text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|
This Santa movie starts off strange and I think Santa might be a pedo. Instead of the usual elf toy makers, this Santa has apparently kidnapped kids from all across the globe and makes them sing a bit like characters from "It's a Small World"! I guess there are no child labor laws on the weird astral plane on which he lives (it's apparently NOT the North Pole and not on Earth)!! None of these kids seem very happy and I kept wanting to see commandos break in and rescue the tykes, though I guess for some of the third world kids, these working conditions were perhaps an improvement over local sweatshops. I sure hope that all they do is sing and make toys.<br /><br />Then, the scene abruptly changes to Hell where lots and lots of demons dance about like they are in a Busby Berkeley musical. This fun in put to a stop by Satan who orders one of them, Pitch, to go to Earth to ruin Christmas!! Personally, I thought this movie already did that! The Devil and his imps are actually kind of cute--like Hot Stuff from the Harvey Comics but with cool evil goatees! Or, if you are Puerto Rican, like a vejigante mask with a goatee! <br /><br />Somehow a poverty-stricken Mexican kid named Lupita, a group of jerky kids who want to mug Santa and some rich kid are key battlegrounds for the Devil and Santa!! So, if the Prince of Darkness (not Donald Trump, it's the OTHER Prince of Darkness) can somehow make her steal and be bad, he'll 'win'--what, we don't really know! In fact, as they root her on, you get the impression that the film makers intend Santa to be Jesus--as he has all these great powers AND fights the Devil over kids' souls! Later, Santa meets with his friend, Merlin. He asks him to make him a special powder that makes people dream nice dreams. Considering how much Santa laughs in the film (like a demented chipmunk), I assume he must use this drug A LOT! He immediately goes to see a blacksmith who makes him a magic key that opens ALL doors. Considering he keeps kids as his personal 'assistants', this magic key thing worries me immensely! During Santa's Christmas Eve ride, you see Lupita behave like a little angel--one problem down. Santa then takes time out now to take care of the rich kid whose parents are selfish jerks. He gives them some sort of crazy cocktail which magically solves their problems--two problems solved. This is a rare case where alcohol/drugs HELP kids and solves problems! And as for the little muggers, he gives them coal! Frustrated with his losses to Santa, Pitch then tries to steal the sleigh (which is pulled by creepy animatronic deer). When this fails, he destroys Santa's stash of 'magic powder'! As a result, Santa can't become invisible to avoid dogs and gets treed. Uh, oh...how can Santa take a detour to the Betty Ford Clinic if he's stuck up a tree?! Will St. Nick get down from the tree and get the monkey off his back or will the devils win? If you care, tune in and see. However, be warned that the film is bat-crap crazy! <br /><br />Technically speaking, the film is yecchy. While it is in color, it's really gaudy. The music is mostly done on an organ--which, along with bad singing from the kids, produces perhaps the worst soundtrack I've heard in recent memory. And the story is just incomprehensible and very, very, very creepy. Devils and a Santa that kidnaps kids is just plain creep-tastic. It's a film you should NEVER show to kids but makes a great film to watch with friends so you can laugh at it from start to finish! | 0 |
After seeing "Driven" on a plane flight to America 3 years ago I truly believed I had seen the worst film ever created, and I could relax safe in the knowledge I would never have to suffer that much in front of a screen ever again. Unfortunately as I found out last night this was not the case. Revolver is so monstrously bad I am actually thinking about recommending friends to go and see it, just so I don't feel like I'm the only one stupid enough for being conned into watching this. Its really quite amazing how much this film falls completely on its face with the constant, and I mean CONSTANT voice overs of the main characters, with totally inane pretentious nonsense! I was actually getting angry in the cinema listening to Andre Benjamin's utterly relentless droning for what seemed like half the film, whilst all the time thinking - what would Turkish have done to this complete joke of gangster/con man, whatever he's supposed to be, when he made his "offer"? I'll tell you what. He would have told him to f**k off, blown his head away, and watch with utter disdain as his equally inept partner waddles away as fast as his chubby little legs would carry him. I mean what are we supposed to believe is going through Jake's head when they offer him their "solution" to his problem? They're con men, therefore they must obviously also have the skill to cure incurable blood diseases! I mean ffs. Doesn't he start to wonder why his symptoms aren't getting worse? Doesn't the penny drop on the third day what is happening instead of Richie subjecting the audience to a painfully patronising phone call from Avi to Jake to let him know he's been conned. <br /><br />Anyway, I can add a small positive note to the film by moving on to the dry humour if provides, thankfully of a similar standard to his previous films
. bulls**t! This film doesn't try anything as smart as redeeming itself through some well timed amusing lines, oh no. It somehow managed to be so disastrously unfunny I genuinely didn't hear so much as a titter from a completely packed cinema and anyone who knows the UGC in Sheffield knows how full a main screen can get, and not 1 person so much as smiled. Maybe he never wanted the film to be funny, and fair enough you can still make good gangster films without comedy, but what was he planning on hanging this film on may I ask? The unnecessarily baffling plot!?? I sincerely hope not!<br /><br />By far the most satisfying moment I went through last night was hearing the very loud sighing coming from ALL directions of the audience as everyone desperately prayed for the film to end. It was also really quite amusing watching just how fast patrons were fighting and dashing for the exits after they realised it was over, and they were free from their torment!<br /><br />I'll round this off (I've got to finish, writing this is making me angry again) by elaborating on the "end". I mean sh**t! The ending
.. no, sorry I can't, your just going to have to go and see it. It can't be put in words, it just can't, and after you've seen it you'll know why. Uuhhhhh shudders | 0 |
A young boy sees his mother getting killed and his father hanging himself. 20 years later he gets a bunch of friends together to perform an exorcism on himself so he won't turn out like his father. All the stock characters are in place: the nice couple; the "funny" guy; the tough (but sensitive) hood; the smart girl (she wears glasses--that's how we know); the nerd and two no-personality blondes. It all involves some stupid wooden statue that comes to life (don't ask) and kills people. I knew I was in trouble when, after a great opening scene, we jump to 20 years later--ALL bad horror movies do that!<br /><br />The dialogue is atrocious, the acting is bad (except for Betsy Palmer--why Betsy?) and the killings are stupid and/or unimaginative. My favorite scene is when two people are supposedly having sex and the statue knocks the guy off the bed to show he's fully dressed! A real bad, stupid incoherent horror film. Avoid at all costs. | 0 |
Unfortunately, this has been showing on Star Movies here in Thailand for the last week or so. It's complete rubbish acting. As another member said, this movie is a good example of 'how not to act.' I haven't seen a movie so poorly acted in a long time. The actors (can you call them 'actors'?) are completely flat and deliver their lines with the passion of a dead dog. I would say that in order to truly understand how bad the acting is, you would have to see the movie... but that would be akin to torture.<br /><br />I cringe as the leading lady delivers her lines, and the rest of the cast with their accents (fake or contrived) is equally heinous. Another actress with the fake British accent was pretty, yes, but good lord was her accent terrible. Mix that with her (lack of) acting and you have a disaster. She should just have said nothing and I could have accepted her as the pretty girl. Oh my, we just got to the scene where the leading lady's lover says "Really me?" after a forced crying scene from her. Laughable. No, really, I just laughed out loud.<br /><br />The sets and the art directors offer some saving grace to the film. Some of the sets are colorful and some of the scenes are rather nice (minus the actors).<br /><br />The old magic potion lady? What?! Another member mentioned the 'modern' love song that was in the movie. Totally inappropriate for a period piece set some 500 years ago.<br /><br />I understand the movie was considered 'Big Budget' in Thailand at the time of it's production. I would be seriously upset if I were the producer of this movie. Just goes to show that money does not necessarily make a good (or even mediocre) film.<br /><br />I would give the King Maker a 1 out of 10, but the costumes and sets make save the film from such a rating. 2 out of 10. | 0 |
A cheesy, compellingly awful (and NOT in a fun way) C Grade movie. Everything shouts 'amateur', from the crumby script (bizarre premises, limited coherence and predictable endings; the turgid lighting, sound and hand-held wobbly camera angles; the coy and passe sexual inneundo and references; the patchy and unbelievable dialgoue to the Z rate acting. I saw it on DVD and kept hoping Edward Wood would pop out. All is forgiven - your Worst Films are works of art, and more coherent than this twaddle.<br /><br />But still, preferable to the warbling 'Every night in my dreams I hear you' - are you sure the Titanic crew weren't involved in this on the side? | 0 |
wow, the Naked Brothers Band. What should i say. I guess i can say this show just sucks. number one: they have no talent, they probably can't even play the instruments. number 2: on the commercial it said they were famous but nobody even heard of them till there crappy show came on. Look, i really don't hate it that bad, i'd give it like a 4 out of 10, but what annoys me is how everyone says they have such great talent and Nat is SO deep and writes deep lyrics. Deep my ass! he talks about hardcore wrestlers with inner feelings. wow, i could read what it says on the walls of a bathroom and it would be more deep than that. And they didn't get famous by themselves, their parents are famous celebrities and wanted their kids to be too so they made up a bad show. i have a feeling that it will be canceled soon. | 0 |
What a disappointment, especially in light of the budget provided, the technical resources available, and the talent assembled. Isn't the fundamental rule for science fiction/drama to create in the audience the willing suspension of disbelief. POA 2001 creates a plausible beginning, suckering us in, but thereinafter Mr. Burton forgets that his moviegoers have working brains. The over the top libertarian of Helena Bonham Carter's chimp, the worthlessness of the humans' lockup, the ease of their escape, their extraordinary skills of horsemanship (this is an astronaut and a group of human primitives suddenly riding full tilt), the massive and immediate human rebellion all are too unbelievable. Mark Wahlberg never once projects any sense of real fear, danger or comeuppance in this world turned upside down. Compare to the original, in which Chuck Heston's nakedness metaphorically captured his utter helplessness and astonishment at his turn of events. The uniformed Wahlberg preserves his modesty, but also his apparent sense of management and control in an inherently wacky situation, and we never really wonder about his well being. Unlike Heston, he seems never to be in real jeopardy. Tim Burton should have used some of the f/x budget for some competent screenwriting. In fact, after this inferior fiasco, I wonder why Hollywood's producers ever bothered to settle the screenwriters and directors strike threats. Let them walk. Trained monkeys could have done as well as they did in Planet of the Apes 2001. I'll bet the repeat viewings of this effort will be nonexistent. It could have been a new franchise, and a wonderful new step for imagination. Another opportunity lost. | 0 |
The best Laurel and Hardy shorts are filled to the brim with mishaps, accidents and destruction, mostly caused by Stan, but with Ollie receiving the bulk (!) of the punishment-- see the great 'The Music Box' (1933) or 'Towed in a Hole' (1932) as some some classic examples.<br /><br />Here, however, for some reason (is it because it was based on a sketch by Stan's father?) the boys play it 'straight' in a 'comedy' built around jokes and supposedly funny situations. It doesn't come off. It's merely another third-rate tedious 30s comedy, heightened only by the personalities of Stan and Ollie who never really display any of their trademarked gestures (Ollie's finger wiggling, Stan's blank stares, etc.) or comic abilities.<br /><br />The film begins with them running from the police. Since we never see or know why, it's hard to believe or accept their fear of being caught, and thus hiding in Colonel Buckshot's mansion. The premise for the 'humor', Ollie passing himself off as the Colonel and Stan passing himself off as both the butler and the maid are never very engaging. They are not playing 'Stan and Ollie' in this film. Their parts could have been played by any of the pedestrian studio actors and it would be just as poor.<br /><br />Stan could mime and make whatever he would do funny, but he doesn't get the chance to do any of that here. He's constrained by uttering too much dialog to 'move' the plot, but none of it rises much above the silly. We are treated to endless third rate comedy chestnuts such as the running gag of not correctly pronouncing Lord Plumtree's name, the "Call me a cab! Okay you're a cab!" joke, cops losing their clothes and being seen in long johns, and a non-sequiter ending of Stan and Ollie as the two parts in a painfully obvious horse costume as they make their escape on a bicycle for two, and James Finlayson is still doing his silent-era full body takes and Keystone Kop jumping jacks.<br /><br />Stan and Ollie do much better in a situation comedy in 'Sons of the Desert'(1933) where we get to see them do what we love about them -- be themselves. In fact, 1932-34 seem to be their best years.<br /><br />Since this film does not play to any of their strengths, why bother with it? I have to give it a 3. | 0 |
What's up with Robert "Pretentious" Altman? Was he saving on lighting? Everything was so dark in this boring movie that it was laughable. I mean, have you ever seen a lawyer's office where everyone works by candlelight?<br /><br />Don't waste your time. In fact, don't waste your time with anything Altman makes: It's all a pretentious waste of film. | 0 |
Preposterous sequel stretches credibility to a great degree as diabolical sociopath Stanley Kaldwell returns this time infiltrating the movie production of the novel he wrote for the garden drownings, assuming the identity of a second unit director he murdered.<br /><br />Film pokes gleeful fun at Hollywood, with a tongue-in-cheek script taking shots at tyrannical directors who sleep with their actresses(..looking for a way up the ladder)and dislike anyone challenging them for complete spotlight. Brian Krause, who I thought was dreadful, overacting to the point where the satire felt incredibly forced, portrays the loud, temperamental director who doesn't like the fact that his second unit director and screenplay writer, Alison(..played by Dahlia Salem)seem to be taking over the production. Andrew Moxham is Paul Parsons, who is the brother of a victim from the first film. The film's dark humor this time takes the idea of a serial killer actually operating as director of a movie set and exploits it for all it's worth. Nelson again ably slides back into his psycho role without any difficulty, with Stanley as clever as ever, using his brains to commandeer a film production, killing whoever he has to in order to maintain full control of his work, letting no one stand in his way..that is until Alison realizes who Stanley really is. Alison is the type of ambitious writer who wants to capture the essence of her subject..what motivated Stanley to kill, why would he do such a thing, and what led such a man down this dark path? The humor of Alison actually working with that very man is also part of the satire at the heart of this dark comedy thriller. Of course, you get the inevitable showdown between Alison and Stanley, with a really ridiculous, unbelievable conclusion regarding the killer's fate(..quite a hard pill to swallow). Unlike the first film, which was photographed with sophisticated polish, director Po-Chih Leong uses unnecessary techniques which are not needed(..such as shooting an all kinds of weird angles, slow-motion in a sepia color, and several instances which are captured on video)and rather annoy instead of impress. This sequel, to me, just wasn't on target as much as the original, with a lot of the humor less effective and more obvious. | 0 |
'Thunderbirds' was an immensely popular Sixties show that has transcended the years and generations to the point it is still as popular now, with both adults and children alike, as it was in its heyday. So, one would deduce the chance to produce a live-action feature film with a million pound Hollywood budget was an excellent opportunity to revive the series as has been done with 'Spider-Man' and 'The X-Men'. But a terrible storyline and bland acting obliterated this opportunity and it was soon apparent all that was destined for this film was a trip to the bargain bin of the kiddies' section.<br /><br />Instead of a film focusing on the five Tracey sons, their father and trusty geek Brain striving to rescue people and protect the world from villains, our hero in this drudge is a malcontent and bratty thirteen-year-old Alan Tracey, fourteen-year-old Tin-tin and ten-year-old brain-box Fermat, son of Brains (yes, Brains' son despite this being a man who could surely never score a woman if he tried; maybe he grew the kid in a petri dish). As one can tell from a run-through of our three lead characters, this 2004 remake 'Thunderbirds' was clearly aimed at entertaining only children under twelve instead of trying to appeal to a broad age-range as those involved in the much superior revival of 'Spider-Man' did. The plot itself was so bland with clunky, awkward dialogue and weak jokes that probably wouldn't amuse brighter pre-teens. The scriptwriter seemed more interested in ripping off 'Spy Kids' (which was at least quirky and original) instead of remaking the show people know and love.<br /><br />Although Sophia Myles and Ron Cook were excellent as Miss Penelope and Parker, they only had about three lines between them so their presence was barely felt. Bill Paxton's Jeff Tracey was just boring and there was only the slightest of mention of the other four Tracey boys while Anthony Edwards and Ben Kingsley, as Brains and the Hood respectively, were just embarrassing. The Hood, in particular, is not at all threatening or sinister and instead comes across as a campy, two-bit stereotypical villain as limp as a piece of rotting lettuce.<br /><br />Brady Corbet, who plays Alan Tracey, may well be a good young actor but it was hard to see that in a film where he plays a whinging brat who just grates and the same goes for Vanessa Anne Hutchinson as Tin-tin since the most she gets to do is look pretty and be all for 'Girl Power'. Ironically, it is young Soren Fulton's Fermat who is the only interesting character of the film as Fulton delivers a natural and relaxed performance.<br /><br />'Thunderbirds' the series will be forever remembered as an excellent show that proves puppets can give solid performances! 'Thunderbirds' the film will be forgotten by most and remembered by a few as one big flop. | 0 |
What a horrible movie. I cannot believe i wasted 90 mins of my life watching this re-make. Please tell me why Ving Rhames and Mehki Pfifer starred in this film? Mehki Pfifer is great in E.R and Ving Rhames probably didn't know what he was doing. I feel terrible for them. The music background i must say did not fit AT ALLLLL with the story and it's amazing how you can find these directors who have absolutely no lives in creating a well and balanced film. I hope that in the future no director as horrible as this one was, could ever distroy such a great classic film. This film should not have been made in the first place. An advice to everyone who has seen it, please tell me that i'm right because i couldn't possibly be the only viewer who did not enjoy it.<br /><br />BOOOOOO!!!!!!!! -10 out of 10. | 0 |
I can't think of much to say about this film. <br /><br />This was an awful movie...I can't even tell you what made me decide to view it. It had SO few redeeming qualities that I don't even know where to begin.<br /><br />The plot moved from implausible to downright absurd. My entire body was tense throughout the duration of the movie because I could not wait for the awful thing to be over and done. By the end of the movie, I found myself feeling beyond relieved. <br /><br />The editing was poor, the acting was sub-par, and the storyline was weak. Francoise Robinson was cast as a Native American, even though she does not even closely resemble someone of Native American heritage. <br /><br />If a movie is going to be this idiotic, it should be laughably stupid -- at the very least. It wasn't. It was just pathetic. | 0 |
Even though the plot was very well detailed,and the story line was understandable the fact that Steven Seagals voice was dubbed with some one else's through out most of the movie was distressing as you were unsure who was talking . There were many parts where he would start to talk in his deep raspy voice and then the next some one else's voice was doing the talking for him. I don't know the reason however if he had difficulty with his voice during production of the movie I think they could have re shot the events that did not contain his own voice when he had recovered. I have rated this movie 3 out of 10 based on the quality of the film. When one pays for a movie whether or not its at the theater or on DVD this movie was not worth the admission price that was charged. I have been a long time follower of Steven Seagal and all his movies that he has done over the past years.To date I think this is one of the worst ones we have seen yet | 0 |
Awesomely improbable and foolish potboiler that at least has some redeeming, crisp location photography, but it's too unbelievable to generate much in the way of tension. I was kinda hoping that Stanwyck wouldn't make it back in time because, really, she was saddled with the wet, in more ways than one, husband,and she had an idiot child as well..why NOT run off with Meeker? But the nagging question remains..what sort of wood was that pier support made of if a rotten piece of it pulled off didn't float? Stanwyck, always impeccably professional, does the best she could with the material but it's threadbare. | 0 |
Elvis has left the building and he's lucky because he didn't have to watch this unfunny stinker. Scene after scene director Joel Zwick finds ways to make an unfunny script even less amusing. Filled with unfunny deaths, trite gay characteratures, and hack jokes, this film is more desperate than amusing. This is the sort of film that makes one hope Kim Basinger follows Doris Day into premature retirement. Let us remember her the way she was (talented) and not what she's become. David Leisure, the delicious Dennis Richards and the rest are all wasted talents here. Zwick finds a way to minimize their talents at every turn. The guy playing Elvis sounds more like Gomer than the King.The only really good bit of casting is the young girl who plays Basinger as a preteen. She really looks like her and is actually pretty good. The only other reason to watch this film at all is to look for the Tom Hanks cameo. The cameo isn't all that funny, but at least its not painful. One has to wonder if Zwick has incriminating pictures of Hanks or something that would make him do this movie. | 0 |
What a terrible film.<br /><br />It starts well, with the title sequence, but that's about as good as it gets.<br /><br />The movie is something about rats turning into monsters and going on a killing spree. The acting isn't so much poor, but the script is pointless and the film isn't even scary despite the atmospheric music.<br /><br />It really is amazing that some group cobbled together this bag of rubbish and thought it would make a good film.<br /><br />It isn't a good film. It's trash, and I urge you not to waste a minute of your life on it! One out of ten. | 0 |
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. | 0 |
Uma Thurman plays Sissy, a young woman with a gypsy spirit (and freakishly large thumbs) who hitchhikes cross-country, eventually finding her true place amongst a group of peyote-enlightened cowgirls on a ranch devoted to preserving the Whooping Crane; Rain(bow) Phoenix is their lesbian leader, Bonanza Jellybean, who falls in love with Sissy, thumbs or not. Gus Van Sant directed and adapted Tom Robbins' book, but his satire has no primary target and just skitters all over the map, like Sissy (maybe that was his goal, but it's not involving for an audience). Notorious box-office flop wasn't so much panned as it was ignored, and one can see why: it's a series of sketches in search of a plot, and the performances, directorial touches and cinematography are all variable. Thurman is a stitch posing alongside the highway trying to get a ride, but this pretty much put the kibosh on Phoenix's career. Writer Buck Henry (who didn't write this, but perhaps should have) gives the most assured performance as the doctor who works on one of those thumbs.<br /><br />Two thumbs down. | 0 |
Once again I have seen a movie made by people that know nothing. I just recently reviewed Baby Face Nelson. Now I've seen Dillinger and I've had it.<br /><br />This movie is garbage. I don't know how anyone in their right mind could compare this to a classic like Bonnie and Clyde. This movie is far from a classic. Someone called it brilliant. That's an insane thing to say. This movie can't get any facts straight and it has the worst casting I've ever seen. I don't know whose dumb idea it was to cast Warren Oates as John Dillinger. First of all he looks nothing like him. Second of all, by the time John Dillinger was killed he was 31. When Oates made this he was 45! You could even tell that he's older than the real Dillinger just by looking at him. Not only was he too old, but so was Ben Johnson as Melvin Purvis.<br /><br />They show Baby Face Nelson die, then Homer Van Meter, and finally John Dillinger. John Dillinger was killed before both of them. The last one to die out of the three was Baby Face Nelson. Not only do the writers not know when they died, but they also don't know how they died. Baby Face Nelson was not killed after he escaped from Little Bohemia in a robe. Homer Van Meter was not killed by farmers with shot guns. Homer Van Meter was cornered by the police in St. Paul and gunned down with machine guns. Another member of Dillinger's gang, Harry Pierpont is shown being shot by police in this movie. Pierpont wasn't shot. Harry Pierpont was captured and sentenced to die in the electric chair. I go into what happened to Baby Face Nelson on my Baby Face Nelson review so I'm not going to go into it again here. Let me also add that Richard Dreyfuss' portrayal of Baby Face Nelson is pathetic. There's a scene where he attacks Dillinger and then gets a bad beating. While Dillinger was beating him he was crying like a baby and screaming, "Leave me alone!" Baby Face Nelson and John Dillinger never fought. Maybe Dillinger didn't agree with Nelson's bank robbing methods, but they never fought. Nelson also never cried like a little girl while getting beaten. They keep calling him Lester "Baby Face" Nelson. He was never in his life known by that name. Nelson's real name was Lester Gillis and he changed his name to George Nelson. The black guy that escaped from jail with Dillinger was Herbert Youngblood, but in this movie he is known as Reed Youngblood. John Milius doesn't know anything. Where the hell did John Milius get his information? I could probably make a better movie than him.<br /><br />Finally the way they showed John Dillinger die is outrageous and inexcusable. The movie shows Dillinger walk out of the Biograph with the Lady in Red and his girlfriend Billie Frechette. By the way, Billie Frechette wasn't even there that night. But a girl named Polly Hamilton was. Melvin Purvis yells, 'Johnny!' Dillinger pulls out his gun and is blown to hell. It is a proved fact that Dillinger did not have a gun that night. The FBI gave him no chance to surrender and as soon as he was in sight they blew him away. They didn't even have to shoot him. They were so close that powder burns were found on his face. It was murder. They also say that the man killed that night was not John Dillinger. After killing tons of civilians in the Little Bohemia incident can you imagine the FBI reporting that they had just killed another innocent unarmed man? The gun they had on display that was supposedly on Dillinger was also proved not to have been manufactured until after Dillinger's death. I could go on and on how the man they killed wasn't John Dillinger, but I'll stop here. If you would like to know more check it out here<br /><br />See the Dillinger version with Lawrence Tierney if you want, but don't waste your time with this inaccurate piece of garbage movie. | 0 |
Don't get fooled with all the big names like Burt Reynolds,James Woods and Anne Archer. They are just glorified extra's. Their scenes were probably filmed in one day or so. Whatever their motives for being in this movie, if you have an actor like James Woods you better make good use of him. To me this is a sign of bad direction through and through. The plot itself wasn't that bad. And the acting from most of the actors was above average. Cuba Gooding Jr. however was terrible. He was so unbelievable that I almost laughed at his dramatic scenes. And since this was meant as a serious movie that can't be a good thing. The action scenes were not bad,but they lacked that special punch to make it more exciting. Again better direction was needed. Also the pacing was wrong for a movie like this. It took the main character almost half an hour to get in action. For an action thriller of only 90 minutes that is far too slow. The only redeeming factor is Angie Harmon. She does her best to make it all work. Too bad the director left her hanging. Yes,this movie could have been much better with a great director. Andy Cheng is far too inexperienced as a director to pull it off. And for an action/stunt coordinator of his caliber you'd expect at least more exciting action scenes. Don't waste your time with this one. Avoid! | 0 |
Ming The Merciless does a little Bardwork and a movie most foul! | 0 |
This is one of those "so bad it is good" films that you always hear about but never see! Unlike Troma films which are deliberately bad and campy (and I am not amused) this one is 100% pure serious.<br /><br />However with features such as a supposedly super-lethal killer robot that prances about like one of the Solid Gold Dancers on an acid trip and a magical first mate that calls down lightning and transforms into the Good Witch of the East the fact that it takes itself seriously pushes it so far over the edge of bad that makes it full circle around back to entertaining.<br /><br />Watcheable enough because of that. | 0 |
**SPOILERS BELOW!!!**<br /><br />Cabin Fever has my nod for WORST film of the year...that I've seen that is. This movie is straight GARBAGE! There is so much wrong with the film you can't help but be amazed at how bad it really is. This movie had so much potential to be good, but ultimately made nothing of it. The characters were as dumb as one can be; for the entire movie you're just asking yourself "why would you do that?" or "what's your point in doing this?"...this is how illogical and stupid the characters are. We get NO background into them, so naturally you really don't give a rats as$ about their fate...you could only laugh at their stupidity. <br /><br />- The 'slut' (Marcy) for instance... was she that horny that she had to sleep with Paul (Rider Strong)? There was no point in that....its almost as if the filmmakers needed a excuse to give her the virus so voila! UGH. <br /><br />- Would anyone really go into the woods and drink water from the faucet of a cabin WITHOUT looking at it first?<br /><br />- Why didn't Bert just shoot the sick guy from the start? Movie would've been over that way....besides, they ended up killing him anyway.<br /><br />- Why did it take them so long to finally decide to leave the cabin, even if they had to walk? 'No, I'll just wait until 2 of my friends are infected (one a blink away from death) to finally opt to walk outta there.<br /><br />- What was exactly the reasoning behind Paul's attempt to fish out the body of the Hermit, only to fall in the contaminated reservoir and get infected with the virus? Pure STUPIDITY!<br /><br />I swear, common sense was not a friend, much less an aquaintance to these idiots. I don't think there has ever been a worse ending to a movie. In the beginning the kids ask the hick store cashier what the rifle was for, and he replied that 'its for the niggers'. In the end of the film, 3 young Blacks (dressed in baggy clothes, one of them in a du-rag no less) go into the store....come to find out that the cashier was cleaning it for them to be used for hunting. THEN, he proceeds to give them all pounds and handshakes and joke around with them as if they're his homeboys.<br /><br />Okay, WHAT THE HELL WAS THE POINT OF THAT?!?!?!? How tasteless can one be, what were the filmmakers THINKING putting that in the movie? I as a Black man was of course offended by the initial 'Nigger' comment. It was a tasteless, pointless remark. My question to the filmmakers: what was the point of the ending with the Black kids? Was that to force me to forget about the initial racist comment made earlier? To smooth things over with Black viewers, by making a joke out of it? Well, I for one, did NOT find that pathetic attempt at humor funny in the least bit. The whole movie was a joke....a PATHETIC attempt at filmmaking that shouldn't be given the time of day. Peter Jackson really thought this film was that good? What film was HE looking at? <br /><br />ZERO * out of **** stars....if I could give it a lower rating I would. Please, fellow IMDb'ers, don't waste 1 1/2 hours of your precious life watching this abomination of a 'movie'. This is one of the worst movies I've EVER seen. | 0 |
I don't know what I missed here, but I can't believe all these positive comments by so many people on this film. I thought it was silly, and a bit over the top. I did like the performances of Gregg Henry and Michael Rooker, however the others were just... boring.<br /><br />Now I like B movies, I really do, but this was a bit further down the alphabet for me. I saw someone compare the humor and horror in this to "Army Of Darkness" and "Shaun of the Dead", as well as "On par with The Re-Animator". You must be joking. I didn't find this film funny, it tried, it did make an effort, (possibly too much of an effort), but it failed in my opinion. By the time I was hit with the 3rd or 4th one-liner I was rolling my eyes and checking my watch.<br /><br />There were definitely homages made to several other films, which is always cool, kind of like an inside joke for us horror fans. But here it may have just been a lack of original thought. Admittedly there were some nice special effects, good gore, but that can't carry an entire movie. The mutated Grant looked like a cross between Jabba the Hut, and in the early stages of mutation- Chet from "Weird Science" (after he was turned into the monster) and one of the alien creature/children from "The Explorers". It just didn't work. I thought it looked like something some kid from Grade 5 art class could have designed. Then there was Brenda, the woman that Grant impregnated and chained up in the barn. When help finally arrived she looked like a giant tick waiting to be popped. The design once again was totally unimaginative. A round flesh colored balloon with a face in the middle. *yawn* <br /><br />Now about the zombies- The more movies I see with zombies in them these days the more I wish George A. Romero had a patent on them and was the only writer/director allowed to make movies about them. He's the only person so far to do it right, with the exception of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg (but that was a comedy). Oh, and Danny Boyle, but they were a different style of Zombie. Maybe Mr. Romero has ruined any zombie film for me due to his ingenious ability to get his actors to moan, groan and shamble about as if their joints are dried up and lacking even a drop of synovial fluid, and their muscles are fighting the effects caused by rigor mortis that had started to set in right before they were re-animated. The people of "Wheelsy" just didn't have the proper motivation... they were horrible zombies.<br /><br />So in the end I give "Slither" a 3, for a couple of laughs and a few nice gore scenes. | 0 |
This "movie" is more like a music video. Kusturica said in an interview from 2004 that when he is making movies, he feels like making music, and when he is making music, he feels like making movies. The best thing in "Promise me this" is the music, written by Stribor Kusturica.<br /><br />Kusturica said in the same interview, that for him the dialogues in the movies are like noise. "Promise me this" has very little "noise".<br /><br />I liked "Life is a miracle". It was also like music video for the first 30 minutes and at some points later, but it had a beautiful plot. "Promise me this" has no plot. I was awaiting this movie with big expectations, because I've read, that the script has been written by Ranko Bozic - one of my favourite scriptwriters, who participated also in "Life is a miracle". Ranko Bozic writes great dialogues, but for Kusturica they are "noise", and much to my regret, I saw only two dialogues, which I could identify as written by Ranko Bozic. The other part of the script was used by the director for making his chaotic music video for the music of his son Stribor.<br /><br />Gordan Mihic (the man who wrote the scripts for "Time of the gypsies" and "Black cat white cat") said in an interview, that Kusturica never follows the script. "Black cat white cat" was the only script, for which Kusturica said, that he will not touch it. According to Gordan Mihic, after all Kusturica comes back to the script, and if he doesn't, he doesn't make a good movie. And I think this is the case with "Promise me this". He should have followed the script of Ranko Bozic.<br /><br />"Promise me this" is billed as a "comedy", but there are very few moments, which made me laugh. The comedic moments are in the same style as "Black cat white cat", but are not that funny at all. I think the difference comes from the fact, that "Black cat white cat" was written by Gordan Mihic.<br /><br />However, I know some people, who liked "Promise me this", they find it very positive movie. | 0 |
How the hell did they get this made?! Presenting itself as a caper comedy, the misbegotten "$" is essentially two hours of people mumbling sentence fragments. The usually dependable Warren Beatty looks drunk, and the usually hilarious Goldie Hawn acts like she's on depressants. As for Gert Frobe, his most famous role - Goldfinger - was infinitely more admirable than his character here. Not even the guy with the champagne bottle of LSD can save this litany of worthlessness.<br /><br />Am I comparing this movie to "Plan 9 from Outer Space"? I wouldn't do such a thing even if someone paid me. "P9FOS" was idiotically made but ended up hilarious; this was idiotically made and causes you to feel like your brain just melted out of your ears. Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn made up for this when they co-starred in "Shampoo", but then they co-starred in the dreadful "Town & Country". Maybe they just shouldn't co-star in movies. All in all, I would rather have my skin torn off than have to watch this again. Awful.<br /><br />Maybe they should remake it with Jackie Chan. Then I would pay to see it. | 0 |
This Worldwide was the cheap man's version of what the NWA under Jim Crockett Junior and Jim Crockett Promotions made back in the 1980s on the localized "Big 3" Stations during the Saturday Morning/Afternoon Wrestling Craze. When Ted Turner got his hands on Crockett's failed version of NWA he turned it into World Championship Wrestling and proceeded to drop all NWA references all together. NWA World Wide and NWA Pro Wrestling were relabeled with the WCW logo and moved off the road to Disney/MGM Studios in Orlando, Florida and eventually became nothing more than recap shows for WCW's Nitro, Thunder, and Saturday Night. Worldwide was officially the last WCW program under Turner to air the weekend of the WCW buyout from Vince McMahon and WWF. Today the entire NWA World Wide/WCW Worldwide Video Tape Archive along with the entire NWA/WCW Video Tape Library in general lay in the vaults of WWE Headquarters in Stamford,Connecticut. | 0 |
This is one of the worst movies ever made. Trite. Predictable. Flat.<br /><br />The only thing that rated one point was there was a few nice scenes highlighting Barcelona. I imagine they would use films like this in Guantanamo or some other hidden CIA/NSA prison to torture suspects.<br /><br />Often bad movies have some redeeming features, this has nothing. If I was in it or worked on it, I would change my name. Truly a turd. Hard to write more than this, but I feel the world's film watchers needed a head's up on this. On the other hand it will make a great gift for people you can't stand.<br /><br />You could send it to politicians you dislike, in laws, ex-wives, Teachers you hated, former employees, Dick Cheney, W., and a host of others. | 0 |
Yep, the topic is a straight quote from the movie and I think it's pretty accurate. I was so bored to dead with this pointless effort. All the flashes etc. making no sense after first 20 minutes is just bad film making + If you are epileptic, you would have died at least five times already. Of course all the David Lynch fans would raise a flag for this kind of turkey to be "the best film ever made" because it doesn't make any sense AND when it doesn't make any sense it's got to be art, and art movie is always good. Right? I say WRONG. This kind of artificial art grab is just a pathetic way to try to show that you're a good film maker. Anthony Hopkins as a excellent actor should just stay acting. | 0 |
normally i'm not the sort to be scared by horror movies, but this movie is the exception. some how this movie got into my mind!!! it is a very simple movie but at the same time extremelly effective, it has great atmosphere and this leads to some shocking moments, the girls father coming down the hill is a real standout. Another seen was the family photo i wasn't expecting that and i jumped out my seat!!! i would recommend everyone to see this movie, with the lights out it will stay with you for a long time!!!!! | 0 |
It doesn't even merit a review, other than as a warning to potential viewers. It's a somewhat generic ghost story about an actress haunting a studio during the filming of a WWII period drama. There's no fear involved, no suspense whatsoever, nor any surprises. One shocking moment that looks a bit too silly to be shocking. The visual style is very flat and dull, although there is some really nice editing once in a while. The story never comes together, and the films is really just a total bust. 4/10. | 0 |
Clearly rips off Hideo Nakata's Ringu (Ring, 1998) and Hongurai Mizu no Soko Kara (Dark Water, 2002), with hints of Ju-On (The Grudge, 2000), but atrociously done gore (a green corpse with red eyes!?) weak story, and a weak theme (I find it very difficult to find a picture message scary). There were two moments in this film that made me shudder, both involving an unexpected hand, and after Oodishon (another Miike Takashi one, this one from 1999) had me tingling all over for hours after seeing it, and all of the films this steals from were actually scary, I can't see this film as anything other than a sell-out to the western popularity of the big Japanese horror films. Two out of ten. | 0 |
*Warning - no plot spoilers ahead, but movie spoilers nonetheless...* My significant other rented this for me thinking it would be a terrific romance with an all-star cast. Wow - very, very wrong. This movie is an overdone, overwrought, and overly sentimental excuse to theatrically release a student film 15 years after it was shot! The copyright date on the box said 2005, yet during the very first flashback sequence I was looking at the clothes and hairdos that were supposed to be the early 1960s, and noticed that the girls especially were wearing late 80s/early 90s dresses and hairdos. It looked as if it had been shot a good 15 or 20 years before the rest of the film! I tried to convenience myself that it was a flashback, and therefore supposed to look old, but it looked WWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY more 80s than 60s or even 21st century trying to be 60s... then an adult coworker of the lead character turns up, and he looks just like the boy featured in the flashback sequences (yet it's a different, much older character whose youth is featured in the flashbacks). I was completely confused until I saw in the special features the short film included - it was all the flashback sequences, shot in 1990 as a complete student film of the same title as this movie! It also features commentary that includes the little boy all grown up (and indeed acting the co-worker in the 2005 scenes). Thus, this movie is just a shell of story woven around an old, re-cut student film put together as an obvious excuse to get it up to theatrical running time. The shell story, shot in 2005, is mostly about a man who has lost his wife and finds healing and redemption at the dance class that he promises a dying man he will attend in his stead (something about a promise made by the dying man in the early 60's to his girl that they would meet on the "fifth day of the fifth month of the fifth year of the new millennium - an excuse to shoot the segments around the old film in 2005?) These new scenes and plot might have been OK except the awful, overly sentimental score that repeats ad nauseum over almost every single new scene and the clichéd action that permeates the new movie. Don't bother. There's a reason why you've never heard of this movie even though it has a well-known cast - it's terrible. | 0 |
Jesus Christ, I can't believe I've wasted my time watching this movie. I only watched because I have such a crush on Jordan Ladd. But watching this film almost put me off her. This is absolutely awful! I could have been watching Survivor Series 93 over this.<br /><br />The lead guy in this was so bland and generic. I would love it if the great Mistuharu Misawa Tiger Drove '91'd his ass through a glass window. I was enraging every time he was saying "lake" and "cabin". I'd kick his ass.<br /><br />Jordan Ladd, on the other hand, was absolutely wonderful. A true angel. But she couldn't even save this utter joke of a film. Sadly, she couldn't even act like she was off her nut when she took that truth drug. It looked hilarious.<br /><br />I also loved the bit where Jordan accidentally spilled yogurt on her. It reminded me of a time where...nevermind.<br /><br />Anayways, do watch this film because of it's awfulness. | 0 |
And I mean ultra light. This film features four giant stars, about three and a half jokes and nothing beyond that.<br /><br />There really isn't too much to say about this stinker, other than that although it has a couple of really good bits, most of it isn't very funny. Nor does it work at all as a romance. How about as a romantic comedy? Not on your life. Most of the dialogue is way too flat to be sophisticated, much less amusing.<br /><br />What's really ashame is the premise is not bad at all. This movie could have been so much more, especially with all the recent focus on some of the bogus ways in which films are promoted, complete with phony quotes from critics. The film uncovers the un-mined territory of the press junket -- those all expense paid trips for journalists who almost always write nice reviews. But instead of exploring what should have been a motherlode of jokes, it devotes all of about three minutes to this territory and moves on in pursuit of the film's lame romance.<br /><br />The same with Catherine Zeta-Jones' character -- the whinny, self centered movie star. Zeta-Jones does a good job with what she's given, but she's given practically nothing. It's all homogenized junk that looks very pale in comparison with some of the things we've heard about stars over the years.<br /><br />In the end, it is hard to understand what made Zeta-Jones, Julia Roberts, John Cusack and Billy Crystal sign aboard this doomed ship, which sinks like a rerun of "The Love Boat." In fact, as the old joke goes, they should have forgotten the script and filmed the deal. It would probably make a better story. So, go ahead and tell us, filmmakers, what do you have on these stars that got them to appear in this? | 0 |
THE NIGHT EVELYN CAME OUT OF THE GRAVE (Emilio Miraglia - Italy 1971).<br /><br />I only watched this delirious piece of Euro-tosh in the way of Alpha Video's dreadful DVD-release (looks like an extremely bad video-transfer), but from what I saw, not nearly interesting enough to purchase No Shame's recent DVD-release. Considering their excellent track record, it will undoubtedly be a major improvement over all previous releases. And don't pay attention to the ridiculous cover shown here, it's not taken from this film (some girl holding the head of a Jim Carrey look-a-like).<br /><br />Spaghetti Western star Anthony Steffen sports a hip hairdo and assumes the role of Lord Alan Cunningham, a man haunted by the memory of his dead wife Evelyn. This leads to a nervous breakdown which has him being retained in a psychiatric clinic. Once released, Cunningham channels this trauma by taking redheaded prostitutes to his countryside castle, subjecting them to vicious acts of torture. His doctor and friend, Richard Timberlane (what do you mean, Italian horror names sound "made up?"), advises him to forget the past and remarry but Cunningham is obsessed with Evelyn and even organizes a séance at the castle. Eventually, after killing some more girls, he meets Gladys, another redhead, and marries her almost immediately, but the arrival of his new wife spawns a series of sinister events. Bloodthirsty creatures strike at Sir Alan's family, killing them off one by one. Becoming more distraught, Cunningham visits Evelyn's tomb and discovers it to be empty. Soon, a number of "outsiders" begin to suspect something fishy is going on in the castle and Lord Cunningham's treatment might not have been that successful after all.<br /><br />Director Emilio Miraglia tries to blend Gothic horror with Giallo conventions with limited success. As usual, not the slightest effort was made to convince audiences the film is set in England. The cars drive on the right side of the road, everyone looks very Mediterranean and the castle (and the rest of the architecture) is patently Italian. This is common practice in Italian horror, but sometimes they just take this a little too far. The bad print made this even slightly bearable, since it's so dark, you couldn't see much of the surroundings anyway. But, then again, this is the kind of film where anything can happen in the name of exploitation and depicting reality isn't really the issue. A large part consists of sado-masochistic torture scenes in the castle torture chamber, but most of the time, Anthony Steffen hams his way through this and shows some horrible over-acting. I guess it all depends on your state of mind and this can be a fun piece of nonsense if you're in the right mood. I just couldn't take it, at least not with the print I watched. A pleasant score though by Bruno Nicolai which combines easy-listening tunes with some psychedelic rock numbers.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 4/10 | 0 |
Tony Goldwyn is a good actor who evidently is trying his hand at directing. "A Walk on the Moon" appears to have borrowed from other, better made films. The present story takes place in the late sixties at a summer resort for working class Jews not far from Woodstock. The screen treatment by Pamela Gray doesn't have much going for it, so it's a puzzle why Mr. Goldwyn decided to tackle this film as his first attempt at direction.<br /><br />The Kantrowitz family is spending some time at the resort. We see them arrive at the small bungalow that is going to be their temporary home. Marty, the father, comes only for the week-end; he works in what appears to be a family small appliance business repairing television sets, mostly. In a few days the first man will walk in space, so the excitement is evident.<br /><br />The Kantrowitz women are left behind. Pearl, Marty's wife and her mother-in-law, Lilian, spend idle days in the place until the "blouse salesman" arrives. Pearl goes browsing and she finds much more than a shmatte; she gets the salesman as well. It appears that Pearl and Marty have no sexual life at all. After two children, Pearl, who appears to be sexy and with a high libido is ready for some extra marital fun.<br /><br />That is the basic premise for the film, which becomes a soap opera when the young daughter, Alison, decides to play hooky and go to the Woodstock festival nearby where, horror of horrors, she witnesses her own mom making out with the blouse salesman! What's a girl to do? Well, stay tuned for the grand finale when all the parties are happily reunited by the little son's bedside when he is stung by wasps and the salesman comes to apply some home remedy, and daddy is called from the city, after knowing about Pearl's betrayal with the younger stud.<br /><br />Poor Diane Lane, she went to make "Unfaithful" later on, which is the upscale version of this dud. Viggo Mortensen is the salesman who caters to his lonely female customers whispering little somethings in their ears! Liev Schreiber as Marty, the cuckolded husband, doesn't have much to do. Anna Paquin plays the rebellious Alison and Tovah Feldshuh is the unhappy Nana, who would like to have stayed in the city watching her soap operas instead of witnessing first hand one that is playing in her own backyard!<br /><br />Watch it at your risk, or pop the DVD in the telly when you have a fun crowd at home and you really want to have a laugh, or two dishing the film. | 0 |
I watched this movie at 3'o clock in the morning, a time in the day where I am usually very open when it comes to movies. But still I think it wasn't good, this movie wasn't good at all. The reasons why are many.<br /><br />The acting isn't all that good, and time after time situations occurring in it reminded me of a poor 90's Chevy Chase comedy. I mean, come on, like the handcuff situation, and the poker situation amongst the servants... This movie was so obviously based very much on the first one, and thats OK. But if I hadn't seen the first one before seeing this, it would have sucked even worse. Like the ending, it came very suddenly, and I felt like I got no closure what so ever... Sebastian changed very suddenly, and this This movie seems like it was made solely to explain nr 1, and like no time or effort was used on making anything else good. The score is the same as in the first one, and it didn't feel like a movie at all...<br /><br />They should have handled the situations with more style and class, but they didn't, and therefore, this movie turned out bad... | 0 |
This is some of the worst acting I have ever seen. I love Almereyda's Nadja, but this is just absolute dreck. Aside from a few moments of interesting cinematography and music this film is just nonstop bad acting and dumb material. Jared Harris is particularly bad, but no one in this is remotely good. The plot is a joke, but not the haha kind. I don't even know if you can forgive movies that are this bad. Please erase the last hour and a half of my life. How did this director make Nadja and Another Girl Another Planet? | 0 |
No need to detail what others have written in other reviews - here goes the summary: <br /><br />* Much of the nested animation work is downright gorgeous - the colors are superb - would love to have it done in silk as a necktie<br /><br />* The story and execution is a total snooze - it was quite difficult to stay awake at times<br /><br />If you are a student of the fine arts, medieval calligraphy, early religion and so forth - have at it. This is a FILM for you.<br /><br />If you want an engaging, entertaining MOVIE - look elsewhere - this is a failure as anything other than an artistic statement.<br /><br />Vikings didn't have horns by the way... | 0 |
Where to start... If this movie had been a dark comedy, I would say it was FANNN-TASTIC! Unfortunately for me, and anyone else with free time and a buck to spare (mind you that was the price I paid, got it from Wal-Mart), this movie was meant to be a thriller. The only THRILL I got was watching Kirkland's lousy rendition of Anne Wilkes from Misery sans snowy woodland area. If you want a good laugh, on a rainy Friday night with some friends, then I highly recommend this movie. But if you want to watch something at least half way decent, then don't even bother.<br /><br />I for one enjoy crappy films, the worse the better in most cases. But Wow... I Meant WOW!! The only person in the entire film that didn't stink it up was the little boy, played by Vincent Berry. The only reason why I even give it 3 stars is because it gave me something to do. | 0 |
As long as you can suffer it! If you like watching people waking up, getting up, getting dressed, having a shower, preparing dinner, watching each other, having sex in the dark, then going back to bed to sleep... if you like tacky flats, narrow bedrooms and kitchens, long minutes of silence.... if you like getting bored for two hours, feeling the thrill of "real intimate false art", then you will like it. But if you don't, just try to see a good movie, there are thousands. "As long as you are here", but do we want to stay? This German movie got the award of the Torino gay film festival: Italian journalists still don't understand why the jury took such a bad decision, as the festival presented lot of talented movies. Maybe to be nice with a German, as they don't often get awards? Well, "The Lives of Others" did... but this one is excellent but not gay. So maybe it is a question of fashion. Germans are they "in" again? No matter what? Or maybe only for a hustler's glance of some directors? | 0 |
We all have seen some unending epics in our times, but this one really tops them all! The movie is so long and so slow, that, just to put things in perspective, i felt a lot older when i left movie hall, than I entered it. At almost 4 hours length, it could have rather been made into a tele-serial.<br /><br />What starts as a promising comedy slowly loses its pace. Nikhil advani has woven the plot around 6 love stories and he cant make justice to any one of them... There is no interconnection between them to start with, and links shown in last 20 minutes just seem to be forced to connect the story.<br /><br />Situation is made worse by Silly dialogues (most of them repeated in Hindi cinema over years)and stupid cinematography.<br /><br />Priyanka doesn't realise that she actually needs to play her role rather than just looking glam on screen... An utter waste of beauty without acting skills.<br /><br />And then there is loud-is-humorous Govinda & my-face-twists-better-than-jim-carrey Akshay Khanna who keep belching at the top of their lungs to irritate already tired viewers.<br /><br />Only good part in movie is John & Vidya's love story & nice acting/comedy by sohail & Isha. But they are so good at their roles that just these two couples could have justified the movie without jumbling it with other bunch of characters. Their brilliance gets lost in the midst of other substandard plot lines.<br /><br />My guess - Director was making two separate movies(may be more!) and some beginner assistant mixed up all the records, beyond a point of sorting them out, so director was left with no choice to show it all as a single movie...<br /><br />Watch it only if you want to test your patience!!! | 0 |
Absolute garbage, worse fight scenes than a 20 year old van damme movie or American ninja etc.<br /><br />Truly dire acting, not a skill in sight in the entire movie its like a cast of wooden sculptures.<br /><br />Watch it just for how truly bad this film is, it may have been acceptable in the 80s but this is a 2006 movie, i don't have much love for this movie as it wasn't born in the 80s.<br /><br />If you like real fight movies then check out tony jaa in ong bak and the protector, those are proper martial arts films.<br /><br />have a laugh and watch this today you may see the unintenional humour at how grim it is. | 0 |
Yesterday was Earth Day (April 22, 2009) in the US and other countries, and I went to see the full-feature movie-version of "Earth" by DisneyNature. I guess, like the auto manufacturers, Disney is trying to convince us that they care about the planet. Maybe they really do care about the planet, I don't know, but I don't think it warrants a special unit with the word "nature" in it. I do know that my youngest daughter loves Mickey Mouse, and who am I to tell a one-year old my personal feelings about Disney? <br /><br />Aside from incredible cinematography, it was a typical Disney disappointment for me. Preceded by a half-dozen Disney movie trailers, rife with Disney cliché ("circle of life", "falling with style"), over-dramatic music, recycled footage (Disney claims "40% new footage"). I was even starting to think that James Earl Jones narration is getting a bit boring. I like James Earl Jones, but his work for Disney and Morgan Freeman doing every Warner Brothers narrative starts to wear thin. I really think that Disney bought some BBC nature photography that was so spectacularly done, they felt it would sell itself if they slapped some orchestral music and recognizable sound-bites on it.<br /><br />And what is Disney's obsession with showing predators chasing and killing baby animals? There were a half-dozen such scenes, complete with bleating youngsters on the verge of getting their throats ripped out. I think Disney needs to recognize that animals have a rich and interesting life outside of life and death struggles that appeal to the action-movie oriented teenagers that got dragged to this film by their parents. I was also cognizant of how Disney stopped well short of implying that man had anything to do with the climate change. Are they so afraid of the tiny minority of deniers that they think it's still a controversial subject? <br /><br />I recommend skipping this one and renting the Blue Planet DVDs on Netflix. Nature films seem to be best done by the British at the moment. | 0 |
Honestly, I can't be bothered to spend my time writing about this milestone of cinematic incompetence - life is simply too short. What I will say is that, Alone In The Dark succeeds in only three things: 1. It will make you laugh, but for all the wrong reasons. 2. It manages to throw several useless plots into the air but dropping all of them.<br /><br />and<br /><br />3. It utterly disgraces the classic PC game on which it is supposedly based by being a complete failure in all aspects of film-making.<br /><br />Doctor Boll, if that is indeed what you are (I'm thinking proctology here), what on Earth are you doing in a director's chair? | 0 |
This movie commits what I would call an emotional rape on the viewer. The movie supposedly caused quite a stir among the critics in Cannes, but for me the final scene was just a pathetic attempt for a newbie director to get himself noticed. Hardly a voice in the discussion on the issue of violence, drug abuse or juvenile delinquency (or any other issue, for that matter).<br /><br />The main character's metamorphosis from good, but troubled boy to the vicious rapist is virtually nonexistent, whereas the rape scene (being an over-dragged, exaggerated version of the rape scene from "A clockwork orange") is unbearable and I refuse to comment on its aesthetic values. There are some things an artist should not do to try and achieve his/her goal. At least in my opinion.<br /><br />To wrap it up: shockingly brutal, revolting and NOT WORTH YOUR TIME. See "A clockwork orange" or "Le pianiste" instead. | 0 |
This film seems to be completely pointless. There is no reason why anything that happens in it happens, as if it was written by a small child who got bored halfway through and thought "how can I wrap this up?". And what were Jared Harris and Christopher Walken thinking? Did they do it for a bet? I couldn't tell you the plot, I'm not entirely sure there is one to be quite frank, but if there is it didn't register. Jared and his bird go to Ireland after she falls down the stairs while lashed up, as you do. They go to a house with a very annoying small girl in it, meet Christopher Walken who has dug up some ancient woman preserved in peat. He brings her back to life for no other reason than it continues the story and she shows her gratitude by immediately icing him. From then on it all gets a bit silly. A couple of hours of my life that I'd like back! | 0 |
What happens when you give a homeless man $100,000? As if by asking that question they are somehow morally absolved of what is eventually going to happen. The creators of "Reversal of Fortune" try to get their voyeuristic giggles while disguising their antics as some kind of responsible social experiment.<br /><br />They take Ted, a homeless man in Pasadena, and give him $100,000 to see if he will turn his life around. Then, with only the most cursory guidance and counseling, they let him go on his merry way.<br /><br />What are they trying to say? "Money can't buy you happiness?" "The homeless are homeless because they deserve to be?" Or how about, "Lift a man up - it's more fun to watch him fall from a greater altitude." They took a man with nothing to lose, gave him something to lose, and then watched him dump it all down the drain. That's supposed to be entertainment? They dress this sow up with some gloomy music and dramatic camera shots, but in the end it has all the moral high ground of car crash videos - only this time they engineered the car crashes and asked, "What happens when you take down a stop sign?" | 0 |
I saw the omen when i was 11 on tv. I enjoyed the Trilogy. So when the chance to finally see one at the cinema came around i didnt pass it up. I went in to the cinema knowing that what i was about to see wasnt a cinema release but a made for TV film. However being a fan i couldnt resist. But this Omen movie which i saw at a midnight screening didnt bring chills it brought laughter. Risible Dialogue such as "it is written that if a baby cries during baptism they reject there god". What nonsense.No decent set pieces. Faye Grant so Good in V is wasted with this script from hell. No suprises and no fun. However i did laugh out loud several times at our bad it was.Truly Pathetic.1 out of 10 | 0 |
Bela Lugosi revels in his role as European horticulturalist (sic) Dr. Lorenz in this outlandish tale of horror and dementia. The good doctor's aging wife needs fluids harvested from the glands of young virgins in order to retain her youth and beauty. What better place for the doctor to maintain his supply than at the alter, where he kidnaps the unsuspecting brides before they can complete their vows? Sedating them into a coma-like state, he brings them to his mansion to collect his tainted bounty, according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis. That brief description is much more entertaining and imaginative than the movie.<br /><br />** The Corpse Vanishes (1942) Wallace Fox ~ Bela Lugosi, Luana Walters, Elizabeth Russell | 0 |
A truly, truly dire Canadian-German co-production, the ever-wonderful Rosanna Arquette plays an actress whose teenage daughter redefines the term "problem child" - a few uears prior to the "action" the child murdered her father, and mum took the fall for the offspring. Now she's moved up to the Northwest US to start over, but her child still has a problem in that she's devoted to her mother. So devoted in fact that she kills anyone who might be seen as a threat to their bond.<br /><br />Unfortunately Mandy Schaeffer (as the daughter) murders more than people - she delivers such a terrible performance that she also wipes out the movie, though the incoherent script, useless direction and appalling music (check out the saxophone the first time she displays her bikini-clad bod) don't help any; we're supposed to find her sexy and scary, but she fails on both counts. Almost completely unalluring and not even bad enough to be amusing (not to mention the fact that Arquette and Schaeffer don't really convince as mother and daughter), all condolences to Miss Arquette and Jurgen Prochnow, both of whom are worthy of far more than this, and both of whom (particularly Rosanna) are the only sane reasons for anyone to sit through this farrago.<br /><br />One of the production companies is called Quality International Films - not since the three-hour "Love, Lies And Murder" (from Two Short Productions) has there been such a "You must be joking" credit. | 0 |
This grainy film has a cult following and one of those word-of-mouth features you just had to see. Maybe hard to believe, but there is a rural community in southwest Arkansas, Fouke, that knows the legend is true. This tale is told in documentary-style narrated by Vern Stierman and filmed in actual locations talking to actual folks involved. The legend changes with the telling, but during the late 60s and most of the 70s the surrounding area of Fouke was visited by a Bigfoot-like creature that traveled along Boggy Creek. Long limbed with three toes and standing over 7 foot tall, this hirsute creature periodically caused damage and frightened the 'bejeebers' out of most of the community. I personally crossed over the small Boggy Creek bridge in 1974, and yes the hair on the back of my neck did rise. Of course it was about 1 a.m. in the rain. By the time I arrived in Shreveport, I was laughing. | 0 |
I loved this movie, I'll admit it. This has to be the best (straight to?) video movie I've seen. Well... me and my friend decided just for shits n' giggles that we'd rent this movie. We knew what to expect and we got exactly what we expected, plus more. When that red neck gets slammed up against the tree by the Sasquatch, we literally watched that part about three to four times, it was that amazing (hysterically, of course). And why? Oh why does the main character have to roll that much? Like honestly, we know that you're in danger, rolling that much isn't gonna help all that much. But really, if this movie is in you're local video store RENT IT. It is worth the money and it's not even that bad, like it's bad, but not incredibly bad. Overall, complete amazing will be in store for you if you rent this movie. | 0 |
John Hughes wrote a lot of great comedies in the '80s. "European Vacation" is not one of them. The follow-up to Hughes' first big hit "Vacation" (1983), is about as predictable, unfunny and annoying as they come -- no matter how much you love the dumb but romantic Clark and Ellen Griswold (Chase and D'Angelo).<br /><br />I greatly enjoyed "Vacation" as well as the third film, 1989's "Christmas Vacation," but the Griswold's trip to Europe is bland and forced. Perhaps because this was Hughes' first attempt at a sequel that he didn't get it, but it's really dumbfounding how uninspired and devoid of a story "European Vacation" is. There is no through story: the Griswolds win a game show for being "greedy little pigs" and go on a tour of Europe through England, France, Germany and Italy. Even the screwball physical humor that is the trademark of the first loses all effect because you see it coming, which is part director Amy Heckerling's fault. The "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" director sets everything up too predictably.<br /><br />Maybe it was Hughes taking a cheap shot because he was put up to the sequel. "European Vacation" takes great pride in insulting Americans (recall the greedy little pig game show they win), especially tourists, represented by the cornball Griswold family. It also pats itself on the back implicitly saying "oh us Griswolds, we're always getting into something because our dad is an idiot." Then in nearly comic fashion it ends with a tribute to America and how grateful the Griswolds are to return to such a better country. If Hughes was going for satire and meant to do it in the form of a bad movie, well maybe I should award this 8/10 stars.<br /><br />It's not just the unfunniness, but "European Vacation" boasts the two worst actors to play kids Rusty and Audrey (Jason Lively and Dana Hill). They're both annoying and obnoxious, with the unattractive and loud-mouthed Audrey blubbering about the boyfriend she's left behind nearly the entire film. Hughes even goes as far as to have her comment about missing him right as she observes a giant bratwurst. Quite tasteful. Speaking of, breasts are flashed in two different scenes for no good reason (unless it was to comment on Americans' love of gratuitous nipples in their comedies).<br /><br />I will give the film one of its two stars thanks to Eric Idle of the Monty Python crew, whose cameo at a few different points in the film where he recites lines directly from "Holy Grail" is about the funniest part. If Hughes intended for us to find one of the film's only non- American actors as the only funny part, then another tip of the hat to him for ripping open the underbelly of Hollywood comedy in the '80s. Still, would it have hurt for him to do that while making it entertaining? | 0 |
<br /><br />Ok, well I rented this movie while I was bed ridden hopped up on pain killers, and let me say, It didn't help the film any.<br /><br />The film is about a man who buys a car as he is going through a midlife crisis, he loves the car more than anything around him, one day his wife decides to borrow the car. Since I don't want to spoil (not that there was anything to spoil) I shall let your imagination figure out the "Zany" (and I use that word lightly) antics that follow.<br /><br />I had to fight to stay awake through this snore a minute sleeper of a film, and I would like to say that if you are venturing to the movie store and are thinking about being adventurous, please don't, it's a waste of the film it was printed on.<br /><br />Then again I could be wrong... | 0 |
I'm surprised about the many female voters who even give this film better marks. My thought about this film was that the target audience is adult and male. Whipped and tortured women, merciless revenge and a high body count are typical ingredients, introduced into film history by the spaghetti subgenre. The opening and the hand-smashing are DJANGO rip-offs. THE SHOOTER however lacks the style of e.g. DJANGO. Score, acting and cinematography are mediocre at best but if you look for the above mentioned ingredients you are in the right place here. And the actors don't have an Italian accent.<br /><br />4 / 10. | 0 |
This trashy B movie attempts to masquerade as a study of sexual addiction, but it is really a poor excuse for a sexploitation flick. The story revolves around Sammy Horn (subtle name) played by Michael Des Barres. Sammy is a restaurant owner with a clueless wife Grace (Rosanna Arquette) and a young child. He has a sexual addiction and must have meaningless sex every five minutes with any woman in his field of vision who will agree (and of course every woman on the planet finds him irresistible despite the fact that he looks old enough to be collecting Social Security).<br /><br />The story is centered on a conversation with his therapist (Nastassja Kinski) where he is describing each of his sexual exploits via flashback. This is nothing more than a convenient launching point for a parade of serial sex acts, which consumes at least 75% of the screen time.<br /><br />It is hard to know where to begin criticizing a film this bad. The production values are abysmal. The movie is shot on video with a look somewhere between a TV soap opera (at best) and an amateur porn flick shot in someone's garage. The direction by Joseph Brutsman is horrible with bad lighting, uninspired framing and poor actor direction. The script is vapid and the dialogue mindless and vulgar.<br /><br />Women are generally portrayed as sex obsessed nymphomaniacs just waiting for an addict like Sammy to come along and rough them up while feeding their insatiable appetites with some impersonal copulation. As an example, Grace's sister comes over to indignantly inform Sammy that she knows he's been sleeping around and that she is going to tell his wife. His response to that is to throw her up against the wall and begin raping her. About three seconds into it she has an epiphany and is instantly converted to one of his sex disciples begging him to give her more. Just as they finish Grace walks in and sis says to her, `Oh, great to see you, gotta run to pick up Timmy' and mum's the word about Sammy's indiscretions. The bond of loyalty has been sealed with a good ravishment. No spoiler here because it is so typical of the obvious nature of the film that anyone who had seen the first fifteen minutes could have predicted it.<br /><br />The sex depictions are all overdone, mechanical, and so poorly simulated that they are more comical than erotic. Most of them are done with both participants fully clothed. The acting is wretched. Michael Des Barres presents all the depth of a rain puddle. He really seems to get into the thrusting and profanity of the sex parts, but when it comes to actually acting with Arquette and Kinski, he is adrift. Rosanna Arquette is the closest thing to an actor in this film, giving a bearable performance and looking genuinely hurt when she finally discovers that her perfect husband is a lecherous animal. Nastassja Kinski is far too compassionate as the therapist, but at least we have some acting happening here. The rest of the cast is just a collection of elevated body doubles to whom they give thought provoking lines like `hit me harder, is that the best you can do?' and `Oh, God
YES'.<br /><br />This movie is among the worst I have ever seen, a dubious distinction given the thousands of films I have viewed. I have given it the extremely rare dishonor of rating it 1/10. Not to be seen within three hours of any meal. | 0 |
It's hard to say what was the worst thing about this show: the bad acting, poor acoustics of different portions, bad CGI, improper sets for the period, the poor script. It would have been nice if the script followed the original tale a bit closer -- there's enough tension and good material in Beowulf to provide a great deal of good material, and a better story line, than the scriptwriters could come up with.<br /><br />And why introduce a strange new weapon like a crossbow that fires explosive bolts?<br /><br />I see that this movie was made in "only" 21 days. It shows in the lack of quality. I'm beginning to think this is general (poor) attitude taken by Sci-Fi channel (and others) when it comes to making movies out of classic tales in the past few years.<br /><br />What a waste! | 0 |
There are some redeeming qualities to this show. One is that the theme tune does have a decent melody. The show does have a nice premise. Also, I am probably in the minority, but I like Wanda. I like the fact she is caring, and is more a mother figure to Timmy. However, despite all this, I do not like this show, it isn't excrement but I do find it very annoying.<br /><br />I wouldn't say that it is the best animated show on Planet Earth. When I use that term for an animated TV show, I think of Peter Pan and the Pirates, I think of Darkwing Duck, I think of Scooby Doo and I think of Talespin. And I hope I am not the only one who really likes the Wild Thornberrys and resent the fact it gets poked fun at. Nor do I think Fairly Odd Parents is the worst animated show on Planet Earth. I accept it's annoying, and in some ways overrated, but it isn't the worst show on Nickolodean. That is Chalk Zone, god that show is unwatchable. But the worst animated show I've ever seen is Shaggy and Scooby Doo:Get a Clue, which is crudely animated, unfunny and frankly a disgrace.<br /><br />One thing I don't like about this show is the animation. The characters, forgive me if I offend, have very weird facial features, and a lot of the backgrounds are dull and lack the colour that make Spongebob Squarepants and Wild Thornberrys so nice to look at. The characters with the exception of Wanda I find very annoying. I can't believe such a talented voice actress like Tara Strong(aka. Charendoff) voiced Timmy. Timmy I don't find very likable as a lead character at all, he is annoying and sometimes patronising, and he is a poor decision maker as well. And his voice gets on my nerves. I actually like Strong but not in this show. Another annoying character is Cosmo, the supposedly funny character. Instead, his jokes are as unfunny as they could become. They are either a) contrived, or b) over familiar. Timmy's parents are awful characters, who don't give a toss about their son, and their personalities wear well thin.<br /><br />The story lines are very unoriginal on the most part, and I keep thinking, where have I seen this before. The episodes after the arrival of the baby I thought were unwatchable. Even worse is the scripts, very unfunny, childish, witless and suffer from a complete lack of energy.<br /><br />All in all, not the worst show ever, but pretty poor for an animation fan, and fairly uncomfortable to sit through. 3/10- there are redeeming qualities, and I completely understand if people like it. Bethany Cox | 0 |
Abysmal with a capital "A". This has got to be one of, if not THE, unfunniest show on TV right now. I'm about as anti-bush as it gets, but this show doesn't even get a chuckle out of me. What you think of Bush as a president has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether or not you'll like this piece of crap show. The "jokes" are not funny at all. For example, in a scene when lil bush has his underwear on his head: "Welcome to camp al-qa-eeda!". There is NOTHING funny about that. Is it even supposed to be joke? The commercials that were shown in the weeks leading up to the show, hyping it up, were funnier than the show itself, and that's just sad. Hopefully this does not even get considered for a second season. It shouldn't even have had a first. | 0 |
If there were a movie that deserved a 0 out of 10, this would be it. 'House of the Dead' redefines the term "bad movie". Other bad movies, such as 'When A Stranger Calls' or 'Premonition', will actually look much better when compared to 'House of the Dead'. The basic "plot" of House of the Dead is a group of twenty-somethings travel to a remote island to attend the "rave of the century". When they get there, they only find some tents, a bar, a stage, and some bloody t-shirts. They decide to stay anyway, and they are soon attacked by zombies.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this movie. It is not entertaining. Instead, it is painful to watch because of how terrible it is. The acting is unbelievably bad. In a DVD interview, one of the actors claimed that Uwe Boll, the director, is not afraid to tell someone when they are doing a good job or a bad job in a scene. This is a blatant lie. The script appears to have been written by an 11-year-old, who decided to include a scene of someone throwing up on a girl's chest and to include the hilarious line, "it smells like someone farted out here." The characters have no personality or depth and they do some of the most moronic things ever seen in a horror movie. Somewhere along the way, the characters also magically transform into a SWAT team to take down the zombies. It's like they don't even have to aim their guns and they automatically shoot the zombies in the head.<br /><br />The scariest thing by far about this movie is the directing. There is something wrong with Uwe Boll. Boll's camera work is astonishingly disjointed. His pans to zombies running through the forest are more silly than menacing. Worse yet, Boll actually thought it would be a good idea to include small bits of footage from the House of the Dead video game into the movie. Quite often, and at the most random times, you will suddenly see an animated zombie getting shot. It makes no sense. No one in their right mind would think that was a good idea. It's like Boll wants to remind us repeatedly that this movie is supposed to be based on the video game. Uwe Boll also decided it would be cool to include slow motion 360 degree rotating shots during the action scenes, a la 'The Matrix'. Unfortunately, he does it way too often and each shot is nauseating. The soundtrack to this movie also boggles the mind. Most action scenes are accompanied by loud rap track. This also adds to the ensuing headaches caused by the atrocious 'House of the Dead'.<br /><br />'House of the Dead' isn't bad because it's based on a video game. In fact, it has very little to do with the video game. It also does not fit into the category of 'so bad that it's good'. It does however fit into the category of 'so bad that it's painful'. This movie just plain sucks. Uwe Boll should never be let anywhere near another movie set. Even his presence will curse a production. To all the directors out there: whenever one of your movies gets a bad review, all you have to do is remember that you didn't make 'House of the Dead' and you will feel much better. I will never get those 90 minutes of my life back. To sum it up, words really cannot describe just how bad this movie is. Everyone involved in the production of this film, especially Uwe Boll, should be ashamed of themselves. Although what I have said may make 'House of the Dead' sound funny, it really isn't. Nothing about it is funny. Avoid this at all costs. | 0 |
I'm not sure what HK movies the other reviewers have been watching, but Enter the Eagles is nowhere near the top of the heap in HK action. Michael "Fitz" Wong should be glad he can get acting jobs in HK, because he couldn't act his way out of a wet paper bag in English. Shannon Lee looks good and is a fantastic fighter (even better with the leg fighting than her dad), but her acting skills are also sub-par. In fact, all the English dialog (90% of the movie--even more than in Gen-Y Cops) is so bad that I switched to Mandarin audio just to spare myself the misery of the bad dialog delivery and the redundancy of the English subs. Sure, there are some decent gunfights (but nothing we haven't already seen before) and good cinematography, but the cheesy visual effects really spoil the action.<br /><br />That said, it's worth the price of admission to watch Shannon and Benny "The Jet" Urquidez go at it. Spectacular, and almost worth watching the rest of the movie for.<br /><br />Finally, you might notice some scenes that seem "familiar" to you, notably a shootout at an outdoor market (think Matrix) and Fitz diving out of a helicopter wearing black fatigues (think MI:2). Guess someone thought at least a few things in this flick were worth ripping off. | 0 |
I rented this movie tonight because it looked like a fun movie. I figured that you really couldn't go wrong with a concept of Ex Girlfriend with super powers. <br /><br />... but the movie was confused and pointless ...<br /><br />it seemed that at every turn the writer kept throwing junk in. Also the writer kept throwing in way too much toilet humor and sexual situations that only a teenage boy could love.<br /><br />It seems that it could have been so simple to draw a story out of Fatal Attraction Super hero .. but I guess not. <br /><br />This is not a fun romantic comedy it was advertised to be. You could not take a child to see it and you would be embarrassed seeing it a date. <br /><br />If the writer could have done a basic story around the high concept and cleaned it up - the movie might have a fighting chance. <br /><br />A serious waste of time.<br /><br />B | 0 |
So, back when Herbie made his first appearance, I was perfectly happy watching Dean Jones mug away. I only wanted to be entertained for a few hours and eat overly buttered popcorn. Now, unfortunately, I have expectations of a riveting/delightful story whenever I watch a movie, if I'm not on some sort of medication. And this is another good movie for the medicated. There are no major laughs, no complex plot lines, no difficult twists. Herbie Fully Loaded is great for the fully loaded.<br /><br />This was the first time I had seen La Lohan on the screen since she swapped places with Jamie Lee Curtis (I thought she was excellent in that), and I can't say I was terribly impressed this time around. Aside from her constantly changing and distractingly unnatural hair color, she just didn't ring true as the kid next door who had spent a lifetime hanging around road racers. Her 'need for speed' wasn't portrayed consistently in the film - perhaps it was elsewhere - she looked older than her part, and seemed to always be looking for something (a party? designer togs? new place to spend money?) off set. I couldn't see any chemistry with Justin Long; that romance seemed obligatory at best. The only time Lindsay appeared engaged was when she was interacting with Matt Dillon, who I thought was appropriately over the top as Evil Bad Guy Trip Murphy.<br /><br />It was great to see Herbie again, and I loved the movie intro with material from the old movies. If Disney had popped out with some Car 53 jewelry, I might have worn some just to be loyal. His new feature (?) was a little inconsistent (does he channel the thoughts of his driver? Does he now skateboard?) but whatever. We all knew how it was going to end, but I do wish he had ended up with someone a little less dopey than Maggie. And my head still hurts from that lesson Maggie and we viewers had hammered home. <br /><br />What would have made the movie worthwhile? Have the old Herbie in a real story with a real plot - at the very least, Herbie's as good as Lassie - but clearly that's asking too much. Why is it that Disney always goes back to the same well as "Herbie Goes Bananas" and "the Computer That Wore Tennis Shoes" when it comes to innovation? <br /><br />I'm sure this was a great movie for kids and those with no expectations. For the rest of us....it's for when you have the 'flu and just can't take the suspense of Rear Window. | 0 |
I can hardly believe I watched this again last night after more than 25 years...<br /><br />Some time back, I watched 6 Fu films in a row... Boris Karloff, and all 5 Chris Lees. The last 2 Lees, both directed (and I use that word loosely) by Jess Franco, were abominable. At the time, I skipped this one, remembering that, in some ways, it was EVEN WORSE.<br /><br />Well, I watched it. NEVER again. You know what's worse that an abominable film? A really WELL-MADE piece of S***. And that's what FIENDISH PLOT is. It is a VERY good-looking movie. GREAT production design, sets, costumes, music, photography, editing, mostly good cast, some decent acting...<br /><br />...and absolutely, positively, one of the WORST SCRIPTS in movie history!!!!! AAAUGH!!!!! The first minute of the film is so deceptive... one might mistake this for a decent movie. And then they start singing "Happy birthday to Fu"... and it goes downhill. Having Burt Kwouk (of whom his master says, "Your face-- is familiar.") accidentally pour out Fu's elixir vitae to put out a fire, resulting in his being condemned to torture, burial and having one of his ears cut off, was the closest thing to funny they had. It was like someone decided they wanted to do a "campy" film-- so ridiculous it would be funny. RIDICULOUS, it is... FUNNY... it AIN'T. At all.<br /><br />It's sad, because it's clear in the first few minutes that someone did a LOT of research into the Fu Manchu series in order to get so much of it "right". With a different script-- either a really FUNNY one, or a dead SERIOUS one, they might have-- could have-- SHOULD have-- had a classic on their hands. A film that could have made one forget the horror of those Jess Franco atrocities... instead of making one want to dig them out as masterpieces, by comparison.<br /><br />There was a period in the late 70's when a whole slew of classic 30's characters were revived in movies that were universally awful. Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Tarzan, The Lone Ranger, Charlie Chan, even Doc Savage. I'm not sure, this one may be the worst of the lot. It took great self-control not to fast-forward over whole sections of it, especially any scenes containing Sid Caesar (FBI chief who was also Al Capone's cousin-- you see what I mean?). It isn't just that the ideas in the film aren't funny... they often make NO SENSE whatsoever. Like when they "audition" police officers to impersonate the King and Queen, and we wind up seeing people "audition" dance-hall routines like singing, dancing, and riding a unicycle. How many drugs did the writers of this thing have to take for any of this to make sense to them? <br /><br />As I said, a shame... and a real waste of all that talent, including that of Peter Sellers (who played both Fu and Nayland Smith), Burt Kwouk (who'd been in a Chris Lee Fu film in his time), Helen Mirren (the police woman who shockingly falls in love with the villain and damn near steals the last half-hour of the film!). I begin to wonder if anyone will EVER make a "proper" Fu Manchu film, or if fans will have to settle for Karloff's being almost the ONLY one? | 0 |
We should all congratulate Uwe Boll. He's done the unthinkable. He may be the only director to have two movies in the bottom 100 on IMDb! He's like some kind of cinematic cockroach. No matter how little talent he has, and no matter how bad these movies are, he manages to keep making them. I know, he finances them all himself through some kind of bizarre German fund, but even so, his ability to keep making movies despite absolute, complete failure is one of the great mysteries of the universe.<br /><br />It wouldn't be so bad except that video game developers keep giving their best properties to this guy. I really enjoyed the Alone in the Dark series of games. Even the latest one, the New Nightmare, was good for a few hours of game play. There was a good movie to be made out of Edward Carnby's adventures, but this is not it. Now Uwe Boll has gotten his hands on Bloodrayne and Hunter: the Reckoning. What's next, Silent Hill? Doom? I can only imagine the swath that this guy is going to cut through game-to-movie adaptations if he's not stopped. Someone needs to take away his line of credit, or these video game publishers need to wise up and realize that when they make a bad movie out of a game that kills the franchise, no one is interested in that title any more.<br /><br />Think about it, is House of the Dead or Alone in the Dark a viable game title anymore? No way. A new House of the Dead game comes out for X-Box and nobody's gonna care. The title is dead, and all because of Uwe Boll. So if any of you out there work for a game publisher, or know a game publisher, or have access to a game publisher... please warn them. <br /><br />This movie itself is not even worth reviewing. I can't separate what I didn't like about this pile of dung from the rest of it. Literally, everything about it sucks. The writing, the acting, the music, the CG effects, the editing. I thought that if I waited until it came out on DVD and then rented it with low expectations, I wouldn't be disappointed. Boy, was I wrong. Never underestimate Uwe's ability to turn out a big, steaming pile of BOLL sh*t. | 0 |
with a title like this, you know not to expect a great horror movie. But this was really bad, even with low expectations. The plot is really insulting and stupid: an escaped criminal wears a Halloween mask, so everyone around him thinks he's someone else. this joke might actually work for 5 or 10 minutes, but not during the entire movie ! the actors are not that bad, but their characters are rather dumb and the story is boring and downright stupid. No suspense, no excitement and little gore (very cheap). Satan's Little Helper tries to combine horror (...) with comedy and fails dramatically at that. It became so boring towards the end, that I actually stopped watching 10 minutes before the end. I couldn't care whatever happened. Amanda Plummer was great in Pulp Fiction, but come on.. that was 13 years ago, and she hasn't done anything decent after that. So no wonder that she had to sink as low as this piece of crap.. Avoid or be warned.. | 0 |
This movie was the most horrible movie watching experience i have ever had to endure, and what is worse is the fact that i had to watch it, and didn't have the opportunity to stop it because it was for school! Admittedly, the storyline was decent...but i found the acting terrible! The exception was Marianne Jean-Baptiste, i thought her performance was wonderful. She was the only highlight, without her, i doubt i would have been able to bear watching the film. Every time i hear somebody say "daarling" i cringe! i nearly attacked a customer the other day because they said "it". It made me remember one of the worst one and a half hours of my life!<br /><br />(i apologise if this has offended anybody, i am only expressing my opinion) | 0 |
Robert Altman's downbeat, new-fangled western from Edmund Naughton's book "McCabe" was overlooked at the time of its release but in the past years has garnered a sterling critical following. Aside from a completely convincing boom-town scenario, the characters here don't merit much interest, and the picture looks (intentionally) brackish and unappealing. Bearded Warren Beatty plays a turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who settles in struggling community on the outskirts of nowhere and helps organize the first brothel; once the profits start coming in, Beatty is naturally menaced by city toughs who want part of the action. Altman creates a solemn, wintry atmosphere for the movie which gives the audience a certain sense of time and place, but the action in this sorry little town is limited--most of the story being made up of vignettes--and Altman's pacing is deliberately slow. There's hardly a statement being made (just the opposite, in fact) and the languid actors stare at each other without much on their minds. It's a self-defeating picture, and yet, in an Altman-quirky way, it wears defeat proudly. ** from **** | 0 |
This is a made-for-TV and rather needless Sci-fi Channel retelling of the Beowulf story, especially after the recent 2005 film "Beowulf and Grendel". This movie doesn't really get into Beowulf's story, but just takes us through his battle against the ravenous beast known as Grendel as it leaves a kingdom in absolute fear and turmoil while the powerful viking warrior, Beowulf is called upon to rid them of the monster's rampage. If this is successfully accomplished, the king will no longer have to sacrifice the children to keep it at bay. After a few failed attempts, the creature is slain, but it's angry and vengeful mother soon attacks, leaving it up to Beowulf to, again, lend his mighty acts of bravery and strength to defeat it. "Grendel" looks like it was shot on a tiny budget and the CG effects are terrible. Like I said, this movie is absolutely needless. | 0 |
Such great actors such a disappointment. Marlon Brando plays and awful character, the movie is not funny at all, a subconscious message can be seen "IT IS A DAMN CRAP!!!", "IT SUUCKS SO BADLY!!", "THROW YOUR TV THROUGH WINDOW", and so on. It is simply disgusting and irksome. In addition to foolish plot, sense of humor, there is something else. The way the rooms are decorated, the colors. It makes me sick, everything is so colourful that it might cause epilepsy. Usually I do not care about the decoration in movie but this from "Free Money" made me angry. Avoid at all costs! "Free Money" - probably for Charlie Sheen, Sutherland and Brando, but a viewer gets nothing! One watches it at cost of sanity. | 0 |
Wowwwwww, about an hour ago I finally finished watching this terrible movie!!! I wanted to turn it off within the first like 10 minutes but I figured I'd give it a chance because it just hadddd to get better. Or at least have some redeeming qualities, like I figured at the very least it would be a make you think type movie, or like really intelligent, or very well filmed or something...Needless to say, that was not the case and I wasted about an hour and a half of my life. Im not even going to get into why its terrible because its a waste of my time to explain that this "may contain spoilers"...IMDb, you should calm down on the spoilers thing and pay more attention to making sure that the people who rate the movies and comment are not paid to write good reviews or involved somehow in the movie or anything else like that. I thought it would be humorous after this terrible film to come see hoe bad the rating would be and I was very very shocked to see the fairly high ratings...all the ratings with about 7-10 stars clearly must be about some COMPLETELY DIFFERENT movie... Im still a big IMDb fan, but seriously rethink this rating process because this movie should be rated no higher than maaaybbbeee like a 3. | 0 |
I was very surprised to see that this movie had such a good rating, when i checked it on IMDb after seeing it. This really is one of the worst movies i have ever seen and i have seen many bad movies. It looks like a good movie in the beginning, but when he comes into surgery i couldn't believe how bad it got. This voice-over destroys EVERYTHING! Just imagine you are being cut open like that and then listen to what he says. I saw the movie in German so i don't really know what he said in English, but ironic stuff like "Yeah right, it doesn't hurt.."?...what is this? Telling yourself "think about something else" and then forgetting your pain by just thinking about your girlfriend is just...stupid. And his mother...how the hell does she figure something like that out? Someone comes to tell her, her son died in surgery (what she kind of had to expect). Plus she found some letters in Jessica Albas bag. plus that "she knows the hospital" stuff... and then it takes her "one second" to figure it out? What the hell?^^ And the ending...why does the police bust them? The patient died in surgery, thats all that happened. That drunk doctor doesn't know anything else either...and then they bust them all, even the girlfriend??? Why??? Despite all that i think Christensen did a bad job, but that doesn't really count for me...those mistakes and stupid things i wrote about above are the problem. I watched this movie with some friends and we all were VERY disappointed... As i said, one of the worst movies i have ever seen... Just don't watch it ;) | 0 |
Unless you are an Evangelical Christian then make like an Egyptian and avoid like the biblical plague.<br /><br />Awful - why oh why does IMDb list the most favourable reviews at the top of the list - it was due to one of these that I have just wasted the end of what started out as good evening on this claptrap.<br /><br />The plot premise started out strong enough - I was drawn into the film and was interested right up to the point where the Bible sermons took over. What a waste.<br /><br />This film has so incensed me that I have registered with IMDb for the first time just to complain about it - I hope at least that by doing so I save someone else's evening.<br /><br />Hay - what a Christian act on my part ;-) | 0 |
Bizarre Tobe Hooper exercise regarding an unfortunate young man(Brad Dourif)with the ability to set people on fire. This ability stems from parents who partook in atomic experiments in the 50's. They die of Spontaneous Human Combustion and it seems that what Sam is beginning to suffer from derives by these pills his girlfriend, Lisa(Cynthia Bain)gives him to take for rough migraines. In actuality, Lisa was told to manipulate Sam into taking the pills by Lew Orlander(William Prince), pretty much the young man's father who raised him from a child. Lew has benevolent plans..he sees Sam as the first "Atomic Man", a pure killing machine in human form. Sam never wanted this and will do whatever it takes to silence those responsible for his condition. As the film goes, Sam's blood is slowly growing toxic, green in color instead of red. It seems that water and other substances which often put out fire react right the opposite when Sam's uncontrollable outbursts of flame ignite. Come to find out, Lisa has Sam's condition whose parents also dies from SHC. Dr. Marsh(Jon Cypher), someone who Sam has known for quite some time as his physician, is to insert toxic green fluid into their bodies, I'm guessing to increase their levels of flame. Nina(Melinda Dillon, sporting an accent that fades in and out)was Sam's parents' friend and associate on the experiments in the 50's who tries to talk things over with him regarding what is happening. And, Rachel(Dey Young)is Sam's ex-wife who may be working against her former husband with Lew and Marsh to harm him and Lisa.<br /><br />Quite a strange little horror flick, filled with some pretty awful flame-effects. Dourif tries to bring a tragic element and intensity to his character whose plight we continue to watch as his body slowly becomes toxic waste with fire often igniting from his orifices. There's this large hole in his arm that spits out flame like a volcano and a massive burn spot on his hand which increases in size over time. Best scene is probably when director John Landis, who portrays a rude electrical engineer trying to inform Sam to hang up because the radio program he's calling has sounded off for the night, becomes a victim of SHC. The flick never quite works because it's so wildly uneven with an abrupt, ridiculous finale where Sam offers to free Lisa of her fire by taking it from her. | 0 |
I honestly believe that ANYONE considering film-making be subjected to this mind-boggling failure. Like the "films" of Edward Wood, Jr. in the '60s and '70s, this film is a shining example of why real filmmakers expend so much energy rewriting scripts, re-editing their films, and reworking their special effects until they finally look right. This movie is also a decent argument FOR the studios' pre-screening process. If Mr. Hines were forced to endure the honest reactions of an impartial audience, perhaps he would have cut 75% or the walking/running/strolling scenes and edited this movie down to a more bearable 90 minutes.<br /><br />Film students should view this movie as an example of just how dangerous thinking their work is "good enough" can truly be. Every performance, every line of dialog, every digital effect, every filter effect, indeed every frame of video expresses the danger of striving for mere mediocrity. A beginning filmmaker may find himself/herself tempted from time to time to think "At least I accomplished SOMETHING" or "Just finishing this will be an accomplishment in itself". This movie will help them understand just how badly a film can turn out.<br /><br />Critics might also benefit from seeing this movie before they dub the latest summer entertainment "the worst movie ever made".<br /><br />Beginning writers can learn from this film just how important rewrites are, and perhaps understand the necessity for rewrites. Also, beginning directors can learn the importance of a GOOD screenplay, and some degree of respect for just how hard it is to write a script that causes the audience to feel emotionally compelled through the story. Writers and directors who watch bad made-for-cable movies of the week and think "I can do better than THAT" can see get an idea from this movie how difficult it really IS to produce even mediocre results.<br /><br />I sincerely believe this movie can serve as an educational tool to beginning filmmakers. Particularly those entering the craft in this current post-Lucas and post-Spielberg environment. There is a reason filmmakers such as these are hailed for their ability with special effects. The War of the Worlds illustrates clearly that not everyone can pull it off. Some can't even come CLOSE to it. | 0 |
A student filmmaker enlists a B-grade actress (a delectably diva-ish MOLLY RINGWALD!) to complete the horror film that her mother (a dreadfully dull Kylie Minogue!) tried to make 12 years ago. It's a curious plot choice to say the least, as any Aussie horror fan knows that the genre is sadly lacking in women directors. The film has a curse on it, because Molly had to kill some psycho murderer on the original set. But she's back, because she needs the exposure. Unfortunately, the curse is still there and people start dying on the "set." Cut is an Aussie attempt at the modern "slasher," but unfortunately it doesn't bring anything new or exciting to the table. In fact, it rips half of Wes Craven's 90s filmography. Lots of film-world name-dropping a la "Scream" (except it's Aussie name-dropping--Jane Campion...see how this isn't as funny) and lots of "is this real or is this a movie" a la "New Nightmare." The editing is bad, the music is annoying, the effects are laughable, almost everything is bad about this. Fortunately, the film can have a sense of humor: at one point, a well-dressed girl in the movie crew says to the owner of the house they are filming at: "Don't worry, we'll treat your house as if it were our own," to which he responds, "that doesn't mean anything to me, you look like you live in a dump!" Ha! And Molly's ridiculous one-liners were enough to not regret renting this one. "You got any diet coke in here?" (as she rides in the film professor's car) and "Does anyone know where I can buy any tofu?" (the first thing she mutters on the set) and "Where the hell is my agent?" (oh wait, that's what I was thinking for her.) | 0 |
When his in-laws are viciously murdered by a gang of thugs, a young deputy is ordered to escort his mute friend, forced to take the rap by the gang, to Tucson for trial and ending up having to face the real killers along the way.<br /><br />The Decoy is a real-life decoy sent to video stores to lure you away from better films! It's talky, illogical, slow, and ultimately very boring.<br /><br />There's some good costumes, sets, and photography but nothing else is good about this vanity project from writer/director/producer/star Justin Kreinbrink, who apparently had too much money on his hands.<br /><br />They used to make westerns like this, that were under an hour long. Trim this of about half it's length and you might have something watchable. | 0 |
I don't know why, but for some sick reason, I think since I've been on the Disney sequel binge, I decided to just go ahead and see 102 Dalmations. The first movie that was a remake of the Disney cartoon classic starring Glenn Close as Cruella De Vil, it seemed like a sure hit, but it was just a bomb. I think the reason why these movies don't work is because 101 Dalmations, the original, was a cartoon, it just worked better and was more appealing to the kids as well as adults. This was not really that fun because it's adults running around trying to act like cartoons instead of just actual human beings, I understand they're trying to make sure that it's appealing to the kids, but it's ridicules to see the way these actors are behaving in the film. And 102 Dalmations's story isn't really that good.<br /><br />Cruella De Vil has been in prison for a while, but things change when she is proved that she now loves animals and is a pleasant human being. But her reputation is now damaged as a puppy-napper, but she buys a man's dog shelter and is all of a sudden is being loved by everyone and it looks like she's changed. But when she sees her probation officer's Dalmatians, she goes crazy and starts seeing spots, and she looses it. She's back for revenge on puppies and is still determined to get that Dalmation coat she's always wanted.<br /><br />Glenn Close is such an amazing actress, very under rated, but her taking on Cruella De Vil, she's good, but let's face it, this movie made the fun villain just more of a silly nut case. Also, as cute as the puppies were, it just works more for the animation, it sounds stupid, but it's just not as believable without the cartoon and their personalities being in the mix. I wouldn't really recommend 102 Dalmations, it's alright, but if you agree that the first movie was just a waste of time, this is just the same thing.<br /><br />2/10 | 0 |
This movie was a stupid piece of crap. Bad everything. Why is it that we who love western movies get jilted nine out of ten times when renting westerns. It seems that if you don't see names like Robert Duval, Kevin Kostner, or Tom Selleck attached to the cover, it isn't worth messing with. For the most part the main action of Shiloh Falls was taking place in 1892, yet the revolvers used were 1860s models. Even the shooting was bad - in one scene the Marshal fanned his six-shooter about nine times and couldn't hit any of three large men who were only about twenty feet away. I had to turn it off after about 15 minutes of this inanity. Perhaps those who participated in this movie could have taken some lessons at the Sunset Carson School of Acting. | 0 |
Tarzan the Ape Man is a remake of the 1932 film of the same time, and like that earlier film, it has little resemblance to Burroughs' literary character. But while the 1932 Tarzan was reduced to "Tarzan - Jane" speech, this Tarzan, played by Miles O'Keeffe, doesn't speak or even grunt. He does do the the Tarzan yell a couple of times, which sounds like it was sampled from the earlier film.<br /><br />No, Tarzan plays second banana to Bo Derek as Jane. Or rather, as third banana to Bo Derek's left breast and her right breast. This movie has no point but to show Derek naked.<br /><br />The two action scenes in the film are presented in slow motion, and are really bad. More evidence that no one cared.<br /><br />Bizarrely enough, Tarzan has an orangutan side kick in this film. Maybe he car pooled in from Sumatra with the Indian elephants that are also on display. | 0 |
Remember a film you seemed to enjoy in the past that doesn't quite meet those same feelings as an adult? That occurred to me when I went back to school..the National Lampoon's Class Reunion. The film has a perfect opportunity for laughs, but surprisingly wanders aimlessly as we see a bizarre collection of characters such a woman who sold her soul to the devil and can shoot out flames of fire from her mouth, a man who appears to be a vampire, and a lunatic killer dressed as a woman and wears sacks over his head. You have the class president who believes he's the best thing since sliced bread(but as we see in the film, he's a coward and joke), a couple of pot smokers who don't even know they are at their own class reunion, and a man named Gary for whom know one even knew existed(and no one can seem to remember his name..this is the one running joke I enjoyed). There is a plump pervert who likes to grab women in inappropriate places, a deaf and blind woman who has a screeching holler when calling for her dog, and the cook(you know her from "goonies" and "Throw Mama From The Train")who loves to place food on people's plates with her hands! The film is essentially about a nutcase who is(or at least attempting to)taking revenge on his classmates for a gag they pulled on him(they arranged for him to sleep with his own twin sister!). The film follows the characters as they search for the killer canvasing darkened, trashed hallways of the old high school. They were told of the killer by his psychologist who seems a bit odd himself. The film has a few good gags that work(pretty much early on), but the film slowly gets worse each passing minute. The film's true problem is that it really doesn't know where to go. The film is pretty much a one-joke premise for it has unassured direction..if it really has any direction at all. The cast is enthusiastic enough, but the material they are to make funny just doesn't have the quality to hold any interest. It's a curio for fans of early 80's comedy relics that are forgotten(this one rightfully so). | 0 |
This is one of the silliest movies I have ever had the misfortune to watch! I should have expected it, after seeing the first two, but I keep getting suckered into these types of movies with the idea of "Maybe they did it right this time". Nope - not even close.<br /><br />Where do I begin? How about with the special effects... To give you an idea of what passes for SFX in this movie, at one point a soldier is shooting at a "Raptor" as it runs down a hallway. Even with less than a second of screen time, the viewer can easily see that it is just a man with a tail apparently taped to him running around. Bad bad bad bad.<br /><br />How about the acting? If that's what you can call it. There is one character who, I suppose, is supposed to be from the south. However, after living in the south for six years now, I have never heard this way of talking. Perhaps he has some sort of weird disability - the inability to talk normally. I find it fascinating that the character does nothing that requires him to have that accent - therefore there was no reason for the actor to try to do one.<br /><br />How about the plot? It's pretty basic - Raptors escape, people with guns must hunt them down. I'm starting to wonder why the dinosaurs in these movies always seem to run into the nearest system of tunnels... wouldn't they stay outside to hunt prey? Oh well, at least they have the good sense to appear very very little in the movie which supposedly revolves around them.<br /><br />Other things - Let's say you are in a building and you know that there are man eating raptors running around in it. Would you decide to take time out to have an argument about who is better - Army or Marine? And then decide to have an arm wrestling contest to settle it? How about the idiotic idea that they have to track down the raptors - Split up into groups of two. Didn't they ever watch any horror movies (Or at least an episode of Scooby Doo)? In short, this is one of the dumber movies out there. Miss it unless you want to groan your way through a movie. | 0 |
This movie is just bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. Now that I've gotten that out of the way, I feel better. This movie is poor from beginning to end. The story is lame. The 3-D segment is really bad. Freddy is at his cartoon character worst. Thank God they killed him off. And who wants to see Roseanne and Tom Arnold cameos?<br /><br />The only good thing in the movie is the little bit of backstory that we're given on Freddy. We see he once had a family, and we get to see his abusive, alcoholic father (Alice Cooper).<br /><br />Other than that, all bad. There are some quality actors in here (Lisa Zane and Yaphet Kotto), and they do their best, but the end result is just so bad. The hour and a half I spent watching this movie is and hour and half I can't ever get back. | 0 |
I usually try to construct reasonably well-argued critiques of films, but I can not believe this got past the script stage. The dialogue is appalling, the acting very dodgy, the accents just awful, and the direction and pacing is scrappy at best.<br /><br />I don't remember the last time I saw a film quite this bad. Joseph Fiennes, pretty as he is, might just have killed his career as quickly as it started.<br /><br />The Island of Doctor Moreau was no worse than this garbage. | 0 |
If this movie had not been labeled a Disney picture, I probably would not have been so disappointed. The nudity was unnecessary and did not add anything. The same can be said for the toilet bowl scene. This is one Disney film that I will not let my four year old nephew watch. | 0 |
This horrible! The acting, costumes, production values, editing, the script, everything about this film is as bad as it can get. It looks as if it was filmed with a video camera. Can you give a movie a negative rating? Watch The Ring instead. | 0 |
I already know that critics and some audiences say that it was a satire, there were numerous political and social messages, the names make refer to some other names etc. It might be. I cannot realize such things (I don't want to do anyway) because I am not interested in, I am interested in 'cinema'. As for the movie itself, again it is said that the movie is clever and dramatically powerful. I could not see anything which we don't see in monster movies except the scene which takes place in a office in the second half. Yes, that scene says somethings about humanity, but it does not make the movie brilliant. The movie is entertaining (mildly) and exciting in some moments or scenes, but no more than that. As for the biggest flaw of the movie, it is visual effects. It was just shocking, I could not pull myself together for a while, because I had expected a realistic monster, because it is not one of the old Gojira movies, it was made in 2006, but it was not. It is like if you don't believe that there is a monster, you cannot care about. If you agree with me about this, I highly recommend you Cloverfield that is extremely realistic. The design of the monster is not interesting, but at least planned, there is an effort. Dramatically powerful critique. Some critics talk about it as if it is a Kurosawa movie. Yes, it is rather a drama than a thriller or action, but it should not mean that it is dramatically powerful. I don't want to compare The Host with other monster movies, but I try to mean that The Host does not do something that other monster movies do not do. By the way, may be some people call the movie masterpiece because of their sympathy for Asian cinema. Yes, I like Asian cinema too, but this is the fact. | 0 |
I had never heard of this one before it turned up on Cable TV. It's very typical of late 50s sci-fi: sober, depressing and not a little paranoid! Despite the equally typical inclusion of a romantic couple, the film is pretty much put across in a documentary style - which is perhaps a cheap way of leaving a lot of the exposition to narration and an excuse to insert as much stock footage as is humanly possibly for what is unmistakably an extremely low-budget venture! While not uninteresting in itself (the-apocalypse-via-renegade-missile angle later utilized, with far greater aplomb, for both DR. STRANGELOVE [1964] and FAIL-SAFE [1964]) and mercifully short, the film's single-minded approach to its subject matter results in a good deal of unintentional laughter - particularly in the scenes involving an imminent childbirth and a gang of clueless juvenile delinquents! | 0 |
I'm not a big fan of slasher flicks as a genre, but even by the standards of low-low-budget exploitation, this one is really lame. Even on a nudity-and-gore level, it's incredibly boring (there is some of both, but it's all sort of...meh). Before the home video revolution, it might not even have been released theatrically (though it might have; after all, *Plan 9 From Outer Space* played in theaters). There is precisely one good (and competently-delivered) line in the entire movie; I assume they stole it from somewhere.<br /><br />The acting is among the worst I have ever seen. I mean, even Ed Wood had a couple of competent actors, and the rest tended to be ludicrously hammy, which can be fun to watch. Anyway, most of his actors could pretty much pass as literate. Here, those who don't read their lines like cigar-store Indians sound like they learned them phonetically. And this film does have one distinction: it manages to be badly underplotted for most of the movie, then laughably overplotted for the ending.<br /><br />(Update: I should have singled out the actress playing the receptionist as an exception. She is by no means wooden. Not that she's good, but she certainly isn't wooden.)<br /><br />Even the worst slasher flicks are generally good for a few Puritan meditations on their grotesque offensiveness, but with this one, there doesn't even seem to be anything there to work up a moral outrage about.<br /><br />And you know the funniest thing? They clearly expected to make a sequel!<br /><br />It's so bad and boring that it actually becomes fascinating in a weird way. I sat enrapt through much of the video wondering why anyone would go to the bother of making it. | 0 |
I picked this movie up to replace the dismal choice of daytime television and to go with my thirst for femme fatales. Well, for the previous, it is better than daytime television....though I'm not sure how much.<br /><br />It does have its points but after about the first 20-30 minutes, the good points pan out and one comes to the conclusion that they are watching a made for TV movie that was put together with not much time to make something that will hold together. In short, a terrible Sci Fi channel type movie.<br /><br />It has its points such as the future is dirty, like "Blade Runner" showed ..... of course, this is no "Blade Runner". The Captain looks, sort of feels like actor Robert Forster, the kind of person one might want to be around.<br /><br />But unfortunately, it rather ends up feeling like a bad "Andromeda" rehash where the muscle of the crew consists of poor copies of the smart gunners of "Aliens", the mystic is vampire Willow sexually intensified, and the new Captain might as well be like Jan-Michael Vincent running around on "Danger Island" in the "Banana Splits"; he only put on the uniform with the epaulets; he's got very little right to it. All of them running around with their version of force lances inside a ship that looks very much like the 'Eureka Maru' as they are fighting a class of 'people' who occupy the universe and are broken up into several different tribes or sects of different evolutionary qualities.......just like the Nietzcheans in "Andromeda".<br /><br />It might have a redeeming feature with Michael Ironside, but after a while, one gets the feeling that he took the part as a hoot! He probably had fun doing it, but it doesn't help the movie much.<br /><br />It's ..... "okay". Okay in the way that one might watch the DVD once without turning it off; if they watch it with commercials, they will probably change the channel. One might watch it once .......... but a few hours later, be wondering what it was that made them watch it all.<br /><br />For me, that was the femme fatale ............. when she was fighting. | 0 |
This movie promised bat people. It didn't deliver. There was a guy who got bit by a bat, but what was with the seizures? And the stupid transformation? Where was the plot? Where was the acting? Who came up with the idea to make this? Why was it allowed to be made? Why? Why? I guess we'll never know. | 0 |
Wow, what a snoozer. Definately one of bacon's worst films. The bad acting coupled with a formulatic, if not incredulous, script make me yearn for time I wasted on viewing this on cable television back. Not really much I can say about it, a basketball scout gets too attached to the person he's recruiting, who happens to belong to a tribe that happens to be on the verge of war which happens to be decided by (spoiler) a basketball game. Grade: F+ | 0 |
I went to this movie expecting a concise movie relating the effect the Son of Sam had on the society. I didn't expect Spike Lee to force-feed me more garbage on racial tension, mob-justice, or the inability of the common citizen to make a choice under pressure by peers. Lee has presented an extreme opinion.<br /><br />The entire movie could have been more effective if in a 90-min format with more focus, less tangential sub-plots.<br /><br />Don't even bother renting the video unless you passionately enjoy Spike Lee; in such a case, the theatre is worth it. This is not an escapist movie. | 0 |
<br /><br />Entrails of a Virgin is so bizarre and incomprehensible that it allows the viewer to interpret it subjectively, applying whatever meaning he wishes to its inexplicable excesses of sex and violence. If this was an intentional characteristic of the film, it would be a work of postmodern brilliance-but of course it isn't. <br /><br />Without getting too much into plot summary, let's take a quick walking tour of the events. At a secluded cabin, an orgy is in progress, which includes topless wrestling and diaper p***ing. A vanload of latecomers joins the orgy in progress, but they have unwittingly been followed by a monster I like to call "the muddy ninja." This monster precedes to slay orgy participants one by one, except the proverbial virgin (if you don't count oral sex) who receives his seed and consequently becomes so passionate with desire that she masturbates with someone's severed hand. <br /><br />Finally she has her guts pulled out, and then there's a scene which seems to imply that she's pregnant with a baby muddy ninja. Got all that? If you're going to rent this movie, it's best if you don't speak Japanese and don't have any subtitles. In a season populated by boring Hollywood flicks, putting this in your VCR might be the cinematic equivalent of shock therapy. It will certainly be something different. | 0 |
This movie wants to elaborate that criminals are a product of modern society. Therefore, can thieves, rapists and murderers (the Killer of this movie, Carl Panzram (James Woods), is all three and worse) be held fully accountable for their deeds? An interesting notion, but very difficult to bring to the screen in an intellectually and emotionally satisfying way. And this is where Killer: A Journal of Murder falls very short. Although the film tries to put Panzram's behaviour into perspective, with flashbacks to his violent youth and dysfunctional upbringing, the viewer never gets the idea that Panzram is a victim rather than a culprit. Sure, the system is corrupt, with one mobster occupying the whole sick bay of Leavenworth Prison (where most of the movie takes place), most prison guards are sadistic bullies, and the prison director something like a megalomaniacal despot. But why on earth does new prison guard Henry Lesser (Robert Sean Leonard) take such pity on Panzram? Even after having read his gruesome diaries? The movie offers some explanation: Lesser witnesses Panzram being beaten to a pulp by the most sadistic (and stereotypical) guard, and is impressed by Panzram's intelligence (though it isn't clear why exactly Lesser thinks this man is so smart). Surely this isn't enough to sympathize with a hostile man like Panzram, even though this movie tends to downplay his crimes and highlight his personality? Towards Lesser, Panzram is quite loyal, and the viewer is given the impression that for Lesser this outweighs all of the atrocities he has read about in Panzram's diaries. Does this man Lesser have so little friends that he takes at face value everyone who seems only remotely friendly to him? Perhaps it is Lesser who is a product of modern society, judging on appearance rather than substance.<br /><br />I can advise Monster, starring Charlize Theron and Christina Ricci, as a movie which handles roughly the same themes with far more integrity and scope.<br /><br />BTW: Killer looks as though shot for TV (not so good) | 0 |
The movie is basically a boring string of appalling clichés which do not offer a real cross-cultural insight. The Middle Eastern leg of the journey is described in a particularly irritating way: there obviously are mud brick villages, dirt tracks in the middle of the desert, women clad in black robes and belly dancers. I wonder how camels and date palm trees were missing from the whole picture. The personality of the two main characters is very clumsily sketched and many situations are hardly credible. <br /><br />The original idea might have been interesting, but at the end of the day if you are looking for cultural insight, you should skip this movie. | 0 |
Why do all movies on Lifetime have such anemic titles? "An Unexpected Love" - ooh, how provocative!! "This Much I know" would have been better. The film is nothing special. Real people don't really talk like these characters do and the situations are really hackneyed. The straight woman who "turns" lesbian seemed more butch than the lesbian character. If you wanna watch two hot women kiss in a very discreet fashion, you might enjoy this. Although it seems like it was written by someone who doesn't really get out in the world to observe people. Why am I wasting my time writing about it? | 0 |
Subsets and Splits