of like "The Ring") take down a bunch of cardboard cut-out, two-dimensional excuses for human characters.<br /><br />This English-language version of "The Grudge" is the equivalent of cinematic junk food; satisfying momentarily, but not really what you ought to be living on.<br /><br />Not recommended. | 0neg
|
this movie was horrible. I could barely stay awake through it. I would never see this movie again if I were payed to. The so-called horror scenes in it were increadably predictable and over played. There was really nothing about this movie that would have made it original or worth the $7.50 I payed to see it. Don't go see it, don't rent it, don't read about it online because any of these things would be a complete waste of your time. Sarah Michelle Geller gave a lackluster performance and really should be ashamed of herself for sullying her good name with this movie. Shame on you Sarah for being associated with this horrible, horrible movie. Horrible movie, no need to ever see it. | 0neg
|
Wow, what a total let down! The fact people think this film is scary is ridiculous. The special effects were a direct rip-off of "The ring." The story? Was there one? Not in my opinion..Just a bunch of flashy imaging. The entire film was a boring, stupid, mess. I guess there is always a market for bad films with good marketing campaigns. However, this is the worst horror film I have seen in years. And that Buffy chick? Well, she's a bad actress! As plastic as Barbie and just as talented..No, wait, that would be an insult to the talents of Barbie! I suppose many kiddies helped this film at the box office as it was PG-13, and had it been rated R, it would have bombed IMO! Stupid movie! | 0neg
|
Gee, what a crappy movie this was! I cannot understand what people find so scary about "The Grudge". The director plays one trick (I'd have to admit a very good one, that is brought to life very stylized) and then he repeats it for the rest of the movie over and over again. As a consequence I startled a few times in the first quarter of the movie, but once I knew the drill I practically fell asleep as The Grudge grew more and more predictable by the minute. To conclude, I can say that there are a lot better movies in the genre to begin with, that the so-called predecessor "The Ring" was way scarier and that buying a ticket for "The Grudge" is a waste of money. | 0neg
|
If you go see this movie you'll be holding a grudge against the movie theatre, the director, the producer, the actors and the person that told you to go see it! Shame on you, Sarah Michelle Geller, for putting your name and face to this poor excuse of a movie. It may have been more scary if the Japanese actors would have just spoken in Japanese instead of attempting to 'act' in English. I wanted to boo when the movie ended...a true disappointment after all of the hype on TV and movie trailers promoting this lame money maker. Sarah Michelle really didn't have to act at all to make this movie...she just practiced her frowning skills. Don't waste your time or money on this film. | 0neg
|
Imagine that you are asked by your date what movie you wanted to see, and you remember seeing a rather intriguing trailer about "The Grudge." So, in good faith, you recommend seeing that movie. It is the Halloween season, after all. And it did boffo box office this past weekend, so it must be pretty good...so you go.<br /><br />And you're actually in a state of shock when the movie ends the way it does, and you hear yourself audibly saying, "that can't be the end of the movie...." But, alas, it is. <br /><br />And imagine coming out of the movie theater being embarrassed and ashamed for recommending such a dog of a movie. You think that your date thinks you're a bonehead for suggesting such an atrocity, and your suggestion will certainly end a promising relationship. Actually, it was so bad that both of us cracked up laughing at how bad it was. I see no future for Miss Gellar in the movies, and suggest that she sticks to television in the future. Actually, it won't be long before she is consigned to flea-market conventions selling Buffy memorabilia, and it can't happen soon enough, if you ask me. Horrible, horrible, horrible. The plot didn't make sense; continuity was terrible. It's apparent that the whole ending was contrived to have a "Grudge II--The Return of 'Cat-Boy'." | 0neg
|
All the kids aged from 14-16 want to see this movie (although you are only allowed at 18). They have heard it is a very scary movie and they feel so cool when they watched it. I feel very sad kids can't see what a good movie is, and what a bad movie is. This was one of the worst movies i saw in months. Every scene you see in this movie is a copy from another movie. And the end? It's an open ending... why? Because it is impossible to come up with a decent en for such a stupid story. This movie is just made to make you scared, and if you are a bit smart and know some about music, you exactly know when you'll be scared. <br /><br />When the movie was finished and i turned to my friend and told (a bit to loud) him that this was a total waste of money, some stupid kid looked strange at me. These day i could make an Oscar with a home-video of my goldfish, if only i use the right marketing. | 0neg
|
***spoilers***spoilers***spoilers***spoilers<br /><br />There are bad movies and then there are movies which are so awful that they become affectionately comical in their ineptness. Such is the case with Columbia Pictures' 'The Grudge.' This cinematic atrocity began when an otherwise well intentioned American saw a Japanese made for TV film 'Ju-on' and was inspired to remake the movie in English. This began a virtual tsunami of bad decisions which circumnavigated the globe until it washed ashore in Orlando on October 21, 2004.<br /><br />The premise, and I use the word loosely, involves a house in Tokyo haunted by a skinny Momma ghost who looks like a cross between Margaret Cho and Alanis Morrisette, along with her ghastly sidekick a chubby, rambunctious but evil second grader. Is there anything scarier than a creepy 8 year old Japanese boy? Sure there is! Count Chocula comes to mind. With this whimsical bunch we must add a mysterious black cat who I have affectionately named Chim Chim. (Remember Speed Racer?) As you have already guessed, they were murdered in this domicile of doom and now desire to kill everyone who enters the premises. You see, as explained by a Japanese detective, when someone dies in a rage their ghost seeks revenge on everyone who steps on the property lines as defined by the county commissioner or something like that, I forget. <br /><br />The story begins innocently enough with acclaimed thespian Bill Pullman leaping to his death from a balcony. My guess is Bill Pullman got this job because of his kids begged him for a trip to Tokyo Disneyland. Next we endure the mildly interesting saga of Nurse Yoko, 'oh no don't go in there' screams the audience, but alas she heeds not the dire warnings and is predictably snuffed out like a magic lantern. About 30 minutes into the movie we finally see its American heroine Sarah Michelle Gellar as Karen. Sarah Michelle Gellar might be a competent actress but I could not help thinking of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, so much so that it was distracting. It is the equivalent to having Jennifer Anniston star in a movie about the adventures of six friends in New York. Try as you may, you just can't stop thinking about the other project which made her famous. But I digress, Karen, the nurse is hired as a replacement for the original care giver who disappeared at spooks r us. <br /><br />She snoops around, meets the ghosts, coma lady dies, and some other stuff happens. Watching the fair haired vixen searching for clues I half expected her to find the ghost and pull its mask off to reveal it was actually old man Gower who owned the abandoned amusement park! 'I would've gotten away with it too if it weren't for you meddling kids and that dog of yours!' <br /><br />Director Takashi Shimizu, who is vying to be the Ed Wood of Asia, made two unfortunate decisions involving sound. First, he choose to use a soundtrack only when someone is about to be killed. This is an excellent devise for obliterating any suspense because the audience gets a two minute warning to prepare for another miserably predictable murder. Second, he gave the ghosts a bizarre guttural noise that sounds like a gargling gopher. After the movie, I heard several people exiting the theatre making the sound and laughing.<br /><br />Sarah Michelle Gellar ends up being the sole survivor. And of course we learn that the fire she set to burn down the house was extinguished in time for the obligatory next chapter. However, considering the humorous reactions of the audience, they did not want a sequel but an apology. 'The Grudge' could be easily re-edited into a comedy, perhaps then it will be appreciated for its camp value. Baring that, this will go down as the greatest cinematic thriller since 'Godzilla vs. Megalon.' I would suggest waiting until the movie comes to your local discount theatre where it can receive the public ridicule it so richly deserves. | 0neg
|
Difficult to call The Grudge a horror movie. At best it made me slightly jump from surprise at a couple of moments.<br /><br />If one forgets the (failed) frightening dimension and looks at other sides of the movie, he is again disappointed. The acting is OK but not great. The story can be somewhat interesting at the beginning, while one is trying to get what's happening. But toward the end one understands there is not much to understand. "Scary" elements seems sometimes to have been added to the script without reason...<br /><br />So... (yawn) See this movie it if you have nothing more interesting to do, like cutting the carrots or looking at the clouds. | 0neg
|
Takashi Shimizu had a great opportunity with a remake of his original film Ju-On The Grudge. While I haven't seen that film, I would have to wager that there's more imagination and originality (or some rip-off originality, in other words skill with known tropes of the Japanese ghost movie) than in his own directed remake. Maybe the script was written to somehow have some kind of warped appeal, or I would guess accessibility, for an American audience. What starts off with some potential - the hint of something very screwed up going on with Bill Pullman's sudden movement - just goes into a total jumble. And as a horror movie? Gimme a break.<br /><br />Tension could have been built on the situation - a nurse going to take care of a disturbed woman in a house that is haunted - but he undercuts everything he wants to get his audience to feel. Scares? How's about some music timed just so you know when exactly to expect something. A black cat? Yeah, why not just make the ghost-boy thing sound like a cat for creepiness which, in effect, is only creepy if you want cats. Plot? Why not just shuffle between past and present without any semblance of an actual flow of how a story could be told (meaning, while the flashbacks are inserted and are meant to be organic with the story overall, they aren't), or for that matter have us care about ANYONE in the cast.<br /><br />By the time the characters, or those that are there for exposition, get around to telling us what is going on or whatever, there's little point to care. The film-making is shoddy (i.e. the 180 degree rule is broken many times over and not in a forgivable or intriguing way), and the performances are wooden even when looking frightened or shocked (Gellar especially is disappointing, but Pullman, who shows up later after his first scene, is sorely miscast). Even when Shimizu tries for some average old "Boo" scares, like when the woman is in the office building and chased by the Grudge ghost, it's still silly. Just watch when she's going on that elevator and the ghost is in the background of shots. Either you'll go with it, and if so more power to you, or you'll laugh hysterically at the results. Count me in the latter.<br /><br />I'm not totally sure where this project went wrong - was it Shimizu having to retool it for the studios, or him not giving enough leeway with his revamp of his vision? Or maybe Raimi had some say in it and made things more confusing and/or dull than they would be with someone else. The Grudge gives us a lot of information that doesn't make sense or at the least give us some horror-fodder to chew on. It's cineplex trash of a sad order. | 0neg
|
Freeway Killer, Is a Madman who shoots people on the freeway while yelling a bunch of mystical chant on a car phone. The police believe he is a random killer, but Sunny, the blond heroine, played by Darlanne Fluegel detects a pattern. So does the ex-cop, played by James Russo, and they join forces, and bodies, in the search for the villain who has done away with their spouses. Also starring Richard Belzer, this movie has its moments especially if you like car chases, but its really not a good movie for the most part, check it out if you're really bored and have already seen The Hitcher, Joy Ride, or Breakdown, otherwise stay away from the freeway. | 0neg
|
Even with a cast that boasts such generally reliable names as Val Kilmer and Lisa Kudrow, Wonderland fails to yield any sense of depth to this film. It barely brushes the surface of the incidents that happened on that July night in 1981. Kilmer just goes through the motions as John Holmes and Kudrow and Kate Bosworth are both hopefully miscast in the other two lead roles; as Holmes's wife and underage girlfriend, respectively. The rest of the cast has such small roles that it's impossible to get any dimensions from them. The film also stars Carrie Fisher, Ted Levine, Franky G, MC Gainey, Dylan McDermott and a cameo from Paris Hilton. | 0neg
|
I was excited when I heard they were finally making this horrific event into a movie. The whole era (1980's Southern California) and subject matter (drug and porn industry) is intriguing to me. I thought this would be a sure fire hit. I was not thrilled with the choice of Kilmer as Holmes, they do not resemble each other in physical appearance or mannerisms. I guess he sells tickets? However, I was willing to overlook this and give it a fair shot. I was a bit shocked that there were only like four other people in the entire theater with me on that first day of showing. Now the whole crime and story in the film is hard to do, I will admit that. There were no witnesses to this very violent and brutal act. John Holmes was there, but he was also a pathological liar and worried about what would happen to his family (and self) if he talked to police about it. In fact, Holmes never really testified about what happened and the crime did go unsolved. So this was still really one big mystery, a mystery that this movie does nothing to cast light on. The person writing the screenplay had a whole lot of discretion and most of the principal characters are dead. However, there is no real storyline, it is fragmented claptrap. The script is light and the actors try to hard to beef up paper thin lines by overacting. The film gives no insight into Holmes or the other people involved. Kilmer's character disappears for long stretches, his girlfriend is dull, the police are jokes. Even Kudrow tries hard to make a flimsy role look substantial. It is a very shallow piece and dare I say, boring. The director even tries to turn it into a love story. Which is nice, unless you know anything about what a piece of trash John Holmes really was. Perhaps a couple of viewings of Anderson's "Boogie Nights" might have helped here. "Boogie Nights" was innovative and exciting in all regards. This film on the other hand was flat and without any real charm or style. Even the music is out of place, with Duran Duran being played in a scene that was supposed to have taken place in 1980. Then we have Gordon Lightfoot? Gordon Lightfoot? There could have been a great film based on this gruesome event, but I have not seen it yet. I have not seen even a decent one yet (unless you consider the Rahad Jackson scene from Boogie Nights). | 0neg
|
I am wanting to make a "Holmes with Doors" pun but I can't quite string it all together. Suitably grubby and over edited WONDERLAND gives Kilmer a role that channels Morrison at the same time....but how coy is this film about the famous 14 inches! Australian crime films flash it all the time and skip the graphic violence instead.....as someone famous said once about US cinema double standards: "kiss a breast and it's an X, stab it and its an action PG 13"... WONDERLAND is 14 minutes too long too, and at the end the tawdry spiral we were all glad to escape the cinema. How many films called WONDERLAND are we going to get? There must be six in the last decade. The pixilated violence and muted color sets the seedy tone but the wobble-cam gets tiresome, as if we are gawking at their nostrils all the time. Taking a few cues form THE DOORS and TAXI DRIVER it all becomes forgettable the next day. | 0neg
|
Unlike others, I refuse to call this pitiful excuse for a movie a triumph of style over substance (I don't want to give style a bad name). Still, it's the most apt description that comes to mind.<br /><br />A pointless, unpleasant and ultimately meaningless assault on the eyes and ears, "Wonderland" leaves one wondering only why the film was made in the first place and who in their right mind gave the greenlight to this dreary and tangled mess. A biography of porn star John Holmes? A study of who the man was, why he went into the business and how it affected him? Great. Bound to be compelling, bound to be entertaining. Bound to be enlightening and fascinating on about a million levels (and I have zero interest in porn).<br /><br />But a confusing, violent, Rashomon-style study of a series of murders Holmes was connected with after his career ended? Who in hell cares? What insights do we gain? This film completely ignores the most interesting aspect of John Holmes's life -- that he was a porno star! "Wonderland" might as well have been about anyone: the fact that the main character is the most famous male adult film star in history is almost irrelevant.<br /><br />To make matters about a thousand times worse, the picture is loaded down with jerkoff gimmicks -- annoying machine gun editing, sloppy Dogme-95 camerawork, unnecessary split-screen graphics and animation, etc. etc.<br /><br />In the absence of a compelling story and unique main character, the director (and I use the term loosely) has thrown together a dozen or so techniques from other films and decided to call the resulting mess a movie, among these: the trendy, bleach-bypass look of "Narc" or "Traffic" or "Minority Report;" the frantic, often incomprehensible, throw-the-pieces-of-film-in-the-air cutting style of "Natural Born Killers" or "28 Days Later;" the fill-every-moment-of-silence-with- an-old-song-to-evoke-the-period soundtrack of "Goodfellas" or "Blow;" the groovy, retro title sequence of "Velvet Goldmine" or "Autofocus" or "Catch Me If You Can." The list goes on and on and on. Pathetic.<br /><br />I wanted to like this movie. I had real hopes for it. "Wonderland Avenue" had been around for years; had the context of the murders been emphasized rather than the murders themselves, I think it could have worked. Had the murders (and Holmes's growing involvement with seedy L.A. types) signaled the end of a career, or the end of the swinging '70s, I think the film could have had meaning; it could have served a purpose. As it is -- meaningless. Pointless. Who cares how many perspectives exist on a series of murders generally unknown by the public? The case isn't famous enough to merit such painstaking examination.<br /><br />This film should have been the third act of "The John Holmes Story." That's it. Period. And it could have worked. What's that? Oh, right, right, they didn't want to tell a traditional rise-and-fall story. They didn't want to make "Boogie Nights" or "Goodfellas" or "Star 80" or "Autofocus." They wanted their film to be different. Right?<br /><br />Well, in one sense, they succeeded. There's a big difference between those films and "Wonderland." The difference is those films are good.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Val Kilmer, solid performance. Dylan McDermott, solid performance. Josh Lucas, solid performance. Three very engaging actors giving decent performances. The problem is, who cares about the plot? John Holmes. Infamous for his well-endowments, a drug addict, and a guy who, despite contracting AIDS, continued to make adult films, just does not make an intriguing character.<br /><br />The story surrounds the events leading up to and the aftermath of a vicious mass murder that occurred in the late 80's in Los Angelos to which Holmes was linked, arrested and charged with murder, and who ultimately was acquitted. Just like in the case of O.J., the guilt factor, regardless of the outcome, ranged quite high in the "He did it" zone.<br /><br />There is no one to sympathize with in this film, as everyone is a self-serving criminal. There is just nothing remotely interesting here. | 0neg
|
The plot certainly seemed interesting enough. How can a real-life brutal murder be turned into a truly boring movie? Well, you can watch "Wonderland" and find out.<br /><br />I had heard of the Wonderland murders before this film was released and found it to be an interesting true story of some genuinely sadistic people. Unfortunately, there is zero character development, so we never get a chance to understand why any of this was done or get a good sense of the interrelationships between the characters. The pace of the direction was very tedious. This all leads to an extraordinarily boring movie.<br /><br />Given that Dawn Schiller - a central character as Holmes's girlfriend - was an associate producer and that Holmes's wife was a consultant on the film, we should have had the opportunity to gain some real insight into the characters. | 0neg
|
The premise was intriguing, but sadly this film just doesn't do any justice to it. The casting was quite good, and it was shot beautifully - but stylistically much of the direction was inconsistent (overstylized fast editing been there done that to no effect.... I was waiting for Steven Bochco to run in the credits followed by a commercial), characters were identified exclusively by on-screen coke usage (and pretty much everything else left to Boogie Nights for character development), and no personable characters to draw the viewer into the story. A very forgettable film. | 0neg
|
Bad Movie - saw it at the TIFF and the movie gives me a sense of 'been there done that' - it reminds me alot of the movie Blow - expect the Blow was actually interesting.<br /><br />This one story told two ways and both times it is not told that well.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
This is the only movie I have ever seen that has prompted me to write a critique on any internet site, and that is a significant statement from someone who likes "The Attack of the Monolith Monsters." This movie is perfect for anyone who wants an inoffensive movie. It is devoid of sex and violence, for example. I believe that this movie is safe for children of all ages. This movie is perfect for anyone who does not want to be entertained, challenged, or stimulated in any way. Adults could easily catch up on their sleep in front of the TV while the kids watch this movie. Don't be surprise ,however, if you wakeup to find the kids have turned the TV off and started a board game. As an adult who enjoys being entertained, who enjoys everything from the mundane to the fantastic in realism, drama, comedy, and action, all of those adult things that reflect real life on earth and/or stimulate the imagination, this movie has nothing to offer. | 0neg
|
I saw this in the market place at the Cannes Film Festival. <br /><br />It's a real cheapo prod - nothing wrong with that but you have to make up for it with a bit of sex or gore or both. <br /><br />Think Larry Cohen. <br /><br />Sean Young is an interesting actor - well done to the producers for hooking her I guess.<br /><br />The opening scene in the space-ship coming down is hilarious - you could picture all the crew hands shaking it around! <br /><br />Ha ha - but I wish the people who made this well - at least it's not pretentious. | 0neg
|
The movie's premise is spooky: a woman gets pregnant when kissed by a stranger in a bar.<br /><br />But as soon as the movie begins, a horrible opening scene establishes that this is a C type Sci-Fi TV movie. It's a big Star Trek and a bit X-files, but more than anything else it's boring.<br /><br />When the movie kicks into action everything is predictable and cliche. It looked more like a 2 parter in a bad Sci-Fi TV series. No suspense and no thrills, but not for a lack of trying. Just a lot of predictable dramatic conflicts between the main characters.<br /><br />Don't waste your time. | 0neg
|
Here we are: two travelers from a distant futuristic world arrive on earth... one is on a desperate mission to preserve a life, another is an inhuman killing machine determined to eliminate the woman who will give birth to the saviour of an entire race.<br /><br />So what could we call this killing machine? It's almost like he's some kind of destroyer, or eradicator... sort of like an exterminator or something. What's the word I'm looking for... something that -terminates- things? Hmmmm....<br /><br />Anyway, the protector (who swiftly doffs the white tunic he stole from Luke Skywalker in favour of local clothing) finds the young woman first and impregnates her with a future-born hero-to-be. The evil uhhhh... "exterminator" kills some rednecks and steals their guns and clothes, then attempts to locate the woman by visiting her workplace and asking around by looking menacingly into people's eyes and repeating her name threateningly.<br /><br />Then begins a desperate race for survival as the seemingly deathless and unstoppable "exterminator" pursues the couple across the countryside. At some point he may acquire boots and a motorcycle, but I'm not sure.<br /><br />Perhaps, in an exciting finale, he will attempt to crush them under the wheels of an enormous tanker truck full of... acid. Then the truck will crash. They will be saved... but no! He will then re-emerge, as strong as ever. He will kill the protector and pursue the girl into a meat packing plant, where in a terrifying finish, he is pushed into a large piece of industrial chopping machinery, and destroyed once and for all.<br /><br />But maybe I'm extrapolating too much... after all, I did stop watching this movie after Mr. Protector magically impregnates Sean Young by kissing her at a bar, then tells her the child will be born in 3 days. <br /><br />The costumes and effects are great in this movie... I loved them the first time I saw them on Star Trek: Next Generation too! Sean Young does another great turn as an unemotive Replicant, and career sweat-hog Stephen Baldwin is also on board as Young's Fat Cop Boyfriend. Not sure where he fits into the plot though... maybe he's an import from a different James Cameron movie? | 0neg
|
Being a music student myself, I thought a movie taking place in a conservatory might be fun to watch. Little did I know... (I had no idea this movie was based on a book by Britney Spears) This movie was implausible throughout. It's obvious that whoever wrote the script never set foot in a conservatory and doesn't know a thing about classical music. Let me give you just a few examples: 1) There is NO WAY anyone would be admitted to a classical conservatory with no classical training whatsoever! Just having a nice pop voice isn't enough, besides, that's a different thing altogether - another genre, different technique. It's like playing the violin when applying for a viola class. 2) How come the lady teaching music theory was in the singing jury? If she wasn't a singing professor herself, she would have no say in a situation like that, and if she was a singing professor, why weren't we told so? 3) Being able to read music is a necessity if you're to major in music. 4) How did Angela get a hold of that video tape? That would have been kept confidential, for the jury's eyes only. Now either she got the tape from one of the professors or the script writers just didn't have a clue. I wonder which... 5) The singing professor gave Holly the Carmen song saying she "had the range", which she clearly did NOT. Yes, she was able to sing the notes, but Carmen is a mezzo-soprano, while Holly's voice seemed to be much lighter in timbre, not at all compatible with that song. 6) Worst of all: Not only does the movie show a shocking ignorance when it comes to classical music, but it doesn't even try to hide it. The aria that Angela sings is mutilated beyond recognition, a fact which is painfully blatant at the recital, where it is cut short in a disgraceful way - Mozart would roll over in his grave. The Habanera from Carmen sounded a bit weird at times, too, and the way it was rearranged at the end just shows how little the producers really think of classical music - it's stiff and boring but hey, add some drums and electric guitars and it's almost as good as Britney Spears! I know these are all minor details, but it would have been so easy to avoid them with just a little research. Anyhow, I might have chosen to suspend my disbelief had the characters and the plot been well elaborated. But without that, I really can't find any redeeming qualities in this movie except for one: it's good for a laugh. | 0neg
|
I actually liked this movie until the end. Sure, it was cheesy and pretty unlikely but still it kept my attention on a rainy afternoon. Until the end, that is. For her final performance at the prestigious classical conservatory where she has struggled to catch-up to the other classically trained students, what does the main character do? Wow them with her grasp and execution of this time honored musical tradition? No. She tortures and butchers the great sensuous Habanera from Carmen and turns it into an utterly forgettable Brittany Spears-wannabe pop song. My ears bled! And, in the supreme moment of horror, her teachers gave her a standing ovation! Any teacher not in a Spears-induced fantasy would have failed her on the spot. Save your time, save your ears - skip this movie! | 0neg
|
can any movie become more naive than this? you cant believe a piece of this script. and its ssooooo predictable that you can tell the plot and the ending from the first 10 minutes. the leading actress seems like she wants to be Barbie (but she doesn't make it, the doll has MORE acting skills).<br /><br />the easiness that the character passes and remains in a a music school makes the phantom of the opera novel seem like a historical biography. i wont even comment on the shallowness of the characters but the ONE good thing of the film is Madsen's performance which manages to bring life to a melo-like one-dimensional character.<br /><br />The movie is so cheesy that it sticks to your teeth. i can think some 13 year old Britney-obsessed girls shouting "O, do give us a break! If we want fairy tales there is always the Brothers Grimm book hidden somewhere in the attic". I gave it 2 instead of one only for Virginia Madsen. | 0neg
|
It was a decent movie, I actually kind of enjoyed it. But the ending is so abrupt!! There is absolutely no closure and it leaves tons of loose ends. What happens after the concert? What happens with her boyfriend? Does she hook up with Grant? Does she come beck in the next semester? And what about Angela? Obviously Holly's performance would knock Angela down a few pegs, but nothing is shown to indicate how she reacts. There is so much left up in the air and it's very unsatisfying. I don't know if it is trying to leave room for a sequel or something, but it is a terrible ending and I think that it really makes the movie a joke. I was very disappointed. | 0neg
|
This movie is entertaining enough due to an excellent performance by Virginia Madsen and the fact that Lindsey Haun is lovely. However the reason the movie is so predictable is that we've seen it all before. I've haven't read the book A Mother's Gift but I hope for Britney and Lynne Spears sake it is completely different than this movie. Unless you consider ending a movie with what is essentially a music video an original idea, the entire movie brings to mind the word plagiarized. | 0neg
|
I have read the book a couple of times and this movie doesn't follow exactly as it should. I could let this slide, it is after all a movie. However I have serious issues with the setting of the movie. Nobody has seemed to mention that this movie and the book it is based on are based in actual events that happened in Nebraska. I live in Nebraska. I grew up in the town that this movie is supposed to be based on. First of all, the "small" town that is talked about as the setting, is the third largest city in the state. With a population of around 50,000. Grand Island is the largest city between Lincoln and Denver. Second the scenery for the movie is wrong. Grand Island is in the Platte river valley. Which is very flat with very few trees. I tried watching this movie, but it made me mad to see my hometown being treated so bad. This was a real event. Large sections of the city were wiped out. In the book they talk about riding bikes from Mormon Island to Fonner Park. I guess you could if you don't mind a 15 mile ride each way. For anyone who wants to know what really happened go here http://www.theindependent.com/twisters/ | 0neg
|
TV version of "Twister" springs a few leaks but manages to remain watchable. My sister bought this at a Wal-Mart a few years back when it was released, I saw it back then and thought it was okay. Later "Twister" with Bill Pullman and Helen Hunt comes out (or was it before? I think it was '97) and did a better job overall. But "Twister" was more silly fun; this is realistic with a message. It all depends on what you want from a movie with twisters: Twisters, or a low-budget character study?<br /><br />John Schneider and Devon Sawa (he's the reason my sister bought it) star, and Devon Sawa, who went on to "Wild America," "Final Destination" and "Slackers" got his big break here. So in a way, I was one of the first people to see him really take off. I don't know if it's an honor or a shame, I haven't seen how he acts in recent films.<br /><br />"Night of the Twisters" all depends on personal taste, like I said, it all depends on what you want from a movie with twisters: Twisters, or a low-budget character study. "Night of the Twister" has the latter. So you decide.<br /><br />I give it a 2.5/5...<br /><br />- John Ulmer | 0neg
|
This film, although not totally bad, should have been filmed where the actual events took place. Grand Island, Nebraska was devastated by no less than seven tornados on the night of June 3, 1980. Grand Island is situated in the nearly treeless, flat Platte River Valley in Hall county. The makers of this movie filmed in the tree covered hills of Ontario and moved the whole event to a non-existant town called Blainsworth. The people of Grand Island bravely survived this awful night only to be forgotten because of a poorly made movie. | 0neg
|
This film is totally garbage. Some imbecilic intellectual comforting himself by making all his best to claim superiority of aristocrat over working class. Nothing more than a piece of self-complacence catharsis. Disgusting.<br /><br />If this kind of a movie is set in US, it will sure make itself a big joke. And simply because it comes out from 'the other side', it makes itself a masterpiece, a wonderful amusement for certain brain-washed and/or brain-washing westerns (some George W. maybe:). A typical cold-war sequelae, some kind of joke anyway.<br /><br />I would say, if this -- like expressed in this film -- is all what Soviet intellectuals had been thinking about all those years, then maybe they deserve all the miseries they claim they had gone through. BUT NO! 'cause like many others, I've read and watched real masterpieces made by real outstanding Soviet intellectuals. For example, something also relevant with dog, "White Bim Black Ear" -- both Gavriil Troyepolsky's book and Stanislav Rostotsky's movie -- is a real masterpiece. Real life, real tragedy, real sad, real pride and dignity, one of the real best of the Soviet era. | 0neg
|
It's a pretty good cast, but the film has nowhere near the grace of the original Italian comedy "Big Deal on Madonna Street" Anyone looking for an entertaining caper film should visit the original. William Macy may be one of our greatest living actors, but here he's put to little use. And his role in the original was played by Marcello Mastroianni, so I sort of feel sorry for him trying to fill those shoes. Might as well try to imitate Bogart or a young De Niro. The art direction is rich and textured but brings nothing to the story, the extra bits they add to the story feel completely unnecessary and the things they take away are missed. Even starting the way they do seems bizarrely gratuitous and takes away from the surprise of the original. Sam Rockwell has his odd and genial charm and Luis Guzman has that odd charisma, but the love story part of the movie just seems clunky and flat. It's too bad nobody has figured out how to make this movie as well as it was first made, but then again it's too bad we live in a culture where we feel like we need to remake amazing things instead of simply learning to savor the originals. | 0neg
|
it aint bad, but it aint good. it is just entertaining.<br /><br />as a comedy which it is supposed to be, it's dreadful. not many laughs at all as every joke in the movie has been done a million times before.<br /><br />it's a shame as all the actors in the film are great usually, but none of them really do much. and the ending sucks. | 0neg
|
"Welcome to Collinwood" is kind of a disaster. Considering the people involved, it should've been multiple times better.<br /><br />Watching it, if you're at least somewhat attached to the faith that it'll get better, will probably make you cry. It's one of those movies that had potential, but was robbed of this potential thanks to a terrible script and some bad acting, not to mention the strangely annoying and unnecessary George Clooney character and the guy who reminds me of Richard Dreyfuss but about whom I care so little that I don't even want to know his name.<br /><br />The film's only saving grace is the weird con vocabulary it introduces. I found myself thinking of it time and time again as I watched more crime capers. This is the only reason I gave the film a 3. The plot is boring, the characters are neurotic, needlessly offensive, and highly unlikable. They are in a constant state of agonizing stress and they're all so irritating that I celebrated their obstacles. They yell at each other and swear crassly. The dialogue is insipid at best and insultingly stupid at its low points.<br /><br />I find that Steven "Traffic" Soderbergherabracadabrablahblah and George Clooney are to blame for this. They should be tried for war crimes, if anyone actually remembers this crap long enough to care. | 0neg
|
There's nothing new here. All the standard romantic-comedy scenes, even down to the taxi sprinting to the airport to stop the woman flying away. The only thing that saves this is the acting of Alison Eastwood & some of the minor characters (blink and you'll miss Gabrielle Anwar), who obviously had some fun.<br /><br />Turn it off when the pair are in bliss, and you won't have to go through the inevitable plot pain. | 0neg
|
Subsets and Splits
No saved queries yet
Save your SQL queries to embed, download, and access them later. Queries will appear here once saved.