I rented I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW from my video store because of all the controversy that surrounded it when it was first released in 1967. I also heard that at first it was seized by U.S. customs if it ever tried to enter this country, therefore being a fan of films considered "controversial" I really had to see this for myself.<br /><br />The plot is centered around a young Swedish drama student named Lena who wants to learn everything she can about life. In particular she wants to focus her attentions to making some sort of documentary on what the average Swede thought about certain political issues such as the Vietnam War and race issues in the United States. In between asking politicians and ordinary denizens of Stockholm about their opinions on politics, she has sex with her drama teacher, classmates, and married men.<br /><br />What kills me about I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW is that 40 years ago, this was considered pornographic. Really, the sex and nudity scenes are few and far between, even then it's not shot like some cheaply made porno. While my countrymen mind find it shocking, in reality sex and nudity are a major staple in Swedish cinema. Even Ingmar Bergman, arguably their answer to good old boy John Ford, had sex scenes in his films.<br /><br />I do commend the filmmakers for the fact that any sex shown in the film is shown for artistic purposes rather than just to shock people and make money to be shown in pornographic theaters in America. I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW is a good film for anyone wanting to study the meat and potatoes (no pun intended) of Swedish cinema. But really, this film doesn't have much of a plot.
"I Am Curious: Yellow" is a risible and pretentious steaming pile. It doesn't matter what one's political views are because this film can hardly be taken seriously on any level. As for the claim that frontal male nudity is an automatic NC-17, that isn't true. I've seen R-rated films with male nudity. Granted, they only offer some fleeting views, but where are the R-rated films with gaping vulvas and flapping labia? Nowhere, because they don't exist. The same goes for those crappy cable shows: schlongs swinging in the breeze but not a clitoris in sight. And those pretentious indie movies like The Brown Bunny, in which we're treated to the site of Vincent Gallo's throbbing johnson, but not a trace of pink visible on Chloe Sevigny. Before crying (or implying) "double-standard" in matters of nudity, the mentally obtuse should take into account one unavoidably obvious anatomical difference between men and women: there are no genitals on display when actresses appears nude, and the same cannot be said for a man. In fact, you generally won't see female genitals in an American film in anything short of porn or explicit erotica. This alleged double-standard is less a double standard than an admittedly depressing ability to come to terms culturally with the insides of women's bodies.
If only to avoid making this type of film in the future. This film is interesting as an experiment but tells no cogent story.<br /><br />One might feel virtuous for sitting thru it because it touches on so many IMPORTANT issues but it does so without any discernable motive. The viewer comes away with no new perspectives (unless one comes up with one while one's mind wanders, as it will invariably do during this pointless film).<br /><br />One might better spend one's time staring out a window at a tree growing.<br /><br />
This film was probably inspired by Godard's Masculin, féminin and I urge you to see that film instead.<br /><br />The film has two strong elements and those are, (1) the realistic acting (2) the impressive, undeservedly good, photo. Apart from that, what strikes me most is the endless stream of silliness. Lena Nyman has to be most annoying actress in the world. She acts so stupid and with all the nudity in this film,...it's unattractive. Comparing to Godard's film, intellectuality has been replaced with stupidity. Without going too far on this subject, I would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the French and the Swedish society.<br /><br />A movie of its time, and place. 2/10.
Oh, brother...after hearing about this ridiculous film for umpteen years all I can think of is that old Peggy Lee song..<br /><br />"Is that all there is??" ...I was just an early teen when this smoked fish hit the U.S. I was too young to get in the theater (although I did manage to sneak into "Goodbye Columbus"). Then a screening at a local film museum beckoned - Finally I could see this film, except now I was as old as my parents were when they schlepped to see it!!<br /><br />The ONLY reason this film was not condemned to the anonymous sands of time was because of the obscenity case sparked by its U.S. release. MILLIONS of people flocked to this stinker, thinking they were going to see a sex film...Instead, they got lots of closeups of gnarly, repulsive Swedes, on-street interviews in bland shopping malls, asinie political pretension...and feeble who-cares simulated sex scenes with saggy, pale actors.<br /><br />Cultural icon, holy grail, historic artifact..whatever this thing was, shred it, burn it, then stuff the ashes in a lead box!<br /><br />Elite esthetes still scrape to find value in its boring pseudo revolutionary political spewings..But if it weren't for the censorship scandal, it would have been ignored, then forgotten.<br /><br />Instead, the "I Am Blank, Blank" rhythymed title was repeated endlessly for years as a titilation for porno films (I am Curious, Lavender - for gay films, I Am Curious, Black - for blaxploitation films, etc..) and every ten years or so the thing rises from the dead, to be viewed by a new generation of suckers who want to see that "naughty sex film" that "revolutionized the film industry"...<br /><br />Yeesh, avoid like the plague..Or if you MUST see it - rent the video and fast forward to the "dirty" parts, just to get it over with.<br /><br />
I would put this at the top of my list of films in the category of unwatchable trash! There are films that are bad, but the worst kind are the ones that are unwatchable but you are suppose to like them because they are supposed to be good for you! The sex sequences, so shocking in its day, couldn't even arouse a rabbit. The so called controversial politics is strictly high school sophomore amateur night Marxism. The film is self-consciously arty in the worst sense of the term. The photography is in a harsh grainy black and white. Some scenes are out of focus or taken from the wrong angle. Even the sound is bad! And some people call this art?<br /><br />
Whoever wrote the screenplay for this movie obviously never consulted any books about Lucille Ball, especially her autobiography. I've never seen so many mistakes in a biopic, ranging from her early years in Celoron and Jamestown to her later years with Desi. I could write a whole list of factual errors, but it would go on for pages. In all, I believe that Lucille Ball is one of those inimitable people who simply cannot be portrayed by anyone other than themselves. If I were Lucie Arnaz and Desi, Jr., I would be irate at how many mistakes were made in this film. The filmmakers tried hard, but the movie seems awfully sloppy to me.
When I first saw a glimpse of this movie, I quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of Lucille Ball. Rachel York's portrayal of Lucy is absolutely awful. Lucille Ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. To think about a legend like Lucille Ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. I cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better Lucy, the producers decided to get Rachel York. She might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of Lucille Ball is tough. It is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble Lucille Ball, but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. If you noticed York's portrayal of Lucy in episodes of I Love Lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin, nothing is similar in any way-her expression, voice, or movement.<br /><br />To top it all off, Danny Pino playing Desi Arnaz is horrible. Pino does not qualify to play as Ricky. He's small and skinny, his accent is unreal, and once again, his acting is unbelievable. Although Fred and Ethel were not similar either, they were not as bad as the characters of Lucy and Ricky.<br /><br />Overall, extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. If people want to understand the real life situation of Lucille Ball, I suggest watching A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi, read the book from Lucille Ball herself, or PBS' American Masters: Finding Lucy. If you want to see a docudrama, "Before the Laughter" would be a better choice. The casting of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in "Before the Laughter" is much better compared to this. At least, a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.
Who are these "They"- the actors? the filmmakers? Certainly couldn't be the audience- this is among the most air-puffed productions in existence. It's the kind of movie that looks like it was a lot of fun to shoot— TOO much fun, nobody is getting any actual work done, and that almost always makes for a movie that's no fun to watch.<br /><br />Ritter dons glasses so as to hammer home his character's status as a sort of doppleganger of the bespectacled Bogdanovich; the scenes with the breezy Ms. Stratten are sweet, but have an embarrassing, look-guys-I'm-dating-the-prom-queen feel to them. Ben Gazzara sports his usual cat's-got-canary grin in a futile attempt to elevate the meager plot, which requires him to pursue Audrey Hepburn with all the interest of a narcoleptic at an insomnia clinic. In the meantime, the budding couple's respective children (nepotism alert: Bogdanovich's daughters) spew cute and pick up some fairly disturbing pointers on 'love' while observing their parents. (Ms. Hepburn, drawing on her dignity, manages to rise above the proceedings- but she has the monumental challenge of playing herself, ostensibly.) Everybody looks great, but so what? It's a movie and we can expect that much, if that's what you're looking for you'd be better off picking up a copy of Vogue.<br /><br />Oh- and it has to be mentioned that Colleen Camp thoroughly annoys, even apart from her singing, which, while competent, is wholly unconvincing... the country and western numbers are woefully mismatched with the standards on the soundtrack. Surely this is NOT what Gershwin (who wrote the song from which the movie's title is derived) had in mind; his stage musicals of the 20's may have been slight, but at least they were long on charm. "They All Laughed" tries to coast on its good intentions, but nobody- least of all Peter Bogdanovich - has the good sense to put on the brakes.<br /><br />Due in no small part to the tragic death of Dorothy Stratten, this movie has a special place in the heart of Mr. Bogdanovich- he even bought it back from its producers, then distributed it on his own and went bankrupt when it didn't prove popular. His rise and fall is among the more sympathetic and tragic of Hollywood stories, so there's no joy in criticizing the film... there _is_ real emotional investment in Ms. Stratten's scenes. But "Laughed" is a faint echo of "The Last Picture Show", "Paper Moon" or "What's Up, Doc"- following "Daisy Miller" and "At Long Last Love", it was a thundering confirmation of the phase from which P.B. has never emerged.<br /><br />All in all, though, the movie is harmless, only a waste of rental. I want to watch people having a good time, I'll go to the park on a sunny day. For filmic expressions of joy and love, I'll stick to Ernest Lubitsch and Jaques Demy...
This is said to be a personal film for Peter Bogdonavitch. He based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters, who are detectives. These detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. Sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective, doesn't it? This entire movie was written by Peter, and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. You're supposed to write what you know, and he did that, indeed. And leaves the audience bored and confused, and jealous, for that matter. This is a curio for people who want to see Dorothy Stratten, who was murdered right after filming. But Patti Hanson, who would, in real life, marry Keith Richards, was also a model, like Stratten, but is a lot better and has a more ample part. In fact, Stratten's part seemed forced; added. She doesn't have a lot to do with the story, which is pretty convoluted to begin with. All in all, every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with, unless you're millionaire from Manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. For the rest of us, it's an irritating snore fest. That's what happens when you're out of touch. You entertain your few friends with inside jokes, and bore all the rest.
It was great to see some of my favorite stars of 30 years ago including John Ritter, Ben Gazarra and Audrey Hepburn. They looked quite wonderful. But that was it. They were not given any characters or good lines to work with. I neither understood or cared what the characters were doing.<br /><br />Some of the smaller female roles were fine, Patty Henson and Colleen Camp were quite competent and confident in their small sidekick parts. They showed some talent and it is sad they didn't go on to star in more and better films. Sadly, I didn't think Dorothy Stratten got a chance to act in this her only important film role.<br /><br />The film appears to have some fans, and I was very open-minded when I started watching it. I am a big Peter Bogdanovich fan and I enjoyed his last movie, "Cat's Meow" and all his early ones from "Targets" to "Nickleodeon". So, it really surprised me that I was barely able to keep awake watching this one.<br /><br />It is ironic that this movie is about a detective agency where the detectives and clients get romantically involved with each other. Five years later, Bogdanovich's ex-girlfriend, Cybil Shepherd had a hit television series called "Moonlighting" stealing the story idea from Bogdanovich. Of course, there was a great difference in that the series relied on tons of witty dialogue, while this tries to make do with slapstick and a few screwball lines.<br /><br />Bottom line: It ain't no "Paper Moon" and only a very pale version of "What's Up, Doc".
I can't believe that those praising this movie herein aren't thinking of some other film. I was prepared for the possibility that this would be awful, but the script (or lack thereof) makes for a film that's also pointless. On the plus side, the general level of craft on the part of the actors and technical crew is quite competent, but when you've got a sow's ear to work with you can't make a silk purse. Ben G fans should stick with just about any other movie he's been in. Dorothy S fans should stick to Galaxina. Peter B fans should stick to Last Picture Show and Target. Fans of cheap laughs at the expense of those who seem to be asking for it should stick to Peter B's amazingly awful book, Killing of the Unicorn.
Never cast models and Playboy bunnies in your films! Bob Fosse's "Star 80" about Dorothy Stratten, of whom Bogdanovich was obsessed enough to have married her SISTER after her murder at the hands of her low-life husband, is a zillion times more interesting than Dorothy herself on the silver screen. Patty Hansen is no actress either..I expected to see some sort of lost masterpiece a la Orson Welles but instead got Audrey Hepburn cavorting in jeans and a god-awful "poodlesque" hair-do....Very disappointing...."Paper Moon" and "The Last Picture Show" I could watch again and again. This clunker I could barely sit through once. This movie was reputedly not released because of the brouhaha surrounding Ms. Stratten's tawdry death; I think the real reason was because it was so bad!
Its not the cast. A finer group of actors, you could not find. Its not the setting. The director is in love with New York City, and by the end of the film, so are we all! Woody Allen could not improve upon what Bogdonovich has done here. If you are going to fall in love, or find love, Manhattan is the place to go. No, the problem with the movie is the script. There is none. The actors fall in love at first sight, words are unnecessary. In the director's own experience in Hollywood that is what happens when they go to work on the set. It is reality to him, and his peers, but it is a fantasy to most of us in the real world. So, in the end, the movie is hollow, and shallow, and message-less.
Today I found "They All Laughed" on VHS on sale in a rental. It was a really old and very used VHS, I had no information about this movie, but I liked the references listed on its cover: the names of Peter Bogdanovich, Audrey Hepburn, John Ritter and specially Dorothy Stratten attracted me, the price was very low and I decided to risk and buy it. I searched IMDb, and the User Rating of 6.0 was an excellent reference. I looked in "Mick Martin & Marsha Porter Video & DVD Guide 2003" and – wow – four stars! So, I decided that I could not waste more time and immediately see it. Indeed, I have just finished watching "They All Laughed" and I found it a very boring overrated movie. The characters are badly developed, and I spent lots of minutes to understand their roles in the story. The plot is supposed to be funny (private eyes who fall in love for the women they are chasing), but I have not laughed along the whole story. The coincidences, in a huge city like New York, are ridiculous. Ben Gazarra as an attractive and very seductive man, with the women falling for him as if her were a Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas or George Clooney, is quite ridiculous. In the end, the greater attractions certainly are the presence of the Playboy centerfold and playmate of the year Dorothy Stratten, murdered by her husband pretty after the release of this movie, and whose life was showed in "Star 80" and "Death of a Centerfold: The Dorothy Stratten Story"; the amazing beauty of the sexy Patti Hansen, the future Mrs. Keith Richards; the always wonderful, even being fifty-two years old, Audrey Hepburn; and the song "Amigo", from Roberto Carlos. Although I do not like him, Roberto Carlos has been the most popular Brazilian singer since the end of the 60's and is called by his fans as "The King". I will keep this movie in my collection only because of these attractions (manly Dorothy Stratten). My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Muito Riso e Muita Alegria" ("Many Laughs and Lots of Happiness")
This film is just plain horrible. John Ritter doing pratt falls, 75% of the actors delivering their lines as if they were reading them from cue cards, poor editing, horrible sound mixing (dialogue is tough to pick up in places over the background noise), and a plot that really goes nowhere. I didn't think I'd ever say this, but Dorothy Stratten is not the worst actress in this film. There are at least 3 others that suck more. Patti Hansen delivers her lines with the passion of Ben Stein. I started to wonder if she wasn't dead inside. Even Bogdanovich's kids are awful (the oldest one is definitely reading her lines from a cue card). This movie is seriously horrible. There's a reason Bogdanovich couldn't get another project until 4 years later. Please don't watch it. If you see it in your television listings, cancel your cable. If a friend suggests it to you, reconsider your friendship. If your spouse wants to watch it, you're better off finding another soulmate. I'd rather gouge my eyes out with lawn darts than sit through this piece of garbage again. If I could sum this film up in one word, that word would be: Suckotrocity
My interest in Dorothy Stratten caused me to purchase this video. Although it had great actors/actresses, there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest. Plus it just wasn't that interesting. Dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable. I was pretty disappointed in what I believe was one of Audrey Hepburn's last movies. I'll always love John Ritter best in slapstick. He was just too pathetic here.
I have this film out of the library right now and I haven't finished watching it. It is so bad I am in disbelief. Audrey Hepburn had totally lost her talent by then, although she'd pretty much finished with it in 'Robin and Marian.' This is the worst thing about this appallingly stupid film. It's really only of interest because it was her last feature film and because of the Dorothy Stratten appearance just prior to her homicide.<br /><br />There is nothing but idiocy between Gazzara and his cronies. Little signals and little bows and nods to real screwball comedy of which this is the faintest, palest shadow.<br /><br />Who could believe that there are even some of the same Manhattan environs that Hepburn inhabited so magically and even mythically in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' twenty years earlier? The soundtrack of old Sinatra songs and the Gershwin song from which the title is taken is too loud and obvious--you sure don't have to wait for the credits to find out that something was subtly woven into the cine-musique of the picture to know when the songs blasted out at you.<br /><br />'Reverting to type' means going back up as well as going back down, I guess. In this case, Audrey Hepburn's chic European lady is all you see of someone who was formerly occasionally an actress and always a star. Here she has even lost her talent as a star. If someone whose talent was continuing to grow in the period, like Ann-Margret, had played the role, there would have been some life in it, even given the unbelievably bad material and Mongoloid-level situations.<br /><br />Hepburn was a great person, of course, greater than most movie stars ever dreamed of being, and she was once one of the most charming and beautiful of film actors. After this dreadful performance, she went on to make an atrocious TV movie with Robert Wagner called 'Love Among Thieves.' In 'They all Laughed' it is as though she were still playing an ingenue in her 50's. Even much vainer and obviously less intelligent actresses who insisted upon doing this like Lana Turner were infinitely more effective than is Hepburn. Turner took acting seriously even when she was bad. Hepburn doesn't take it seriously at all, couldn't be bothered with it; even her hair and clothes look tacky. Her last really good work was in 'Two for the Road,' perhaps her most perfect, if possibly not her best in many ways.<br /><br />And that girl who plays the country singer is just sickening. John Ritter is horrible, there is simply nothing to recommend this film except to see Dorothy Stratten, who was truly pretty. Otherwise, critic David Thomson's oft-used phrase 'losing his/her talent' never has made more sense.<br /><br />Ben Gazarra had lost all sex appeal by then, and so we have 2 films with Gazarra and Hepburn--who could ask for anything less? Sandra Dee's last, pitiful film 'Lost,' from 2 years later, a low-budget nothing, had more to it than this. At least Ms. Dee spoke in her own voice; by 1981, Audrey Hepburn's accent just sounded silly; she'd go on to do the PBS 'Gardens of the World with Audrey Hepburn' and there her somewhat irritating accent works as she walks through English gardens with aristocrats or waxes effusively about 'what I like most is when flowers go back to nature!' as in naturalized daffodils, but in an actual fictional movie, she just sounds ridiculous.<br /><br />To think that 'Breakfast at Tiffany's' was such a profound sort of light poetic thing with Audrey Hepburn one of the most beautiful women in the world--she was surely one of the most beautiful screen presences in 'My Fair Lady', matching Garbo in several things and Delphine Seyrig in 'Last Year at Marienbad.' And then this! And her final brief role as the angel 'Hap' in the Spielberg film 'Always' was just more of the lady stuff--corny, witless and stifling.<br /><br />I went to her memorial service at the Fifth Avenue Presbyterian Church, a beautiful service which included a boys' choir singing the Shaker hymn 'Simple Gifts.' The only thing not listed in the program was the sudden playing of Hepburn's singing 'Moon River' on the fire escape in 'Breakfast at Tiffany's,' and this brought much emotion and some real tears out in the congregation.<br /><br />A great lady who was once a fine actress (as in 'The Nun's Story') and one of the greatest and most beautiful of film stars in many movies of the 50's and 60's who became a truly bad one--that's not all that common. And perhaps it is only a great human being who, in making such things as film performances trivial, nevertheless has the largeness of mind to want to have the flaws pointed out mercilessly--which all of her late film work contained in abundance. Most of the talk about Hepburn's miscasting is about 'My Fair Lady.' But the one that should have had the original actress in it was 'Wait Until Dark,' which had starred Lee Remick on Broadway. Never as celebrated as Hepburn, she was a better actress in many ways (Hepburn was completely incapable of playing anything really sordid), although Hepburn was at least adequate enough in that part. After that, all of her acting went downhill.
I think I will make a movie next weekend. Oh wait, I'm working..oh I'm sure I can fit it in. It looks like whoever made this film fit it in. I hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked!!! It looks like someones home movie and I don't think more than $100 was spent making it!!! Total crap!!! Who let's this stuff be released?!?!?!
Pros: Nothing<br /><br />Cons: Everything<br /><br />Plot summary: A female reporter runs into a hitchhiker that tells her stories about the deaths of people that were killed by zombies.<br /><br />Review: Never in my life have I come across a movie as bad The Zombie Chronicles. Filmed on a budget of what looks to be about 20 bucks, TZC is a completely horrible horror movie that relies on lame, forgetable actors whom couldn't act to save their lives and gore that's more gross than frightening. How does a movie like this even get made? Simply put, avoid TZC like a sexually-transmitted disease.<br /><br />My last 2 cents: Humorously enough, this movie was made by a movie company called Brain Damage Films. They're brains must have really been damaged to come up with a craptacular movie like this.<br /><br />My rating: 1 out of 10(If it were up to me, this movie would get the rating of negative bajillion)
If the crew behind "Zombie Chronicles" ever read this, here's some advice guys: <br /><br />1. In a "Twist Ending"-type movie, it's not a good idea to insert close-ups of EVERY DEATH IN THE MOVIE in the opening credits. That tends to spoil the twists, y'know...? <br /><br />2. I know you produced this on a shoestring and - to be fair - you worked miracles with your budget but please, hire people who can actually act. Or at least, walk, talk and gesture at the same time. Joe Haggerty, I'm looking at you...<br /><br />3. If you're going to set a part of your movie in the past, only do this if you have the props and costumes of the time.<br /><br />4. Twist endings are supposed to be a surprise. Sure, we don't want twists that make no sense, but signposting the "reveal" as soon as you introduce a character? That's not a great idea.<br /><br />Kudos to the guys for trying, but in all honesty, I'd rather they hadn't...<br /><br />Only for zombie completists.
1st watched 8/3/2003 - 2 out of 10(Dir-Brad Sykes): Mindless 3-D movie about flesh-eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. And yes, we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3D!! Wow, not!! That has been done time and time again in 2D in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh-eating. That's what made the original zombie classics good. The flesh-eating was just thrown in as an extra. We're actually bored throughout most of this 3-part chronicle because of the lame(twilight-zone like) easily understood and slow-pacingly revealed finale's. The last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so-called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie's in that one as well. Well, I think I've said enough. Watch the classics, not this 3D bore-feast.
There's tons of good-looking women in this flick. But alas, this movie is nudity-free. Grrrrrrrrrr Strike one.<br /><br />Ahem. One story in this film takes place in 1971. Then why the hell are the main characters driving a Kia Sportage? Hello? Continuity, anyone?<br /><br />As you might know, this movie was released in stereoscopic 3D. And it is the most hideous effect I have ever seen. I'm not sure if someone botched the job on this, but there WAS no 3D, just double-vision blurs. I didn't have the same problem with this company's other 3D movies, HUNTING SEASON and CAMP BLOOD. Sure, the 3D in those ones sucked too, but with them I could see a semblance of 3D effect.<br /><br />This thing is a big ball of nothing.<br /><br />And whoever that women was who played the daughter of the ear-eating dame, yum! I'd like to see more of her. In movies, as well. Looks like Janet Margolin at a young age. Purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr<br /><br />
En route to a small town that lays way off the beaten track (but which looks suspiciously close to a freeway), a female reporter runs into a strange hitch-hiker who agrees to help direct her to her destination. The strange man then recounts a pair of gruesome tales connected to the area: in the first story, an adulterous couple plot to kill the woman's husband, but eventually suffer a far worse fate themselves when they are attacked by a zombie; and in the second story, a group of campers have their vacation cut short when an undead outlaw takes umbrage at having his grave peed on.<br /><br />The Zombie Chronicles is an attempt by writer Garrett Clancy and director Brad Sykes at making a zombie themed anthology—a nice idea, but with only two stories, it falls woefully short. And that's not the only way in which this low budget gore flick fails to deliver: the acting is lousy (with Joe Haggerty, as the tale-telling Ebenezer Jackson, giving one of the strangest performances I have ever seen); the locations are uninspired; the script is dreary; there's a sex scene with zero nudity; and the ending.... well, that beggars belief.<br /><br />To be fair, some of Sykes' creative camera-work is effective (although the gimmicky technique employed as characters run through the woods is a tad overused) and Joe Castro's cheapo gore is enthusiastic: an ear is bitten off, eyeballs are plucked out, a face is removed, brains are squished, and there is a messy decapitation. These positives just about make the film bearable, but be warned, The Zombie Chronicles ain't a stroll in the park, even for seasoned viewers of z-grade trash.<br /><br />I give The Zombie Chronicles 2/10, but generously raise my rating to 3 since I didn't get to view the film with the benefit of 3D (although I have a sneaking suspicion that an extra dimension wouldn't have made that much of a difference).
Without wishing to be a killjoy, Brad Sykes is responsible for at least two of the most dull and clichéd films i've ever seen - this being one of them, and Camp Blood being another. <br /><br />The acting is terrible, the print is shoddy, and everything about this film screams "seriously, you could do better yourself". Maybe this is a challenge to everyone to saturate youtube with our own zombie related crap?<br /><br />I bought this for £1, but remember, you can't put a price on 71 minutes of your life. You'd do well to avoid this turkey, even at a bargain basement price.
My girlfriend once brought around The Zombie Chronicles for us to watch as a joke. Little did we realize the joke was on her for paying £1 for it. While watching this film I started to come up with things I would rather be doing than watching The Zombie Chronicles. These included:<br /><br />1) Drinking bleach 2) Rubbing sand in my eyes 3) Writing a letter to Brad Sykes and Garrett Clancy 4) Re-enacting the American civil war 5) Tax returns 6) GCSE Maths 7) Sex with an old lady.<br /><br />Garrett Clancy, aka Sgt. Ben Draper wrote this? The guy couldn't even dig a hole properly. The best ting he did was kick a door down (the best part of the film). This was the worst film I have ever seen, and I've seen White Noise: The Light. Never has a film had so many mistakes in it. My girlfriend left it here, so now I live with the shame of owning this piece of crap.<br /><br />News just in: Owen Wilson watched this film and tried to kill himself. Fact.<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH
Amateur, no budget films can be surprisingly good ... this however is not one of them.<br /><br />Ah, another Brad Sykes atrocity. The acting is hideous, except for Emmy Smith who shows some promise. The camera "direction" needs serious reworking. And no more "hold the camera and run" gimmicks either; it just doesn't work. The special effects are unimaginative, there's a problem when the effect can be identified in real time. If you're going to rip off an ear, please don't let us see the actor's real ear beneath the blood. The scenery is bland and boring (same as Mr. Sykes other ventures), and the music is a cross between cheap motel porn and really bad guitar driven metal (see the scenery comment).<br /><br />Did I mention the lack of any real plot, or character development? Apparently, the scriptwriter didn't.<br /><br />Whoever is funding this guy ... please stop. I've seen some of his other "home movies" (which I will not plug) and they are just as bad. Normally, a "director" will grow and learn from his previous efforts ... not this guy. It's one thing to be an amateur filmmaker, but anyone can be a hack.<br /><br />Definitely not even a popcorn film ... of course, chewing on popcorn kernels would be less painful than this effort.<br /><br />Award: The worst ever military push-ups in a film.
OK its not the best film I've ever seen but at the same time I've been able to sit and watch it TWICE!!! story line was pretty awful and during the first part of the first short story i wondered what the hell i was watching but at the same time it was so awful i loved it cheap laughs all the way.<br /><br />And Jebidia deserves an Oscar for his role in this movie the only thing that let him down was half way through he stopped his silly name calling.<br /><br />overall the film was pretty perfetic but if your after cheap laughs and you see it in pound land go by it.
Some films that you pick up for a pound turn out to be rather good - 23rd Century films released dozens of obscure Italian and American movie that were great, but although Hardgore released some Fulci films amongst others, the bulk of their output is crap like The Zombie Chronicles.<br /><br />The only positive thing I can say about this film is that it's nowhere near as annoying as the Stink of Flesh. Other than that, its a very clumsy anthology film with the technical competence of a Lego house built by a whelk.<br /><br />It's been noted elsewhere, but you really do have to worry about a film that inserts previews of the action into its credit sequence, so by the time it gets to the zombie attacks, you've seen it all already.<br /><br />Bad movie fans will have a ball watching the 18,000 continuity mistakes and the diabolical acting of the cast (especially the hitchhiker, who was so bad he did make me laugh a bit), and kudos to Hardgore for getting in to the spirit of things by releasing a print so bad it felt like I was watching some beat up home video of a camping trip.<br /><br />Awful, awful stuff. We've all made stuff like this when we've gotten a hold of a camera, but common sense prevails and these films languish in our cupboards somewhere. Avoid.
I received this movie as a gift, I knew from the DVD cover, this movie are going to be bad.After not watching it for more than a year I finally watched it. what a pathetic movie….<br /><br />I almost didn't finish watching this bad movie,but it will be unfair of me to write a review without watching the complete movie.<br /><br />Trust me when I say " this movie sucks" I am truly shocked that some bad filmmaker wane bee got even financed to make this pathetic movie, But it couldn't have cost more than $20 000 to produce this movie. all you need are a cheap camcorder or a cell phone camera .about 15 people with no acting skills, a scrip that were written by a couple of drunk people.<br /><br />In the fist part of this ultra bad move a reporter (Tara Woodley )run a suppose to be drunk man over on her way to report on a hunted town. He are completely unharmed. They went to a supposed to be abandon house ,but luckily for the it almost complete furnished and a bottle of liquor on the door step happens to be there. just for the supposed to be drunk man but all is not what it seems.<br /><br />Then the supposed drunk man start telling Tara ghost/zombies stories.<br /><br />The fist of his stupid lame stories must be the worst in history.<br /><br />his story<br /><br />Sgt. Ben Draper let one of his soldiers die of complete exhaustion (I think this is what happens)after letting the poor soldier private Wilson do sit ups he let him dig a grave and then the soldier collapse ,Ben Draper<br /><br />buries him in a shallow grave.<br /><br />But Sgt. Ben Draper are in for n big surprise. his wife/girl fiend knows about this and she and her lover kills Sgt. Ben Draper to take revenge on private Wilson.(next to the grave of the soldier he sort off murdered) The soldier wakes up from his grave in the form of zombie and kill them for taking revenge on his behalf.<br /><br />The twist ending were so lame.<br /><br />Even if you like B HORROR movies, don't watch this movie
I have not seen many low budget films i must admit, but this is the worst movie ever probably, the main character the old man talked like, he had a lobotomy and lost the power to speak more than one word every 5 seconds, a 5 year old could act better. The story had the most awful plot, and well the army guy had put what he thought was army like and then just went over the top, i only watched it to laugh at how bad it was, and hoped it was leading onto the real movie. I cant believe it was under the 2 night rental thing at blockbusters, instead of a please take this for free and get it out of our sight. I think there was one semi decent actor other than the woman, i think the only thing OK with the budget was the make up, but they show every important scene of the film in the beginning music bit. Awful simply awful.
..Oh wait, I can! This movie is not for the typical film snob, unless you want to brush up on your typical cinematic definitions, like "continuity editing" and "geographic match". I couldn't tell where I was in this movie. One second they're in the present, next minute their supposedly in the 70's driving a modern SUV and wearing what looked like to me as 80's style clothing. I think. I couldn't pay long enough attention to it since the acting was just horrible. I think it only got attention because it has a 3d which I did not watch. If you're a b-movie buff, and by b-movie I mean BAD movie, then this film is for you. It's home-movie and all non-sense style will keep you laughing for as long as you can stay awake. If your tastes are more for Goddard and Antonioni, though, just skip this one.
You have to admire Brad Sykes even if you don't particularly want to, a man who churns out budget horror after budget horror to less than enthusiastic receptions. But keeps on doing it all the same. Even the half-hearted praise than surrounds his Camp Blood films is given grudgingly and I'm as guilty of this as anyone. Brad normally manages to throw something interesting into the mix, a neat idea, a kooky character, whatever, but without the funds to take it further than base level, he relies on the audience to cut him some slack and appreciate it for what it is and what it could be. Joe Haggerty gives a spirited and very funny performance as Ebenezer Jackson and its a credit to Sykes that he can sense that this oddball turn is going to work within the framework of the film. Coming to a multiplex near you, in a parallel universe, somewhere.
THE ZOMBIE CHRONICLES <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 1.33:1 (Nu-View 3-D)<br /><br />Sound format: Mono<br /><br />Whilst searching for a (literal) ghost town in the middle of nowhere, a young reporter (Emmy Smith) picks up a grizzled hitchhiker (Joseph Haggerty) who tells her two stories involving flesh-eating zombies reputed to haunt the area.<br /><br />An ABSOLUTE waste of time, hobbled from the outset by Haggerty's painfully amateurish performance in a key role. Worse still, the two stories which make up the bulk of the running time are utterly routine, made worse by indifferent performances and lackluster direction by Brad Sykes, previously responsible for the likes of CAMP BLOOD (1999). This isn't a 'fun' movie in the sense that Ed Wood's movies are 'fun' (he, at least, believed in what he was doing and was sincere in his efforts, despite a lack of talent); Sykes' home-made movies are, in fact, aggravating, boring and almost completely devoid of any redeeming virtue, and most viewers will feel justifiably angry and cheated by such unimaginative, badly-conceived junk. The 3-D format is utterly wasted here.
A woman asks for advice on the road to reach a mysterious town, and hears two ghoulish stories from the local weirdo, both zombie related. But perhaps fate has something nasty in store for her too...<br /><br />The Zombie Chronicles is absolutely one of the worst films I have ever seen. In fact I must confess, so bad was it I fast forwarded through most of the garbage. And there was a lot of that, believe me. It runs for just 69 minutes, and there is still tons of filler. You get some skinhead doing a lot of push ups, plenty of dull kissy-kissy scenes between goofy teens (that rhymed, tee hee) and some fine examples of why some people should never become actors.<br /><br />As for the title characters, they barely even have a footnote in the film. Why, you get more undead action in the intro than you do the preceding feature! Though, considering how pathetic the eyes bursting out of sockets and the eating of brains sequences are (amongst other 'delights'), maybe that's a blessing in disguise.<br /><br />And to top it all off, it looks likes it's been filmed on someone's mobile phone for broadcast on Youtube. Jerky camera-work, scratches on the print, flickering lights... I had to rub my eyes when I realised it was made in 2001, and not 1971. Even the clothes and fashioned look about three decades out of date!<br /><br />If you think I'm not qualified to do a review of Chronicles having not seen the whole film, then go ahead. YOU try sitting through it, I betcha you won't even make it to the first appearance of the blue-smartie coloured freaks before making your excuses and leaving. It is truly laughable that anyone chose to release it, and honestly you'll get far more fun resting your drink on the disc than actually torturing your DVD player with this gigglesome excuse for horror. In fact, don't for surprised if it packs it's bags and leaves in the morning, leaving you doomed to watch VHS tapes for the rest of your life. You have been warned... 0/10<br /><br />P.S What kind of 18-rated horror has the woman keep a massive sports bra on during the obligatory sex scene?! See, the movie can't even get that part right...
Really, I can't believe that I spent $5 on this movie. I am a huge zombie fanatic and thought the movie couldn't be that bad. It had zombies in it right? Was I wrong! To be honest the movie had it's moments...I thought it was cool when the guy got his head ripped off but that was about it. Overall I think that it would be more enjoyable to slide down a razorblade slide on my bare nutsack into a vat of vinegar then watch this movie again. The movie could have been better if we could see some boob but I had to watch the trailers for the other movies produced by this company to see that. Buyer beware...unless you are into masochism.
I rented this movie about 3 years ago, and it still stands out in my mind as the worst movie ever made. I don't think I ever finished it. It is worse than a home video made by a high school student. I remember them doing a flashback to 1970 something and in the flashback there was a man with a polo shirt, oakley sunglasses and a newer SUV, like a Toyota Rav-4 or something (I don't remember). I don't understand how they could have possibly said that to be in the 70s. He might have had a cell phone too, I cant remember, It was just horrible. I returned it to the video store and asked them why they even carry the movie and if I could get the hour of my life back. To this day it is the worst movie I have ever seen, and I have seen some pretty bad ones.
:Spoilers:<br /><br />I was very disappointed in Love's Abiding Joy. I had been waiting a really long time to see it and I finally got the chance when it re-aired Thursday night on Hallmark. I love the first three "Love" movies but this one was nothing like I thought it was going to be. The whole movie was sad and depressing, there were way to many goofs, and the editing was very poor - to many scenes out of context. I also think the death of baby Kathy happened way to soon and Clarks appearance in the movie just didn't seem to fit. It seemed like none of the actors really wanted to be there - they were all lacking emotion. There seemed to be no interaction between Missie and Willie at all.<br /><br />I think the script writers should have went more by the book. It seems like every movie that's been made so far just slips further and further away from Janette Oke's writings. I mean in the movie they never mentioned a thing about the mine and the two boys or Clark getting hurt because of it. And I think Missie and Willies reactions to Kathy's death could have been shown and heard rather than just heard.<br /><br />Out of the four movies that have been made so far I'd have to say that Love's Abiding Joy is my least favorite. I hope with the next four movies that more of the book is followed and if Clarks character is in them I hope he's got a bigger part and I hope his part isn't so bland. I also hope there is more of Scottie and Cookie and maybe even Marty but who knows what the script writers will have in store next.
I've seen all four of the movies in this series. Each one strays further and further from the books. This is the worst one yet. My problem is that it does not follow the book it is titled after in any way! The directors and producers should have named it any thing other than "Love's Abiding Joy." The only thing about this movie that remotely resembles the book are the names of some of the characters (Willie, Missie, Henry, Clark, Scottie and Cookie). The names/ages/genders of the children are wrong. The entire story line is no where in the book.<br /><br />I find it a great disservice to Janette Oke, her books and her fans to produce a movie under her title that is not correct in any way. The music is too loud. The actors are not convincing - they lack emotions.<br /><br />If you want a good family movie, this might do. It is clean. Don't watch it, though, if you are hoping for a condensed version of the book. I hope that this will be the last movie from this series, but I doubt it. If there are more movies made, I wish Michael Landon, Jr and others would stick closer to the original plot and story lines. The books are excellent and, if closely followed, would make excellent movies!
I very much looked forward to this movie. Its a good family movie; however, if Michael Landon Jr.'s editing team did a better job of editing, the movie would be much better. Too many scenes out of context. I do hope there is another movie from the series, they're all very good. But, if another one is made, I beg them to take better care at editing. This story was all over the place and didn't seem to have a center. Which is unfortunate because the other movies of the series were great. I enjoy the story of Willie and Missy; they're both great role models. Plus, the romantic side of the viewers always enjoy a good love story.
I have read all of the Love Come Softly books. Knowing full well that movies can not use all aspects of the book,but generally they at least have the main point of the book. I was highly disappointed in this movie. The only thing that they have in this movie that is in the book is that Missy's father comes to visit,(although in the book both parents come). That is all. The story line was so twisted and far fetch and yes, sad, from the book, that I just couldn't enjoy it. Even if I didn't read the book it was too sad. I do know that Pioneer life was rough,but the whole movie was a downer. The rating is for having the same family orientation of the film that makes them great.
As a Southern Baptist, it pains me that I must give a below average rating to an overtly Christian movie. There certainly aren't so many that I want to discourage film-makers from a genre that's woefully under-exploited. Still, I must honestly say that "Love's Abiding Joy" is a typically low budget, low key, self-consciously Christian film. The plot is predictable, the acting mediocre (I'm being kind), and the editing atrocious. As a TV movie it might have been slightly above average, but as a feature film it leaves much to be desired. Keep trying guys. You've got to have a movie about about real Christians inside you somewhere. Might I suggest you turn to G. K. Chesterton or C. S. Lewis for some inspiration?
WARNING: This review contains SPOILERS. Do not read if you don't want some points revealed to you before you watch the film.<br /><br />With a cast like this, you wonder whether or not the actors and actresses knew exactly what they were getting into. Did they see the script and say, `Hey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind was such a hit that this one can't fail.' Unfortunately, it does. Did they even think to check on the director's credentials? I mean, would YOU do a movie with the director of a movie called `Satan's Cheerleaders?' Greydon Clark, who would later go on to direct the infamous `Final Justice,' made this. It makes you wonder how the people of Mystery Science Theater 3000 could hammer `Final Justice' and completely miss out on `The Return.'<br /><br />The film is set in a small town in New Mexico. A little boy and girl are in the street unsupervised one night when a powerful flashlight beam.er.a spaceship appears and hovers over them. In probably the worst special effect sequence of the film, the ship spews some kind of red ink on them. It looked like Clark had held a beaker of water in from of the camera lens and dipped his leaky pen in it, so right away you are treated with cheese. Anyhow, the ship leaves and the adults don't believe the children. Elsewhere, we see Vincent Schiavelli, whom I find to be a terrific actor (watch his scenes in `Ghost' for proof, as they are outstanding), who is playing a prospector, or as I called him, the Miner 1949er. He steps out of the cave he is in, and he and his dog are inked by the ship. Twenty-five years go by, and the girl has grown up to be Cybill Shepherd, who works with her father, Raymond Burr, in studying unusual weather phenomena. Or something like that. Shepherd spots some strange phenomena in satellite pictures over that little New Mexico town, and she travels there to research it. Once she gets there, the local ranchers harass her, and blame her for the recent slew of cattle mutilations that have been going on, and deputy Jan-Michael Vincent comes to her rescue. From this point on, the film really drags as the two quickly fall for each other, especially after Vincent wards off the locals and informs Shepherd that he was the little boy that saw the ship with her twenty-five years earlier. While this boring mess is happening, Vincent Schiavelli, with his killer dog at his side, is walking around killing the cattle and any people he runs into with an unusual item. You know those glowing plastic sticks stores sell for trick-or-treaters at Halloween, the kind that you shake to make them glow? Schiavelli uses what looks like one of those glow sticks to burn incisions in people. It's the second-worst effect in the movie. Every time Schiavelli is on screen with the glow stick, the scene's atmosphere suddenly turns dark, like the filmmakers thought the glow stick needed that enhancement. It ends up making the movie look even cheaper than it is.<br /><br />And what does all this lead up to? It's hard to tell when the final, confusing scene arrives. See, Burr and his team of scientists try to explain the satellite images that Shepherd found as some kind of `calling card,' but none of it makes sense. Why do Shepherd and Vincent age and Schiavelli does not? Schiavelli explains why he is killing cattle and people and why he wants Shepherd dead, but even that doesn't make much sense when you really think about it. I mean, why doesn't he kill Jan-Michael Vincent? After all, he had twenty-five years to do it. And the aliens won't need him if Shepherd is dead anyhow, so why try to kill her? Speaking of the aliens, it is never clear what they really wanted out of Shepherd and Vincent. What is their goal? Why do they wait so long to intervene? How could they be so sure Shepherd would come back? Not that the answer to any of these and other questions would have made `The Return' any more pleasant. You would still have bad lines, really bad acting, particularly by Shepherd, cheesy effects, and poor direction. Luckily, the stars escaped from this movie. Cybill Shepherd soon went on to star in `Moonlighting' with Bruce Willis. Jan-Michael Vincent went on to be featured in dozens of B-movies, often in over-the-top parts. Raymond Burr made a pile of Perry Mason television movies right up until his death. Vincent Schiavelli went on to be a great character actor in a huge number of films. Martin Landau, who played a kooky law enforcement officer, quickly made the terrific `Alone in the Dark' and the awful `The Being' before rolling into the films he has been famous for recently. You can bet none of these stars ever want their careers to return to `The Return.' Zantara's score: 2 out of 10.
As a kid I did think the weapon the murderer wielded was cool, however I was a kid and so I was a bit dumb. Even as a dumb kid though the movies plot was stupid and a bit boring when the killer was not using his light knife to kill people. What amazes me is that the movie has a really solid cast in it. What script did they read when agreeing to be in this movie as it is most assuredly boring and only a means to show off a light saber on a very small scale. The plot at times is incomprehensible and the end is totally chaotic. The whole film seems to rotate around aliens and the one weapon. The plot has two kids and some dude having an alien encounter, flash years later and there seems to be a return as it were in the mix. Dead animals and such to be explored and for some reason the one dude gets the weapon of the aliens and proceeds to use it to go on a very light killing spree. Seriously, you just have to wonder why this movie was made, if you are going to have a killer have some good death scenes, if you are going to have alien encounters show more than a weird light vortex thing, and if you are going to have light sabers then call yourself star wars.
Jill Dunne (played by Mitzi Kapture), is an attractive, nice woman, over-whelmed by a smart-mouthed teenage daughter, Liv (Martha MacIsaac) and a petty, two-timing husband, Sean (Rick Roberts), both of which were tediously self-centered, and obnoxious.<br /><br />This was advertised as a troubled family stalked by a crazed killer during a relentless storm.<br /><br />The storm doesn't even happen until about the last 5 minutes of the film, and then it isn't anything to send anybody running to the storm cellar.<br /><br />The stalking, likewise doesn't get intense until almost the end of the film.<br /><br />Most of the film we spend listening to Jill and her insufferable daughter, Liv, argue until I just wanted to back slap the daughter into next week.<br /><br />Jill's problem with Liv is that she has taken up with Zack, a boy of questionable character, and they are constantly making out--in fact Jill comes home to find the two of them on Liv's bed.<br /><br />The rest of the time we spend listening to Jill's husband Sean either whine at Jill or criticize her.<br /><br />Sean was not at all appealing--since his face is so covered in freckles you could play connect the dots.<br /><br />The story begins with Jill being notified of an out-standing bill on their credit card for a hotel she has never been to, and that she thought Sean had never been to either.<br /><br />Jill goes to the hotel where she meets the owner & manager, Richard Grant (Nick Mancuso), a very nice, older, divorced man, who is sympathetic to her. In fact, when he spots her husband there again, he phones Jill and tips her off.<br /><br />Jill returns to the hotel, sees Sean with another woman. She is upset, leaves without Sean seeing her, and does absolutely nothing. In fact, she doesn't even say anything to Sean when he arrives home. This made no sense to me.<br /><br />Jill has given Richard her business card, and so he calls her and she is apparently in real estate. She shows him a condo. Afterwards they have a drink, and things get cozy between them.<br /><br />Richard and Jill are getting it on, hot and heavy. In fact, he seems a bit more aggressive than necessary, when Jill suddenly decides to cut out.<br /><br />Jill and Sean have a confrontation about his cheating. Sean whines about how Jill has been letting him down since her father died. Apparently his lack of any morals is all her fault. Eventually Jill confesses her own lack of morals and near adultery to Sean--and of course that's all her fault too, as far as Sean is concerned.<br /><br />The little family decides to go on a camping trip--which means more whining and grousing among them, especially from the spoiled daughter.<br /><br />I was so rooting for the stalker to get everybody, but Jill.<br /><br />3 stars
This movie sucked. It really was a waste of my life. The acting was atrocious, the plot completely implausible. Long, long story short, these people get "terrorized" by this pathetic "crazed killer", but completely fail to fight back in any manner. And this is after they take a raft on a camping trip, with no gear, and show up at a campsite that is already assembled and completely stocked with food and clothes and the daughters headphones. Additionally, after their boat goes missing, they panic that they're stuck in the woods, but then the daughters boyfriend just shows up and they apparently never consider that they could just hike out of the woods like he did to get to them. Like I said, this movie sucks. A complete joke. Don't let your girlfriend talk you into watching it.
Lifetime did it again. Can we say stupid? I couldn't wait for it to end. The plot was senseless. The acting was terrible! Especially by the teenagers. The story has been played a thousand times! Are we just desperate to give actors a job? The previews were attractive and I was really looking for a good thriller.Once in awhile lifetime comes up with a good movie, this isn't one of them. Unless one has nothing else to do I would avoid this one at all cost. This was a waste of two hours of my life. Can I get them back? I would have rather scraped my face against a brick wall for two hours then soaked it in peroxide. That would have been more entertaining.
I have to say I am really surprised at the high ratings for this movie. I found it to be absolutely idiotic. The mother gets "visions" when she touches certain things or people? And one thing she touched twice made her vision continue... Just seemed so ridiculous. Deedee Pfieffer's performance was awful I thought. She was very irritating. The girl who played Lori did a good job and so did most of the supporting cast for what they had to work with.<br /><br />I usually love LMN and am very open minded when it comes to movies but this movie seemed to have a ridiculous plot and over the top acting and it just was not for me.
The original book of this was set in the 1950s but that won't do for the TV series because most people watch for the 1930s style. Ironically the tube train near the end was a 1950s train painted to look like a 1930s train so the Underground can play at that game too. Hanging the storyline on a plot about the Jarrow March was feeble but the 50s version had students who were beginning to think about the world around them so I suppose making them think about the poverty of the marchers is much the same thing. All the stuff about Japp having to cater for himself was weak too but they had to put something in to fill the time. This would have made a decent half hour show or they could have filmed the book and made it a better long show. It is obvious this episode is a victim of style over content.
The annoying mouse and lullaby really got to me and really had nothing to do with the story...It's something I would have done my 1st year in film school. Very sad. Additionally, the story just seemed to drag on for no apparent reason...there were too many things just thrown in there that had nothing to do with the story, which makes me feel that the creative team didn't really know what they were doing, or just that it should have been shorter...which would have been a blessing, not a crime. As I have just watched all of the episodes up to this point over the past week...I'd have to say that this was by far the worst, and I just wanted to warn others not to start with this one.
I saw this film opening weekend in Australia, anticipating with an excellent cast of Ledger, Edgerton, Bloom, Watts and Rush that the definitive story of Ned Kelly would unfold before me. Unfortunately, despite an outstanding performance by Heath Ledger in the lead role, the plot was paper thin....which doesn't inspire me to read "Our Sunshine". There were some other plus points, the support acting from Edgerton in particular, assured direction from Jordan (confirming his talent on show in Buffalo Soldiers as well), and production design that gave a real feel of harshness to the Australian bush, much as the Irish immigrants of the early 19th century must have seen it. But I can't help feeling that another opportunity has been missed to tell the real story of an Australian folk hero (or was he?)....in what I suspect is a concession to Hollywood and selling the picture in the US. Oh well, at least Jordan and the producers didn't agree to lose the beards just to please Universal...<br /><br />Guess I will just have to content myself with Peter Carey's excellent "Secret History of the Kelly Gang". 4/10
I saw this at the premiere in Melbourne<br /><br />It is shallow, two-dimensional, unaffecting and, hard to believe given the subject matter, boring. The actors are passable, but they didn't have much to work with given the very plodding and unimpressive script. For those who might have worried that Ned Kelly would be over-intellectualised, you can take comfort in the fact that this telling of the story is utterly without any literary depth at all, told entirely on the surface and full of central casting standards. However, it doesn't work as a popcorn film either. Its pacing is too off-kilter and its craft is too lacking to satisfy even on the level of a mundane actioner.<br /><br />I very much doubt Gregor Jordan could sit back and say to himself "this is the best I could have done with the material".<br /><br />Ned Kelly is a fascinating figure, and equally so is the national response to him. Possibly folk genius, possibly class warrior, possibly psychopath and probably all these things, he has dominated Australian true mythology for over 120 years. Once again, his story has failed miserably on the big screen.<br /><br />Such is life.
Ned Kelly (Ledger), the infamous Australian outlaw and legend. Sort of like Robin Hood, with a mix of Billy the Kid, Australians love the legend of how he stood up against the English aristocratic oppression, and united the lower classes to change Australia forever. The fact that the lower classes of the time were around 70% immigrant criminals seems to be casually skimmed around by this film. Indeed, quite a few so called `facts' in this film are, on reflection, a tad dubious.<br /><br />I suppose the suspicions should have been aroused when, in the opening credits, it was claimed that this film is based upon the book, `Our Sunshine'. If ever a romanticized version of truth could be seen in a name for a book, there it was. This wasn't going to be a historical epic, but just an adaptation of one of many dubious legends of Ned Kelly, albeit a harsh and sporadically brutal version.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Ned Kelly is nothing more than an overblown Hallmark channel `real life historical drama' wannabe! The story plods along at an alarming rate (alarming because never has a film plodded so slowly!) The feeling of numbness after the two hours of pure drivel brought back memories of Costner's awful Wyatt Earp all those years ago. Simply put, nothing happens in the film, but it takes a long time getting to that nothing. This would possibly have been a tad more bearable if the performances were good (because the direction sure as heck wasn't). However, unless you are looking to play a game of spot the worst Oirish accent, then you're gonna be disappointed. Between that, the game of `Who has the stupidest beard?', `Spot the obvious backstabber!' (clue, they are all ginger for some reason), and `Nature in Australia.including lions', it is an experience similar to flicking through Hallmark, The History Channel, Discovery Channel, and Neighbours whilst suffering a huge hangover. Yup, nature pops up a lot, as to fill even more time (possibly an attempt to look arty), the film keeps showing pointless wildlife shots, and once all the native species are shown, here's a circus to allow for a camel and a lion (which is used during one fight to try to make us actually feel more sorry for the lion than the massacred people).<br /><br />This is a turgid, emotionless piece of historical fluff which should have gone straight to TV. There isn't even one good word I can say about this film. Even the usually fantastic Rush seems embarrassed to be here. When one of the characters comments that there is only 2 bullets left for him and his pal, I myself was wishing I had a gun to blow any memory of this film out of my head!
They constructed this one as a kind of fantasy Man From Snowy River meets Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, and just for a romantic touch Ned and Joe get to play away with high class talent, the bored young wives of wealthy older men. OK, there are lots of myths about Ned Kelly, but there are also a lot of well documented facts, still leaving space for artistic creativity in producing a good historical dramaticisation. I mean, this is not the Robin Hood story, not the Arthurian legends, not Beowulf, not someone whose life is so shrouded in the mists of many many centuries past that any recreation of their life and times is 99% guesswork. It's only a couple of lifetimes ago. My own grandparents were already of school age when Ned was hanged. <br /><br />So it's silly me for fancifully imagining this movie was a serious attempt to tell the Kelly story. Having recently read Peter Carey's excellent novel "The True History of the Kelly Gang" I had eagerly anticipated that this would be in similar vein. But no, the fact is that Mick Jagger's much derided 1970 Kelly was probably far closer to reality, and a better movie overall, which isn't saying a whole lot for it.<br /><br />Glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the DVD! I'll give it 3/10, and that's only because some of the nice shots of the Australian bush make me feel generous.
This has to be the worst piece of garbage I've seen in a while.<br /><br />Heath Ledger is a heartthrob? He looked deformed. I wish I'd known that he and Naomi Watts are an item in real life because I spent 2 of the longest hours of my life wondering what she saw in him. <br /><br />Orlando Bloom is a heartthrob? With the scraggly beard and deer-in-the-headlights look about him, I can't say I agree.<br /><br />Rachel Griffiths was her usual fabulous self, but Geoffrey Rush looked as if he couldn't wait to get off the set. <br /><br />I'm supposed to feel sorry for bankrobbers and murderers? This is a far cry from Butch Cassidy, which actually WAS an entertaining film. This was trite, cliche-ridden and boring. We only stayed because we were convinced it would get better. It didn't.<br /><br />The last 10-15 minutes or so were unintentionally hilarious. Heath and his gang are holed up in a frontier hotel, and women and children are dying because of their presence. That's not funny. But it was funny when they walked out of the hotel with the armor on, because all we could think of was the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I kept waiting for them to say "I'll bite yer leg off!" We were howling with laughter, as were several other warped members of the audience. When we left, pretty much everyone was talking about what a waste of time this film was.<br /><br />I may not have paid cash to see this disaster (sneak preview), but it certainly wasn't free. It cost me 2 hours of my life that I will never get back.
If the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless, one might well refer to "Ned Kelly" as an "Australian Western." For the people Down Under, Ned Kelly was, apparently, a folk hero bandit akin to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The descendant of Irish immigrants, Kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an Australian law officer, a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison. To get back at the government for this mistreatment, Kelly, his brother Dan, and two other companions, became notorious bank robbers, winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where Irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country.<br /><br />Perhaps because we've encountered this "gentleman bandit" scenario so many times in the past, "Ned Kelly" feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre's stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown. Ned is the typical heart-of-gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and, even then, only with the deepest regret. He also has the pulse of the common folk, as when, in the middle of a bank robbery, he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers, after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it. What movie on this particular subject hasn't featured a scene like that? It's acts of selective generosity like this, of course, that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers-that-be and the status quo. Geoffrey Rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment. There's even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers, so turned on is she by the romantic derring-do of the criminal lifestyle. And the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another.<br /><br />Heath Ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role, providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging. It doesn't help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice-over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film.<br /><br />"Ned Kelly" might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in Australian history, but as an entertainment, it's just the same old story told with different accents.
This movie was so unrelentingly bad, I could hardly believe I was watching it. The directing, editing, production, and script all seemed as though they had been done by junior high school students who don't know all that much about movies. There was no narrative flow that made any sort of sense. Big emotional moments and climaxes (like one early on between Heath Ledger and Naomi Watts) and character relationships (like one hinted at at the very beginning) come completely out of no where and are not set up like they would have been in a more elegantly and effectively made film. The characters are sadly underdeveloped, making it difficult for us to have any sort of connection with them. The acting, surprisingly, is not entirely bad, but the terrible writing cancels out the relatively convincing performances. The film plays like a particularly bad T.V. western/epic, and sadly diminishes the fascinating (true) story that it attempts to tell. I have read a lot of reviews that defend the film as being important to Australians because of the subject matter. That's all very well, but just because Ned Kelly is an important Australian historical icon DOESN'T MAKE THE MOVIE GOOD. No one is saying that the subject matter isn't good, just the quality of the movie itself. Pearl Harbor was about a very important historical event to Americans, but that doesn't mean I'm going to defend the movie and say it was good, because it was still bad. A failure all around, though Heath and Orlando are lovely to look at.
This movie never made it to theaters in our area, so when it became available on DVD I was one of the first to rent it. For once, I should listened to the critics and passed on this one.<br /><br />Despite the excellent line up of actors the movie was very disappointing. I can see now why it went straight to video. <br /><br />I had thought that with Bloom, Ledger, and Rush it could have some value. All have done wonderful work in the past. <br /><br />The movie was slow moving and never pulled me in. I failed to develop much empathy for the characters and had to fight the urge to fast-forward just to get to the end. <br /><br />I do not recommend this film even if you are thinking of renting it for only for 'eye candy' purposes. It won't satisfy even that.
I thought this was a very clunky, uninvolving version of a famous Australian story. Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom were very good in their roles, and gave their characters some personality; but the whole thing felt forced and mechanical.<br /><br />The beginning could have been a lot more involving; perhaps starting with a shootout, and then flashing back for a recap of how they got there or that sort of thing. And I felt like every scene was routinely predictable and signposted, like a very bad tv soap.<br /><br />I was really looking forward to this movie, and hoping for something a lot better. The only thing I can say in its favour is that it beats the Mick Jagger version, but not by much.
Ned aKelly is such an important story to Australians but this movie is awful. It's an Australian story yet it seems like it was set in America. Also Ned was an Australian yet he has an Irish accent...it is the worst film I have seen in a long time
From the very beginning, the political theme of this film is so obvious and heavy handed, that the outcome is entirely predictable. Any good textbook on writing screenplays will advise layering of characters, incorporating character arcs, and three act structure. In this film you will find none of that. The police are the baddies, and consequently are shown as shallow, incompetent and cowards. It never seems to occur to the makers of this film that police might be honourable citizens who see joining the police as a good way to contribute to the wellbeing of society.<br /><br />The viewer gets no opportunity to make up his or her mind on whether Ned Kelly is a good guy or a ruthless villain. The film opens with him being arrested for stealing a horse, but we get no clue as to his guilt or innocence. We see him walk through the door of a gaol, but only know that he has been inside for three years when we hear this much later in some dialogue.<br /><br />This film contains many shots of Ned looking at the camera with a serious expression. I found the film a real chore to watch. It is the direction for modern films, and this one put me off watching any more.
I guess I was attracted to this film both because of the sound of the story and the leading actor, so I gave it a chance, from director Gregor Jordan (Buffalo Soldiers). Basically Ned Kelly (Heath Ledger) is set up by the police, especially Superintendent Francis Hare (Geoffrey Rush), he is forced to go on the run forming a gang and go against them to clear his own and his family's names. That's really all I can say about the story, as I wasn't paying the fullest attention to be honest. Also starring Orlando Bloom as Joseph Byrne, Naomi Watts as Julia Cook, Laurence Kinlan as Dan Kelly, Philip Barantini as Steve Hart, Joel Edgerton as Aaron Sherritt, Kiri Paramore as Constable Fitzpatrick, Kerry Condon as Kate Kelly, Emily Browning as Grace Kelly and Rachel Griffiths as Susan Scott. Ledger makes a pretty good performance, for what it's worth, and the film does have it's eye-catching moments, particularly with a gun battle towards the end, but I can't say I enjoyed it as I didn't look at it all. Okay!
I don't quite get the rating for The Amati Girls and I think I was REALLY kind giving it a 4 out of 10. What could otherwise have been a wonderful story with actually a set of more or less decent actors became a total farce in my eyes. There are so many clichés in that flick, the women's hair is just awful and most of the scenes are more than unrealistic or seem fake. There's no real passion in this movie but a bunch of actors over-acting over any limits that it hurts. It's not funny enough to be a comedy, it's too fake-sad to really touch, so in my eyes it's just not good. Watching it I couldn't believe how something like that made it to my TV set in my living room in Switzerland. But.. maybe it still was OK and it just got lost in translation? Who knows. Definitely one of the oddest movies I've ever seen and this certainly not in a good way! Sorry.
This movie was awful. The ending was absolutely horrible. There was no plot to the movie whatsoever. The only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by Robert DuVall and James Earl Jones. Their performances were excellent! The only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice. If the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story, it would be worth watching. Instead, Robert DuVall's and James Earl Jones' performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline...or lack thereof. Not only was I left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie....well an actual movie...not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason. It was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time. There was nothing special about any of the characters. The only thing special was how Robert DuVall portrayed a rambling, senile, drunk, old man. Nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end. When the movie ended, I sat amazed...amazed that I sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while. It never happened! The cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and I realized that I had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning. It wasn't even a story. The entire movie takes place in a day's worth of time. That's it. It was one day in the life (and death) of some Southerners on a plantation. How much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie Training Day)? The acting performances by the entire cast were excellent, but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie...if you can even call it a movie.
Holy crap. This was the worst film I have seen in a long time. All the performances are fine, but there is no plot. Really! No plot! A bunch of clowns talk about this and that and that's your film. Ug... Robert Duvall's character is senile and keeps asking the same people the same qestions over and over. This earns him the same responses over and over. I am pretty sure this film got upto a six because people think they should like it. Good performances with famous and well regarded actors, but the actual complete work is a steamy turd. Well, maybe that's a bit deceptive since steam rising from a fresh pile sounds a little like something happening and in this film NOTHING HAPPENS! Sack
SWING! is an important film because it's one of the remaining Black-produced and acted films from the 1930s. Many of these films have simply deteriorated so badly that they are unwatchable, but this one is in fairly good shape. It's also a nice chance to see many of the talented Black performers of the period just after the heyday of the old Cotton Club--a time all but forgotten today.<br /><br />Unfortunately, while the film is historically important and has some lovely performances, it's also a mess. The main plot is very similar to the Hollywood musicals of the era--including a prima donna who is going to ruin the show and the surprise unknown who appears from no where to save the day. However, the writing is just god-awful and a bit trashy at times--and projects images of Black America that some might find a bit demeaning. This is because before the plot really gets going, you are treated to a no-account bum who lives off his hard working wife (a popular stereotype of the time) and when he is caught with a hussy (who, by the way, totally overplays this role), they have a fight which looks like a scene from WWE Smackdown! And, the one lady wants to cut the other lady with a straight razor--a trashy scene indeed! Later in the film, when the prima donna is behaving abominably, her husband punches her in the face and everyone applauds him! It seems like the film, at times, wants to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the audience PLUS they can't even do this well--with some of the worst acting I've seen in a very long time.<br /><br />Still, if you can look past a lousy production in just about every way (with trashy characters, bad acting and direction and poor writing), this one might be worth a peek so you can see excellent singing and tap dancing--as well as to catch a glimpse of forgotten Black culture. Just don't say I didn't warn you about the acting--it's really, really bad!
There's not a drop of sunshine in "The Sunshine Boys", which makes the title of this alleged comedy Neil Simon's sole ironic moment. Simon, who adapted the script from his play (which goes uncredited), equates old age with irrational behavior--and, worse, clumsy, galumphing, mean-spirited irrational behavior. Walter Matthau is merciless on us playing an aged vaudeville performer talked into reuniting with former comedy partner George Burns for a television special (it's said they were a team for 43 years, which begs the question "how long did vaudeville last, anyway?"). Burns, who won a Supporting Oscar, has the misfortune of coming to the film some thirty minutes in, after which time Matthau has already blasted the material to hell and back. The noisier the movie gets, the less tolerable and watchable it is. Director Herbert Ross only did solid work when he wasn't coupled with one of Neil Simon's screenplays; here, Ross sets up gags like a thudding amateur, hammering away at belligerent routines which fail to pay off (such as semi-incoherent Matthau showing up at a mechanic's garage to audition for a TV commercial). At this point, Matthau was still too young for this role, and he over-compensates by slouching and hollering. It was up to Ross and Simon to tone down the character, to nuance his temperament to give "The Sunshine Boys" some sunniness, yet Walter continues to project as if we'd all gone deaf. The picture looks terribly drab and crawls along at a spiritless pace; one loses hope for it early on. *1/2 from ****
I like Goldie Hawn and wanted another one of her films, so when I saw Protocol for $5.50 at Walmart I purchased it. Although mildly amusing, the film never really hits it a stride. Some scenes such as a party scene in a bar just goes on for too long and really has no purpose.<br /><br />Then, of course, there is the preachy scene at the end of the film which gives the whole film a bad taste as far as I'm concerned. I don't think this scene added to the movie at all. I don't like stupid comedies trying to teach me a lesson, written by some '60's burn out especially!<br /><br />In the end, although I'm glad to possess another Hawn movie, I'm not sure it was really worth the money I paid for it!
Protocol is an implausible movie whose only saving grace is that it stars Goldie Hawn along with a good cast of supporting actors. The story revolves around a ditzy cocktail waitress who becomes famous after inadvertently saving the life of an Arab dignitary. The story goes downhill halfway through the movie and Goldie's charm just doesn't save this movie. Unless you are a Goldie Hawn fan don't go out of your way to see this film.
When an attempt is made to assassinate the Emir of Ohtar, an Arab potentate visiting Washington, D.C., his life is saved by a cocktail waitress named Sunny Davis. Sunny becomes a national heroine and media celebrity and as a reward is offered a job working for the Protocol Section of the United States Department of State. Unknown to her however, the State Department officials who offer her the job have a hidden agenda.<br /><br />A map we see shows Ohtar lying on the borders of Saudi Arabia and South Yemen, in an area of barren desert known as the Rub al-Khali, or Empty Quarter. In real life a state in this location would have a population of virtually zero, and virtually zero strategic value, but for the purposes of the film we have to accept that Ohtar is of immense strategic importance in the Cold War and that the American government, who are keen to build a military base there, need to do all that they can in order to keep on the good side of its ruler. It transpires that the Emir has taken a fancy to the attractive young woman who saved him and he has reached a deal with the State Department; they can have their base provided that he can have Sunny as the latest addition to his harem. Sunny's new job is just a ruse to ensure that the Emir has further opportunities to meet her.<br /><br />A plot like this could have been the occasion for some hilarious satire, but in fact the film's satirical content is rather toned down. Possibly in 1984 the American public were not in the mood for trenchant satire on their country's foreign policy; this was, after all, the year in which Ronald Reagan carried forty-nine out of fifty states in the Presidential election and his hard line with the Soviet Union was clearly going down well with the voters. (If the film had been made a couple of years later, in the wake of the Iran/Contra affair, its tone might have been different).<br /><br />The film is not so much a satire as a vehicle for Goldie Hawn to show off her brand of cuteness and charm. Sunny is a typical Goldie character- pretty, sweet-natured, naive and not too bright. There is, however, a limit to how far you can go with cuteness and charm alone, and you cannot automatically make a bad film a good one just by making the leading character a dumb blonde. (Actually, that sounds more like a recipe for making a good film a bad one). Goldie tries her best to save this one, but never succeeds. Part of the reason is the inconsistent way in which her character is portrayed. On the one hand Sunny is a sweet, innocent country girl from Oregon. On the other hand she is a 35-year-old woman who works in a sleazy bar and wears a revealing costume. The effect is rather like imagining Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm grown up and working as a Bunny Girl.<br /><br />The more important reason why Goldie is unable to rescue this film is even the best comedian or comedienne is no better than his/her material, and "Protocol" is simply unfunny. Whatever humour exists is tired and strained, relying on offensive stereotypes about Arab men who, apparently, all lust after Western women, particularly if they are blonde and blue-eyed. There was a lot of this sort of thing about in the mid-eighties, as this was the period which also saw the awful Ben Kingsley/ Nastassia Kinski film "Harem", about a lascivious Middle Eastern ruler who kidnaps a young American woman, and the mini-series of the same name which told a virtually identical story with a period setting. The film-makers seem to have realised that their film would not work as a pure comedy, because towards the end it turns into a sort of latter-day "Mr Smith Goes to Washington". Sunny turns from a blonde bimbo into a fount of political wisdom and starts uttering all sorts of platitudes about Democracy and the Constitution and the Citizen's Duty to Vote and We The People and how the Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance blah blah blah……, but in truth the film is no more successful as a political parable than it is as a comedy.<br /><br />Goldie Hawn has made a number of good comedies, such as "Cactus Flower", "Overboard" and ""Housesitter", but "Protocol" is not one of them. I have not seen all of her films, but of those I have seen this dire comedy is by far the worst. 3/10
What does the " Executive producer " do in a movie . If I remember correctly it's the person who raised the financial backing to make the movie . You might notice in a great number of movies starring Sean Connery that he is also the executive producer which meant Connery himself raised the money since he is a major player . Unfortunately it should also be pointed out that a great number of movies " starring Sean Connery were solely made because he managed to raise the money since he's a major Hollywood player , it's usually an indication that when the credits read that the executive producer and the star of the movie are one and the same the movie itself is nothing more than a star vehicle with the story/screenplay not being up to scratch <br /><br />PROTOCOL follows the saga of one Sunny Davis a kooky bimboesque cocktail waitress who saves a visiting dignitary and as a reward gets made a top diplomat . Likely ? As things progress Ms Davis ( Who has problems being able to string two sentences together ) finds herself in more outlandish and less likely situations . When I say that PROTOCOL stars Goldie Hawn who is also the film's executive producer do you understand what I'm saying about the story/screenplay not being up to scratch ? Exactly
Outlandish premise that rates low on plausibility and unfortunately also struggles feebly to raise laughs or interest. Only Hawn's well-known charm allows it to skate by on very thin ice. Goldie's gotta be a contender for an actress who's done so much in her career with very little quality material at her disposal...<br /><br />
There are only two movies I would give a 1/10 to, this stinker and "The Man who Fell to Earth." I remember seeing Protocol at a theater in the early 80s when I was in high school. The script is insulting to anyone (including a high school student's) intelligence. It completely lost me with the "hillarious" gag of someone getting shot in the butt. Goldie Hawn is supposed to be charming but comes across as vapid and moronic. Then there are offensive stereotypes about Arabs, followed by Goldie winning over everyone by spouting populist dribble. The acting was terrible, including Goldie Hawn's. I could not stand to see another movie she was in until IMO she redeemed herself in Everyone Says I Love You. This is the kind of movie you make if you want to put no effort into screenplay writing. The worst.
The only good thing about this movie was the shot of Goldie Hawn standing in her little french cut bikini panties and struggling to keep a dozen other depraved women from removing her skimpy little cotton top while she giggled and cooed. Ooooof! Her loins rival those of Nina Hartley. This movie came out when I was fourteen and that shot nearly killed me. I'd forgotten about it all tucked away in the naughty Roladex of my mind until seeing it the other day on TV, where they actually blurred her midsection in that scene, good grief, reminding me what a smokin' hottie of a woman Goldie Hawn was in the '80s. Kurt Russell must have had a fun life.
I'm studying Catalan, and was delighted to find El Mar, a movie with mostly Catalan dialogue, at my art-house video store.<br /><br />Hmmm... not so delighted to have seen it.<br /><br />Yes, as other reviewers have said, it's well-made, and beautifully photographed. Although the opening sequence of the children is shockingly violent, it's well-acted and convincing. (For the most part, that is... Would the Mallorquins strip a corpse in preparation for burial right in the middle of the town square, in full view of the dead man's 10-year-old boy?) Oh, well... minor detail. Up to this point, it had something of the feel of a non-magical Pan's Labyrinth, also set in the Spanish Civil War.<br /><br />Fast-forward, and the three children who survived the opening incident have come of age. Francisca is a nun working at a tuberculosis sanatorium and the two boys, Manuel and Ramallo, both are patients. I know, but hey, coincidences happen.<br /><br />The problem, as with so many Spanish movies (apologies to Almodovar fans), is that with one exception (Francisca) the characters are just so dang *weird*. Their motivations, personalities, and dialogue are often simply incoherent.<br /><br />What's more, it descends into some horrific wretched excess. Be prepared for LOTS of pain and LOTS of blood. The reviewer who called it a "potboiler" is quite on track. If it had been made 40 years ago, the poster would've said: SEE FORBIDDEN LOVE!! RAPE!! MURDER!! MUTILATION!! FANATICISM!! ANIMAL CRUELTY!! BETRAYAL!! <br /><br />The opening sequence is not nearly enough to make the personalities and relationships of the characters believable. To work, this should have had multiple flashbacks to flesh out the characters. As it is, it seems a bizarre and depressing cross between "Brother Sun, Sister Moon" and "Pulp Fiction." If that sounds like something you've got to see, by all means, enjoy. I think I go with something that doesn't make me feel I need to take a shower to wash off the gore and gloom.<br /><br />As for the Catalan, it's the Mallorqui dialect, fairly different than the Barcelona dialect, though I was surprised by the comment that said that even Barcelonans apparently needed Catalan subtitles to understand it.
I was excited to view a Cataluña´s film in the Berlin´s competition. But after the presentation I was total disappointed and furious. Too much blood, too much time, too much themes for nothing. The Spanish Civil War, like every war, was horrible. The revenge, a very human behavior, not pretty at all, is shown in uncountable films and plays, as well as the relations between homosexuals and the scepticism in Spain about Catholicism . But what Mr Villaronga try, is a pseudo tragedy that can belongs to the worst of the film´s history. It is really a pity to see Angela Molina in this movie. I advise nobody under no circumstances to go to see this film.
this film was a major letdown. the level of relentless cruelty and violence in this film was very disturbing. some scenes were truly unnecessarily ugly and mean-spirited. the main characters were impossible to identify with or even sympathize with. the lead protagonist's character was as slimy as they come. the sickroom/hothouse atmosphere lent itself to over-the-top theatrics. little or nothing could be learned about the Spanish civil war from this film. fortunately, i've been to spain and realize this is not realistic! in addition, the use of same-sex attraction as a lurid "horror" was also very offensive and poorly handled, while the DVD is being packaged and advertised to attract gay viewers. the actors seemed uncomfortable in their roles,as if they were trying to distance themselves from this mess.i guess if you like watching children and pets being brutally killed,this film might especially appeal to you.
Three part "horror" film with some guy in a boarded up house imploring the viewer not to go "out there" and (unfortunately) gives us three tales to prove why.<br /><br />The first story involves a young couple in a car accident who meet up with two psychos. It leads up to two totally predictable twists. Still, it's quick (about 15 minutes), violent, well-acted and well-done. Predictable but enjoyable.<br /><br />The second involves a man on the run after stealing a large amount of money. His car breaks down, he's attacked by a dog and stumbles into a nearby clinic. VERY obvious, badly done and extremely slow. Even at 30 minutes this is too long. Good acting though.<br /><br />The third is just barely a horror story. It involves a beautiful, lonely woman looking for Mr. Right. It has beautiful set designs, a nice erotic feel and a nice sex scene. But (again) predictable and not even remotely scary.<br /><br />It ends very stupidly.<br /><br />All in all, the first one is worth watching, but that's it. Tune in for that one then turn it off.
A very cheesy and dull road movie, with the intention to be hip and modern, shown in the editing style and some weird camera angles, resulting only in sleepiness. <br /><br />The cast is wasted, the writing is stupid and pretentious. The only thing worthwhile is the top-notch Lalo Schifrin's soundtrack, really cool and also the opening sequence, very original and interesting. <br /><br />Run if you can, the bad opinions and comments about this flick are totally deserved; it is really pure garbage. Of course that this has its charm, of watching a movie which everybody would not drop the beer glass on if it were on fire, but save it for a stormy day where you have absolutely nothing else to do.
There are some nice shots in this film, it catches some of the landscapes with such a beautiful light, in fact the cinematography is probably it's best asset.<br /><br />But it's basically more of a made for TV movie, and although it has a lot of twists and turns in the plot, which keeps it quite interesting viewing, there are no subtitles and key plot developments are unveiled in Spanish, so non Spanish speakers will be left a little lost.<br /><br />I had it as a Xmas gift, as it's a family trait to work through the films of a actor we find talented, and Matthew Mconaughey was just awesome in "A Time to kill" , and the "The Newton Boys " so I expressed I wanted to see more of his work.<br /><br />However although it says on the DVD box it is a Matthew Mconaughey film and uses this as a marketing ploy, he has a few lines and is on screen for not very minutes at the end of the film, he is basically an extra and he doesn't exactly light up the screen while he is on, so die hard fans, really not worth it from that point of view.<br /><br />The films star though, Patrick McGaw is great though and very easy on the eye, and his character is just so nice and kind and caring, a true saint of a guy, he'd be well written into a ROM com.<br /><br />So for true Mcconaughey acting brilliance of the ones I've seen, I'd recommend, "A Time to kill" , "The Newton Boys " "Frailty", "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days", "Edtv" and "Amistad" and avoid too "Larger Than Life" and "Angels in the Outfield" unless you feel like a kids film or have kids around as neither of these are indicative of his talent, but are quite amusing films for children, again MM is really nothing more that a supporting artist with just a few if any lines.<br /><br />As for Scorpion Springit's not a bad film but it also isn't screen stealing either.
When a man who doesn't have Alzheimer's can't remember how many films he's made, he probably is the world's most prolific director after all. That man is Jesus Franco, the king of so-called 'eurotrash'. His 1980 flick Devil Hunter is as rushed, opaque, stupid, lazy and exploitative in the truest sense of the word (the film's title is misleading, for starters) as any other Franco film I've seen. That makes it sound pretty awful, and it is... Yet Franco does have some kind of inimitable sensibility, a generous way with the baldly outrageous, with nudity and sleaze and violence, and even with his stupid cheap editing which tries to pave over the extreme haste with which all his films were made. The mix of all these elements causes you to ride his films out, even while you're mostly waiting for them to end because they're so very tedious.<br /><br />Devil Hunter is nigh on incomprehensible for the first half an hour. The kidnap by strangers of a white woman who seems to be a model or film star is intercut with a bunch of native action in South America. There's lots of naked writhing, dancing, and endless repeated zoom-ins on an ugly totem pole. You need to get used to the repetitive zoom-ins and the technique of cutting back to the same shot about three times in a row right away, as these are Franco's main methods of extending a film out to feature length.<br /><br />The monster who looks like the totem pole is actually kind of scary. He has raw bug eyes and his presence is always signalled on the soundtrack by cacophonous groaning, apparently recorded in an echo chamber. Early in the piece he chews on a native lady strapped to a tree, and it's hard to know what really happens here but I think he ate her stomach (or her genitals, sweet Jesus!).<br /><br />Anyway, the adventure begins properly when a studly guy and his freaked out Vietnam vet pal are sent to the island to recover the white girl from the kidnappers. The flakey guy has an accent which, as dubbed, is half Brooklyn-American, half English-Liverpudlian and all retarded. All of the dialogue and dubbing is ridiculous and laughable, making for another layer of the film which can somehow hold your interest.<br /><br />Not too much really happens from here on in, and it happens pretty sluggishly, studded with the odd bit of outrage like a rape. The nebulous action is fleshed out (haha!) by acres of 360 degree nudity from the natives and the two female leads, and even from the monster himself. That he walks around with his penis exposed makes wrestling him an unappetising prospect for the tough guy hero, but it's gotta be done at some point, and it's nice to note that the director will show anyone's genitals on camera.<br /><br />The best feature of Devil Hunter is the location filming. Franco can be extremely cheap with the structural and story aspects of film-making, but he doesn't muck around with sets. You get real islands, jungles, helicopters and mountains, all in widescreen. This is something that is really cool to experience in these days of crappy CGI sets and backdrops ad nauseam.<br /><br />Ultimately, issues of recommendation where this film is concerned seem moot. If you're trying to see all the Video Nasties, you will have to watch this at some point, and you'll be made as restless as I was. If you like Franco, you'll watch this anyway. If you fall into neither of the above categories, the odds are you'll never come across this film. Copies of it aren't just lying around, and I could hardly recommend the seeking out of it. It's Franco. Lazy, crazy Franco.
I have been looking for this film for ages because it is quite rare to find as it was one of the video nasties. I finally found it on DVD at the end of last year it is a very low budget movie The story is set around amazon jungle tribes that are living in fear of the devil. Laura Crawford is a model who is kidnapped by a gang of thugs while she is working in South America. They take her into the jungle Laura is guarded by some ridiculous native who calls himself "The Devil" she has to go though all unpleasant things until they are happy. Maidens are Chained up. The devil demonstrates eating flesh in a horrible manner. Peter Weston, is the devil hunter, who goes into the jungle to try and rescue her,
As the number of Video Nasties I've yet to see dwindles, this little pile of garbage popped up on my "to rent" list when I saw it was available.<br /><br />The premise involves a fashion model or something being kidnapped and taken into the jungle to be held for ransom by a motley crew of idiots. Some other goof gets hired to bring her back and is given a sack of money to use as a bargaining chip, though if he returns with the girl and all the money, he gets a significant cut. He's brought a helicopter and pilot with him and, wow, that pilot is one of the worst actors EVER! Granted, they are all totally terrible and the dubbing will make you cry blood. After stealing away into the jungle, we learn that nearby is a cannibal cult whose flesheating earthbound god wanders the woods like a human King Kong looking for tribeswomen to ravage and devour. Now, this fellow is just a naked guy with some of the worst makeup ever, ping-pong balls for eyes and that's pretty much it. His growls and groans are an everpresent feature on the soundtrack, and I found myself muting much of those scenes.<br /><br />Oh, did I forget to mention the almost constant nudity? This is probably the main reason this film was banned, though there is one specific scene, about one second long, where the god attacks a girl and pulls her guts out, but it's not a redeeming factor for gore fans. Also, Jess Franco goes beyond the usual T and A and shows lengthy close-ups of female genitals, and, sadly, male as well. So, if you want "fair" in terms of exploitation, you got it.<br /><br />I can't recommend this trash to anyone. It's not even the good bad movie. It's just atrociously padded trash that only a Video Nasty fan will probably view and even then, if you are making your way through the list, leave this for the very last. If you watch it first, you may get the notion that this is the norm for the list, which is certainly not true.
Not sure if I'm referring to those who labeled this a video nasty or to the director..."Devil Hunter" sure is one bizarre 'horror' movie.<br /><br />The plot is a loosey goosey combo of superior films like "Cannibal Ferox" and "Cut and Run." Chick gets kidnapped in the 'jungle' by a 'tribe' of 'savages.' The jungle looks more like a park somewhere in Mexico. The tribe is like a group of hippies who walk around in Party City-style Halloween costume renditions of tribal garb. And the savages range in race from white to Asian to black to hispanic. I suppose Franco just grabbed anyone who looked even slightly ethnic for this romp.<br /><br />To make matters worse, this film has ultra-minimal gore, no real scares and a lot of unnecessary penis. Not fun. I can find something to like in just about any sleazy Italian or Euro-trash film; this one just fell WAY short.<br /><br />2 out of 10, kids.
This video nasty was initially banned in Britain, and allowed in last November without cuts.<br /><br />It features the Playboy Playmate of the Month October 1979, Ursula Buchfellner. The opening cuts back and forth between Buchfellner and foggy jungle pictures. I am not sure what the purpose of that was. It would have been much better to focus on the bathtub scene.<br /><br />Laura (Buchfellner) is kidnapped and held in the jungle for ransom. Peter (Al Cliver - The Beyond, Zombie) is sent to find her and the ransom. Of course, one of the kidnappers (Antonio de Cabo) manages to pass the time productively, while another (Werner Pochath) whines incessantly.<br /><br />The ransom exchange goes to hell, and Laura runs into the jungle. Will Peter save her before the cannibals have a meal? Oh, yes, there are cannibals in this jungle. Why do you think it was a video nasty! Muriel Montossé is found by Peter and his partner (Antonio Mayans - Angel of Death) on the kidnapper's boat. Montossé is very comfortably undressed. Peter leaves them and goes off alone to find Laura, who has been captured by now. They pass the time having sex, and don't see the danger approaching. Guts, anyone? Great fight between Peter and the naked devil (Burt Altman).<br /><br />Blood, decapitation, guts, lots of full frontal, some great writhing by the cannibal priestess (Aline Mess), and the line, "They tore her heart out," which is hilarious if you see the film.
Of the three titles from Jess Franco to find their way onto the Official DPP Video Nasty list (Devil Hunter, Bloody Moon and Women Behind Bars) this is perhaps the least deserving of notoriety, being a dreadfully dull jungle clunker enlivened only very slightly by a little inept gore, a gratuitous rape scene, and loads of nudity.<br /><br />Gorgeous blonde Ursula Buchfellner plays movie star Laura Crawford who is abducted by a gang of ruthless kidnappers and taken to a remote tropical island inhabited by a savage tribe who worship the 'devil god' that lurks in the jungle (a big, naked, bulging-eyed native who likes to eat the hearts of nubile female sacrifices).<br /><br />Employed by Laura's agent to deliver a $6million ransom, brave mercenary Peter Weston (Al Cliver) and his Vietnam vet pilot pal travel to the island, but encounter trouble when the bad guys attempt a double-cross. During the confusion, Laura escapes into the jungle, but runs straight into the arms of the island's natives, who offer her up to their god.<br /><br />Franco directs in his usual torpid style and loads this laughable effort with his usual dreadful trademarks: crap gore, murky cinematography, rapid zooms, numerous crotch shots, out of focus imagery, awful sound effects, and ham-fisted editing. The result is a dire mess that is a real struggle to sit through from start to finish (It took me a couple of sittings to finish the thing), and even the sight of the luscious Buchfellner in all of her natural glory ain't enough to make me revisit this film in a hurry.
How can you tell that a horror movie is terrible? when you can't stop laughing about it of course! The plot has been well covered by other reviewers, so I'll just add a few things on the hilarity of it all.<br /><br />Some reviews have placed the location in South America, others in Africa, I thought it was in some random island in the Pacific. Where exactly does this take place, seems to be a mystery. The cannibal tribe is conformed by a couple of black women some black men, and a man who looks like a young Frank Zappa banging the drums... the Devil God is a large black man with a terrible case of pink eyes.<br /><br />One of the "freakiest" moments in the film is when, "Pablito" find his partner hanging from a tree covered in what seems to be an orange substance that I assume is blood, starts screaming for minutes on and on (that's actually funny), and then the head of his partner falls in the ground and "Pablito" kicks it a bit for what I assume is "shits n' giggles" and the eyes actually move...<br /><br />But, of course, then the "freak" is gone when you realize the eyes moved because the movie is just bad...<br /><br />I hadn't laughed like this in a loooong while, and I definitely recommend this film for a Sunday afternoon with your friends and you have nothing to do... grab a case of beers and start watching this film, you'll love it! If you are looking for a real horror or gore movie, though... don't' bother.
A model named Laura is working in South America when she is kidnapped from her hotel room by a gang and taken into the jungle. They demand a huge ransom for her release. Peter is hired to get her home safe and there is a bonus in it for him if he can bring back the money as well as the girl. Peter is taken to the jungle by helicopter with friend Jack. They try to give the kidnappers fake money in return for Laura but the plan goes horribly wrong and they have to bail out in the helicopter. The helicopter is shot and they also have to bail from that (not going well so far). Also roaming the jungles is a devil of sorts. In reality its just a naked black guy with weirdly big eyes and a breathing problem. He starts to kill a few of the kidnappers and Laura escapes only to be captured by some primitives. The rest of the film is a bit of a blur really.<br /><br />Now I'm not a massive Jess Franco fan, in fact to date this is only the second film of his I have seen, but even I can tell that this really isn't one of his best efforts. The films drags along at a pretty slow pace without much at all happening. The whole thing could have been edited down quite easily into a 25 minute TV show. There are plenty of overly long shots of people walking through the jungle that could have just been lifted straight out.<br /><br />Devil Hunter is poorly lit (Infact I don't think it was lit at all), badly dubbed, poorly acted and slow yet for some reason it didn't bore me. I think the main reason for this was some of the hilariously bad scenes in it. For example a scene where Laura is walking in the street was obviously shot in a real street as crowds of people stop to stare straight at the camera as its shooting. Another funny scene has one of the gang who has been killed, hung in a tree dripping blood as one of his friends stands directly under him screaming for what seems like minutes. Then for no reason at all the man in the trees head just falls of and hits the guy under him. It has to be seen to be believed. Then of course there is the actual devil. It is just some naked black guy who despite the fact he has massive eyes, he has very blurry vision.<br /><br />The film was hooked up in part of the video nasty scare in the 80's here in the UK and was banned. Now why it was I have no idea. There is very little gore at all and it's hardly a shocking film. Minus the nudity I would have said that it could get away with a PG almost. The only thing I can think of is that it was never actually watched and was added to the original list because of word of mouth.<br /><br />There is not much reason to watch this film really unless you are a massive Jess Franco fan. There is plenty of nudity to keep you from falling asleep and also some scenes that are so bad you can have a good laugh at them but other wise I would say just pay for a ticket to South America and get lost in a jungle. It would probably be more fun.<br /><br />3/10
An actress making a movie in Africa is kidnapped and taken into the jungle where she is held for ransom. The producer hires some one to go and bring her back. Complicating everything are the cannibals in the jungle who worship a really ugly looking "god" who likes to eat naked women.<br /><br />This is a gory sleazy movie. There is copious amounts of nudity and violence, not to mention violence against nude people. Its an exploitation film designed to appeal to the deepest darkest parts of our being, and if the movie wasn't so boring this film would be a classic. Lets face it, despite the gore, the nasty sex and abuse,and the ugly monster this movie is a snoozer. The pacing is all off kilter and it puts you out. There are multiple plot lines that all seem to be happening separately from each other, even though its ultimately all one story. Worst of all, almost no one says anything. Most of the minimal dialog concerns the cruelty or one characters protestations that "I'll do what I want". Its such a quiet and dull movie that if it weren't for the frequent screams of the victims I'd recommend this as a sleep aide.<br /><br />This is a movie to avoid unless you need sleep, or unless you need to see every Euro-cannibal movie.<br /><br />(An aside. VideoAsia just released this as part of their Terror Tales series. Their print is oddly letter-boxed which looks to be the result of taking their print from a Japanese source (there is fogging) that was cropped to remove the subtitles. Their print also has no opening titles)
or anyone who was praying for the sight of Al Cliver wrestling a naked, 7ft tall black guy into a full nelson, your film has arrived! Film starlet Laura Crawford (Ursula Buchfellner) is kidnapped by a group who demand the ransom of $6 million to be delivered to their island hideaway. What they don't count on is rugged Vietnam vet Peter Weston (Cliver) being hired by a film producer to save the girl. And what they really didn't count on was a local tribe that likes to offer up young women to their monster cannibal god with bloodshot bug eyes.<br /><br />Pretty much the same filming set up as CANNIBALS, this one fares a bit better when it comes to entertainment value, thanks mostly a hilarious dub track and the impossibly goofy monster with the bulging eyes (Franco confirms they were split ping pong balls on the disc's interview). Franco gets a strong EuroCult supporting cast including Gisela Hahn (CONTAMINATION) and Werner Pochath (whose death is one of the most head-scratching things I ever seen as a guy who is totally not him is shown - in close up - trying to be him). The film features tons of nudity and the gore (Tempra paint variety) is there. The highlight for me was the world's slowly fistfight between Cliver and Antonio de Cabo in the splashing waves. Sadly, ol' Jess pads this one out to an astonishing (and, at times, agonizing) 1 hour and 40 minutes when it should have run 80 minutes tops. <br /><br />For the most part, the Severin DVD looks pretty nice but there are some odd ghosting images going on during some of the darker scenes. Also, one long section of dialog is in Spanish with no subs (they are an option, but only when you listen to the French track). Franco gives a nice 16- minute interview about the film and has much more pleasant things to say about Buchfellner than his CANNIBALS star Sabrina Siani.
Devil Hunter gained notoriety for the fact that it's on the DPP 'Video Nasty' list, but it really needn't have been. Many films on the list where there for God (and DPP) only known reasons, and while this isn't the tamest of the bunch; there isn't a lot here that warrants banning...which is a shame because I never would have sat through it where it not for the fact that it's on 'the shopping list'. The plot actually gives the film a decent base - or at least more of a decent base than most cannibal films - and it follows an actress who is kidnapped and dragged off into the Amazon jungle. A hunter is then hired to find her, but along the way he has to brave the natives, lead by a man who calls himself "The Devil" (hence the title). The film basically just plods along for eighty five minutes and there really aren't many scenes of interest. It's a real shame that Jess Franco ended up making films like this because the man clearly has talent; as seen by films such as The Diabolical Dr Z, Venus in Furs, Faceless and She Kills in Ecstasy, but unfortunately his good films are just gems amongst heaps of crap and Devil Hunter is very much a part of the crap. I saw this film purely because I want to be able to say I've seen everything on the DPP's list (just two more to go!), and I'm guessing that's why most other people who have seen it, saw it. But if you're not on the lookout for Nasties; there really is no reason to bother with this one.
This film seemed way too long even at only 75 minutes. The problem with jungle horror films is that there is always way too much footage of people walking (through the jungle, up a rocky cliff, near a river or lake) to pad out the running time. The film is worth seeing for the laughable and naked native zombie with big bulging, bloody eyes which is always accompanied on the soundtrack with heavy breathing and lots of reverb. Eurotrash fans will be plenty entertained by the bad English dubbing, gratuitous female flesh and very silly makeup jobs on the monster and native extras. For a zombie/cannibal flick this was pretty light on the gore but then I probably didn't see an uncut version.
Sexo Cannibal, or Devil Hunter as it's more commonly known amongst English speaking audiences, starts with actress & model Laura Crawford (Ursula Buchfellner as Ursula Fellner) checking out locations for her new film along with her assistant Jane (Gisela Hahn). After a long days work Laura is relaxing in the bath of her room when two very dubious character's named Chris (Werner Pochath) & Thomas (Antonio Mayans) burst in & kidnap her having been helped by the treacherous Jane. Laura's agent gets on the blower to rent-a-hero Peter Weston (Al Cliver) who is informed of the situation, the kidnappers have Laura on an isolated island & are demanding a 6 million ransom. Peter is told that he will be paid 200,000 to get her back safely & a further 10% of the 6 million if he brings that back as well, faster than a rat up a drain pipe Peter & his Vietnam Vet buddy helicopter pilot Jack are on the island & deciding on how to save Laura. So, the kidnappers have Laura & Peter has the 6 million but neither want to hand them over that much. Just to complicate things further this particular isolated island is home to a primitive tribe (hell, in all the generations they've lived there they've only managed to build one straw hut, now that's primitive) who worship some cannibal monster dude (Burt Altman) with bulging eyes as a God with human sacrifices & this cannibal has a liking for young, white female flesh & intestines...<br /><br />This Spanish, French & German co-production was co-written & directed by the prolific Jesus Franco who also gets the credit for the music as well. Sexo Cannibal has gained a certain amount of notoriety here in the UK as it was placed on the 'Video Nasties' list in the early 80's under it's alternate Devil Hunter title & therefore officially classed as obscene & banned, having said that I have no idea why as it is one bad film & even Franco, who isn't afraid to be associated with a turkey, decides he wants to hide under the pseudonym of Clifford Brown. I'd imagine even the most die-hard Franco fan would have a hard time defending this thing. The script by Franco, erm sorry I mean Clifford Brown & Julian Esteban as Julius Valery who was obviously another one less than impressed with the finished product & wanted his named removed, is awful. It's as simple & straight forward as that. For a start the film is so boring it's untrue, the kidnap plot is one of the dullest I've ever seen without the slightest bit of tension or excitement involved & the horror side of things don't improve as we get a big black guy with stupid looking over-sized bloodshot eyes plus two tame cannibal scenes. As a horror film Sexo Cannibal fails & as an action adventure it has no more success, this is one to avoid.<br /><br />Director Franco shows his usual incompetence throughout, a decapitated head is achieved by an actor lying on the ground with large leaves placed around the bottom of his neck to try & give the impression it's not attached to anything! The cannibal scenes are poor, the action is lame & it has endless scenes of people randomly walking around the jungle getting from 'A' to 'B' & not really doing anything when they get there either. It becomes incredibly dull & tedious to watch after about 10 minutes & don't forget this thing goes on for 94 minutes in it's uncut state. I also must mention the hilarious scene when Al Cliver is supposed to be climbing a cliff, this is achieved by Franco turning his camera on it's side & having Cliver crawl along the floor! Just look at the way his coat hangs & the way he never grabs onto to anything as he just pulls himself along! The gore isn't that great & as far as Euro cannibal films go this is very tame, there are some gross close ups of the cannibals mouth as it chews bits of meat, a man is impaled on spikes, there's some blood & a handful of intestines. There's a fair bit of nudity in Sexo Cannibal & an unpleasant rape scene.<br /><br />Sexo Cannibal must have had a low budget & I mean low. This is a shoddy poorly made film with awful special effects & rock bottom production values. The only decent thing about it is the jungle setting which at least looks authentic. The music sucks & sound effects become annoying as there is lots of heavy breathing whenever the cannibal is on screen. The acting sucks, the whole thing was obviously dubbed anyway but no one in this thing can act.<br /><br />Sexo Cannibal is a terrible film that commits the fatal mistake of being as boring as hell. The only good things I can say is that it has a certain sleazy atmosphere to it & those close ups of the cannibal chewing meat are pretty gross. Anyone looking for a decent cinematic experience should give Sexo Cannibal as wide a berth as possible, one to avoid.
Not only is it a disgustingly made low-budget bad-acted movie, but the plot itself is just STUPID!!!<br /><br />A mystic man that eats women? (And by the looks, not virgin ones)<br /><br />Ridiculous!!! If you´ve got nothing better to do (like sleeping) you should watch this. Yeah right.
This is the worst thing the TMNT franchise has ever spawned. I was a kid when this came out and I still thought it was deuce, even though I liked the original cartoon.<br /><br />There's this one scene I remember when the mafia ape guy explains to his minions what rhetorical questions are. It's atrocious. Many fans hate on the series for including a female turtle, but that didn't bother me. So much so that I didn't even remember her until I read about the show recently. All in all, it's miserably forgettable.<br /><br />The only okay thing was the theme song. Guilty pleasure, they call it... Nananana ninja...
Sometime in 1998, Saban had acquired the rights to produce a brand-new Ninja Turtles live-action series. Naturally, being a fan of the TMNT back in the day, this obviously peaked my interest. So when I started watching the show... to say I was disappointed by the end result is an understatement. Some time later (more like recently), I got a chance to revisit the series.<br /><br />First off, let's talk about some of the positives. They managed to re-create the Turtles' lair as it was last seen in the movies fairly well given the limited budget they threw in with this. There tends to be this darker atmosphere overall in terms of the sets and whatnot. And the Turtle suits, while not the greatest piece of puppetry and whatnot, were functional and seemed pretty sturdy for most of the action stuff that would follow in the series.<br /><br />People tend to complain about getting rid of Shredder quickly and replacing him with these original villains who could have easily been used in a Power Rangers show. But you can only have Shredder get beat so many times before it gets boring and undermines his worth as a villain... and besides, most fans don't realize or don't remember or just plain ignore the fact that in the original comic, the Shredder was offed in the very first issue! Never mind the countless resurrections that would follow. So on a personal standpoint, I was sort of glad they got rid of Shredder because then the anticipation would build to the point where they would eventually bring him back in a later episode. I find that Shredder in small quantities work best because then his encounters with the Turtles are all the more memorable.<br /><br />Unfortunately, they end up replacing him with these original villains who, as stated, seemed more fit for a Power Rangers show than a Ninja Turtles show. And with these new magic-wielding generics comes a new female magic-wielding turtle, the infamous Venus De Milo. I'll be honest; I never got comfortable with her. I'm not against the idea of a female turtle; I'm just against the idea of one who uses magic and thus sticks out like a sore sight among a clan of ninja turtles who seem somewhat out of their domain. I almost get the impression that this could have easily been the Venus De Milo show dealing with her make-believe enemies and the TMNT are just there to provide the star power (or whatever was left considering the timeframe this was released). Fortunately, they all share the spotlight together.<br /><br />Next Mutation was canned after a season on the air and the creators were more than happy to ignore it. Given time and maybe another season, I really believe this live iteration of the TMNT could have been something and might have gotten a chance at greatness. But while the idea was sound, the execution was flawed (although there are a couple good episodes in this series). As it stands, Next Mutation is one of those oddities in Turtledom that is best left buried and forgotten.
This is the biggest insult to TMNT ever. Fortunantely, officially Venus does not exist in canon TMNT. There will never be a female turtle, this took away from the tragic tale of 4 male unique mutants who will never have a family of their own, once gone no more. The biggest mistake was crossing over Power Rangers to TMNT with a horrible episode; the turtle's voices were WRONG and they all acted out of character. They could have done such a better job, better designs and animatronics and NO VENUS. <br /><br />don't bother with this people...it's cringe worthy material. the lip flap was slow and unnatural looking. they totally disrespected shredder. the main baddie, some dragonlord dude was corny. the turtles looked corny with things hanging off their bodies, what's with the thing around raph's thigh? the silly looking sculpted plastrons!? <br /><br />If they looked normal, acted in character and got rid of Venus, got rid of the stupid kiddie cartoon sounds...and better writing it could have been good.
I did not like the idea of the female turtle at all since 1987 we knew the TMNT to be four brothers with their teacher Splinter and their enemies and each one of the four brothers are named after the great artists name like Leonardo , Michelangleo, Raphel and Donatello so Venus here doesn't have any meaning or playing any important part and I believe that the old TMNT series was much more better than that new one which contains Venus As a female turtle will not add any action to the story we like the story of the TMNT we knew in 1987 to have new enemies in every part is a good point to have some action but to have a female turtle is a very weak point to have some action, we wish to see more new of TMNT series but just as the same characters we knew in 1987 without that female turtle.
I cannot stay indifferent to Lars van Trier's films. I consider 'Breaking the Waves' nothing less than a masterpiece. I loved 'Dancer in the Night'. I admired the idea in 'Dogville' but the overall exercise looked to me too dry and too theatrical, less cinema. 'Europa' which I see only now was a famous film at its time, succeeded in the US the relative success of an European film and got the Oscar for the best foreign language movie, but did not survive well the time in my opinion. It is also a too much explicit and extrovert exercise in cinema art to my taste.<br /><br />The story has a level of ambiguity that cannot escape the viewer. Treating the period that immediately followed the second world war not in the black and white colors of victors and vanquished, of executioners and victims but as rather ambiguous times when people of both sides were fighting for survival in the aftermath of a catastrophic event that change the lives of nations and individuals forever is still a source of disputes even today, more such was novel and courageous two decades ago. Yet it is the means of expression that really do not appear fit to the task.<br /><br />The film seems to include a lot of quotes descending directly from the films of Hitchcock, especially his early films set in the pre-war Europe, with brave British spies fighting evil German spies on trains crossing at high speed the continent at dark. The trains were a symbol of the world and its conflicts with all their intensity and dramatism. Here the train also becomes the symbol of the first sparkles of the re-birth of Germany after war, of its might, of its obsession with order and regulation, of punctuality and civility. The characters that populate the train are far from being the classical spy stories good or bad guys. The principal character a young American of German origin coming to post-war Europe willing to be part of a process of help and reconciliation finds himself in an ambiguous world of destruction and corruption, with liberators looking more like oppressive occupiers, with the vanquished not resigned to their fate but rather willing to continue on the path of self-destruction, with love doubtfully mixed with treason.<br /><br />It is yet this classical film treatment that betrays the director in this case. The actions of the characters, especially of Leopold Kessler played by Jean-Marc Barr seem confused, and lack credibility. The overall cinematography seems to be not Hitchcock-like but rather from a bad imitation of Hitchcock in the late 30s. The usage of color over the black-and-white film used in the majority of the time in moments of emotional intensity is also too demonstrative. It is not that Van Trier does not master his artistic means, but he is too demonstrative, he seems to try too hard to show what a great filmmaker he is. He really is great, as he will show in some of his later films, but it will be left to the viewers to decide this alone.
This film is terrible. You don't really need to read this review further. If you are planning on watching it, suffice to say - don't (unless you are studying how not to make a good movie).<br /><br />The acting is horrendous... serious amateur hour. Throughout the movie I thought that it was interesting that they found someone who speaks and looks like Michael Madsen, only to find out that it is actually him! A new low even for him!!<br /><br />The plot is terrible. People who claim that it is original or good have probably never seen a decent movie before. Even by the standard of Hollywood action flicks, this is a terrible movie.<br /><br />Don't watch it!!! Go for a jog instead - at least you won't feel like killing yourself.
Terrible movie. Nuff Said.<br /><br />These Lines are Just Filler. The movie was bad. Why I have to expand on that I don't know. This is already a waste of my time. I just wanted to warn others. Avoid this movie. The acting sucks and the writing is just moronic. Bad in every way. The only nice thing about the movie are Deniz Akkaya's breasts. Even that was ruined though by a terrible and unneeded rape scene. The movie is a poorly contrived and totally unbelievable piece of garbage.<br /><br />OK now I am just going to rag on IMDb for this stupid rule of 10 lines of text minimum. First I waste my time watching this offal. Then feeling compelled to warn others I create an account with IMDb only to discover that I have to write a friggen essay on the film just to express how bad I think it is. Totally unnecessary.
Assuming this won't end up a straight-to-video release, I would have to say void this title at all costs. Unless you're bored of good, well-executed movies, that is. I saw this last night at AFI Dallas, and I left with 20 minutes remaining, simply because I didn't care anymore (about the plot, not about insulting the director...that is awkward). When you can spot a goof only 5 minutes into the movie (a shot out, shattered window before any shots are fired...and then the window breaks with the first shot), things are going to bad. Let's just say this is only an indicator of things to come...unfortunately.<br /><br />I'll spare you all the details, but this is sub-par in every manner, even the half-assed acting by Michael Madsen is disappointing when you're expecting half-assed acting from him. And the rape scene...Christ! "Shut up and take it" should never be used in a rape scene. EVER.<br /><br />3/10
Sometimes a movie is so comprehensively awful it has a destructive effect on your morale. You begin to really ask yourself, what does it mean for our society that the standard is so terribly low? Can they honestly expect that we'll endure this many clichés and still be entertained?<br /><br />Of course, it is still a Hollywood mainstay to make the GUN the major character, plot device, and the source of all conflict and resolution in films. Character needs a gun. Gets a gun. Can't do that because he has a gun. Puts his gun down first. OH MY GOD What are we going to do!? He has a gun! He waves it around, acting more malicious than real human beings ever do. He pushes it in someone's face for 90 minutes, shouting questions. The hallmark of any conclusion will be the comforting sound of police sirens. <br /><br />It's a real challenge to make such a tired, hackneyed formula work again; a film has to be very clever and well executed. This one is neither. It has no life and no personality, and it will suck these components from YOU. it will make you feel WORSE about living in the time and space that you do. Really, who needs that!? So yes, I'll say it: I think this may well be the worst film I have ever seen. Anyone who was involved in the making of this sub- mediocre soul killing trash should be publicly embarrassed for the disservice they've done to us all.
I have to congratulate the genius who approved this one. Edward Furlong, you're not as good as you think mate, you can't grab on every piece of low-cost amateur crap, which sole intention has to be to get some bucks.<br /><br />The filming is bad, and I mean BAD. Anyone with a camera would get the same result, or better.<br /><br />The acting, lets just say: don't go to the supermarket looking for actors. The good ones usually come with a degree or, at least, have some damn experience! The director.. Mr. Jon Keeyes, please find your purpose in life, as a director you simply suck. Your directing is poor, the angles are all messed up (not in a good way), the lines seem as if they're being read out of toilet paper, and the damn music.. it always comes up when it shouldn't and goes out for no apparent reason. And don't go for writer either, by the way. Making movies isn't like serving on a coffeshop, it requires art and skill, things I really doubt you'll ever have.<br /><br />Instead of making a badass shootout movie, you should've shot this one back to oblivion and wait 'till something good came up.. Or just go find a job on a coffeshop. You'll have less stress and you'll save movie goers some money and a bad night.<br /><br />vote: 1/10 (my first one)
I rented this one on DVD without any prior knowledge. I was suspicious seeing Michael Madsen appearing in a movie I have never heard of, but it was a freebie, so why not check it out.<br /><br />Well my guess is that Mr. Blonde would very much like to forget he's ever taken part in such a shame of a film.<br /><br />Apparently, if your script and dialogs are terrible, even good actors cannot save the day. Not to mention the amateur actors that flood this film. Too many non-native-English-speakers play parts of native-English-speakers, reading out lines from a script that should have been thrown away and not having been made into a movie. It's unbelievable how unbelievable all the lines in the movie sound. The music is awful and totally out of place, and the whole thing looks and sounds like a poor school play.<br /><br />I recommend you watch it just so you would appreciate other, better, movies. This is why I gave it a 3 instead of the 1 it deserves.
I saw this DVD in my friends house and thought that this was a Turkish action movie with some Hollywood-not very big-names in it. Interested enough I decide to give it a shot later.. It was a tough to bear experience believe me. Then, after finally seeing the credits roll I tought 'We Turks really suck at Hollywood style film making.. This is an insult to the heist|hostage movie genre..' but then wait! I checked some names and no, they were not Turkish names and no, this was not a Turkish movie; on the contrary it was literally shot in America with an American director & crew! That made me thinking-again!- How on earth can you persuade names like Micheal Madsen, Edward Furlong or even Arnold Vosloo to take part in such a project? with money probably.. That kept me thinking further.. How can you raise such amount of money to offer them and a supposedly international cast? Then all my meditation paid off and I came to find the answer.By hiring the cheapest equipment and crew that you can find. And if you still have to difficulty in adjustin your budget then: by writing and directing the movie you are trying to produce-or vice versa I don't have any information on that-. So bottom line this is not a bad movie as everybody are so anxious to present as.. It makes you think -in my case even meditate- and there are a lot of movies outthere that doesn't give even that affect.. This one at least makes you think; It makes you wonder.. It leaves you with disbelief.. and then It makes you wonder again..
What was with all the Turkish actors? No offense but I thought it was all for nothing for all these actors. The film had no script to test any actors acting skill or ability. It demanded next to nothing I bought this film to see Michael Madsen. He is one of my favorite actors but this film was another failure for him. The script was so bad. Their was just nothing to sink your teeth into and all the characters were two dimensional. Madsen tried to act like a hard ass but the script and direction didn't even allow him to do enough with his character to make it more interesting or 3 dimensional.<br /><br />Even the sound effects of the gunfight at the beginning of the film sounded like the noise of paint ball guns when they are fired in a skirmish. It was really weird and they didn't sound like real guns. A video game had better sound effects than this film. There was also a really annoying bloke at the beginning of the film who was a member of the robbery gang. He had this American whining voice like a girl shouting lines like "Lets get the F#$k out of here" and What are we going to do man". He sounded like a girl. As a positive It was funny to watch and it made me laugh too. For a few seconds. Whoo Hoo ! Dumb Film. Poor Madsen. He will bounce back...
This movie was terrible. at first i just read the plot summary and it looked OK, so i watched it. The acting was TERRIBLE. it was like the actor were almost camera shy. everything seemed fake. i feel bad for Edward Furlong, terminator 2 was my favorite a few years ago.. I've watched it at least 20 times....<br /><br />the plot was also crap. the writers were probably sleep deprived when they came up with the lines.<br /><br />on the plus side, it's the good kind of bad movie. the one you keep watching just to see how much worst could it will get, so that later you can tell other people how you couldn't believe how terrible the movie was.<br /><br />i think everybody should watch this, so that then we could appreciate better other, REAL, movies.
I am a big fan of Arnold Vosloo. Finally seeing him as the star of a recent movie, not just a bit part, made me happy.<br /><br />Unfortunately I took film appreciation in college and the only thing I can say that I didn't like was that the film was made in an abandoned part of town and there was no background traffic or lookie loos.<br /><br />I have to say that the acting leaves something to be desired, but Arnold is an excellent actor, I have to chalk it up to lousy direction and the supporting cast leaves something to be desired.<br /><br />I love Arnold Vosloo, and he made the film viewable. Otherwise, I would have written it off as another lousy film.<br /><br />I found the rape scene brutal and unnecessary, but the actors that got away at the end were pretty good. But the sound effects of the shoot-out were pretty bad. There are some glitches in the film (continuity) but they are overlookable considering the low-caliber of the film.<br /><br />All in all I enjoyed the film, because Arnold Vosloo was in it.<br /><br />Jackie
This is an art film that was either made in 1969 or 1972 (the National Film Preservation Foundation says 1969 and IMDb says 1972). Regardless of the exact date, the film definitely appears to be very indicative of this general time period--with some camera-work and pop art stylings that are pure late 60s-early 70s.<br /><br />The film consists of three simple images that are distorted using different weird camera tricks. These distorted images are accompanied by music and there is absolutely no dialog or plot of any sort. This was obviously intended as almost like a form of performance art, and like most performance art, it's interesting at first but quickly becomes tiresome. The film, to put it even more bluntly, is a total bore and would appeal to no one but perhaps those who made the film, their family and friends and perhaps a few people just too hip and "with it" to be understood by us mortals.
Nine minutes of psychedelic, pulsating, often symmetric abstract images, are enough to drive anyone crazy. I did spot a full-frame eye at the start, and later some birds silhouetted against other colors. It was just not my cup of tea. It's about 8½ minutes too long.
There are lots of extremely good-looking people in this movie. That's probably the best thing about it. Perhaps that even makes it worth watching.<br /><br />"Loaded" tells the story of Tristan Price (Jesse Metcalfe), a young man who's about to make his mark on the world. He's the son of a well-to-do family with a good reputation, and he's on his way to law school. But like so many such settings, things aren't quite as perfect as they appear. The expectations in this family far outweigh the love. Except for school, Tristan's father rarely lets him leave the house. This seems to be the result of some past traumatic event that shook the family, which is partially revealed through flashbacks but isn't spelled out until the very end. Tristan's claustrophobic environment causes him to let loose in very extreme ways at the first possible opportunity, when his friends take him out to a strip club to celebrate his graduation. The celebration soon follows some strippers back to a beach house party, and from there, Tristan befriends Sebastian Cole (Corey Large), who pulls him into a drug dealing underworld.<br /><br />While technically well-made, this movie suffers from a lackluster script and a storyline that isn't very engaging. Also counting against this film are some constant camera tricks that generally seemed annoying and out-of-place, such as slow-motion, fast-motion, freeze-frames and echos. These are the types of effects a director might normally utilize to show a character's perspective while on drugs, except in this case they seem to have been sporadically tossed in at random points, in some cheap attempt at style.<br /><br />Despite its cast of relative unknowns, performances were good all around, most notably with respect to the main antagonist (Corey Large). I suspect we'll be seeing at least a couple of these people in bigger and better projects in the future.<br /><br />Of course, when mentioning the actors, I must mention their looks. Rating based on hotness, this movies scores an 11. The women in this movie are incredible-looking and almost distract you from what a boring movie you're watching. I'm sure the male characters are also quite attractive, but you'll have to ask someone else to comment on that.<br /><br />Overall, I can't recommend this movie, not for buying, renting, or even seeing for free. It's unfortunately just not worth the effort it takes to sit through.
This is it. This is the one. This is the worst movie ever made. Ever. It beats everything. I have never seen worse. Retire the trophy and give it to these people.....there's just no comparison.<br /><br />Even three days after watching this (for some reason I still don't know why) I cannot believe how insanely horrific this movie is/was. Its so bad. So far from anything that could be considered a movie, a story or anything that should have ever been created and brought into our existence.<br /><br />This made me question whether or not humans are truly put on this earth to do good. It made me feel disgusted with ourselves and our progress as a species in this universe. This type of movie sincerely hurts us as a society. We should be ashamed. I really cannot emphasize that our global responsibility as people living here and creating art, is that we need to prevent the creation of these gross distortions of our reality for our own good. It's an embarrassment. I don't know how on earth any of these actors, writers, or the director of this film sleeps at night knowing that they had a role in making "Loaded". I don't know what type of disgusting monsters enjoy watching these types of movies.<br /><br />That being said, I love a good "bad" movie. I love Shark Attack 3, I love Bad Taste, they are HILARIOUS. I tell all my friends to see them because they are "bad".<br /><br />But this.......this crosses the line of "bad" into a whole new dimension. This is awkward bad. This is the bad where you know everything that is going to happen, every line, every action, every death, every sequence BEFORE they happen; and not just like a second or two before, I mean like, after watching the first 5 minutes before.<br /><br />Every cheesy editing "effect" is shamelessly used over and over again to a sickening point. I really never want to see the "shaky" camera "drug buzz rush" effect or jump cuts or swerve cuts or ANY FANCY CUT EVER AGAIN EVER. This is meticulously boring, repetitive and just tortures the audience.<br /><br />But.......and let me be specific here, the most DISTURBING thing about this movie is that given the production, it appears that a somewhat decent amount of money was actually put into this excrement. I personally will grab the shoulders of the director if I ever see him and shake him into submission, demanding that he run home and swallow two-gallons of Drain-O or I will do it for him.<br /><br />If we ever needed a new form of inhumane torture for our war prisoners abroad, just keep showing them this movie in a padded cell over and over again. Trust me, I think they will become more extravagant with suicide methods after the 72nd time of sitting through this.<br /><br />Stop these movies, they are just the most vile of all facets of our society. Please. Stop. NOW.
There are times when finishing a film one wishes to have a refund for the time just spent. This was one of those times. I almost gave up with only 15 minutes left to endure... and I wish I had...<br /><br />The pace that a man goes from a straight-laced, controlled life to one of complete spinelessness and irresponsibility could never be this rapid.<br /><br />From a graduation celebration to the predictable ending Tristan Price (Jesse Metcalfe) man of privilege and culture allows himself to be seduced by a woman, by violence, and by mind altering substances. Of course, the woman part is understandable when observing the talents of the beautiful April (Nathalie Kelley). But the in for a penny in for a pound aspect of the drugs, violence and dedication to a person he has just met is impossible to understand.<br /><br />Frankly, besides being able to stare at Nathalie Kelley and Monica Keena, this film has no redeeming qualities. Save your money, save your time... do anything else...
Weak plot, predictable violence, only semi interesting characters. Like the writer (also one of the stars?) was fictionalizing his own screw ups and added an incredulous fantasies of drugs and murder to make it "hot". From the predictable rap and house soundtrack, to the family conflicts, it's poorly acted, stereotypical, and ultimately terribly boring. Even the title has been done before - IMDb lists FIVE movies with the same name released in 2007-2008!! <br /><br />Note: Saw it on Showtime, which listed the synopsis for one of the other movies. Was halfway thru before I realized no one was an undercover cop. Even tho another stereotype, would have made it interesting if it happened.
All I could think of while watching this movie was B-grade slop. Many have spoken about it's redeeming quality is how this film portrays such a realistic representation of the effects of drugs and an individual and their subsequent spiral into a self perpetuation state of unfortunate events. Yet really, the techniques used (as many have already mentioned) were overused and thus unconvincing and irrelevant to the film as a whole.<br /><br />As far as the plot is concerned, it was lacklustre, unimaginative, implausible and convoluted. You can read most other reports on this film and they will say pretty much the same as I would.<br /><br />Granted some of the actors and actresses are attractive but when confronted with such boring action... looks can only carry a film so far. The action is poor and intermittent: a few punches thrown here and there, and a final gunfight towards the end. Nothing really to write home about.<br /><br />As others have said, 'BAD' movies are great to watch for the very reason that they are 'bad', you revel in that fact. This film, however, is a void. It's nothing.<br /><br />Furthermore, if one is really in need of an educational movie to scare people away from drug use then I would seriously recommend any number of other movies out there that board such issues in a much more effective way. 'Requiem For A Dream', 'Trainspotting', 'Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas' and 'Candy' are just a few examples. Though one should also check out some more lighthearted films on the same subject like 'Go' (overall, both serious and funny) and 'Halfbaked'.<br /><br />On a final note, the one possibly redeeming line in this movie, delivered by Vinnie Jones was stolen from 'Lock, Stock and Two Smokling Barrels'. To think that a bit of that great movie has been tainted by 'Loaded' is vile.<br /><br />Overall, I strongly suggest that you save you money and your time by NOT seeing this movie.
If you look at Corey Large's information here on IMDb, apparently there's a movie called "Reload" in production (as of June '08) in which he's playing a character named Sebastian Cole.<br /><br />First of all, how does such a crappy movie ever earn a sequel ... and second, didn't Sebastian get killed at the end of "Loaded"?<br /><br />I watched this in the wee hours of the morning when I was battling insomnia, and so I was drifting in and out while it was on. I'm sure I missed some plot points, but overall, it seemed really weak. Large's performance was (for me) one of the stronger parts of the film. I'm also a bit surprised at all the people commenting on the beautiful girls, since I thought the actress playing Brooke was pretty, but not exceptional.
This film had a lot of promise, and the plot was relatively interesting, however the actors, director and editors seriously let this film down.<br /><br />I feel bad for the writers, it could have been good. The acting is wooden, very few of the characters are believable.<br /><br />Who ever edited this clearly just learnt some new edit techniques and wanted to splash them all over the film. There are lots of quick 'flashy' edits in almost every scene, which are clearly meant to be symbolic but just end up as annoying.<br /><br />I wanted to like this film and expected there to be a decent resolution to the breakdown of equilibrium but alas no, it left me feeling like I'd wasted my time and the film makers had wasted their money.
This is one of the dumbest films, I've ever seen. It rips off nearly ever type of thriller and manages to make a mess of them all.<br /><br />There's not a single good line or character in the whole mess. If there was a plot, it was an afterthought and as far as acting goes, there's nothing good to say so Ill say nothing. I honestly cant understand how this type of nonsense gets produced and actually released, does somebody somewhere not at some stage think, 'Oh my god this really is a load of shite' and call it a day. Its crap like this that has people downloading illegally, the trailer looks like a completely different film, at least if you have download it, you haven't wasted your time or money Don't waste your time, this is painful.
6/10 Acting, not great but some good acting.<br /><br />4/10 Director, makes some stupid decisions for this film.<br /><br />2/10 Writer, story makes no sense at all and has huge amount of flaws.<br /><br />4/10 Overall score for this movie.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this film, it's not worth it. I gave 4 for this movie and it may be too much. Characters are so over exaggerated than they can ever be in real life and some pretty unexplainable stuff happens "storywise", not in good way. Because of the style this film has been filmed you get bored after 30 minutes (too many special effects: slow motions and camera shakes and fast forwards). It's always good that movie uses music to make the story go smooth but there's too many tracks in this one. In the first hour there is almost 50/50 dialogs and musics
This is really a new low in entertainment. Even though there are a lot worse movies out.<br /><br />In the Gangster / Drug scene genre it is hard to have a convincing storyline (this movies does not, i mean Sebastians motives for example couldn't be more far fetched and worn out cliché.) Then you would also need a setting of character relationships that is believable (this movie does not.) <br /><br />Sure Tristan is drawn away from his family but why was that again? what's the deal with his father again that he has to ask permission to go out at his age? interesting picture though to ask about the lack and need of rebellious behavior of kids in upper class family. But this movie does not go in this direction. Even though there would be the potential judging by the random Backflashes. Wasn't he already down and out, why does he do it again? <br /><br />So there are some interesting questions brought up here for a solid socially critic drama (but then again, this movie is just not, because of focusing on "cool" production techniques and special effects an not giving the characters a moment to reflect and most of all forcing the story along the path where they want it to be and not paying attention to let the story breath and naturally evolve.) <br /><br />It wants to be a drama to not glorify abuse of substances and violence (would be political incorrect these days, wouldn't it?) but on the other hand it is nothing more then a cheap action movie (like there are so so many out there) with an average set of actors and a Vinnie Jones who is managing to not totally ruin what's left of his reputation by doing what he always does.<br /><br />So all in all i .. just ... can't recommend it.<br /><br />1 for Vinnie and 2 for the editing.
From the beginning of the movie, it gives the feeling the director is trying to portray something, what I mean to say that instead of the story dictating the style in which the movie should be made, he has gone in the opposite way, he had a type of move that he wanted to make, and wrote a story to suite it. And he has failed in it very badly. I guess he was trying to make a stylish movie. Any way I think this movie is a total waste of time and effort. In the credit of the director, he knows the media that he is working with, what I am trying to say is I have seen worst movies than this. Here at least the director knows to maintain the continuity in the movie. And the actors also have given a decent performance.
I basically skimmed through the movie but just enough to catch watch the plot was about. To tell you the truth it was kind of boring to me and at some spots it didn't make sense. The only reason I watched this movie in the first place was to see CHACE CRAWFORD!!! He is so hot, but in this movie his hair was kind of weird. But still hot.<br /><br />However, despite how hot CHACE is, it really did not make up for the film. I guess the plot isn't that bad but what really threw me over was the fact that they cuss in like every sentence. Is it that hard to express your anger without saying the F word every time?The cussing was annoying and the whole flashy, camera shaking thing gave me a headache.<br /><br />All in all, although the plot was OK, I found the film to be a bore and over dramatic. That's why I only cut to scenes with CHACE in it. LOL Anyways, not worth renting unless your a die-hard fan of a specific cast member like I was. Oh yeah the cast was Hot. The girls were HOT!!! But CHACE IS THE BEST!!
This fanciful horror flick has Vincent Price playing a mad magician that realizes his vocational talents have been sold to another. He devise ways of avenging all those that have wronged him. His master scheme seems to back fire on him.<br /><br />Price is a little below par compared to his masterpieces, but is still the only reason to watch this thriller. Supporting cast includes Patrick O'Neal, Mary Murphy, Eva Gabor and Jay Novello.<br /><br />
If I had not read Pat Barker's 'Union Street' before seeing this film, I would have liked it. Unfortuntately this is not the case. It is actually my kind of film, it is well made, and in no way do I want to say otherwise, but as an adaptation, it fails from every angle.<br /><br />The harrowing novel about the reality of living in a northern England working-class area grabbed hold of my heartstrings and refused to let go for weeks after I had finished. I was put through tears, repulsion, shock, anger, sympathy and misery when reading about the women of Union Street. Excellent. A novel that at times I felt I could not read any more of, but I novel I simply couldn't put down. Depressing yes, but utterly gripping.<br /><br />The film. Oh dear. Hollywood took Barker's truth and reality, and showered a layer of sweet icing sugar over the top of it. A beautiful film, an inspiring soundtrack, excellent performances, a tale of hope and romance...yes. An adaptation of 'Union Street'...no.<br /><br />The women of Union Street and their stories are condensed into Fonda's character, their stories are touched on, but many are discarded. I accept that some of Barker's tales are sensitive issues and are too horrific for mass viewing, and that a film with around 7 leading protagonists just isn't practical, but the content is not my main issue. The essence and the real gut of the novel is lost - darkness and rain, broken windows covered with cardboard, and the graphically described stench of poverty is replaced with sunshine, pretty houses, and a twinkling William's score.<br /><br />If you enjoyed the film for its positivity and hope in the face of 'reality', I advise that you hesitate to read the book without first preparing yourself for something more like 'Schindler's List'...but without the happy ending.
I saw the capsule comment said "great acting." In my opinion, these are two great actors giving horrible performances, and with zero chemistry with one another, for a great director in his all-time worst effort. Robert De Niro has to be the most ingenious and insightful illiterate of all time. Jane Fonda's performance uncomfortably drifts all over the map as she clearly has no handle on this character, mostly because the character is so poorly written. Molasses-like would be too swift an adjective for this film's excruciating pacing. Although the film's intent is to be an uplifting story of curing illiteracy, watching it is a true "bummer." I give it 1 out of 10, truly one of the worst 20 movies for its budget level that I have ever seen.
Robert DeNiro plays the most unbelievably intelligent illiterate of all time. This movie is so wasteful of talent, it is truly disgusting. The script is unbelievable. The dialog is unbelievable. Jane Fonda's character is a caricature of herself, and not a funny one. The movie moves at a snail's pace, is photographed in an ill-advised manner, and is insufferably preachy. It also plugs in every cliche in the book. Swoozie Kurtz is excellent in a supporting role, but so what?<br /><br />Equally annoying is this new IMDB rule of requiring ten lines for every review. When a movie is this worthless, it doesn't require ten lines of text to let other readers know that it is a waste of time and tape. Avoid this movie.
Story of a man who has unnatural feelings for a pig. Starts out with a opening scene that is a terrific example of absurd comedy. A formal orchestra audience is turned into an insane, violent mob by the crazy chantings of it's singers. Unfortunately it stays absurd the WHOLE time with no general narrative eventually making it just too off putting. Even those from the era should be turned off. The cryptic dialogue would make Shakespeare seem easy to a third grader. On a technical level it's better than you might think with some good cinematography by future great Vilmos Zsigmond. Future stars Sally Kirkland and Frederic Forrest can be seen briefly.
Are you familiar with concept of children's artwork? While it is not the greatest Picasso any three-year-old has ever accomplished with their fingers, you encourage them to do more. If painting is what makes them happy, there should be no reason a parent should hold that back on a child. Typically, if a child loves to paint or draw, you will immediately see the groundwork of their future style. You will begin to see their true form in these very primitive doodles. Well, this concept of children's artwork is how I felt about Fuqua's depressingly cheap and uncreative film Bait. While on all accounts it was a horrid film, it was impressive to see Fuqua's style begin emerging through even the messiest of moments. If you have seen either Training Day or King Arthur, you will be impressed with the birth of this director in his second film Bait. While Foxx gives a horrid, unchained performance, there are certain scenes, which define Fuqua and demonstrate his brilliance behind the camera. Sadly it only emerged in the final thirty minutes of the film, but if you focus just on those scenes, you will see why Fuqua's name appears on so many "Best Of…" film lists.<br /><br />I will never disagree with someone that Fuqua's eye behind the camera is refreshing and unique. His ability to place a camera in the strangest of places to convey the simplest of emotions is shocking. I am surprised that more of Hollywood hasn't jumped aboard this bandwagon. Even in the silly feature Bait, you are witness to Fuqua's greatness. Two scenes that come directly to mind are the explosion scene near the middle of the film and the horse scene close to the end. In both of these scenes I saw the director Fuqua at work. Alas, in the rest of this film, all I saw was a combination of nearly every action film created. The likable hero down on his luck that suddenly finds his life turned around by some unknown force is a classic structure that just needs to die in Hollywood. We have seen this two often, and no matter who you are (unless you are Charlie Kaufmann), you cannot recreate the wheel. It is just impossible with this genre, and it is proved with Bait. I was annoyed with Fuqua for just sitting back and allowing this to happen, which could explain why it took me three viewings to finish this film. I was just tired of the structure, and while I hoped that Fuqua would redefine it, he did not.<br /><br />Then, there was the acting. While Jamie Foxx has never impressed me as an actor, I was willing to give this helmed vehicle a try. I wanted to see if he could pull off another dramatic role similar to Collateral. I was under the impression that perhaps this was the film chosen to show producers that Foxx could handle the role in Collateral. Again, I was disappointed. Foxx was annoying. Not in the sense that it was the way that his character was to be, but in the sense that it felt as if neither Fuqua nor Foxx took the time to fully train Foxx on what should be ad-libed and what should be used to further the plot. Instead, we are downtrodden with scene over scene of Foxx just trying to make the audience laugh. Adding second long quips and culture statements just to keep his audience understanding that he was a comedian first, an actor second. Fuqua should have stopped this immediately. Foxx's jokes destroyed his character, which in turn left me with nothing solid to grasp ahold of. Instead of character development, he would crack a joke. Neither style worked, no joke was funny. The rest of the cast was average. By this I mean I have seen them all in similar roles. They were brining nothing new to the table, nothing solid to the story, and nothing substantial to the overall themes of the film. They were pawns filling in dead air space. Fuqua had no control over this mess, and the final verdict only supports that accusation.<br /><br />Overall, this was a sad film. With no creativity in sight and unmanaged actors just trying to upstage themselves, what originally started as a decent story eventually sunk faster into the cinematic quicksand. Foxx was annoying, without character lines, and a complete bag of cheese. In each scene I saw no emotion, and when emotion was needed to convey a message, he chose to take his shirt off rather than tackle the issues. Are my words harsh? I don't think so. When you watch any movie you want to see some creativity, some edible characters, and themes that seem to hit close to home. Bait contained none of these. While I will give Fuqua some credit for two of the scenes in this film, the remaining five hundred were disastrous. Apparently, I took the bait when renting this film, but now having seen it, hopefully I can stop others from taking that curious nibble.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of ***** (for his two scenes that were fun to watch)
Ah, Bait. How do I hate thee? Let me count the ways. 1. You try to be funny, but are corny and unenjoyable; every joke is predictable and expected, and when it comes, does not inspire laughter. Instead, I want to hurl. 2. You try to be dramatic, but are unbelievable; the woman overacts to a terrible degree, and the "bad guy" looks like Bill Gates, and is about as scary as...well, Bill Gates. (Just try to imagine Bill Gates trying to intimidate somebody with a gun. Doesn't work, does it? A lawyer, maybe, but not a gun. Doesn't fit.) As for Jamie Foxx, well, just watching him try to deliver a dramatic and heartfelt dialogue is ludicrous, and makes me want to hurl. 3. You try to be action-packed, but instead are dull and dragging too many times. And when the action heats up, the tripod for the camera must have been lost, for the scenes wobble more than those in The Blair Witch Project, and I find myself nauseated, and once again I want to hurl. 4. You try to be a good movie, but you failed, you FAILED, YOU FAILED! I would rather walk barefoot across the Sahara with a pack full of beef jerky and no water, no sunscreen, and only Meryl Streep for company. This hell would be lovelier than a single minute more spent watching everyone in Bait overact their way through an idiotically written story with Bill Gates for a bad guy, and let's not even talk about the massive bomb that goes off in a car that Jamie Foxx's character has just driven OFF A CLIFF, but somehow manages to escape...just kill me now, or do the right thing and promise me that somehow I'll never have to watch a movie that is this bad, ever again.
The premise of the movie has been explained and if you've gotten this far you don't me to pretend that I'm a movie critic. With that being said my own opinion of the movie is quite low. I'm a fan of Takashi Miike but this goes down in the category of his not so great work along with DOA 2 and 3, and some others (many).<br /><br />The movie seems to get a free pass because it is a Takashi film and nothing Takashi does can be wrong. This is a highschoolers approach to cinema. For the rest of us we'll find and hour and a half of a kid screaming for no real reason completely annoying (and yes, this does take away from the film), the pace of the film almost reaching levels of rigomortis, and the acting...well...hmmm. <br /><br />If one is a Takashi fan you'll see it regardless to peak your interests. It lacks any originality (see the Neverending Story) or any character development from the lead character in the face of conflict other then a quite superficial one. <br /><br />As it has been pointed out this is the first film Miike has been credited with co-writing, but that doesn't mean much as non of what we'd hope would be Miike's personality would spill over into the screen. All we get are some of the token Miike shots vis the director of photography.<br /><br />The movie had the potential to be something great. The premise is not a difficult one to run wild with. But this one seemed to have been run into the ground.<br /><br />My suggestion is if you're just getting into Miike is go with some of the standards like Gozu, Ichi, and Audition. Then movie into his works like Blue's Harp, Fudoh, Rainy Dog, Bird People of China.
Uninspired direction leaves a decent cast stranded in a handsome but bland adaptation, in which dialogue seems recited rather than heartfelt, and cash strapped appearances by the ghosts fail to round up any sense of awe or magic; Edward Woodward, as the Ghost of Christmas Present, wobbles around on stilts and seems to be doing an impression of Bernard Cribbins. As Scrooge, George C. Scott is too wry, and he never seems to truly believe in it, which robs his performance of its effect. The scenes in which he's shown his past have as much impact as if he was half-heartedly flicking through his family album. No one else seems to be putting any effort in, except Frank Finlay, who chronically overacts.
I was sooooo excited to see this movie after finally reading the book this week. My 13 year old son was looking forward to it too. I rented it and snuggled down to enjoy a classic holiday story brought to life on screen.<br /><br />Boy, was I disappointed. This movie veered off from the book more times than is forgivable. George C. Scott is an excellent actor but in this, it seemed that he was fully into character only about 20% of the time. The rest of the time he was quite flat.<br /><br />I realize that this was made in '84, pre-CG effects, for the most part. But it looked to be very B-movie quality, especially the encounter with Jacob Marley.<br /><br />The biggest disappointment was the fact that they left out one of the most moving parts of the story: When the Spirit of Christmas Present takes Scrooge on the whirlwind tour of the world, observing people in the bleakest of circumstances still having the light and love of Christmastime.<br /><br />I will admit that Mr. Scott did a good job with the "reformed" Scrooge at the end. That was a refreshing portrayal.<br /><br />I wish that Bob Cratchit had been portrayed as a little more ragged and down-trodden. And Tiny Tim... oh don't even get me started on bad child actors...
Having seen three other versions of the same film, I am afraid for me this is by far the weakest, primarily due to Scott's rather dull and leaden performance. His emotions throughout are so bland it makes it difficult to engage in the film. Alistair Sim portrayed the role infinitely better. When Scrooge was at his meanest, you don't get the sense Scott is saying the dialogue with much conviction and when he undergoes his metamorphosis he is similarly unconvincing. I cannot think of any actors in this film who match those from the Alistair Sim version. Even the musical version (and frankly the Muppets) take on this are better executed. Very disappointing.
Saw this movie in my English class this afternoon and was surprised by how bad this version was. Don't get me wrong, George C. Scott was terrific as Scrooge, but the rest of the cast fails so very badly. Sometimes I couldn't stop laughing at the stupid acting and the repeated line: "Merry Christmas to everyone!" Other times I almost fell asleep.<br /><br />The movie is based on a Charles Dickens short story about a rich guy, who don't think Christmas is nothing but humbug. After 30 minutes, the rich guy is visited by three ghosts, who persuade him to celebrate Christmas after all.<br /><br />I can not understand how this movie, with a script so bad it must have been written in five minutes, can be so well-rated. Instead of this piece of garbage, I recommend to you, the Bill Murray comedy Scrooged. That at least, was funny...
When will the hurting stop? I never want to see another version of a Christmas Carol again. They keep on making movies with the same story, falling over each other in trying to make the movie better then the rest, but sadly fail to do so, as this is not a good story. Moralistic, old-fashioned, conservative happy-thinking. As if people learn. The numerous different versions of this film prove that we don´t.
It was 9:30 PM last night at my friend's camping trailer and we were so hyped to watch South Park (a new episode). The thing is, in my country, South Park airs at 10:30 PM and we decided to kill time by watching the show now airing, Father of the Pride. I'll start by saying that I have only watched to episodes. The first time I watched it, I found it unfunny and crude for nothing, so I thought ''Holy sh*t, I have a football game early tomorrow, so I have to stop watching stupid cartoons''. But yesterday, I tried to give Father of the Pride a second chance. I find that it's a complete rip-off of The Simpsons, only replacing yellow human characters by lions instead.<br /><br />The second thing is I wonder why it got it's TV-14 rating. I find The Simpsons a lot more vulgar, and the only real vulgarity in this show is a few homosexual (unfunny) jokes. The Simpsons is also a lot more violent (Halloween specials) and crude. I also heard that the creator of the series has also directed Shrek 2, well I've got news for him: Shrek 2 was way better and I think he stayed too much in the family thematic. However, I must admit that Father of the Pride did make me smile (even burst out laughing once) three or four times.<br /><br />All in all, I don't mind Father of the Pride. I don't hate it, but I don't like either. I've seen way better from ''The Simpsons''.<br /><br />3.5/10
This is blatantly a futuristic adaptation of Jules Verne's "Mysterious Island". The sound editing is pretty bad. You hear the dialogue on set and you hear the voices being recorded on a recording booth at the same time! This is an amateur film with actors from Boston and shot around New Hampshire. For those living in New Engalnd and who is reading this comment will be wowed with a capital W. This film is full of flaws. You get to hear the director's voice giving directions and giving out directions to the actress. "OK now stand up." As for the other characters. There is this guy who talks with his mind instead of his voice and this blue alien. The alien guy talks with a deep voice. When he is yawning or grunting when he is fighting you hear the actor's voice. As for the special effects, man! This was Brett Piper's early work for crying out loud! The creatures are good but the animation is jerky. Really jerky. Sort of like Karl Zeman animation in JOURNEY TO BEGINNING OF TIME (1955). The special effects are imaginative. Thge music is good. Bottom line, this film makes EQUINOX or PLANET OF THE DINOSAURS look like a Ray Harryhausen epic. Did you know MYSTERIOUS PLANET was a home movie and was on a shoes string budget? A must watch for aspiring film makers.
Beyond a shadow of a doubt Mysterious Planet is one of the worst movies ever made, yet retains an affection in my heart because the poverty of its special effects and astoundingly awful sound track in the first 15 minutes (and to be honest that's all you need to see) combine to create something that is hilariously side-splitting.<br /><br />The opening scene in 'space' is just about as unfathomable as cinematography gets, as washing-up liquid bottles whiz past your eyes to muffled dialogue. Before you've had time to work out whether it's you who's gone mad, the credits roll and the action struggles to life.<br /><br />And aside from the double-headed plasticine giant snail that terrorises our heroes, you also get the added double bonus of having both the original actors voices AND the dubbed voices at the same time. Pure genius.<br /><br />The sad thing for fans of this kind of fare is that I've only ever seen one copy, so the chances of ever seeing it yourself is highly unlikely. Perhaps I own the only copy in existence.<br /><br />
The silent one-panel cartoon Henry comes to Fleischer Studios, billed as "The world's funniest human" in this dull little cartoon. Betty, long past her prime, thanks to the Production Code, is running a pet shop and leaves Henry in charge for far too long -- five minutes. A bore.
William Russ is the main character throughout this made for TV movie. He left his family behind to only reappear and begin paying off his debts. But he tries to keep away from his family. Thats where Peter Falk (Colombo) comes in, playing several different roles, to convince him to come home.<br /><br />The story is average and they actually managed to get a former star (Peter Falk) and use him to a fairly nice degree. But William Russ wasn't truly a star. However, it appears his acting is still OK.<br /><br />I found the delivery and story very cheesy in how everything was predictable. In fact, the last 20 minutes I could almost dictate word for word before it happened. A good movie should never be like that.<br /><br />Overall, it was a sub-par movie. In a letter grading system, it would receive a "D".
From a poorly contrived plot line that makes almost no sense to bad dialogue and disjointed scenes to the ultimate downer, bad acting (even Peter Falk can't find his way) "Finding John Christmas" is better left lost. Ms. Bertinelli's performance is without depth or emotion as are her co-stars, William Russ as brother Hank and David Cubitt as love interest Noah. Jennifer Pisana as Soccoro, the daughter of single dad Noah is almost unbearable to watch let alone listen to singing. But who can blame them with material like this. Michael J. Murray's script is juvenile at best. <br /><br />Each year at this time I search the TV guides and wait anxiously for some of the really classic Christmas and inspirational holiday films to appear on the small screen. Films like "Miracle on 34th Street", Ernst Lubitsch's delightful "The shop around the corner" and, of course the 1951 version of "Scrooge". There's Frank Capra's classics "It's a wonderful life" and "Meet John Doe". Hey, forget the classics. What about "Home Alone" or " Home for the Holidays" with Holly Hunter and a great performance by Robert Downey Jr.? <br /><br />My present to you is by way of advice. Your time would be better spent searching out these films than finding "Finding John Christmas". Merry Christmas!
In director Sooraj Barjatya's Vivah,20-something Delhi boy Shahid Kapur finds himself smitten by the demure, small-town girl his father has selected for him to marry. Drawn to her innocence and simplicity, Shahid agrees to the marriage barely moments after he's met her at her home in Madhupur, and the young lady in question Amrita Rao seems equally floored by her charming suitor. The marriage is fixed for six months later, and the couple find themselves in the first throes of young, budding love, their geographical distance notwithstanding. But Amrita, who's been raised by her uncle and her aunt after her parents' death, is struck by a horrible calamity just hours before the marriage. And then, it's up to Shahid to play the honourable lover and to embrace her unconditionally.Much in the same vein as Hum Aapke Hain Koun and Hum Saath Saath Hain, Barjatya's new film Vivah too is on one level a family drama with an extremely idealistic premise. But sadly, the plot of this new film comes off looking way too outdated, even more far-fetched than those regressive Ekta Kapoor soaps. And the problem is clear – you just can't relate to such squeaky-clean characters who don't have one bad bone in their bodies. There are many things that work in favour of and against Hindi films, and timing is one such important factor. Twenty-five years ago, perhaps the plot of Vivah may not have felt like such a stretch, but today it just seems like the product of a mind stuck in a time warp. Perhaps the film's only saving grace is the fact that it oozes sincerity from start to finish, you can make out right away that the filmmaker's intention is not to deceive. Judging both by Barjatya's previous films and by closely examining this new one you can safely declare that Barjatya believes in a perfect world, he believes in his good-as-gold characters, he believes that large families can live together happily under the same roof without the slightest bumps.But alas, he's unable to translate his vision to the screen. It's difficult to overlook how one-dimensional his protagonists are – Shahid and Amrita, both virtuous and virginal – I mean, think about it, the first time they hold hands is an hour and twenty minutes into the film. Barjatya may think he's returning to his Maine Pyar Kiya roots with Vivah, but truth is that the reason we embraced Salman and Bhagyashree in that film, or even Salman and Madhuri in Hum Aapke Hain Koun is because they had such fantastic chemistry. Because although they were created out of the same mould as Shahid and Amrita in Vivah, those pairs had mischief and masti. Shahid and Amrita are just insipid and boring.For a film that relies so heavily on music to narrate its story, the filmmaker chooses a string of 70s-style tunes that only further slacken the film's deadening pace. But if I had to choose just one reason to explain why Vivah doesn't work for me, it's because I'm not sure I can relate to any of the characters who inhabit Barjatya's story. To some perhaps, Vivah will give hope, that a perfect world like this is actually out there somewhere. But I'm a little cynical I guess. So, give me the coquettish Madhuri of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, give me the bratty Salman of Maine Pyar Kiya, I'll even take that mischievous Karisma Kapoor of Hum Saath Saath Hain. But save me from these dullards. You know, some marriages aren't made in heaven. This one's Vivah!
I never like to comment on a good film but when it comes to a bad movie, I gotta come really hard on it. Talking about Vivah, this guy, Sooraj Badjatya, seems to have completely lost it. After success of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, he thought he can make money with cheesy wedding videos. Vivah is so so cheesy that Badjatyas have left Johars and Chopras behind.<br /><br />There was not a single moment during the movie where I can say 'Oh! at least this thing is good'. Aloknath does cliché in a role of Girl's father, Shahid kapoor looks fat and Shahrukhed, Amrita rao is another disaster in addition to ugly looking sets, bad costumes, hackneyed storyline, monstrous stepmother, trying-hard-to-act actors, cacophonous background music, cheap soundtracks.<br /><br />Now the spoiler, I'm warning you guys that as happens in all his other movies, after a calamitous incidence movie ends on a happy note.
I won't say this movie was bad, but it wasn't good either. I expected something good but I guess Hum Aapke Hain Kaun was much better than this. This was completely old fashioned. At every stage of this movie, I hoped for some twist and what do I get? The girl gets burned and wins her aunt's love. <br /><br />Despite of being engaged, they have to take permission for every little move they make. They are so darn shy even after so many meetings. I expected the aunt to be much more brutal than that. All she did was crib madly. <br /><br />Hey, we have kids too, but we don't watch them and have tears in our eyes always. This movie is a dream. Happy family, one cruel woman, good in-laws and a man who loves her to death. In HAHK Anupam Kher was the poor bride's father and now it's vice versa. And I somehow knew that Mohnish Behl would be in this movie. Anyway I believe I wasted my time. I give it a 2/10.
A Cinderella story made for adults who live in dreamland. The romance is very unrealistic, fluttery, lovey dovey, perfect etc. The Cinderella plot till the very end and Shahid Kapoor is the only reason for my stars. If you're looking for a dreamy romance with a twist, this is definitely you're movie, but for the rest of us real world people, I'd highly recommend saving your three hour watch time. Wake up people!<br /><br />Four out of the five people that saw the film with me would not recommend the film. We had a great time bashing majority of the unrealistic scenes. Maybe I'm missing something.. I just can't believe a movie like this can beat a classic like HDDCS!!
After being hugely entertained by Mr. Brosnan's performance as a cad in "The Tailor of Panama" (which I rate 10/10 across the board: casting, acting, script, story, editing, pace, music, emotional impact, etc.), I enthusiastically anticipated this film. I was hugely disappointed. It is a script reading not a film, vulgar for the sake of being vulgar, bankrupt in every way that "The Tailor of Panama" is rich and satisfying. Blame it on the screen writing and directing. I sat in the theater waiting for the "good part;" it never came. I neither laughed nor cried, although one line of dialog did make me smile. Worth $7? Hardly.
I very nearly walked out, but I'd paid my money, and my nearly-as-disgusted friend wanted to hold out. After the endearing, wide-eyed innocence of "A New Hope" and the thrilling sophistication of "The Empire Strikes Back," I remember awaiting "Return of the Jedi" with almost aching anticipation. But from the opening scene of this insultingly commercial sewage, I was bitterly disappointed, and enraged at Lucas. He should have been ashamed of himself, but this abomination undeniably proves that he doesn't have subatomic particle of shame in his cold, greedy heart. Episode I would go on to reinforce this fact -- your honor, I call Jarjar Binks (but please issue barf bags to the members of the jury first).<br /><br />From the initial raising of the gate at Jabba's lair, this "film" was nothing more than a two-plus-hour commercial for as many licensable, profit-making action figures as Lucas could cram into it -- the pig-like guards, the hokey flesh-pigtailed flunky, that vile muppet-pet of Jabba's, the new and recycled cabaret figures, the monsters, etc., etc., ad vomitum. Then there were the detestably cute and marketable Ewoks. Pile on top of that all of the rebel alliance aliens. Fifteen seconds each on-screen (or less) and the kiddies just GOTTA have one for their collection. The blatant, exploitative financial baiting of children is nauseating.<br /><br />Lucas didn't even bother to come up with a new plot -- he just exhumed the Death Star from "A New Hope" and heaved in a boatload of cheap sentiment. What an appalling slap in the face to his fans. I can't shake the notion that Lucas took a perverse pleasure in inflicting this dreck on his fans: "I've got these lemmings hooked so bad that I can crank out the worst piece of stinking, putrid garbage that I could dream up, and they'll flock to the theaters to scarf it up. Plus, all the kiddies will whine and torture their parents until they buy the brats a complete collection of action figures of every single incidental undeveloped, cartoonish caricature that I stuffed in, and I get a cut from every single one. It'll make me even more obscenely rich."<br /><br />There may have been a paltry, partial handful of redeeming moments in this miserable rip-off. I seem to recall that Harrison Ford managed to just barely keep his nose above the surface of this cesspool. But whatever tiny few bright spots there may be are massively obliterated by the offensive commercialism that Lucas so avariciously embraced in this total, absolute sell-out to profit.
The fine cast cannot uplift this routine tale of a secretary murdered by her married paramour. In fact there are more questions than answers in this one-sided tale of romance and murder; and since we are only provided with the prosecution's side, none of these questions will be answered. This is the type of fare that appeals to the "He Woman, Man Hater" clubs of America. As presented, it is the tale of an innocent woman who just happens to be "caught up" in a romance with a married, high-profile attorney. Is it possible that IF, she had not been two timing her boy friend and having an affair with a married man, the whole nasty murderous, sordid incident could have been avoided? When you watch this, don't worry about going to the 'fridge, you won't miss anything.
This film was choppy, incoherent and contrived. It was also an extremely mean-spirited portrayal of women. I rented it because it was listed as a comedy (that's a stretch), and because the cover said Andie McDowell was acting up a storm in it. She wasn't. I'm a gal, I watched this film with two guys, and we spent an hour afterwards exclaiming over how bad it was.<br /><br />WARNING: PLOT SUMMARY BELOW! RAMPANT SPOILERS!<br /><br />The movie starts out with a fairly hackneyed plot about an older woman who takes up with a younger man, to the severe disapproval of her two jealous single girlfriends. They want her to marry a boring guy their own age who is kind of in love with her. But she's so happy with her oversexed puppy that you're rooting for them to stick it out, and sure enough, she decides to marry the guy. But her harpy girlfriend, aided by the wishy-washy one, sets up a plot to trick our heroine into thinking the guy is cheating on her. It works. She has a fight with him, he runs out of the house and is crushed by a truck (Remember the movie's title?) So now he's dead, two-thirds of the way through the film. And although our heroine is a school headmistress who spends her time watching over girls, she apparently forgot to use birth control and is pregnant.<br /><br />She's already broken off relations with her girlfriends, because they were so unsupportive. Alone and pitiful, she decides to marry the boring guy. Did I mention that the boring guy who kind of loves her is a minister? She had asked him to marry her to the young guy (nice, huh?), but now she tells him she'll marry him, and apparently he has no objections to being dicked around in this fashion. But her girlfriends rescue her at the altar and take her home, where they not-quite-confess that they were mostly responsible for the love of her life getting smushed. She has the kid. In the final scene, they leave it in a crib inside her house while they go out on the porch to drink, smoke and be smug. I kid you not, it's that bad. I left out the part about the cancer red-herring and the harpy's ridiculous lesbian moment.
This film is a calculated attempt to cash in the success of Sex in the City and Four Weddings and a Funeral. In fact, if they'd called it Sex at a Funeral, they might have done better at the box office.<br /><br />But the film falls between two stools and can't get up. The characters spout improbably bright dialog, but never act in any way remotely recognizable as human. One arbitrary, senseless action follows another to advance what passes for a plot, and one soon tires of the falsity of the whole enterprise.<br /><br />Andie MacDowell gets points for acting her little heart out, but the performing honors are stolen by Imelda Staunton, as of all things, a police detective (don't they have a height requirement over there?). Ms. Staunton seems unable to make a false move. Would that we could say the same about the writer-director.<br /><br />If Notting Hill annoyed you as being bogus, stay away from this one. Phonus bolognus on the half-shell.
This had to be one of the worst films ever. When Kate shows up and Jed is with a bunch of guys and they all start clapping...so Hollywood. Another bad scene was when Kate was running her hands over the pavement it appeared that she was examining the texture of the pavement. Andie's acting is so bad in this film - I could not connect with them or feel there love for each other. The other 2 women however were very good and overshadowed Andie. Anyway this was such a campy movie. I usually like these type of films but I just couldn't get into this film. Too many unlikely situations and again Andie's acting didn't help the film. Also, she is all gums. Lancome must put her makeup on with a putty knife because she looks glamorous in the commericals.
This starts off bad, what with the three women acting like simpering junior high school wussies sitting around giggling with their gin, endless cigarettes and a caramel chocolate treat for the one who tells the best 'man' story, and then it gets worse -=- spoiler alert =-= what with Andie's character falling for the young organ player who used to be her student when he was 14 (she's the headmistress of an English school, believe it or not), only to have him destroyed thanks to her bitch-from-hell 'girlfriend' . ..and then from there, it's basically unwatchable claptrap: she forgives her 'friend' and has the organ player's love child and the 3 women end up as they started, drinking more gin and smoking more cigarettes blah blah blah. Andie's character throws the caramel chocolates out in the street, in a pathetic attempt to symbolize growth. Have mercy.
This was awful. Andie Macdowell is a terrible actress. So wooden she makes a rocking horse look like it could do a better job. But then remember that turn in Four Weddings, equally as excruciating. Another film that portrays England as full of Chocolate box cottages, and village greens. I mean that school, how many schools apart from maybe Hogwarts look like that? The twee police station looked like the set from Heartbeat ( a nauseating British series set in the 60s).This film just couldn't make its mind up what it wanted to be- a comedy or a serious examination of the undercurrents in women's friendships. If it had stuck to the former then the graveyard sex scenes and the highly stupid storming of the wedding might just have worked( i say just). But those scenes just didn't work with the tragedy in the second half. I also find it implausible that Kate would ever speak to Molly again after her terrible behaviour. A final note- what is a decent actress like Staunton doing in this pile of poo? Not to mention Anna Chancellor. Macdowell should stick to advertising wrinkle cream.
Caught this on IFC yesterday, and can't believe the positive reviews! Am I the only one who thought these "ladies" were anything but? Kate tells Jed she could get fired because she's supposed to be a pillar of the community, but puts out for him! Then they suddenly decide they're in love? And she's SO devastated over his death, she doesn't go to his funeral, much less, tell his family the "good news"! By the way, how did an American get to be the headmistress of a very proper British school? Janine should have been kicked off the force for her inexcusable abuse of power, but nothing happens! And she winds up boffing a con she brought in for questioning! And the less said about Molly, the better!<br /><br />As for the guilt Janine and Molly feel over Jed, please! It's the punk's own damn fault he got turned into roadkill! Where's the guilt over poor Gerald, who gets puked on? If only I could do the same to the bozos behind this "movie"!
I thought it was a New-York located movie: wrong! It's a little British countryside setting.<br /><br />I thought it was a comedy: wrong! It's a drama.... Well, up to the last third, because after the story becomes totally "abracadabrantesque", the symbolic word for a French presidential mandate. It means, close to nonsense even it the motives would like to bring a sincere feeling.<br /><br />What Do I have left? Maybe, a good duo of actress: Yes, I know, they are 3 friends, but the redhead policewoman is a bit invisible for me. The tall doctoress surprises by her punch, and McDowell delivers a fine acting as usual, all in delicate, soft and almost mute attitude. This gentleness puzzles me, because as other fine artists or directors, the same pattern is repeating over and over. In her case, it's like, whatever the movie, it's always the same character defined by her feelings, her values, who lives infinite different stories. I still don't know how to set the limit (or the fusion) between the artists and the works.<br /><br />Another positive side of this movie is its feminine touch & the interesting different points of view. The women have each their own way of living, even if they are all single. It brings a lot of tolerance and learning to witness how a same and unique reality can be perceived in as many ways as people.<br /><br />Finally, the movie is quite viewable, but the great final cuts the desire of a next vision.
Was this meant to be a comedy or a serious drama? This film starts with a light-hearted banter between three women. Fine. It moves into a conflict between the women when one of them meets a man. Fine. There are a few antics between them. Fine. But when the plot thickens and finally becomes black I started to wonder whether I had misinterpreted the first part of the movie. It continues in this vein for a while until, in the end, it tries to go back to the original light-hearted banter. But by now it's too late. It's hard to see why these women would still be talking to one another and the finale is unconvincing. Truly a lesson (for British filmmakers anyway) of how not to make films. Difficult to see how the producers ever convinced themselves this film would work. And the box office proved it to be a real flop, because I'd never heard of this film until this weekend (four years after its release).
Andie McDowell is beautiful as the 40-ish woman whose late start at a serious relationship leads her to a considerably younger man and a subsequenet falling-out with 2 long-time best girldfriends.<br /><br />Seeing a gigolo/gold-digger in the sincere young man, the "girl-friends", dead-set on terminating this "silly relationship", go over and beyond the call of duty in "helping out" their friend (who obviously is blinded by this gigolo's tricky game".<br /><br />A short succession of situations is absolutely ridiculous. Far fetched no longer covers it. Without these unbelievable scenes, there may have been hope for a sweet love story. Instead, all the viewer is left with is an involuntary shaking of head -- these things just don't happen! Without giving away cliff-hanger details, I warn the viewer of having high expectations for this film; most (like me) will be very disappointed. On a scale of 1 to 10, this one ranks a weak 4 with me. There is much better material out there. This one isn't worth your time.
SPOILER: The young lover, Jed, is kicked out by the spinster, Kate (Andie McDowell), because she wrongly believes that Jed is having an affair with one of her two catty girlfriends. Kate thought she caught them en flagrante delicto. Kate throws Jed's shoes out the door. Jed reluctantly leaves, and then sits in the middle of the road to put his shoes on. Then he gets run over ("Crushed", one of the meaning of the title) by a truck. And dies.<br /><br />"And then he gets run over by a truck." Can you imagine a screenwriter actually submitting a script with this plot element? Up to then, its a comedy that intends to be frothy, but lacks any real fizz. Everybody but Jed is just annoying. And then they kill Jed, and everybody's sad, until the end where the gals learn to love one another and be supportive, instead of destructive. I give it 2 ugh's.
The worst thing about Crush is not that it's acted pretty bad, or that the plot is virtually non-existent, and it's not even that bad that the camerawork could have been better.<br /><br />No, the worst part of this movie is that it has a few absolutely brilliant moments that keep you hoping that there are more to come.<br /><br />But in the end, it's too little, too late. If you are a fan of violin-music and cheap tearjerking scenes of 40+ women crying and hugging and talking about babies and marriage - then by all means, don't miss it.<br /><br />I myself am not exactly thrilled to see the things listed above in a movie, and as a result I had a pretty horrible time. The few absolutely brilliant jokes can not make up for the rest of it.<br /><br />The verdict: 4/10. Guilty of wasting my time.<br /><br />
Not a `woman film' but film for the gang. One of the worst films ever made by a male director about woman. Director Andy McKay simply doesn't know woman. Peaks of bad taste, American Pie's humor style, crude story, no sense, groundless story, refuted characters. Vulgar fantasies came to life on screen. Insulting and definitely not funny. I wonder how three good actresses accepted to take part in it.
As a single woman over 40, I found this film extremely insulting and demeaning to single women over 40, not to mention every other woman, of any age. It was a sad, pathetic attempt by a man to write and direct a "chick flick", and it failed miserably. Andy McDowell isn't much of an actress to begin with, but given the non-existent "plot" (I hate to even refer to it as a plot) in this, she didn't have a chance. There was no character development, no reason to feel sympathy/empathy for any of the characters, and no attempt to make the film in any way realistic or believable. And then there's the obligatory male-fantasy of an attractive straight woman suddenly deciding to give lesbianism a try -- PLEASE.<br /><br />Not only do I wish I could get my money back for the DVD rental, I also want those 112 minutes of my life back. What a ripoff.
I was gifted with this movie as it had such a great premise, the friendship of three women bespoiled by one falling in love with a younger man.<br /><br />Intriguing.<br /><br />NOT! I hasten to add. These women are all drawn in extreme caricature, not very supportive of one another and conspiring and contriving to bring each other down.<br /><br />Anna Chancellor and Imelda Staunton could do no wrong in my book prior to seeing this, but here they are handed a dismal script and told to balance the action between slapstick and screwball, which doesn't work too well when the women are all well known professionals in a very small town.<br /><br />And for intelligent women they spend a whole pile of time bemoaning the lack of men/sex/lust in their lives. I felt much more could have been made of it given a decent script and more tension, the lesbian sub-plot went nowhere and those smoking/drinking women (all 3 in their forties???) were very unrealistic - even in the baby scene - screw the baby, gimme a cigarette! Right.<br /><br />Like I said, a shame of a waste. 4 out of 10.
"The Crush" is a pleasant enough 40-something friends romantic chick flick for the first two-thirds or so, as it tries to be a Brit "Sex and the City". <br /><br />I particularly enjoyed the turn-around of the trophy young hunk whose character is not much fleshed out (come to think of it we didn't see all that much physical flesh of him either and Kenny Doughty is worth seeing more of). <br /><br />They sure make a lot more deal of young man/older woman than was made of the opposite in either version of "Sabrina" (neither movie do I like) or for that matter with the Douglas/Zeta-Jones or Dion/Svengali nuptials.<br /><br />Surrounding Andie MacDowell as an ex pat otherwise are welcome familiars from Brit dramas and comedies, such as tart-tongued Anna Chancellor. <br /><br />The plot twists towards the end feel very deus ex machina. But it wasn't until the credits came up at the end that I realized what might really be wrong. Just as with "Sex and the City," the writer/director is male, here first-timer Scot John McKay, and I think he really wanted to do a script about three gay men, probably about them coming out in relation to their lovers and at work (the characters are a school principal, a cop and a doctor), which would have been a better and more interesting movie. The working title for the film was "The Sad F*cker's Club" which would have made its parallels with the gay "Broken Hearts Club" even more obvious.<br /><br />(originally written 4/6/2002)
it MIGHT have been a good movie if it had explored something more interesting rather than just the surface of a lesbian relationship if this was the meaning of the movie...it is quite predictable not mentioning that the two girls resemble the Russian group t.A.T.u....coincidence? i don't think so. There is nothing original in this movie to support it so they had to use something which is already famous.You know the recipe. The other actors...well,i just don't know what their role is supposed to be. Most of them are well - known people in Romania and i must mention some of them are not even actors(e.g.Mihaela Radulescu).SO to summarize it: "girl band tatty"+desperate/publicity needing "actors"+ a non-existing plot+ the occasion to use bad language in order to shock= Love sick....too bad...the idea was good,though...and i am seriously holding myself from commenting the title...
***LIGHT SPOILER ALERT*** The story sounds good and if you've read the novel, then you're probably expecting a deep and intense movie that could offer some insight for some interesting and insufficiently explored human relationships.<br /><br />True enough, the script tries to do that, the director tries to do that, but the main cast fails miserably. Maria's acting is so dry that lacks any feeling whatsoever, her most intense moments seem almost comical. Sometimes she seems to be nervous due to the camera. Her only really feeling scene is near the end where she gets dumped by her girlfriend.<br /><br />Ioana seems even more tense than Maria and even worse, she doesn't seem natural at all. Maria had the attitude, even if it was artificially pushed towards being obvious, but she had it and her character received some credibility. And to make matters worse, we don't have an insight on her: where does she come from, how come she got involved in the lesbian relationship, how did the relationship evolve? We only get some bits from her parents and their relationship just seems to 'be' there: it has a content and and end, but no beginning. Just like her partner Maria, she has only once scene that is truly touching, the scene where she dumps Maria's character Kiki.<br /><br />Tudor is the only person in this movie (aside from the landlady, great acting there) who manages to prove some acting talent. He has his character's attitude and it fits him. Only once or twice he seems to falter (the scene at his parents' meal, he tries to be obvious when it wasn't necessary at all).<br /><br />I love the story, Tudor Chirila is OK there, the landlady actually acts and Puya delivers his couple of lines with style, but this doesn't save the movie. Too bad, the entire setting had huge potential and the Romanian cinematography could've used a movie on this theme.<br /><br />Oddly enough, the incestuous relationship between brother and sister seems to have more credibility than the no-background no-feeling (well, Maria's spoken interludes are a nice try in this direction) lesbian relationship of Maria and Ioana. I'm quite sorry for spending money on a ticket, I'd rather had watched it from the comfort of my room.
This is a movie that relies solely on the somewhat controversial image of incest and lesbianism to get noticed.That is it.The dialogs are pathetic and the sensuality of the "sex scenes" is absolutely absent.The acting and the dialog are more suited for high-school children,yet the subject is intended for adult audiences. It is a gutless and shallow movie.It could have been way better if it had a story and more drama. Ah and on top of that, one more thing: why are inner monologues so excessively used? Makes it seem so cheap.All in all an embarrassing movie for Romanian cinema as well as for mature audiences attempting to view it.I know the means are scarce but, that is not always an excuse for a movie flopping as this one does.And please start using some good actors in your movies and stop recycling them from musicians (Tudor Chirila) - they can't act!
I am not so much like Love Sick as I image. Finally the film express sexual relationship of Alex, kik, Sandu their triangle love were full of intenseness, frustration and jealous, at last, Alex waked up and realized that they would not have result and future.Ending up was sad.<br /><br />The director Tudor Giurgiu was in AMC theatre on Sunday 12:00PM on 08/10/06, with us watched the movie together. After the movie he told the audiences that the purposed to create this film which was to express the sexual relationships of Romanian were kind of complicate.<br /><br />On my point of view sexual life is always complicated in everywhere, I don't feel any particular impression and effect from the movie. The love proceeding of Alex and Kiki, and Kiki and her brother Sandu were kind of next door neighborhood story.<br /><br />The two main reasons I don't like this movie are, firstly, the film didn't told us how they started to fall in love? Sounds like after Alex moved into the building which Kiki was living, then two girls are fall in love. It doesn't make sense at all. How a girl would fall in love with another girl instead of a man. Too much fragments, you need to image and connect those stories by your mind. Secondly, The whole film didn't have a scene of Alex and Kik's sexual intercourse, that 's what I was waiting for……. However, it still had some parts were deserved to recommend. The "ear piercing " part was kind of interesting. Alex was willing to suffer the pain of ear piercing to appreciate kik's love. That was a touching scene which gave you a little idea of their love. Also, the scene of they were lying in the soccer field, the conversation express their loves were truthful and passionate.
I am not so much like Love Sick as I image. Finally the film express sexual relationship of Alex, kik, Sandu their triangle love were full of intenseness, frustration and jealous, at last, Alex waked up and realized that they would not have result and future.Ending up was sad.<br /><br />The director Tudor Giurgiu was in AMC theatre on Sunday 12:00PM on 08/10/06, with us watched the movie together. After the movie he told the audiences that the purposed to create this film which was to express the sexual relationships of Romanian were kind of complicate.<br /><br />On my point of view sexual life is always complicated in everywhere, I don't feel any particular impression and effect from the movie. The love proceeding of Alex and Kiki, and Kiki and her brother Sandu were kind of next door neighborhood story.<br /><br />The two main reasons I don't like this movie are, firstly, the film didn't told us how they started to fall in love? Sounds like after Alex moved into the building which Kiki was living, then two girls are fall in love. It doesn't make sense at all. How a girl would fall in love with another girl instead of a man. Too much fragments, you need to image and connect those stories by your mind. Secondly, The whole film didn't have a scene of Alex and Kik's sexual intercourse, that 's what I was waiting for……. However, it still had some parts were deserved to recommend. The "ear piercing " part was kind of interesting. Alex was willing to suffer the pain of ear piercing to appreciate kik's love. That was a touching scene which gave you a little idea of their love. Also, the scene of they were lying in the soccer field, the conversation express their loves were truthful and passionate.
Considering that this movie had a serious and quite successful launching campaign, I would have expected something to be worth the fuzz...from the opening scene on (in which the two brothers "sensually" caress each other, laying naked in a bed) it goes rapidly downwards...nothing to get the attention, not a mind-catching thing in the whole plot, baaad baad acting (a few minor exceptions, but artificiality is at its best). Incest and lesbianism are promising themes, but the script analyses none of the two in depth ( mind that a possible excuse of the makers, saying that they aimed for a subtle movie would be hilarious, unless subtle and superficial mean the same thing...). The too curious viewers will not get any interesting scene...at this point, that could have saved some of the movie...so you can imagine how bad it is. Many other things could be said...but please watch the movie yourselves...I am an egoist and I would like as many people as possible to waste about 1 1/2h of their lives...like I did :(
Yes, indeed, it could have been a good movie. A love biangle, (sorry for the poetical license, but is not a triangle!) an interesting story, unfortunately badly told. The image is sometimes weird, sometimes OK, the picture looks crowded and narrow-sighted. The sound needs more attention (it usually does in Romanian movies), the light and color filters are sometimes badly chosen. The soundtrack is short and is not helping the action. About the acting... sorry but the best actress is the landlady. The others are acting immaturely and cannot convince the viewer. The acting is poetical when it should be realistic, and realistic when it should be poetical. It's a picture for adults, told by the children. Bother only if extremely curious.
Closer to reality and containing more depth than "Breakdance", Stan Lathan's "Beat Street" is still a pretty dull show. Again this pic is really only cashing in on the 'breakin' craze but at least we get a little bit of entertainment from the plot, which concerns the lives of three young friends and a younger brother, all growing up in Queens, New York. Each has their own unique talent. One is a hustler, one a d.j., another an artist who creates 'burners', while little bro' Lee is a hot 'hip hop' dancer.<br /><br />Lathan is unable to generate any real audience interest in the story though, and his young cast are likewise struggling with their characters. Therefore it is left almost entirely to the funky music and the 'fresh' dancing to save the day.<br /><br />Choreography is again sharp for both club and street scenes, but this alone is not enough to lift ""Beat Street" to greater heights. Unfortunately the film really falls flat late on, after showing a glimmer of hope that it just might get interesting.<br /><br />Sunday, August 25, 1996 - Video
Hilariously obvious "drama" about a bunch of high school (I think) kids who enjoy non-stop hip-hop, break dancing, graffiti and trying to become a dj at the Roxy--or something. To be totally honest I was so bored I forgot! Even people who love the music agree this movie is terribly acted and--as a drama--failed dismally. We're supposed to find this kids likable and nice. I found them bland and boring. The one that I REALLY hated was Ramon. He does graffiti on subway trains and this is looked upon as great. Excuse me? He's defacing public property that isn't his to begin with. Also these "great" kids tap into the city's electricity so they can hold a big dance party at an abandoned building. Uh huh. So we're supposed to find a bunch of law breakers lovable and fun.<br /><br />I could forgive all that if the music was good but I can't stand hip hop. The songs were--at best--mediocre and they were nonstop! They're ALWAYS playing! It got to the point that I was fast-forwarding through the many endless music numbers. (Cut out the music and you haver a 30 minute movie--maybe) There are a few imaginative numbers--the subway dance fight, a truly funny Santa number and the climatic Roxy show. If you love hip hop here's your movie. But it you're looking for good drama mixed in--forget it. Also HOW did this get a PG rating? There's an incredible amount of swearing in this.
Maybe you shouldn't compare, but Wild Style and Style Wars are original Hip Hop. Beat Street does have a lot of the original artists of early Hip Hop, but they've been obviously made clear that this could be their big break, of course for some it was and that's nice. But if you view this as original Hip Hop Culture you're wrong. It's overproduced and has a Hollywood sauce. Rather look for the first two movies i mentioned. They have convey the grittiness that comes with life in the ghetto. Yes, the rating for this movie is low, but the reviews are mostly positive or even raving. This is probably because although the story, the acting, the dialogues and the direction all are dreadful, the music and dancing is what the people love about it. Me, i do love the dancing but at the time thought that electro was the death of Hip Hop (i was so glad when round '86 a new generation of now classic Hip Hop artists appeared, like Krs One, Public Enemy, Ultramagnetic Mc's, Jungle Brothers, Bizmarkie to name a few), and i still don't like most of the beats in this movie and that is why it doesn't work for me. I mean, Wild Style has not much of a story but the music there is great and authentic. Of course tastes differ and that's alright. But as far as i'm concerned, this movie is trash except for the break dancing and some of the music and so i can't rate it higher than a 4 out of ten.
I could never stand watching Happy Days after Chachi joined the cast, so I knew I was in trouble when the best scene in this movie featured Scott Baio (a skateboard chase scene!). Jodie Foster in her first "grown-up" role turns in her usual professional performance but that is no excuse for this boring mess. Two hours out of my life that I'll never get back! No noteworthy characters, unbelievable storyline, questionable editing and horrendous cinematography but worst of all, I couldn't have cared less. The story of California teens in the 1970's, where the kids live miserable lives and all their parents are idiots. Don't waste your time watching this ugly excuse for a movie.
Horrible film with bits of the Ramones strewn about. Your worse than average 1970's/80's comedy format of the cool kids taking over the school with some whimsical plan. This movie is terrible. The plot consists of a girl who enjoys the Ramones and a school bent on fighting against their oppressive administration. Forget this movie and watch something like Wild Zero starring Guitar Wolf if you want an entertaining B movie. Terrible acting, terrible writing, terrible plot with the stamp of approval of the Ramones who probably needed some money quick so they said yes to this movie. That is the only logical thing I can think of because this movie blows.
This movie is a 90 minute Ramones concert with brief periods of stupidity and absolute boredom. What kind of high school is this anyway?<br /><br />Unless you are a major Ramones fan, DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT waste your time like I did. This is utterly unwatchable from start to finish. This movie should be called Ramone Fever. Everyone appears to like them in this movie. There is not a plot to be found in this flick. As far as teen comedies go, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one.
I gave this film 2 stars only because Dominic Monaghan actually put effort through in his acting. Everything else about this film is extremely amateur. Everything associated with the direction of this film was very poorly executed. Not only should the director rethink what she is doing for a life career but maybe she should watch a few films. As Dominic Monaghan is a very credible actor, placing him in a film of this caliber makes him look awful. Whomever the "actor" was that played Jack's best friend should never have stepped in front of the camera. I didn't expect much from such a small film, but perhaps a little more time and effort should be put into the characters and their surroundings. Don't waste your time or money on this film (like I did) you will be sorely disappointed.
I jumped at the chance to view this movie uncut and uninterrupted, remembering rahs and raves for it. But wherever it seemed about to slip into being truly scary, it backed off and went somewhere else. The dripping water throughout the house, the black rain, the prophetic dreams, taking the wrong turn in raw sewage were dropped before they could work up to a scream.<br /><br />What a disappointment. Chamberlain's nearly expressionless mask of a face offered little but confused disbelief, something I found myself mirroring as the film wore on. What could have been eerie Aboriginal chanting and instruments in the background were instead a cacophony seemingly designed to beat terror into one's head. The ideas that modern people can embody ancient gods, that the Aboriginal peoples believe red-haired white men were the first priests, and many other possibilities are passed along more like a shopping list than a hint at another dimension (the Dream Time).<br /><br />[SPOILER] In the final scene, it wasn't clear to me what the director was trying to tell. Is there a big wave? So what? How big? A tsunami? Yeah, okay. That's devastating but not apocalyptic. Is it the end of the world? From a wave? The last wave? That'd have to be a pretty darn big wave. Why? Was the world that bad a place? It didn't seem so awful in this movie. Actually I didn't think the wave came off, since the shadow left Burton's face that had been cast by the wave. Was it only Burton's apocalypse? Heck, that happens every day to people who lose it. It wasn't of any interest if it was only him.<br /><br />The most frightening scene, and the one that gives the best indication of Weir's potential, was in Charlie's apartment where Burton has gone to confront the old man for scaring Burton's wife. Charlie keeps asking him "Who are you?" and it becomes truly disturbing after a while. Unfortunately, the movie never followed suit.
The perfect murder is foiled when a wife(played by Mary Ellen Trainor, once the wife to director Robert Zemeckis, who helmed this episode), who murders her husband with a poker, has the misfortune of receiving a visitor as she is about to move the body outside..an escaped insane madman dressed in a Santa Claus suit(played by a deviously hideous Larry Drake). She fends for her life while trying to find a way of hiding her husband's corpse. She decides to use an ax, once she downs the Santa killer who misses several chances to chop off the woman's head, to frame the killer for her husband's murder. Santa killer locks her in a closet and pursues the woman's daughter as she tries desperate to free herself to save the child.<br /><br />This episode of TALES FROM THE CRYPT just recycles tired material involving the old "Santa kills" theme while also adding the oft-used(add nauseum)woman-murders-her-husband-for-a-man-she's-been-cheating-with routine. It's essentially Trainor trying to find a way to avoid being caught with a dead body she kills while also keeping a safe distance from a maniac. There's nothing refreshing or new about this plot which pretty much goes through the motions. Not one of the show's highlights.
Well, as Goethe once said, there really isn't any point in trying to pass a negative judgement that aspires to be objective on "something that has had a great effect". "La Maman et La Putain" has surely passed into history as an influence on much of what's been done in France and elsewhere in the past thirty years and no one interested in the history of film, certainly, should be dissuaded from watching it. To express a purely subjective judgement, however, I feel compelled to disagree with almost every other review posted here and say to people: "Don't watch it; it's a waste of hours of your time that will just leave you feeling rather sick and angry." And by that I don't mean "sick and angry" about "the human condition" or anything so general and profound as that, because that is exactly the line that most critics have adopted in their fulsome praise of the film - "an ordeal to watch in its ruthless dissection of our emotional cowardice and cruelty" and so on - and, if it really managed to put across a universally or even broadly relevant message of this sort, then the director would have good reason to be satisfied with himself, however pessimistic his conclusions may be. My beef with the film is rather that I don't see this hours-long record of empty vanity and petty treachery as being justified or excused by any GENERALLY relevant message at all. All three main characters are deeply morally unattractive individuals: Alexandre to the greatest degree, of course, because we see by far the most of him and because he seldom shuts up for more than thirty seconds; Marie perhaps to the least degree, because we see the least of her. Alexandre's affected and pretentious monologues have a kind of amusement value, of course, but the amusement wears thin as one comes more and more clearly to realize that Jean-Pierre Léaud is most likely not even acting and that, with absurd remarks like "un homme beau comme un film de Nicholas Ray", he really was just reproducing word-for-word opinions that were accepted as authentic and profound by the milieu in which he, along with the director Eustache, had been living for about ten years by the time of the making of the film. I suppose if the tone of relentless superficiality and triviality had been sustained throughout 100% of the film, it might have worked as a long sardonic comedy about a particularly shallow, worthless and despicable post-'68 milieu. What made, however, this viewer at least extremely angry with the director was his granting of at least one lengthy scene each to Alexandre and Veronika in which we are clearly expected to empathize with and feel for them as if they shared a moral universe with us. If a man can get away with living in the flat of and professing to love one woman, sleeping (mostly in this very flat) with another, and running around Paris proposing marriage to yet a third, well, I suppose I can wish him the best of luck in the dog-eat-dog world he's chosen to create for himself. What I can't, however, in all conscience do is listen even for a moment to maudlin monologues from him in which he speaks about his "anxiety" and his "despair". The same goes double for the even more despicable Veronika, whom we are shown barging drunk into the apartment and even the bed shared by Marie and Alexandre and behaving there with an infantile inconsistency tantamount to the most savage and heartless cruelty. As I say, if "La Maman et La Putain" is intended to be nothing more nor other than a portrait of Alexandre, Veronika and Marie, three individuals whom any even halfway decent person would never admit into their company let alone their home, then I suppose there is a kind of legitimacy in praising the director for being "unflinching" (though why one should even feel like "flinching" once one had consciously opted to create such thoroughly repellent characters to filmically observe I can't imagine). The problem, however, is that the director is clearly convinced - and appears to have succeeded in convincing generations of critics - that Alexander, Veronika and Marie are somehow representative of human beings in general and of the limits of human beings' emotional capabilities. This latter idea, however, is arrant and offensive nonsense. There may indeed be an inherent fallibility and tendency to tragedy in human relations in general and sexual relations in particular. But the nature and degree of this fallibility and tendency to tragedy can only possibly be determined by people who make a sincere and serious effort to make such relations work. It surely needs no cinematic or authorial genius to convey to us the information that a man who behaves like Alexandre is going to end up hated, miserable, and alone, or that women who insist on expecting love from a man like Alexandre are going to end up disappointed and bitter. Watch "La Maman et La Putain" if you're historically interested in what passed for culture and human interaction in a certain post-'68 Parisian milieu which was probably, unfortunately, not restricted to just a few particularly anti-social types like these. But please don't make the mistake of believing that what is recorded here has any general relevance for humanity in the way that a film by Jean Renoir or Martin Scorsese might be argued to have.
That's not the sound of bees, that's the effect induced by watching this extremely long, extremely boring, badly acted movie. How I ever made it through all 3 1/2 hours without falling asleep I'll never know. The plot is simple...3 thoroughly unlikable morons talk about sex for 3 1/2 hours. And you thought Rohmer was deadly. This is even worse, if that's possible. > I must really be a masochist if I could watch this entire movie without turning it off...or killing someone.
Iberia is nice to see on TV. But why see this in silver screen? Lot of dance and music. If you like classical music or modern dance this could be your date movie. But otherwise one and half hour is just too long time. If you like to see skillful dancing in silver screen it's better to see Bollywood movie. They know how to combine breath taking dancing to long movie. Director Carlos Saura knows how to shoot dancing from old experience. And time to time it's look really good. but when the movie is one and hour it should be at least most of time interesting. There are many kind of art not everything is bigger then life and this film is not too big.
That reviewers liked this movie surprises me. The plot is a muddle. The characters are wooden. Michael Bowen spends most of the film spying on the other characters and misjudging all of them. No one has any redeeming quality or point-of-interest. This is not an edgy work. It is not imaginative. It is not ironic. It is no clever. There is nothing straight forward about this tedious work. That is missed theatrical release is not surprise. That the "This Network" airs it diminishes that venue. I definitely recommend turning to a rerun of the Garden Smart show on PBS or even a good informational if you encountered this mess on late night television. If you encounter it on daytime television, take a long walk. Even if you walk in smog, you will feel better not having suffered through this shambles. Life is short. This movie is long.
This is a terrible movie, terrible script, bad direction and nonsensical ending. Also, bad performances, except from Clancy Brown who is criminally underused here, and Michael Pollard. Watching this movie was purgatory--you do it to unload enough bad movie karma to actually see a good one further down the line.<br /><br />The movie presents a father and son who look like they couldn't every possibly have been related. The part of the male lead is not well written and seems uncharismatic in this role. You can see the plot points a mile away. The actions of the female lead and that of her brother, the cop, also make no sense. So, a major action on her part at the end of the movie makes no sense script-wise.
Burt Kennedy used to be a very good director, but you'd never know it by this lumbering mess. Not only does this film look cheap, it IS cheap--most of the battle scenes are lifted from the far superior "The Last Command" from 1955, and that footage, shot 32 years previously, looks more contemporary than anything in this picture. The few action scenes that were actually shot for this movie are disorganized, confused and incompetent, looking just as shoddy as the rest of the picture. This has the look and feel of a bad student film (and the budget didn't seem to be a whole lot more). It moves like molasses, the acting for the most part is either over-the-top ham or under-the-top comatose--although Raul Julia comes off better than most of the rest of the cast--and it's chock full of annoying historical inaccuracies. On top of that, it's WAY too long. If you're going to make a boring film, do it in an hour or so and get it over with--don't stretch it out over three hours, like this one does. If you want to see a good movie about the Alamo, check out John Wayne's 1960 version, or even the 1955 film from which this movie stole its action scenes. Hard to believe it took six producers to make a movie this lousy. Skip it.
While being a great James Arness western, this film has gone down as the worst Alamo film ever made. The story was terrible, inaccuracy all through it, and just downright untruths to boot! Continuity was cast to the four winds. Anybody catch the cannon sequence? The Mexicans were dumb enough to fire cannons that obviously had mud and ramrods still sticking out of the tubes. Come on! Then there is Brian Keith's ridiculous hat! Costumer must of been away or something. Or just out of their mind!
This movie is flawed on many fronts. Like many before it, it portrays more of the mythology of the Alamo than the history. The production is poor, overall giving the impression of a welfare project for lots of actors who might have otherwise had to work on Hollywood Squares. This to me was the greatest flaw - I know the ages and general personalities of the real Alamo protagonists and the geriatric ensemble of TV actors chosen to portray them never let any hint of believability intrude.<br /><br />As a native Texan, I grew up with the mythology. I later learned more about the history. I can accept a decent production from either perspective (although I prefer more historical accuracy), but this never gave me a chance to enjoy it. Even John Wayne's or Fess Parker's versions had more life than this stolid mess, while being only slightly less accurate.<br /><br />Very disappointing - avoid it.
Slow and riddled with inaccuracy. Over-looking its flaws this is still an interesting account of the famed and heroic siege of the Alamo during the Texas fight for independence from Mexico. James Arness as Jim Bowie. Brian Keith as Davy Crockett. Alec Baldwin as Col. Travis. Raul Julia as General Santa Anna. This made-for-TV project also stars David Ogden Stiers, Kathleen York and Jim Metzler. Very good original music by Peter Bernstein.
This film, The Alamo:Thirteen Days to Glory, is utter rubbish. The acting is awful, it is far too patriotic and its historical accuracy is not always at its best (Historians would have a field day). It does have a few good moments but not enough to keep interest because it is far too long. Rating * out of **********.
The story by Norman Maclean is a masterwork; Redford's film is a mediocrity. He adds banal scenes of the Maclean brothers going over a falls and of them double-dating in a seedy bar that were not even hinted at in the story. The cipher, Brad Pitt, trying to play the charismatic Paul Maclean, a genius outdoors, proves either risible or depressing, depending on what the original story meant to you. Some of the fly casting scenes are beautiful. Also, Tom Skerritt as the father and Craig Sheffer as Norman are strong and masculine, as men were once expected to be. None of the women make an impression in the film, which is regrettable, because Maclean loved the women in his story and made this clear, even poetic.
The only good part about this film is the beautiful scenery. This movie was long and boring. The minister should have retired from the pulpit the time his son Paul strayed from the teachings he proclaimed. How many times can his boys take the Lord's name in vain in this film being from a Presbyterian background? It doesn't fit. I wished Paul was swept down the river without a boat at the very beginning to spare us the silly, smirkish, selfish story of Paul (Brad Pitt). So Norm becomes a teacher and Paul becomes a compulsive gambler who Norm wants to rescue but doesn't-so what. It's very uninteresting. We see the prejudiced whites being stood up to by Paul because of his native American girl. That was the only part that had some interest and maybe could have been developed into a real 'wild western'. What we only see is a sleepy town where the two minister's sons have nothing to do but 1. Norm chase a lame girlfriend and deal with her family and 2.Paul make up dumb stories at the newspaper shop while scratching his head and take a lot of swigs and tie a lot of flies. I'd rather watch a show about fishing that that film again-which will be never.
... to not live in Montana and especially not to live there at the end of the 19th century.<br /><br />"A river runs through it" certainly is a well made movie from a cineastic stand-point. Great landscapes, Redford acting well.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the story is bad (if there is a story at all).<br /><br />I felt sorry for the narrator / author, who is as dry, narrow-minded a character as his father, a preacher. Being driven, not driving his own life, he is left to watch his brother, who is also caged in the small town environment, losing his life. The author never even comes close to undestand his brother's motivations, but at least realizes, that he is lacking the slightest amount of homour / fun. All there is, is fly-fishing, where he follows even as an old man the style of his father.<br /><br />The end is not surprising, it is forseeable from the very beginning.<br /><br />Definitely NOT a must-see (3 / 10)<br /><br />
I always felt that a good film should have a plot. This particular film was missing one, and I feel that it would have been more effective with a plot. This was made even worse by the fact that it seemed to go on forever; I was anxious for it to finally end. However, I just noticed that it was only 123 minutes long; it felt like four hours. Not only was there no plot but the film also lacked a notable conflict. It's not the worst movie I've seen, but I used to say that it was until I saw "The Fast And The Furious". So, don't think this review of mine is from someone who needs nothing but action. I actually hate most action films out today; it's just that this film is all the way on the other side of the spectrum. Not much really happens in this movie. However, the scenery and costumes were nice.
This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautiful scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture tries to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.<br /><br />If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one.
This movie has beautiful scenery. Unfortunately it has no plot. In order to have a plot there must be a conflict. This movie had none. It spent two hours painting a beautifule scene and failed to ever place any activity in it. The picture trys to be artistic but fails to pay attentions to the fundamentals of story telling.<br /><br />If you love Montana scenery and fly fishing you will find some value in this film just don't expect a story. There isn't one.
Sorry, gave it a 1, which is the rating I give to movies on which I walk out or fall asleep. In this case I fell asleep 10 minutes from the end, really, really bored and not caring at all about what happened next.
I didn't know whether to laugh or cry at this misrepresentation of Canadian history, particularly the disservice done to the history of the Mounted Police in the Yukon.<br /><br />I'll leave it to Pierre Berton, noted historian, born and raised in Dawson City Yukon, and author of the definitive history of the Klondike gold rush, Klondike: The Last Great Gold Rush, 1896-1899 to express my exasperation with this silly movie: <br /><br />The American idea of an untamed frontier, subdued by individual heroes armed with six-guns, was continued in The Far Country, another story about a cowboy from the American west - Wyoming this time - driving his herd of beef cattle into gold country. The picture is a nightmare of geographical impossibilities, but the real incongruity is the major assumption on which the plot turns – that there was only one mounted policeman in all of the Canadian Yukon at the time of the gold rush and that he could not deal with the lawlessness. When James Stewart and Walter Brennan reach the Yukon border with their cattle, the customs shack is empty.<br /><br />"Where is the constable? asks Brennan.<br /><br />"Up on the Pelly River. Trouble with the Chilkats," someone replies. He's got a real tough job, that constable. He patrols some ten or twenty thousand square miles. Sometimes he don't get home for two or three months at a time." <br /><br />The historical truth is that the Yukon Territory during the gold rush was the closest thing to a police state British North America has ever seen. The Northwest Mounted Police was stationed in the territory in considerable numbers long before the Klondike strike. They controlled every route into the Yukon and they brooked no nonsense. They collected customs duties, often over the wails of the new arrivals, made arbitrary laws on the spot about river navigation, and turned men back if they didn't have enough supplies, or if they simply looked bad. In true Canadian fashion, they laid down moral laws for the community. In Dawson the Lord's Day Act was strictly observed; it was a crime punishable by a fine to cut your wood on Sunday; and plump young women were arrested for what the stern-faced police called "giving a risqué performance in the theatre," generally nothing more than dancing suggestively on the stage in overly revealing tights.<br /><br />In such a community, a gunbelt was unthinkable. One notorious bad man from Tombstone who tried to pack a weapon on his hip was personally disarmed by a young constable, who had just ejected him from a saloon for the heinous crime of talking too loudly. The bad man left like a lamb but protested when the policeman, upon discovering he was carrying a gun told him to hand it over. "No man has yet taken a gun away from me," said the American. "Well, I'm taking it", the constable said mildly and did so, without further resistance. So many revolvers were confiscated in Dawson that they were auctioned off by the police for as little as a dollar and purchased as souvenirs to keep on the mantelpiece.<br /><br />In 1898, the big year of the stampede, there wasn't a serious crime – let alone a murder – in Dawson. The contrast with Skagway on the American side, which was a lawless town run by Soapy Smith, the Denver confidence man, was remarkable. But in The Far Country Dawson is seen as a community without any law, which a Soapy Smith character from Skagway – he is called Gannon in the picture – can easily control. (In real life, one of Smith's men who tried to cross the border had all his equipment confiscated and was frogmarched right back again by a mounted police sergeant).<br /><br />{in the movie the lone Mountie says} "Yes I'm the law. I represent the law in the Yukon Territory. About fifty thousand square miles of it."<br /><br />"Then why aren't there more of you?"<br /><br />"Because yesterday this was a wilderness. We didn't expect you to pour in by the thousands. Now that you're here, we'll protect you."<br /><br />"When?"<br /><br />"There'll be a post established here in Dawson early in May."<br /><br />"What happens between now and May? You going to be here to keep order?"<br /><br />"Part of the time."<br /><br />"What about the rest of the time?"<br /><br />"Pick yourselves a good man. Swear him in. Have him act as marshal…"<br /><br />The movie Mountie leaves and does not appear again in the picture. His astonishing suggestion – that an American town marshal, complete with tin star, be sworn in by a group of townspeople living under British jurisprudence – is accepted. Naturally they want to make Jimmy Stewart the marshal; he clearly fits the part. But Stewart is playing the role of the Loner who looks after Number One and so another man is elected to get shot. And he does. Others get shot. Even Walter Brennan gets shot. Stewart finally comes to the reluctant conclusion that he must end all the shooting with some shooting of his own. He pins on the tin star and he and the bully, Gannon, blast away at each other in the inevitable western climax.<br /><br />To anybody with a passing knowledge of the Canadian north, this bald re-telling of the story passes rational belief. <br /><br />…excerpt from Hollywood's Canada, by Pierre Berton, 1975.
The five or so really good westerns that Mann made are unequaled as an ensemble in Hollywood. Even John Ford never made that many with so much quality. The curious thing about them all is how uneven they are. Ford's My Darling Clementine is worth about two and a half of any of them. Or at least two. <br /><br />The real hero of them besides Mann and Stewart is Chase. Chase being responsible for the brilliant Red River. Chase wrote far country, bend of the river, and probably some others. But none of them are as finished as My Darling Clementine, but then very few films, western or otherwise are. <br /><br />Each of the five films of Mann have huge gaps, or is it six, lets see. Bend, Far, Man of the West, Furies, Winchester 73, and yep, six, Naked Spur. Each have magnificent scene after magnificent scene, with fairly glaring lapses. Yet so does Red River, which is still the single greatest western ever made. So perfection isn't everything. <br /><br />But The Far Country has huge, huge holes. It's mawkish, and really comes alive only when Stewart and Mc Entire are locking horns. The rest is pretty pedestrian, with the usual exception of Mann's camera. Mann's camera is a one man course in cinematography. It is about as good an eye as anybody who ever got behind a strip of moving film. It is almost never in the wrong place, never. <br /><br />The Far Country has one amazing moment. And as usual it comes from Stewart. Nobody in the history of cinema ever received physical punishment with the authority of that man. He is absolutely amazing: look at him in Bend, Far, Winchester, and Man from Laramie: in Bend has been beaten up and is hanging by a thread so believably and with such boiling hatred he looks like somebody displaced from Dachau, in Far he is shot off a raft with such violence, it looks so convincing that you wince, and of course when he is dragged through the fire in Man, well you find yourself looking for the burn marks. What an actor. Not to mention the moment in Winchester when he is beaten up early in the hotel room, also as well as anybody ever did it. <br /><br />But that was Mann's territory: look at Gary Cooper fighting with Jack Lord in Man of the West. As painful as any fight scene ever recorded. Cooper while not being quite as convincing as Stewart, nevertheless is somehow his equal in looking exhausted at the end of the fight. In short, nobody but nobody but nobody ever showed the human being in extremis as well as Mann. <br /><br />What a great, great director. <br /><br />See every western he ever made. They are his real monuments, even if all are scetchy. But so what. When he gets roaring with his great scenes they are as good as anybody, including Ford. And his six westerns as an ensemble are the best ever done by anyone, period.<br /><br />Thanks, Anthony.
Mann photographs the Alberta Rocky Mountains in a superb fashion, and Jimmy Stewart and Walter Brennan give enjoyable performances as they always seem to do. <br /><br />But come on Hollywood - a Mountie telling the people of Dawson City, Yukon to elect themselves a marshal (yes a marshal!) and to enforce the law themselves, then gunfighters battling it out on the streets for control of the town? <br /><br />Nothing even remotely resembling that happened on the Canadian side of the border during the Klondike gold rush. Mr. Mann and company appear to have mistaken Dawson City for Deadwood, the Canadian North for the American Wild West.<br /><br />Canadian viewers be prepared for a Reefer Madness type of enjoyable howl with this ludicrous plot, or, to shake your head in disgust.
This is an action Western. James Steart leads an all star cast in the scenic Northwest, which is filmed in great splendor. The scenery and costumes are great. There is action and adventure. Stewart plays a wealthy cattleman who runs afoul of a crooked government in the old Nothwest.<br /><br />The main drawback is the stereotypical cynic that Hollywood has always made into a hero. Even when this movie was made, the cynic was the stereotypical hero, and the one Stewart portrays really has few saving graces. He is kind to his two partners, and that does give him an extra dimension of credibility and likability.<br /><br />However, he is so piggish to everyone else, it is hard to really care for him, or to accept him. He is much like the one dimensional spaghetti Western characters (cut not that bad).<br /><br />Still, the minor characters are quite enjoyable. Walter Brennan, Royal Dano, Harry Morgan, and others make this worth watching.
This is the worst sequel on the face of the world of movies. Once again it doesn't make since. The killer still kills for fun. But this time he is killing people that are making a movie about what happened in the first movie. Which means that it is the stupidest movie ever.<br /><br />Don't watch this. If you value the one precious hour during this movie then don't watch it. You'll want to ask the director and the person beside you what made him make it. Because it just doesn't combine the original makes of horror, action, and crime.<br /><br />Don't let your children watch this. Teenager, young child or young adult, this movie has that sorta impact upon people.
Ah, Channel 5 of local Mexican t.v. Everyday, at 2:00 a.m. they air Horror movies from the 70's to early 2000's. It was "Return To Cabin By The Lake" the movie that aired yesterday. I regret for watching it.<br /><br />The original "Cabin By The Lake" was a regularly popular low budgeter and it was good accepted. The problem is that this sequel is horrible, not even unintentionally funny and tries to imitate the original. Ugh. The plot is really stupid in all the sense of the word.<br /><br />The movie at some points looks like a soap-opera because of it's absurd dialogs, cinematography, and direction.<br /><br />My advice is : avoid this one at all costs. It's a movie that it shouldn't be watched by anyone. Not even for lovers of mediocre film-making.<br /><br />You have been warned.
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.
Return to Cabin by the Lake just.... was lacking. It must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera. So, within the same scene - you'll have some movie-quality camera shots AND simple video camera shots. It makes for a very odd blend! I think they should have found SOME way to not do the "home video" type effect! <br /><br />I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences. But if you haven't seen the original CBTL.... you'll never want to see it if you see this one first! It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one.
This movie was made-for-TV, so taking that into account, I'm not going to rip into it as hard as I would a feature film. The script is sub-par, but it does succeed in being mildly humorous in spots, whether it means to be or not. The acting is mostly over-the-top, but that is true for many lower-budget movies.<br /><br />The aspect of this movie that I really hated, though, was that 90-95% of it is shot on film, but in random places, there will be 5-10 seconds where the footage is shot on video. You can tell because there is less contrast, the colors are less vivid, and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film's 24 frames per second. I'm not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they didn't have the money to shoot on film (I assume this is why, anyway), but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look.<br /><br />Anyway, I've definitely seen worse movies, but I definitely wouldn't say that I enjoyed this movie and I can't recommend that anyone see it.
IF you are planning to see this movie, please reconsider. I don't usually post my comments about something I've seen on television, but this one was such a waste of my life that I needed to do something productive to get that bad taste out of my mouth. Critiquing this movie would take far too long as there are so many things wrong with it. I will just simply say, please do not ever see this movie. It was a complete waste of my time and it WILL be a waste of yours. Anyone that wrote a positive review of this movie is one of two things; utterly inept, or working for the company that produced it. Again, I guarantee that you will indeed regret seeing this movie!
<br /><br />I saw this on the Sci-Fi channel. It came on right after the first one. For some reason this movie kept me interested. I don't know why, stop asking.<br /><br />---SPOILERS--- Okay... It was cheesy how this guy got involved with the making of the movie. In the first movie, he had a "reason" to kill people, but in this sequal, half of the killings/attempted killings were basicly for no reason. Stanley killed the director due to creative differences, he captured the co-writer due to creative differences, but what was the deal with trying to kill off the cast? No cast, no movie. He wanted it to "look real when they died"? If this was supposed to be such a high budget movie, use the special effects, MAN. Of course like the first one, the captured girl gets away, and Stanley ends up getting messed up, and dissapears. Woooooow (sarcasm). This movie HAD potential. And the saddest thing of all... the really sad part... I would watch a "Cabin by the Lake 3". Only because I like Judd Nelson, and he's the only good part about this sequal.
I watched Cabin by the Lake this afternoon on USA. Considering this movie was made for TV is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. So, I tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely disappointed. I knew I wouldn't like the movie, but I was not expecting to be perplexed by the use of DV (digital video). The movie would have been tolerable if it wasn't for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to come from nowhere. I expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots, but there seemed to be no logical explanation. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAYBE A SPOILER!!!!) The open ending in Cabin by the Lake was acceptable, but the open ending on the sequel is ridiculous. I can only foresee Return of Return to The Cabin by the Lake being watch able is if the movie was shown up against nothing, but infomercials at 4 o'clock in the morning.
*Possible Spoiler*<br /><br />'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a useless movie. The acting was not good and the plot wasn't even remotely interesting.<br /><br />'Cabin by the Lake' is a good TV movie. The sequel was not. Judd Nelson was very good in the first film and put a whole lot more into his character than in this. It seemed as if HE wasn't even interested in doing the sequel. His acting was good but it could have been better. I really don't want to comment on the rest of the cast because in my opinion, they're not even worth mentioning. But I'll do it. The character of Alison isn't even hardly shown in the first part of the film. All of a sudden she's the center of attention next to Stanley Caldwell. The role didn't make sense and it should have been thought out a little better. Dahlia Salem was absolutely terrible. Her acting was way below decent and the casting people should have looked for somebody else, anybody else. The director, Mike, was a confusing character. He seemed to have a purpose for being there but it didn't seem like his death was necessary. The acting for this role was good, nothing great but better than Salem's.<br /><br />The plot was real lousy if you think about it. Stanley, who is presumed dead, makes his way onto the set of 'Cabin by the Lake', the movie based on his script. He stumbles upon the director and in a short time, the director is dead and Stanley is running the show. Yeah, out of nowhere the crew is just going to let this stranger come into the picture and finish the film not knowing anything about him. There's some killings, not a whole lot, and the one's that are shown are ridiculous. One of the actresses on the set gets electrocuted while filming a scene. Another character gets chewed up by a motorboat. And one gets tangled up in a plant before drowning. These writers must have been hard up for excitement.<br /><br />I just have to say that I was not impressed with the filming of the movie. The way that it kept changing from looking low budget back to normal started to become irritating very fast. Also, the new cabin by the lake was poorly created. We aren't shown it but only in a few scenes, and the whole thing with the chain in the basement was useless. It worked in the first film only because we were shown the room a lot more, but it didn't work in this one.<br /><br />There were too many characters in this sequel. All of them except for a few had no reason to be there. The acting of what little is showed was really bad and...they just didn't have a purpose in this movie.<br /><br />All in all, 'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a sequel picking up from where the first left off. 'Cabin by the Lake' I can take but this was just not impressive. Judd Nelson should have avoided this one and so should you. It's nothing like the first and it went entirely too slow. Nothing happened in the first hour and it continued to drag on for the second. Not to mention that the writing was horrible. Put this on only if you need some help getting to sleep.<br /><br />So, we see that Stanley defies death and is still alive and well. By the way he talks, it sounds like there could be a possible third installment to a movie good just by itself. Quit throwing in sequels and we may be alright!<br /><br />(Did the film makers not realize that they showed us how they filmed the lake scenes from the first one? They were all done in a tank. Never, never reveal the secrets of filming.)<br /><br />
A decent sequel, but does not pack the punch of the original. A murderous screenwriter(Judd Nelson)assumes new identities in order to direct his own novel CABIN BY THE LAKE. Still ruthless killing, but movie seems very tongue-in-cheek. Any humor is not of the funny kind. Total project seems to have the quality of a quickie and at times Nelson is way over the top. This movie is about a script being rewritten before going to the screen...this should have happened to this script.
Return to Cabin by the Lake does not, in any way, stand up to the original. With only one main character (Stanley) returning for the sequal, the film is not even worth the 2 hours of your time. I am a huge fan of the first film, the story line and acting was really good, but this is one movie that I will never again watch. It is basically equal to what the sequals to Urban Legends and Blair Witch were like, but with much worse acting. I've personally seen better acting in soap operas, it is so pitiful that you just have to laugh. I, in no way, recommend this movie to anyone, watching it will just detract from the first.
I thought Hedy Burress (who managed to escape from the watery grave of part one) was going to be in part 2 Guess not. I just think they should of killed her off like in Friday The 13th Part 2 (you know what I mean).<br /><br />This movie like Scream 3, and Urban Legend 2 followed movies within a movie.<br /><br />This was PURE CRAP! The whole Movie within a Movie crap.<br /><br />BAD STAY AWAY!
Viewers gushing over everything including the title sequence (now THAT is funny) would have us believe this is some sort of cinematic miracle, but, trust me folks, this is one of the most embarrassingly bad films you could ever see, and if you're not laughing at it five minutes in, I'd say you've lost your sense of humor.<br /><br />David Niven plays a doomed and bravado-besotted RAF pilot who somehow thinks it appropriate to engage an impressionable (female) air traffic controller in an emotional conversation about love, just as he's plunging to his certain and fiery death. (Isn't it romantic...) Of course, he's spared by a quirk of metaphysical chance, and washes up on the beach, just as this same air traffic controller is riding by on her bicycle. (They immediately clinch).<br /><br />Looking past the bizarre homo-erotic subtexts, (so over the top you really need to refer to them as supertexts, from a naked boy sitting bare-butted in the sand playing the movie's twilight-zone-esquire theme on his little flute, to a celestial courier so campy/queen-y his makeup is caked on more thoroughly than the ladies'), the most bizarre aspects of the movie are how it weaves such bad caricatures of national and racial stereotypes into a convoluted attempt to argue some kind of point about the universal nature and power of love. We get it--fly boys like girls in skirts and heels, and girls like 'em back, and, apparently, all you have to do is cry a little to make it noble enough for your movie to get 10 stars on IMDb...<br /><br />As for the quality of the production, the continuity/editing is poor enough to induce cringing, and the lighting is, perhaps, even worse than that, but you hardly have time to notice because the script is so bad. There are games played with Technicolor, (whatever passes for heaven is in black and white if you can figure out the sense in that), and foreshadowing, (so funny my fellow audience member who usually like movies like this actually cheered and laughed when then the doc's motorcycle finally ended up in a fiery wreck), and freeze-motion, (which is funniest of all because the female lead is so poor at standing still you know the stage hands were guffawing off camera).<br /><br />The best shots are the early ones on the beach, but, after that, it's all downhill. The (moving like an escalator is moving) staircase is hardly the Odessa Steps, to say the least, and I'd really caution anyone from feeling like they'd have to see this lame attempt at movie-making on their account. The movie overall is bad enough to be funny, and that's about the best thing I can say for it.
I saw this movie recently because a friend brought it with him from NYC. After 30 minutes, I said to him," You've got to be kidding. Is this some sort of joke?" He thought it was good. I told him that I thought it was probably one of the silliest movies ever made. "What was it supposed to be?" I asked. "A propaganda movie made for children?" The plot is stupid. The acting is the worst ever for most of the principals and frankly people who look at this sort of tripe and think it has anything to do with life, love or even afterlife, of which it offers an incredibly idiotic view...need some psychiatric help. Please, if someone tries to get you to stick this in your DVD or Video player, consider it like you would a virus introduced into your computer...it won't destroy your player but it will destroy your evening. If they had made Razzies in the '40s, this would have won in every category. (PS. It also goes under the dubious sobriquet of "Stairway to Heaven.")
Despite a decent first season this series never came close to realizing its potential. Set as a prequel to the original "Star Trek" series it was doomed almost from the start by an executive producer, Rick Berman, who felt compelled to artificially limit and constrict the definition of what a "Star Trek" series could be (which made this futuristic show increasingly anachronistic from a dramatic standpoint). The actual show-runner, Brannon Braga, didn't help matters by his uninspired and tired rehashing of previous Trek episodes and careless disregard of the franchise's internal mythology (it was painfully obvious early on that he was in it only for the paycheck). Never have I seen a series' that so consistently did a disservice to a cast of talented actors (Jolene Blaylock excepted)last so long. It is as if this entire series was produced in bubble existing outside the contemporary television landscape where the audience (even a Trekker audience) is more demanding and sophisticated in their dramatic wants and desires. Unfortunately it appears as if Berman and Braga have succeeded in convincing the higher ups at Paramount that "Enterprise" suffered from "franchise fatigue" and that its core audience was did not walk away but was driven off. Produce a quality offering that lives up to the high ideals and standards of its predecessors and they (the audience) will come.<br /><br />Simply put, In a TeeVee universe where we are given shows like "Battlestar: Galactica" and "The Shield" the powers-that-be must give the viewing public a "Star Trek" that measures up and is dramatically competitive. It is just that straightforward and easy.
Anybody who has ever been a fan of the original series, or even has a clue about the storyline should be embarrassed by this series. The Borg does not come around until Q brings the Enterprise to the Gamma sector, the Klingons are NEVER seen until Kirk encounters them, the NCC-1701 was the FIRST ship to carry the Enterprise name....need I go on? Berman and Pilliar have made a mockery of Gene Roddenberry's creation. After he died, they only saw $$$$ and just went their own way. No wonder Majel Barrett was in every single episode of star trek until this series. I don't blame her for not being involved with this mess. Poor Bakula. He's a great actor, as are the entire cast. I like them all, but the storyline is tragic and ignores all of the precedents set by the original series. Just check the ratings. I think more people watched Deep Space 9 (which was untimely canceled).
Okay first of all, I didn't sit down to watch the premier of a "Star Trek" Series to see a cowboy flying around in space. this is how a normal Enterprise episode works<br /><br />1 Archer finds a nebula or something aloung the lines of that and wants to take a closer look but it might destroy the ship.<br /><br />2 he sends a shuttle into the nebula and and the shuttle get damaged...<br /><br />in all of the episodes I have seen, all of the problems are happening because of Archer's stupid mistakes. Oh and did you see the preview of one episode showing Archer and T'pol kissing?!?!?!?!?!?!? I was planning to watch that episode but after that I totally gave up on Enterprise and turned to TV right off. Come on!!!! This is star trek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Also what was with the banana slug?? In one episode, Hoshi had a banana slug but had to leave it behind for some stupid reason. Okay fine, little dumb to bring you pet slug in space but whatever. Okay that was what I thought until they left it on a desert planet!!!!! A BANANA SLUG CANNOT LEAVE IN A DESERT!!!!!!!!!!!! How dumb are these writers<br /><br />Any ways, just saying if Enterprise is on DON'T WATCH IT!!!!!
While it's early to say how the series will evolve, I can say that the pilot was less than I thought it would be. There is still potential for the series, however. Of course when I first saw Voyager I thought it had potential, too - but was sorely disappointed. My gut tells me Enterprise won't be as bad as Voyager, however.<br /><br />As for the impressions of the pilot...<br /><br />The pilot had some good ideas and good themes. I liked the introduction. The show's opening credits were interesting, with the progress of exploration and a fitting theme song. Scott Bakula is excellent in the role of captain.<br /><br />Where it fell short for me was largely that the story lacked the "feel" of setting out on a grand adventure. The plot of the episode itself was more a "generic" Trek story with the themes of "exploration" and "first step towards space" merely subplot and subtext. Were you to edit out the references to this being the first deep space mission, the plot would be hard to differentiate between the eras of Enterprise, TOS or TNG. The central plot didn't reflect or do justice to the grand theme of the series.<br /><br /> The plot of launching the first mission would have been grand enough without the "action". Instead of isolated references to the newness of exploration, they could have been the story. Get a little more nostalgic and philosophical about it (oh, for a TV show that once again would make us THINK). Make us feel the excitement of "the wind" and being on "the sea" instead of distracting us with a rescue and a plethora of gunplay. There was WAY too much gunplay.<br /><br />We had the feeling more that humans were the "freshmen" in an established school. New kids on the block, as opposed to venturing into a largely unknown universe. Sadly, the Klingons landed on our doorstep instead of us finding them. That meeting could have been far more historic and far more sociological. Just how DO two such different societies interact? Don't just hint about it, SHOW it!<br /><br />I had to think of it more as `Trek with an akward crew and limited technology' as opposed to `the first brave steps into the unknown'. I wanted to see something newer and fresher. The series promises to have a new concept but so far I haven't seen this new, great concept.<br /><br />I will conclude with reiterating the sentiment that the series has potential. There are some interesting characters. Bakula is wonderful. Blalock has potential. The overall theme is the most interesting since we first saw Kirk in a world before Apollo 11. If only future episodes can do justice to this grand and wonderful theme, we will have a show which will create new legends.<br /><br />You shoot an arrow into the air... Good luck Capt. Archer.<br /><br />To the producers: TAKE MORE RISKS AND MAKE US *THINK*! :-)
I'm not a huge Star Trek fan, but I was looking forward to this. I was intrigued by the pre-hype descriptions of the Enterprise, its cramped-submarine styling and rough-edged technology compared to the Treks we are used to.<br /><br />I didn't see anything all that interesting in this pilot. I found the plot to be convoluted and confusing.<br /><br />I will admit that I did like some of the character development - the depictions of the humans as an 'adolescent' species ready to outgrow their britches was entertaining.<br /><br />And that Vulcan babe had one hell of an incredible rack.<br /><br />But I don't think I'm going to get hooked on this series.<br /><br />3/10
The earlier part of the film was rather enjoyable but towards the end it became trite. Although Turturro is an actor I generally like, his Luzhin often resembled a bad Rain Man impression and the portrayal of the genius as a semi-autistic man was annoying. Overall it seems as if this film is trying to hard and ends up looking pompous in spite of mostly fine performances.
a movie that attempts to be far smarter than its makers are capable of producing. the movie twists and turns through miriad plot "surprises" at a desperate attempt to kep the audience guessing, offcourse puncturing the "plot" with steamy scenes they thought would help it along.<br /><br />james belushi is involved in this pseudo-intellectual attempt and just sleep walks through the movie. the same applies for the other "actors". the plot is quite silly and tacky. whih in itelf is not such a crime, but towards the end, the tremendous plot-twists get very tiresome and boring.<br /><br />however, the movie does manage to generate some interest in the middle. in all worth a lazy watch on a really boring day, but don't fret if you miss this one.<br /><br />a rather lame 4!
If you can imagine Mickey Mouse as a New York street pimp, or John Wayne as a Communist spy, then you might believe Pat Boone as a juvenile delinquent on his uncle's farm in Kentucky and you could conceivably enjoy this movie.<br /><br />This film is so stupid that it isn't even campy for a mid 1950s sexless love story. And the problem is that Hollywood made such a big deal about Pat Boone's refusal to kiss a woman not his wife on screen before its release that the audience knows he won't kiss Shirley Jones so you cannot build any anticipation for the "screen consummation" of their love. It's sort of like watching a western in which the cowboys don't have guns.<br /><br />The story is pointless. Even the title song is sung with pained enthusiasm.<br /><br />April Love belongs in the worst film bargain bin along with Ishtar and Plan 9 from Outer Space.
I really wanted to like this western, being a fan of the genre and a fan of "Buffalo Bill," "Wild Bill Hickok," and "Calamity Jane," all of whom are in this story! Add to the mix Gary Cooper as the lead actor, and it sounded great. <br /><br />The trouble was.....it wasn't. I found myself looking at my watch just 40 minutes into this, being bored to death. Jean Arthur's character was somewhat annoying and James Ellison just did not look like nor act like "Buffalo Bill." Cooper wasn't at his best, either, sounding too wooden. This was several years before he hit his prime as an actor.<br /><br />In a nutshell, his western shot blanks. Head up the pass and watch another oater because most of 'em were far better than this one.
I have always admired Susan Sarandon for her integrity and honesty in her private life as well as her talents as an actor. I therefor found it strange that she would appear in a film that so distorted that facts. Her character's rescue from the South Pole was done by a Canadian charter company from Edmonton, Alberta flying a Canadian designed and built Twin Otter aircraft. The trip had been turned down by the US Airforce, Navy and Coast Guard as beyond their capabilities. The same company staged a similar rescue a few years later to bring out a man from the South Pole base. I feel that the film fairly represented a very gripping subject and documented a very courageous woman facing a frightening task. I fail to see why the producers would find it necessary ignore the bravery of the rescue pilots and show the rescue plane as a USAF Hercules.
Warning Spoilers following. Superb recreation of the base in Antarctica where the real events of the film took place. Other than that, libelous!, scandalous! Filmed in Canada; presumably by a largely Canadian crew and cast. I caught the last half of this film recently on Global television here in Canada. Nothing much to say other than how thoroughly appalled I was at what a blatant piece of American historical revisionist propaganda it is; and starring Susan Sarandon of all people! I can only assume that Canadian born director Roger Spottiswoode was coerced to make the USAF the heroes of the film when in fact the real rescuers where a small private airline based in Calgary; Kenn Borek Air.
OK first of all the video looks like it was filmed in the 80s I was shocked to find out it was released in 2001. Secondly the plot was all over the place, right off the bat the story is confusing. Had there been some brief prologue or introduction the story would've been better. Also I appreciate fantasy but this film was too much. It was bizarre and badly filmed. The scenes did not flow smoothly and the characters were odd. It was hard to follow and maybe it was the translation but it was even hard to understand. I love Chinese epic films but if you're looking for a Chinese epic fantasy film i would recommend the Promise (visually stunning, the plot is interesting and good character development) not this film. Beware you will be disappointed.
Zu Warriors most definitely should've been an animated series because as a movie it's like watching an old anime on acid.The movie just starts out of nowhere and people just fly around fighting with metal wings and other stupid weapons until this princess sacrifices herself for her lover on a cloud or something.Whether this princess is a god or an angel is beyond me but soon enough this flying wind bad guy comes in and kills her while the guy with the razor wings fights some other mystical God /Demon/Wizard thing.The plot line is either not there or extremely hard to follow you need to be insanely intelligent to get this movie.The plot soon follows this Chinese mortal who is called upon by this god to fight the evil flying,princess killing bad guy and soon we have a very badly choreographed Uwe Boll like fight scene complete with terrible martial arts on a mountain or something.Even the visuals are weird some might say they are stunning and colorful but i'm going to say they are blurry and acid trip like (yes that's a word!).I watched it both dubbed and with subtitles and both were equally bad and hard to understand....who am i kidding i didn't understand it at all.It felt like i was watching episode 30 of some 1980's anime and completely missed how the story began or like i started reading a comic series of 5 at number 4 because i had no clue how this thing started where it was going or how it would end i was lost the entire time.I can honestly say this was one of the worst film experiences ever it was like watching Inu-Yasha at episode 134 drunk...yeah that's right you don't know what the hell is going on.Don't waste your brain trying to figure this out.
This is not so much film as big budget children's television. As far as I can tell, the villain is a giant swarm of chocolate covered espresso beans. This theory seems to be verified by the fact that the subtitles refer to it as 'Insomnia'. When it's first mentioned that a civilization had been wiped out by insomnia, I thought "Wow! A nihilistic martial arts film!" but no such luck. Although you have to consider it experimental cinema when the villain is strangled by an old man's long, white eyebrows. Zu Warriors makes exactly the same amount of sense whether the subtitles are on or off. That's not a good sign. I found the special effects to be somewhere between Ray Harryhausen and Xena: Warrior Princess. Primitive.
Watched this on DVD in original language with English subs. Either the subtitling was very poor or the actual dialog doesn't make much of story and give any character development. There are quite a few HK stars in this but the movie doesn't need their presence to make it better or worse. It's just bad. The bright and colorful scenes done in CG are attractive for the sheer colors and brilliance but it can get overwhelming before long. If anything this makes me think of a child's movie with its nonstop barrage of cg, fight scenes, and crap plot. I'm certain I grasped what took place in the film but the whole delivery of the story was rather lousy.
"Spielberg loves the smell of sentiment in the morning. But sentiment at the expense of narrative honesty? Nobody should love that." - Lucius Shepard<br /><br />"The Color Purple" takes place in the Deep South during the early 1900s, and tells the story of Celie and Nettie, two African American sisters. The film opens with the girls playing in a field of purple flowers, an idyllic haven which is promptly shattered by the appearance of their stepfather. This motif – innocence interrupted by men – permeates the entire film.<br /><br />The film then launches into a series of short sequences. Celie is revealed to have been twice impregnated by her stepfather, gives birth in a dirty barn, has her newborn child taken away and is forced to marry a local widow named Albert Johnson, a violent oaf who rapes her repeatedly, forcing her to cook, clean and look after his children.<br /><br />All these horrific scenes are given little screen time, and are instead surrounded by moments of pixie-dust cinematography, a meddlesome symphonic score, incongruous comedy and overly exuberant camera work. The cumulative effect is like the merging of a Disney cartoon and a rape movie, a jarring aesthetic which caused Stanley Kubrick to remark that "The Color Purple" made him so nauseated that he had to turn it off after ten minutes. Ten minutes? He lasted a long time.<br /><br />The film is often said to deal which "racism", "sexism" and "black culture", but this is not true. Alice Walker, the author of the novel upon which the film is based, claims to be a bisexual but is actually a closet lesbian. Her book is a lesbian fantasy, a story of female liberation and self-discovery, which paints men as violent brutes who stymie women. For Walker, the only way out of this maze is for women to bond together in a kind of lesbian utopia, black sisterhood and female independence celebrated.<br /><br />Spielberg's film, however, re-frames Walker's story through the lens of comforting American mythologies. This is a film in which the salvific power of Christianity overcomes the natural cruelty of men. A film in which Albert finds himself in various ridiculous situations, moments of misplaced comedy inserted to make him look like a bumbling fool. A film in which all the characters are derived from racist minstrel shows, the cast comprised of lecherous men (always beaming with devilish smiles and toothy grins), stereotypical fat mammies, jazz bands and gospel choirs. <br /><br />This is a film in which black people are naturally childlike, readily and happily accepting their social conditions. A film in which black people are over-sexed, carnal sensualists dominated by violent passions. A film in which poverty and class issues are entirely invisible (Albert lives in a huge house) and black men are completely inept. This is not the Old South, this is the Old South as derived from "Gone With The Wind", MGM Muscals, "Song of the South", Warner Cartoons, "Halleluha!" and banned Disney movies. In other words, it's the South as seen by a child raised on 50s TV. It's all so cartoonish, so racist in the way it reduces these human beings to one dimensional ethnic stereotypes, that black novelist Ishmael Reed famously likened it to a Nazi conspiracy.<br /><br />Of course, in typical Spielberg fashion the film ends with family bonds being healed. This reconciliation was in Walker's novel, but Spielberg goes further by having every character in the story reconcile with their kin.<br /><br />Beyond Walker's hate letter to black men and Spielberg's bizarre caricaturing of black life, we are shown nothing of the black community. We have only the vaguest ideas as to how any of these characters make a living and no insight into how they interact with others in their community. Instead, Spielberg's camera jumps about, desperately fighting for our attention (one of Celie's kitchen contraptions seems like it belongs in a "Home Alone" movie), every emotion over played, the director never stopping to just observe something or to allow a little bit of life to simply pass by. Couple this with Quincy Jones' ridiculously "white" music, and you have one of the strangest films in cinema history: an angry feminist tract filmed by a white Jew in the style of Disney and Griffith, scored by a black man trying to emulate John Williams.<br /><br />Problematic too is the lack of white characters. Consider this: the men in this film aren't portrayed as being rough to each other, nor do they dominate women because they are brutalised by a racist society which reduces their manhood. No, they are cruel by nature. And the women, whether quietly suffering like Celie or rebellious and tough like her sister, persevere and survive only because the men are too stupid to destroy them. A better film would not have focused solely on the oppression of women as it occurs among the oppressed, rather, it would have shown that it is societal abuse which has led to spousal abuse, that enslaved black women are forced to perform the very same tasks as their male counterparts (whilst still fulfilling traditional female roles) and that African American domestic violence occurs largely because of economic factors, women unable to support themselves and their children alone.<br /><br />And so there's a hidden ideology at work here. Late in the film one character tells another that since he didn't respect his wife, she wound up getting severely beaten and imprisoned by whites. The implication is that blacks need to return to their African roots to restore their own dignity and that it is their fault that whites unjustly crush them. ie- Respect one another in your poor minority community and you won't run afoul of the dominant white culture. <br /><br />3/10 - A failure to confront sex and lesbianism, inappropriate musical numbers, countless sequence loaded with extraneous visual pizazz, incongruous comic business, emphatic music cues, and wildly hyped emotionality, all contribute to rendering "The Color Purple" worthless.
You may consider a couple of facts in the discussion to be spoilers.<br /><br />I'm sorry, but Spielberg didn't deserve to win any Oscar for this piece, and I think the Academy was right in that vote. (Other Oscars for best actor nominations and such... that I don't know about. But it would be hard to justify, given what they were told to do and what you see in the final product.) The way Spielberg directs this is so contrived, so meddlesome. While watching this movie a distinction made during a Film as Art course I have taken was screaming at me: "Sentiment is honest emotion honestly rendered. Sentimentality is sugary and unreal, a false view of life." This is over-the-top sentimentality. When in real life to two people ever begin to read out loud in synchronicity, as Celie and Shug Avery do when sitting on the bed going over the letters from Nettie they have found? There are examples of this type of faux behavior throughout the film: all the men crowding around Miss Millie's car and then jumping in unison like a flock of birds taking off when she goes to drive away; Harpo falling through the roofs of various buildings he's working on (a cheap slapstick gag); the whole troop of revelers heading from the Jook Joint en masse to the chapel, as if magically entranced by the choir's singing... on and on. Nothing rings true. I even wondered if Harpo's name was chosen purposefully because it's his wife Sophia's real name, "Oprah," backwards. Spielberg isn't above such "cuteness."<br /><br />It's not that Spielberg is incapable of honestly rendered action and emotion. Schindler's List was amazing, deeply touching for me, and I greatly admire Saving Private Ryan too for its realism, even if the story is a bit contrived.
This is really terrible.<br /><br />The only redeeming feature about this movie is that the next time people ask me what is the worst vampire movie I have ever watched, I would have a suitable reply.<br /><br />I think it is filmed on 35 mm so it is already tacky like hell. I wouldn't have bothered commenting but I noticed some fanboys (probably connected to the movie) had claimed that this was the best movie since the Matrix. Let me debunk the myths and lies.<br /><br />There is nothing good in the movie. Everything yells tacky. The actress is ugly. The fight choreography is the worst I have ever seen. The fight scenes are unbelievably amateurish. Imagine a girl flailing her arms around in a circle helplessly and delivering weak kicks which wouldn't hurt a kitten. Obviously, the director just pulled people off the street to give them roles in the movie.<br /><br />I know the director did not have much budget for the movie but still better movies have been made on smaller budget before. Unforgivable.
Dude, really!!!! where have you guys been the past 20 years, this is shocking in all kind of ways, horror ? This is a joke, there is nothing wrong with being low budget, but this is a laugh, If you want to look at the classics, Freaks of Tod Browning, the victims of Dracula and Frankenstein, the Undying Monster, Ernest Thesiger, Paul Wegener's The Golem and the passengers of The Ghost Train, you can't compare it, it gives it a bad name, bad acting, bad screenplay etc. Total waist of money and free time, have watched a lot of movies, were as horror is my all time favorite, I really am speechless, have nothing more to say that please don't do the effort to watch something so daft, please understand
Well, you know the rest! This has to be the worst movie I've seen in a long long time. I can only imagine that Stephanie Beaham had some bills to pay when taking on this role.<br /><br />The lead role is played by (to me) a complete unknown and I would imagine disappeared right back into obscurity right after this turkey.<br /><br />Bruce Lee led the martial arts charge in the early 70's and since then fight scenes have to be either martial arts based or at least brutal if using street fighting techniques. This movie uses fast cuts to show off the martial arts, however, even this can't disguise the fact that the lady doesn't know how to throw a punch. An average 8 year old boy would take her apart on this showing.<br /><br />Sorry, the only mystery on show here is how this didn't win the golden raspberry for its year.
I'm in Iraq right now doing a job that gives plenty of time for watching movies. We also have access to plenty of pirated movies, this gem came along with 11 other movies, and this is easily the worst I've seen in a long time. I've seen a few other reviews that claim this movie doesn't take itself too seriously, but really, I think that's a cover up for the fact that its horrible. It's not tongue in cheek, the writers really thought they were improving on the movie Blade. This movie is just one notch above Vampire Assassin, which if you haven't seen, i recommend. At least that movie is so unbelievably bad that you'll laugh harder than you thought possible. This is right at that cusp of no redeeming qualities what so ever. from the bad acting, to cliché visual (ie opening credits), to the adobe premier special effects. they couldn't even get blanks for the guns, which may have to do with where the movie was filmed, but if you're going to use effects, make them close to accurate. as for the cast, it seems like they just went to a tae bo class and picked up the first not to ugly chick that walked out. Once again, like Ron Hall in Vampire Assassin, don't let stunt folk act, they can't. Also, the comment about this being a "return of old vampire movies"...no, it's not. This is exactly what all new vampire movies are about. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Blade, Underworld, they're all about some super star fighting the vampires. This is the newest vampire genre, with bad blood, fake screams, and cheesy over acting. obviously anyone who wrote a good review about this is somehow connected to the movie, or friends of the cast. But what do I care, I paid 33 cents for it. Anyway, to wrap this up, someone in their first semester of film school decided to make a movie, I give them credit because it's better than I could do. Of course I also know I can't make movies so I don't try. I do know how to watch movies though. I work 12 hour nights, 6 days a week, I've seen several thousand in the year I've been out here and this was so bad that half way through i was hoping for a mortar attack.
"Valentine" is another horror movie to add to the stalk and slash movie list (think "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", "Scream", and "I Know What You Did Last Summer"). It certainly isn't as good as those movies that I have listed about, but it's better than most of the ripoffs that came out after the first "Friday the 13th" film. One of those films was the 1981 Canadian made "My Bloody Valentine", which I hated alot. "Valentine" is a better film than that one, but it's not saying much. The plot: a nerdy young boy is teased and pranked by a couple of his classmates at the beginning of the film. Then the film moves years later when those classmates are all grown up, then they're picked off one-by-one. The killer is presumed to be the young boy now all grown up looking for revenge. But is it him? Or could it be somebody else? "Valentine" has an attractive cast which includes Denise Richards, David Boreanaz, Marley Shelton, Jessica Capshaw, and Katherine Heigl. They do what they can with the material they've got, but a lackluster script doesn't really do them any justice. There are some scary moments throughout, however. <br /><br />** (out of four)
There's one line that makes it worth to rent for Angel fans. Everyone else: this is just a very bad horror flick. The female characters are typical horror movies females. They are wooden, annoying and dumb. You are glad when they are killed off. Long live the strong female character in a horror movie!!
There are so many puns to play on the title of the spectacularly bad Valentine that I don't know where to begin. I will say this though; here is a movie that makes me long for the complexity of the Valentine cards we used to give out in elementary school. You know, the ones with Batman exclaiming "You're a super crime-fighting valentine!"<br /><br />Valentine is a slasher movie without the slightest hint of irony, one of the few horror movies in recent years that ignores the influence of Scream. The villain is omniscient and nigh-invulnerable. The heroes are easily scared when people run around corners and grab them by the shoulders screaming "HeyIjustleftmycoatbehind!" The score is more overbearing than Norman Bates' mother.<br /><br />The flimsy plot follows several childhood friends, now grown up and extremely curvaceous. Since the film gives them nothing else to do, they stand around and wait until a masked stalker kills them one by one. This stalker appears to be former nerd Jeremy Melton, who was constantly rejected by women and beaten by men in high school. With Valentine's Day approaching, the women begin receiving scary cards foretelling their doom. Melton seems like the obvious suspect. Only problem is, as numerous characters warns, in thirteen years Melton could have changed his appearance to look buff and handsome. So (insert terrified gasp here) everyone is a suspect!<br /><br />Here's problem one. In order to have any sense of suspense while watching Valentine, you have to accept a reality in which a high school nerd is capable of becoming David Boreanaz. Nerds don't turn into Angel when they grown up, they turn into older, balder nerds. He's not a terrible actor, but the script, by no less than four writers, gives him and the rest of the cast nothing to do but scream and make out. Denise Richards (the bustiest actress in Hollywood never to star in Baywatch) is especially exploited; most shamefully in the blatant excuse to get her in a bathing suit just before a crucial suspense scene. Note to self: always bring a bathing suit to a Valentine's Day party. Just because it's February doesn't mean you might not feel like taking a little dip.<br /><br />The slasher in Valentine dresses in head-to-toe black with a Cherub's mask. Here's problem number two. The filmmakers clearly thought this would be a disturbing image to have on the head of someone who's whacking people in the face with hot irons. Plain and simple, it's not. Instead, it just made me wonder how a guy with a mask that covers his entire face, including his eyes and ears, can move so stealthily without bumping his shins on chairs or tables. Then again, given the things the Cupid Killer does, maybe he can teleport and his eyes are on his hands. <br /><br />Not only is the movie bad, it isn't even sure who the killer is; the final "twist" is more "Huh?" than "Hah!" When you're not scratching your head you're yawning, then groaning, then searching for the nearest exit. Do not watch this movie. Even if you're alone on Valentine's Day, find something, ANYTHING, else to do. You'll be glad you did.
There is no way to describe how really, really, really bad this movie is. It's a shame that I actually sat through this movie, this very tiresome and predictable movie. What's wrong with it? Acting: There is not one performance that is even remotely close to even being sub-par (atleast they are all very pretty). Soundtrack (songs): "If we get Orgy on the soundtrack then everyone will know that they are watching a horror film!"; Soundtrack (score): Okay, but anyone with a keyboard can make an okay soundtrack these days. Don't even get me started on the "What the hell?" moments, here are a few: Killer can move at the speed of light--door opens actress turns, no one is there, turns back, there is something sitting in front of her.; Out of now where The killer shows up with a power drill, a really big one! The filmmakers get points for at least plugging it in, but can I really believe that the killer took the time to find the power outlet to plug it in. I feel like one of the guards at the beginning of Holy Grail and want to say "Where'd you get the power drill?". I could go on and on about how bad this film is but I only have 1000 words. I will give this 2 out of ten stars. One star for making me laugh and another star for all the cleavage. Seriously, do not waste your time with this one.
In an attempt to bring back the teen slasher genre that was taken away by spoofs like Scary Movie and Shriek if you know what I did last Friday the 13th, Valentine fails. Why did people like Halloween? Because it was original, new and went beyond anything that's ever been done. Why did they like Scream? Because at least it made sense. Valentine is just a stupid slasher-flick that has hardly any gore what so-ever. The plot is so similar to Halloween and Urban Legend it's not funny. And the moment the killer comes on screen, you know who it is, it's just sssssssssssooooooooooooo predictable. The teen slasher genre is DEAD Get over it!<br /><br />0 out of 10
Firstly, there are some good things about this film, but it's all cliche slasher stuff combined with a teen movie. In the advertising of this movie, that I've seen, a large emphasis was on the fact that Denise Richards is in it, but she's a poor actress, and not as good looking as people try to make her out to be (not that that has anything to do with the movie). And what's with that look she gives everyone? Perhaps it's part of the character, but like I said, the acting... Still, the writing is fine. You know who it is all throughout the movie, and you can almost predict what is about to happen, but not in an irritating way. I think the book it's based on is probably good, judging by the plot line, but next time I'll read the book to find out rather than watch this.
This stalk and slash turkey manages to bring nothing new to an increasingly stale genre. A masked killer stalks young, pert girls and slaughters them in a variety of gruesome ways, none of which are particularly inventive.<br /><br />It's not scary, it's not clever, and it's not funny. So what was the point of it?
Valentine is a horrible movie. This is what I thought of it:<br /><br />Acting: Very bad. Katherine Heigl can not act. The other's weren't much better.<br /><br />Story: The story was okay, but it could have been more developed. This movie had the potential to be a great movie, but it failed.<br /><br />Music: Yes, some of the music was pretty cool.<br /><br />Originality: Not very original. The name `Paige Prescott' Recognize Prescott?<br /><br />Bottom Line: Don't see Valentine. It's a really stupid movie.<br /><br />1/10<br /><br />
This movie was rented by a friend. Her choice is normally good. I read the cover first and was expecting a good movie. Although it<br /><br />was a horror movie. Which i don't prefer. But no horror came to mind while watching the movie. It was a dull,<br /><br />not very entertaining movie. The appearance of Denise Richards<br /><br />was again a pleasure for the eye. But that's it. We (the four of us)<br /><br />we're a little bit disappointed. But feel free to see this movie and<br /><br />judge it yourself.
The Good: I liked this movie because it was the first horror movie I've seen in a long time that actually scared me. The acting wasn't too bad, and the "Cupid" killer was believable and disturbing.<br /><br />The Bad: The story line and plot of this movie is incredibly weak. There just wasn't much to it. The ways the killer killed his victims was very horrifying and disgusting. I do not recommend this movie to anyone who can not handle gore.<br /><br />Overall: A good scare, but a bad story.<br /><br />** out of *****
Its plain to see why the makers of Scary Movie found it so easy to spoof these 'teen slasher' movies. They are so unbelievably formulaic. And if Valentine had been released a year or so earlier, I'm sure they would have been spoofing this film too - that's if they found any actual original material to distinguish it from the Screams, I know what you did last summers, and Urban Legends.<br /><br />Valentine offers nothing new to this genre, except a better than usual ending which, of course, leaves lots of room for the inevitable sequel. As always, a masked psychotic killer stalks a bunch of beautiful young women, killing the main character's friends, one by one, in typically over the top style. Lots of T&A on display, no character development, bad acting, and overly elaborate bloodshed.<br /><br />The thing I can't stand about these kind of movies is that they pass themselves off as 'who done its?'. The thing is that they aren't because the motive is only revealed once the killer has unmasked, and tells the main character who's friends have now all been murdered. Usually something that was never made at all clear during the film anyway (eg. main character's mother's uncle's fishing partner kicked his friend's father's dog). Everybody still left alive throughout the film is a 'suspect', but they are more 'Red Herrings' than suspects. As we all know at this point the main character manages an implausible escape and kills the unmasked psycho killer after the motive is revealed.<br /><br />Valentine followed this formula almost to the letter. ***************SPOILER!!!!!! (mini spoiler anyway)*************** In Valentine the motive was not revealed, but more, left for you to think about given that the film didn't quite conclude in the typical 'teen slash' way. The issue is only part resolved, and the goal of the lead killer may or may not have been fulfilled by surviving the bloodshed and killing almost everybody. Will the killer want more, or were the demons truly vanquished?<br /><br />This still didn't make Valentine a good film, instead it simply saved it from being as bad as usual, which still doesn't count for much. To anybody thinking of making another film along these lines, please don't. Originality is so important, and its hard to see any originality coming out of this genre.
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Are all teen slasher flicks suffering from a drought of originality? It awfully seems so. First of all, this is a noble premise that could've been utilized well. A rejected young nerd who grows up, stalks and murders all the girls who tortured the hell out of him when he was in junior high? Can't say you had nothing to work with. But this film goes through the same motions as all the other recent slashers. Everything from the score to the camera angles allow us to predict exactly when a false alarm is coming and exactly when the killer will strike. We know the pattern by now. These stupid slasher movies push the credibility envelope more and more by the minute. Let me ask you something: Who, in their right mind, is going to surprise a friend of theirs in a dark, dreary morgue in the middle of the night and just surprise her out of the blue while she's all alone and surrounded by corpses? Does that make any damn sense at all?<br /><br />"Valentine" is only occasionally innovative. One good shot involves the butchering of Denise Richards' character. She gets trapped inside a pool and the killer pokes at her with a chainsaw. There's some good songs in the soundtrack, including one cool track by Orgy. The music video is contained in the special features section on the DVD.<br /><br />Even the acting is mediocre at best. The actors all sleep through their roles. Of course, David Boreanaz is often stoic, even in his portrayal as the title character on "Angel." Denise Richards is a fine actress, though, and she keeps a stoneface throughout the movie.<br /><br />"Valentine" is just like you'd expect: pretentious, implausible, forgettable, cheesy and without a good scare in sight. Don't even bother.<br /><br />My score: 4 (out of 10)
here was no effort put into Valentine to prevent it from being just another teenage slasher film, a sub-genre of horror films of which we have seen entirely too many over the last decade or so. I've heard a lot of people complaining that the film rips off several previous horror movies, including everything from Halloween to Prom Night to Carrie, and as much as I hate to be redundant, the rip off is so blatant that it is impossible not to say anything. The punch bowl over poor Jeremy's head early in the film is so obviously taken from Carrie that they may as well have just said it right in the movie (`Hey everyone, this is the director, and the following is my Carrie-rip-off scene. Enjoy!'). But that's just a suggestion.<br /><br />(spoilers) The film is structured piece by piece exactly the same way that every other goofy teen thriller is structured. We get to know some girl briefly at the beginning, she gets killed, people wonder in the old oh-but-that-stuff-only-happens-to-other-people tone, and then THEY start to get killed. The problem here is that the director and the writers clearly and honestly want to keep the film mysterious and suspenseful, but they have no idea how to do it. Take Jason, for example. Here is this hopelessly arrogant guy who is so full of himself and bad with women that he divides the check on a date according to what each person had, and as one of the first characters seen in the film after the brief history lesson about how bad poor Jeremy was treated, he is assumed to carry some significance. Besides that, and more importantly, he has the same initials as the little boy that all the girls terrorized in sixth grade, and the same initials that are signed at the bottom of all of those vicious Valentine's Day cards. <br /><br />It is not uncommon for the audience to be deliberately and sometimes successfully misled by the behavior of one or more characters that appear to be prime suspects, and Jason is a perfect example of the effort, but not such a good example of a successful effort. Sure, I thought for a while that he might very well be the killer, but that's not the point. We know from early on that he is terrible with women, which links him to the little boy at the beginning of the film, but then in the middle of the film, he appears at a party, smiles flirtatiously at two of the main girls, and then gives them a hateful look and walks away, disappearing from the party and from the movie with no explanation. We already know he is a cardboard character, but his role in the film was so poorly thought out that they just took him out altogether when they were done with him.<br /><br />On the positive side, the killer's true identity was, in fact, made difficult to predict in at least one subtle way which was also, unfortunately, yet another rip-off. Early in the film, when Shelley stabs the killer in the leg with his own scalpel, he makes no sound, suggesting that the killer might be a female staying silent to prevent revealing herself as a female, rather than a male as everyone suspects. But then for the rest of the film, we just have this stolid, relentless, unstoppable killer with the emotionless mask and that gigantic butcher knife. Director Jamie Blanks (who, with all due respect, looks like he had some trouble with the girls himself in the sixth grade) mentions being influenced by Halloween. This is, of course, completely unnecessary, because it's so obvious from how badly he plagiarizes the film. The only difference between the killer in Valentine and Michael Meyer's is that Michael's mask was so much more effective and he didn't have a problem with nosebleeds. This stuff is shameless. <br /><br />At the end, there is a brief attempt to mislead us one more time as to who the killer is (complete with slow and drawn out `and-the-killer-is' mask removal), but then we see Adam's nose start to bleed as he holds Kate, his often reluctant girlfriend, and we know that he's been the killer all along. Nothing in the film hinted that he might be the killer until the final act, and these unexplained nosebleeds were not exactly the cleverest way to identify the true killer at the end of the film. Valentine is not scary (I watched it in an empty house by myself after midnight, and I have been afraid of the dark for as long as I can remember, and even I wasn't scared), and the characters might be possible to care about if it weren't so obvious that they were just going to die. I remember being impressed by the theatrical previews (although the film was in and out of the theater's faster than Battlefield Earth), but the end result is the same old thing.
This movie in away was super-clever. It's theme rhymes with every single horror movie ever made. Valentine makes ZERO attempt to be original. What is valentine anyway? It's a bunch of people giving each other the same lame messages that were given to the same people a year earlier. There is nothing original in Valentine. <br /><br />I only saw it once, and in that one viewing here are some of the films it ripped off. 1.Prom Night 2.Carrie 3.Scream 4.Any other horror movie in which somebody is killing somebody.<br /><br />I know there is more, but my mind was slowly turning into a puddle of silk so it couldn't grab them as fast as they came.<br /><br />Valentine had no chance of being a good movie. How come every horror movie has to have a "suprise" killer, people you don't care about because their emotions take a turn every other scene. One minute a nice girl turns into an evil B--ch, then she's an insecure woman, and so on and son on.<br /><br />Normally any horror movie (in my book) can be saved by gore, once again Valentine doesn't have this. It was as if they tried to make it PG-13 but failed, so they left the edit. <br /><br />Do not see this overly-inspired, rip-off unless you hate yourself, and you want to die.<br /><br />*1/2 (3) -J.Leonard Rollins-
Well the reason for seeing it in the cinema was that it was a sneak preview, else I would never have seen this terrible teenage slasher movie. I mean haven't we had enough of this yet? Scream and Scary Movie at least did not take them self serious! The plot sucks, and the acting is the worst I've seen. (Only Godzilla can compare, which is also the only movie that competes in being the worst I've seen in the cinema with this one.)<br /><br />There is so many plot holes in the story, and the girls are so alike, that you don't even now who has been killed, and who has not. (and you don't care.) The only of them I knew in advance was Denise, and she was the most talent less actress I have ever seen in this bad excuse for a movie.<br /><br />Stay as far away from this movie as possible. (2/10)
"In 1955, Tobias Schneerbaum disappeared in the Peruvian Amazon. One year later he walked out of the jungle...naked. It took him 45 years to go back." Supposedly, "Keep the River On your Right" is "a modern cannibal tale". In reality, anyone looking for some insight into cannibalism will be sadly disappointed. The first half of the movie is more like a travel log of New Ginuea, mostly touting the native art. The second half relies on still photos of a Peruvian cannibal tribe, but really that's about it. Unless of course, you are interested in home movies of a Jewish wedding, or Schneerbaum introducing his former male lovers. I give up. Big disappointment and not really "a modern cannibal tale." - MERK
So, where are the cannibals? Those intrigued by the title and the 'real cannibal' appeal of this film will be let down. Instead, we are shown a strange man and his re-visiting of a Papua New Guinea village full of natives, one of whom was his lover several decades prior. The man, Tobias Schneebaum is New York Jewish as they come and somehow, this is intertwined with the documentary as he appears in his yamika in several scenes.<br /><br />There are no real cannibals here: only stories relayed by some of the natives and by Tobias himself. Not all together a bad film. Very interesting and great cinematography. Schneebaum remains highly likable throughout and provides us with a fascinating glimpse into a life that is about as far removed from Western Civilization as one can get.<br /><br />It's just not what it claims to be on the cover and in the plot summary.<br /><br />4 out of 10, kids.
Well, where to begin? I guess I can start with the general complaint regarding the way in which this film is marketed. Call me ignorant for not knowing of Schneebaum's book before viewing the documentary that has been based off of it and decide that I have been living under some kind of a rock, but don't blame me for picking this movie up since the title and the description on the box makes no note of the fact that this "documentary" is actually a companion to said book. Yeah, I felt quite stupid after viewing this little flick seeing as how the reason as to why I sat down to watch it in the first place was to get a good serving of a "Modern Cannibal Tale." I mean, am I a fool for expecting this film to actually cover most of its story on the behavior of cannibalism in jungle tribes? I certainly didn't expect an hour and forty-five minutes of one old geezer kissing his own ass by whining about every little detail of his dull and worn out life. I certainly didn't expect the insipid directing and I most notably did not foresee myself laughing so hard at Tobias Schneebaum and all of his off-putting glory.<br /><br />Schneebaum is indeed unlikable. The old man just rambles and bitches the entire film making the whole picture a personal tale of his even though he isn't even that interesting a character to fill a story. Oh really? He was a cannibal? Ninety percent of the movie is focused on next to nothing regarding Schneebaum's dirty past. The only time that we really get to see some cannibal action is when Tobias finally breaks his little silent treatment about what happened to him in Peru and say that he had "a small piece." That's it, folks. Ninety minutes of bull later and Tobias Schneebaum is a cannibal by three inches. It's like calling a movie "The Life Of A True Don Juan" only to see that the only the time the protagonist of said film did something sexual happened during college when he once played "just the tip." Unbelievable.<br /><br />The directing is, indeed, superbly ghastly as there is no flow or rhythm to the story that is being told. Alright, I understand that I didn't read Schneebaum's volume before watching his celluloid tale of it, but I can still recognize some bad pacing and even worse editing. One minute Schneebaum is talking about cruise ships and tourism and the next he's going on and on about how he can't drive and then jumps to talking about some dead relative or some failed and miserable saga in his life. I mean, Jesus, can you at least slam his back story to the first part; follow up with some stuff covering his homosexuality and then end it off with a hearty look into his visit to Peru? Also: I don't particularly care much for Schneebaum's insipid little quips on life and living, but I at least implore the old man to keep consistent with his ramblings. If I hear a guy talking about how he prefers life in the jungle I don't expect him to suddenly bitch and moan about wanting to go back home twenty minutes later. Absurd.<br /><br />Another note on the directing is the random clips from the story at hand to the small little television appearances in which our hero has appeared. While some might find the clips to be fancy little breaks from the story, the director has overused the gimmick and broken his entire film into pieces by seemingly attempting to place most of the efforts of telling the story on the old reels.<br /><br />The bottom line, here, is that Tobias Schneebaum is a fraud. Pure and simple. I know that I haven't read the book, but I'm still holding on to the argument that this film is totally useless by noting that a good film must stand on its own. This documentary relies way too much on the assumption that the viewer is already an avid fan of Schneebaum's work and instead goes on from that assumption like a supplemental disk found on a DVD. Schneebaum is both arrogant and bitchy, striking a sour combination when mixed with the fact that his story is remarkably un-riveting. If you're looking for a solid piece on the nature of humans and cannibalism, turn away because "Keep The River To Your Right" is an embarrassingly hilarious self-serving rant over a man who is long overdue for a straight-jacket and a gag.
I Am Curious is really two films in one - half of it is the sexual experimental side of Lena and the other half is her curiosity with political/socialism. Whatever the director's intention, the two don't really mesh together. The director should have just stuck with the romantic side of Lena and made a separate movie for the politics. There is a bizarre mixture of political/war rallies, Dr. King, serious political interviews, flopping breasts, and pubic hair. The film feels more like a fictional documentary than a movie. Other than the interesting sex scenes, you'll be bored dry watching this film. Unlike many other reviewers, I think the nude/sexual scenes are overdone for what it is. If you want to see real porn, I'm sure there are better choices. The pervasive nudity is a major distraction from whatever plot there is. I think the cast did a fine job however. They played their parts believably. There is little of the over-the-topness I'm so used to seeing in the American films during this time.
This film, once sensational for its forward-thinking politics and depictions of free love and sexual liberation, has been reduced by time to a mere curiosity. It seems absurd now that this mostly boring little film had been banned and seized by governments in many countries. Given how socialistic Sweden eventually became, the 'radicalism' of its politics, once controversial, appear naive and almost mainstream four decades later. And its sex scenes, at one time the subject of sensational obscenity trials, look pretty tame in a modern context. Nevertheless, the film and accompanying documentaries detailing its many controversies and influences remains marginally watchable as an early reliquary of 60's youth rebellion. One part of the film that still holds up: its self-consciousness with respect to the 'fourth wall'. Every once in a while, the filmmakers film themselves making the film. The satiric playfulness of this still elicits a chuckle.
The plot line of No One Sleeps is not a bad idea, and the subject matter is of quite a bit of interest. But, throughout watching this film, we were saying aloud, "These filmmakers go to the trouble of finding good locations, the lighting is good, makeup and hair are good...why is the sound so bad?" Throughout the film the sound was echoy, garbled and much of the dialog was unintelligible.<br /><br />There is some good acting in this film, and I think Jim Thalman is really a good actor. This story, with some of the same actors, would have been worth doing as a high-budget film.<br /><br />I just can't reiterate enough - if you have a limited budget, dedicate more to good sound. Sound is as much a part of a film as the image, and it's worth doing right. Could've earned a 6.
Hail Bollywood and men Directors !<br /><br />Really this is the ultimate limit in utter sacrifice made by Indian Woman !!<br /><br />Viewing the current state of affairs in India where The wives are becoming more vicious day by day and are very possessive about their husbands - the Directors ..also can be called Uncle Scars (refer movie The Lion King) came up with a very new concept on how both the kept and the wife can live together happily ever after sharing everything between themselves ...including the spermikins !!<br /><br />Story line : Married couple - very happy - but accidentally a mishap happens and wife has a miscarriage - lost the foetus along with the capacity of ever becoming a mother !<br /><br />Now in in India, the in- laws usually drive away the daughter- in- law if she fails to give them an heir ! So the wife hits upon a major plan - surrogate mother...but the scientists intervened - "Sure artificial insemination" - NO said the artist (Director actually) - "Neighbourhood will come to know that the daughter - in - law is barren so they are going for surrogate mother !!<br /><br />Neighbours ! society !! gosh the same ones who watch Fashion TV day and night - watching girls between the age group of 14 to 40 ...al in bras and panties - well those neighbors suddenly take an upper hand in family planning and decision making !!<br /><br />SO the wife sends away her husband to a beer bar where girls are dancing on the stage - all mostly uneducated and illiterate - but men love such women as they can satisfy their egos a lot !<br /><br />He hires the lead dancer in the pub - asks her to bear his baby - in exchange for money - she agrees - she comes home - becomes pregnant - wife and kept - both co-exist in the same house - in the mean time the prostitute also gets a taste of household life - so much caring people around - she misses them all and cries silently !! In the mean time - no one in the family comes to know that the real daughter in law is roaming around with a pillow beneath her petticoat !!- the mother or other elderly people never took her for check-ups - nor did they try to feel the baby's movements in the womb !!
This movie is traditional bollywood fare as far as the star power, sentimentality and love triangle of emotions. What really bothered me about this movie was the makers' absurd notion of surrogate mother. A whore who conceives a child with someone after have sex with the man (of the family desiring a child) is not a surrogate mother. Neither is she a good candidate for a surrogate mother. I have seen Indian movies and television shows that made 10 to 15 years ago that dealt with this issue more intelligently. The whole concept of the movie is ridiculous and absolutely implausible. I realize that most bollywood movies aren't meant to be plausible, but they don't pretend to be either. This movie wants us to emote along with the characters, but this can't done with such a ridiculous, contrived conflict. I would have expected better from Abbas and Mustan.
I wonder if there is any sense of sense in this movie. Its a big joke. Good.. Its entertaining .. You get to see the most stupid plot played very seriously in the form of a film .. I wonder which audience group this movie is basically targeted to.<br /><br />Priety (a pros) plays a surrogate mom for a happy couple Salman/Rani who want a child but can't. I wonder how it would be if this drama was a real-life take-off from a real couple's life.<br /><br />Rani appears happy with another pretty lady in her house who has been brought in to make a child for her & Salman. She cares for Priety and tries pushing her husband Salman to Preity so they may have some romance. When will the audience get fed up of Salman's nakhras.<br /><br />Though a good past-time, this movie is unbearable. Absurd.
The TV guide calls this movie a mystery. What is a mystery to me is how is it possible that a culture that can produce such intricate and complex classical music and brilliant mathematicians cannot produce a single film that would rise above the despicable trash level this film so perfectly represents. This is Bollywood at its best/worst, I honestly cannot tell the difference. Nauseatingly sweet, kitschy clichés on every level, story-line, situations, dialog, music and choreography. To put it bluntly, you must be a retard to enjoy it. I watched it to satisfy my cultural curiosity, but there were times when I had to walk away from it, because I could not take it any more. The only redeeming quality of the movie is the exquisite beauty of the leading actresses. <br /><br />
... but the keyword here is "usually." I have been known to adore movies EVERYONE thinks are dumb. But in the world of B-rated movies, THIS one is Z-rated. Absolutely ridiculous. The thing I respect about most of my favorite B-rated movies are that they don't take themselves too seriously. The makers of movies like that sort-of treat the movie lightly, even if it's a heavy topic. I get the impression, however, that the producers of this movie took themselves way to seriously, like they were putting together a 10-star classic, complete with poor attempts at poignant lines and dumb camera shots. Nevertheless, despite all this, I STILL gave it 4 out of 10 stars, as I am biased towards movies like this. If you're a B-rated fan, however, I would try too hard to find this one.
Don't even ask me why I watched this! The only excuse I can come up with that I was sick with Bronchitis and too weak to change the channel. :) It's too terrible for words, the movie that is, not the Bronchitis. The acting is deplorable, Richard Grieco hams it up as a trigger-happy, gun-slinging serial killer with a penchant for knocking off cops. Nick Mancuso phones in a performance as the cop on his trail and Nancy Allen manages to put in the only sympathetic role in the entire film. The script is dismal, peppered with clichéd lines, "Are you ready, Pardner?" purrs Richard Grieco to every single one of his victims. Dire. Avoid.
The French film "Extension Du Domaine De La Lutte" directed by iconoclast film maker Philippe Harel is based on the book of the same name written by a controversial writer Michel Houellebecq.He has also worked on this film's scenario.According to British cinema magazine Sight and Sound,it is also known as "Whatever".This film has been hailed as a breath of fresh air for French cinema due to its not so common theme of sexual politics and its implications on two stupid information technology workers.The film is marred by its much too evident voice over which introduces us to the main character.This makes us viewers feel as if we are watching a book that is bring read. The basic premise of problems related to loneliness due to chronic sexual drought is fine but the film goes out of hand once the hero starts recounting the misery faced by him and his friend.Instead of sticking to its main topic the film veers in other directions leading to its downfall.Beware:some women viewers might find not only the film but even its two heroes as moronic misogynists.
Two years ago, on Berlin Film Festival we watched the Amos Kollek movie "Sue" in the Panorama program, with a wonderful Anna Thomson in the leading part. It's a film about loneliness and sex, and how the one thing is compensated by the other. In the same section on the Festival now we have to complain the superfluous antithesis of Sue, "Extension du domaine de la lutte", which now tries to convince us that loneliness and having NO sex is one and the same problem. But unfortunately we can't sympathize with "our hero" (how he is called by the story-teller), because he is unnecessarily and incomprehensibly tired of company and himself. Own fault, I'm sorry. I can't understand him. Not enough, the writer/director/actor want us admitting to him, that it's not his destroyed self-consciousness or the passivity of his personality, what brought him so far, but the rotten society and its image of sexuality. Yes, there are some deeper insights about gender relations, but we won't follow him so far... And the point is, that there is rather any sign of reflection about his own portion to the fate, having no sex. Who didn't notice yet, it's a quite depressing film...<br /><br />In the beginning, there had been some starts to be more accurate in sketching the situation. At the bed store the "hero" speaks about the hindrances buying a new bed. Perhaps it's too broad getting up the stairs, you have to stay at home half a day... THIS is a satire about a character, who doesn't know taking the life and heart in hands, DOING something... The movie doesn`t follow this path, but handles his characters with helplessness. Nobody believes, that "our hero" is able to instigate Tisserand for a murder. Too dull, too kind, too - passive (not to mention Tisserand's complex; he has an inhibition, but he couldn't be, of course, a murderer of women!). To finish: There are women and the world, it's not a device of a modern sexualized society. Help you as you can, but don't follow the messages and the "wisdom" of this movie, which announces bankruptcy to human relationships, without seizing the real conflicts within.
Blank check is one of those kids movies that could have been a great suspense thriller for the kids but instead it's a tired lame home alone ripoff that isn't worth a dime. Quigley is a criminal who just escaped from jail and gets his hidden million dollars from a big score and then we meet Preston a frustrated kid whose room is taken over by his brothers to start a business and obviously dad treats his brothers better because they make money the same day he goes to a kid's birthday party and since his dad is a cheapo he goes on little kids rides while the other kids go on roller coasters then he receives a birthday card and a check of 11 bucks how cheap is this family? So he goes to the bank to open an account and meets the gorgeous Shea Stanley were her parents mets fans? he finds out he needs 200 to open a account meanwhile quigley gives his million to his banker friend and finds out the bills are marked so he will send a lackey named juice to get the unmarked ones when Preston leaves his bike gets run over by quigley he's about to write a check when he spots the cops and bolts back home his parents scolded him about his busted up bike and gets grounded what? their kid got almost run over and they worried about a bike? So Preston forges a million dollar check via his computer and comes back only to be escorted to the banker thinking that he's juice he gives Preston the money but the real juice came and realized they been duped by a kid! So Preston buys a mansion under the name Macintosh gets a limo driver who says unfunny jokes and goes on a epic shopping spree then he spots Shea and talks about opening his account kid you're loaded and you're talking about opening an account? We soon realized Shea is actually an FBI agent tracking down quigley and his two other accomplice's then he told his cheapy dad he's got a job working for Mr Macintosh and spends the day riding go karts playng vr games and hanging out with his limo driver buddy then he goes out on a date with Shea in a fancy restaurant what a 10 year old wining and dining a 20 something FBI agent? Afterwards he takes her to a street geyser and playing around in the water messing up Shea's 300 dollar dress yet she takes it well if this was a bit realistic she would slap him for messing up her expensive dress so quigley and the others still mad interrogates a little kid and quickly spills the beans and Preston is being chased by quigley in a scene taken from the original script and afterwords he is hosting Mr Macintoshs birthday which is really his birthday when he discovers he couldn't pay for the party he sits in his chair and dad talks to MacIntosh which he doesn't know it's his son he's talking to and talks about Preston should be a real kid and has his whole childhood ahead of him and wants Preston to go home early what? an hour ago you were grilling him about his finances! so Preston asks everyone to leave and sits alone pondering when quigley and the others break in to the house to make Preston pay and so he faces then in a finale that rips off home alone quigley gets spun around in a ball while Preston is driving a go kart juice gets hit in the groin and more antics ensue until the trio get Preston cornered and when it seem all hope is lost Shea and a bunch of SWAT guys come to save the day and so quigley and his crew get sent to jail but is there any hope for Preston and Shea? there is and she kisses him in the lips what? what? what? A grown woman kissed a kid in the lips. come on is she mentally disabled? I mean an FBI agent who knows the country's laws would risk her career to kiss a kid? she could get arrested on the spot! and the most creepiest part of all is that isn't goodbye and she'll see him in 6 or 7 years! oh dear and so he comes home to his family celebrating his birthday so the moral of the story is love and respect can be bought? What are they smoking? The bottom line is that is a waste of time the morals are whacked it's flat as a tortilla the kid is annoying the villains are lame the comic relief isn't funny the brothers are unlikable the dad is even worse the romantic subplot is creepy the plot's shallow and the only saving grace is the cinematography from bill pope which went on to shoot the matrix trilogy and two of the spider-man films so people don't waste your money and go watch home alone instead. <br /><br />This has been a Samuel Franco review.
Blank Check is a movie that I saw on TV one day and like most movies they air on TV Blank Check wasn't that good. First of all no one I have ever met has seen Blank Check and that includes people that grew up in the 90s. Also Blank Check won't be remembered in the 00s either simply due to the fact that it will be overshadowed by pixar's films. I wouldn't call Blank Check a bad film but its not really entertaining either. (Or at least it isn't to anyone over the age of 6) Blank Check isn't a entertaining film because nothing about it is original. Everything just makes you go "what haven't I seen this before?" Blank Check rips off and tries to cash in on everything from Richie Rich to Home Alone (Which strangely enough both have Macaulay Culkin in it) Blank Check isn't a bad movie, but it deserves to fade into obscurity.
I saw this movie once a long time ago, and I have no desire to ever see it again.<br /><br />This movie is about Preston Waters, a hard-lucked preteen, who always seems to be overlooked by his family and who always seems to be short on cash. All this changes when a bank robber runs over Preston's bike and passes him a blank check as compensation. Preston uses the check to withdraw $1 million from the bank (ironically, the money belongs to the bank robber who gave him the check). Preston then buys a mansion and says that he's working as the assistant of a mysterious and wealthy backer named Mr. Macintosh (named after his computer). After that, he just goes crazy with the money.<br /><br />On paper, this sounds like a great idea. However, on screen, it is one of the emptiest movies I've ever seen. For one thing, it's too unbelievable. I know some parts of the movie were meant to be incredible, but I draw the line at a twelve-year-old boy going out with a thirty-year-old woman, and being put in charge of a imaginary person's small fortune. Also, this was a shallow movie with weak acting, a predictable plot line and characters who are less than memorable. The characters were either cheesy, over the top, annoying, or underdeveloped. But "Juice" was a funny character.<br /><br />If you're looking for a good movie to watch with your family, skip this one.
The worst movie I have seen in a while. Yeah its fun to fantasize, but if that is what you are looking for, I suggest you see Brewsters Millions. This was just terrible and corny and terrible at being corny. Unless you are five or like terrible movies, don't see this one.
Blank Check is easily one of the worst films of the nineties. The plot is completely pointless; its overtones of lonliness are pathetic. Do you really believe a twelve year old acting as a personal assistant for a millionaire could accomplish everything in this film, like buying a mansion for a mere $300 grand. The notion, let alone the bargain-basement price, will only be believed by the most gullible viewers. Please, respect your intelligence and don't watch this awful, awful film.
I almost called HBO and demanded my money back for the month just because they've been airing this movie. I can just see the movie execs sitting around going, "Okay, we need to come up with something that's just like Home Alone, only we'll add a bunch of cash for the kid, hire cut-rate actors, and oh yeah, we'll make it a lot less funny!"<br /><br />Okay, maybe not the last part, but that's basically what you've got here. Not even worth seeing if someone else rents it. And as a movie for kids? Forget it. I wouldn't let my kids see this, not necessarily because of bad-taste jokes, but because I wouldn't want them to say, "What were you thinking showing us that lame piece of garbage, Dad?!?!"
This movie is really goofy! I saw it as an 11 year old, and even then I thought it was pretty ridiculous! I would only recommend this film to kids under the age of 12. I really didn't care for it, but I do think that it answers some very good questions that kids need to be aware of, such as: 1)Does money buy happiness? 2)Should I lie (to my parents) about things I think they wouldn't approve of? 3)Does money buy friendships? 4)Is money everything? 5)Shouldn't I tell my parents when someone is trying to hurt me? Granted, these are very unrealistic situations, but I do think that if parents discussed these issues with their children, maybe they should watch this video as well, in order to show/scare their kids that lies have the potential to get you hurt.
A young boy comes into a lot of money and promptly begins to live it up. Unfortunately, the man whose money it really is happens to be very bad. He wants his loot back. When he discovers who has the bucks, he begins trying to get it back. He keeps getting foiled by this little kid who is just lucky enough to keep from falling into the evil man's hands. Sounds familiar, I'll bet. Very predictable, not interesting at all. Come up with something a bit different, ok guys?
Bad Actors, bad filming, choppy dialog, shallow characters, but then again it was a bad premise in the first place. Basically, an 11 year old who is bullied because he has very little money is given a blank check by a moronic criminal. Of course, the 11 year old happens to possess enough technology and intelligence to purchase a house, cash a check for 1,000,000 dollars, and even foil three bumbling idiots, reminiscent of the three stooges. <br /><br />Preston Blake is an annoying, obnoxious, boy, who decides that, when written a blank check by a complete stranger, he will take advantage of the situation as best as he can. In other words, he wanders into a bank, <br /><br />hands a teller a check he makes in his printer, and miraculously walks out with a million bucks in cash. Preston is also apparently capable of reaching incredible speeds on his bicycle, due to the fact that a man driving a Jaguar after Preston and his 10-speed could not catch him, even when Preston jumped a row of cars.<br /><br />Of course, with every hokey adventure movie, there has to be hot heroine. In this case our hot heroine is a child molesting FBI agent who dates the eleven year old Preston, and promises another date when he turns 17. <br /><br />However, the absolute worst aspect of this film was not its casting, nor its sloppy dialog, such as "The only other way I could think of skinning a cat is to stick a hose up it's butt and then pick up the fur". It was, rather, the entire fact that nobody in the entire film seemed to realize that the FBI does not give a damn about random people . What I have failed to explain is that Preston uses the alias "Macintosh" to masquerade as an entrepreneur of sorts. Of course, the FBI finds this intriguing and sends our young heroine after Preston, who uses his 11-year old wit to first scream when lobsters fall on his face, then treat her to hamburgers, finishing with a ridiculous romp through a cemented area where water jettison's from the ground. Our heroine fails to realize during this whole adventure that the criminal the FBI is pursuing is slipping and sliding right behind the two, as they make their way to Preston's limousine, complete with a 1-dimensional driver who never fails to provide cheap, 3rd rate laughs that the whole family can choke on.<br /><br />Overall: 1/10 is incredibly gracious for this film. I don't see how it only has a 4.4/10.
Bad plot, bad dialogue, bad acting, idiotic directing, the annoying porn groove soundtrack that ran continually over the overacted script, and a crappy copy of the VHS cannot be redeemed by consuming liquor. Trust me, because I stuck this turkey out to the end. It was so pathetically bad all over that I had to figure it was a fourth-rate spoof of Springtime for Hitler.<br /><br />The girl who played Janis Joplin was the only faint spark of interest, and that was only because she could sing better than the original.<br /><br />If you want to watch something similar but a thousand times better, then watch Beyond The Valley of The Dolls.
Larry Buchanan. Yep, same guy who did "Attack of the THE Eye Creatures" and two (count 'em: TWO) conspiracy movies about Marilyn Monroe. He's to blame, here.<br /><br />Adding onto his ever-growing pile of folders left over from Oliver Stone's "eh-I-grew-out-of-it" conspiracy drawer, here's "Down On Us (i.e.- "Beyond the Doors") which is the working definition of historical inaccuracy.<br /><br />Forget everything you THOUGHT you knew about Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin and Jim Morrison, says Big Lar', cuz this is the real deal! Y'see, the three big names in rock of the '60s were KILLED BY THE GOVERNMENT because they were subversives or counter-productive to Truth, Justice and the American Way, or sumpthin' like that there. I knew it all along.<br /><br />Anyway, three people (Chatman, Meryl, Wolf) who look eerily like their real life shadows (that is, if you completely close your eyes, turn your backs and walk five miles away from them) show that instead of their recorded deaths, the good old US of A put hits out on them! Yep, it's the truth!<br /><br />Man, I cannot believed I watched this movie. It's facts, when not stretching credibility to the snapping point, are ludicrous; the acting makes TV commercials look like high drama and if you honestly watch it through to the end, you deserve the "twist" ending. You really, really do; I swear. Genius.<br /><br />But like the man said: "Rock and roll is dead - long live rock and roll."<br /><br />Not this flick, though.<br /><br />No stars for "Down on Us". And that's the movie audience describing the film, by the way....
what ends up killing this movie is its self-consciousness, among other things. here's a short list: 1. irreverent behavior. when the beatles came over and injected their brand of "quirky, irreverent" behavior/humor, it was greeted as fresh. that was over 4 decades ago. get over it.<br /><br />2. false sophistication. spewing out base, quasi-socio-political-isms is hard ground to make work comically. ask woody allen.<br /><br />3. the post-modern "i'm hard on this phony world and yes, i recognize it in myself" snake eating itself - used as illustration with another animal in the film itself! - is such a retread.<br /><br />4. smarmy, smug drollness.<br /><br />5. amateurish writing, acting, direction... ever seen student films? a victim of itself, about the only thing i can say positive is that it at least has a sense of itself, and sheesh, now i'm getting caught up in the self-reflexive thing that it posits as worthwhile, of value.<br /><br />but towards... what? ultimately, it just rings as hollow as any other pretentious piece - hey, ever see woody allen's take on bergman, ie: "Interiors"??? well, this just does it more amateurishly.
Not to be confused with the Madonna film "The Next Best Thing", "The Last Big Thing" is a silly, campy, off-the-wall comedy about a man who yearns to start a magazine called "The Next Big Thing" which reviews a variety of up and coming artists. This low budget indie makes "Chuck and Buck" look like a masterpiece. Fraught with lousy acting, poor sets and costuming, etc., "...Thing" has earned some awful reviews and to date has only been nominated for one fringe award. Pass on this one.
After reading the book, I loved the story. Watching the movie I was disappointed that so many changes were made. It is understandable that books and movies differ but it was two different stories, only the names and some of the book's story remained. Read the book and you'll have a better understanding of the movie. The book gives you a better development of the characters. These characters are extremely interesting and make you care about them. The locations were indeed in line with the book's descriptions. Some characters not included. Television has microwaved so many great books and stories, this is a perfect example of that. Input from the author doesn't always insure a good movie but it can help sometimes.
I read the book and really enjoyed it from beginning to end. However, when I saw the movie I was very disappointed. First of all, no disrespect to Deborah Raffin but she was too mature to play a woman of 24/25. The late Christopher Reeve was also miscast-same reason. Will, according to the book,was around 30. I would have love to see a little more exploration of his military life, his friend Red, Elly's trip to see him as that was an important part of the characters' storyline development. Also Miss Beasley was miscast as the book mentioned her being a Plus Size lady. I know the movie didn't have the budget of the "Bridges Of Madison County" which I believe was released around the same time. <br /><br />But to me this was a very poorly made, low budget, miscast movie. As someone mentioned, I wish that Miss Spenser would come out of retirement and write screenplays for her books as they ought to be. She knows her characters better than anyone, I hope that she would consider doing the casting too. The movie let me down!
I've seen my fair share of badly thought-out endings and final twists to films, but I don't recall any film that committed outright suicide like this one did.<br /><br />The film makers were clearly hoping that the great twist would 'surprise' us all.... and it did, but perhaps not in the way the directors had hoped. I was left feeling surprised that Connery, Harris, Fishburn and Capshaw had anything to do with this turkey, individually or collectively.<br /><br />The film up until the final thirty minutes was rather engaging and I like the way the story was unfolding and the nature of the film overall. But once the twist was revealed, the plot holes and inconsistencies were remarkable, the underlying motive for revenge was ill-conceived and the ways things so neatly worked out for Bobby Earl was ridiculously far-fetched. What's worse is that, once the twist was revealed, the remainder of the film became excruciatingly predictable.<br /><br />Harris gave a terrific performance and Connery is like Morgan Freeman in that he never gives a bad performance, even if the movie ain't that great! So all in all, it starts well and the unfolding keeps the viewer interested. The last 30 minutes is one of the most memorable nose dives in the history of cinema.
Paul Armstrong is a liberal, Scottish-born, professor of law at Harvard, known for his passionate opposition to the death penalty, who is hired to take on the case of Bobby Earl, a young black man from Florida who has been convicted of the rape and murder of Joanie Shriver, an eleven year old white girl. Earl claims that his confession to the crime was obtained under duress by a sadistic police officer and that the real murderer is Blair Sullivan, a serial killer already under sentence of death for several other murders. Armstrong visits Sullivan in his cell on death row, hoping to persuade him to confess to Joanie's murder, thereby saving Earl from the electric chair. <br /><br />At first all goes well. Sullivan confesses and Earl is released from prison when the appeal court quashes his conviction. As this development takes place only a little after halfway through the film, it is at this point that alarm bells will start ringing in the mind of the viewer. "Warning! Major plot twist ahead!" And so it proves. The anticipated twist soon materialises. Earl, it transpires, is actually guilty of the crime of which he has just been acquitted, and probably of several others as well, but hatched a diabolical plan together with Sullivan in order to secure his freedom; Sullivan will confess to Joanie's murder if Earl will murder his parents. (Just why Sullivan wanted his parents dead is never precisely explained). Armstrong now finds that he is himself in danger from the man whose life he has just saved; Earl has a grudge against Armstrong's wife, herself a lawyer, who acted as Counsel for the prosecution in an earlier case when Earl was accused of rape. <br /><br />"Just Cause" is an example of the auto-cannibalism in which Hollywood sometimes likes to indulge, cobbling together one film by recycling themes and plot devices from a number of others. The first half owes an obvious debt to films like "Intruder in the Dust" and "To Kill a Mockingbird"; about the only difference is that the Sheriff who beats a confession out of Bobby Earl is himself black, whereas in earlier films he would have been white. (Police brutality is now an equal opportunities activity). The central twist in the plot was borrowed from Costa-Gavras's "Music Box", although in that film the revelation does not occur until the very end. The finale, in which a lawyer, his wife and their young daughter are in danger from a former client, is an obvious plagiarism of the two versions of "Cape Fear", which also take place in the swamplands of the American South. Ed Harris' characterisation of Sullivan as a Bible-quoting religious maniac is a direct imitation of Robert de Niro's character in the Scorsese version of "Cape Fear", made four years before "Just Cause". <br /><br />(There is a postscript. Just as "Just Cause" borrowed heavily from several other movies, seven years later its central plot twist was, in its turn, to be blatantly plagiarised in the Ashley Judd vehicle "High Crimes"). <br /><br />The trouble with this style of film-making-by-numbers is that the resulting films are generally much less distinguished than those which inspired them. The whole is normally very much less than the sum of the parts, and "Just Cause" is a much lesser film than any of those which were cannibalised to make it. Harris is normally a gifted actor but this is one of his weakest performances, largely because he is not so much playing a character as playing de Niro playing Max Cady. Blair Underwood is OK as Bobby Earl the (supposedly) innocent young man of the early scenes, but unconvincing as Bobby Earl the murderous psychopath of the later ones. Sean Connery as Armstrong and Laurence Fishburne as the black Sheriff are rather better, but neither is good enough to save the film. (Connery and Harris were to act together in another, better, film, "The Rock", the following year). <br /><br />There is another problem with "Just Cause". The first half of the film looks like a standard liberal "issue" movie, anti-death penalty, anti-racist and critical of heavy-handed policing. The second half looks more like the work of a die-hard reactionary, preaching the message that all criminals are evil bastards, that the only way to deal with them is to fry them in the chair, that liberal lawyers are the useful idiots of the criminal fraternity and that police officers who beat up suspects are to be commended as heroes. The filmmakers seem to have been blissfully unaware that the plot twist casually introduced into the middle of their film had the (presumably unwanted) effect of reversing its political stance, or if they were aware of the problem they ignored it. A suitably convoluted plot was obviously thought to be more important than political consistency. 4/10
JUST CAUSE showcases Sean Connery as a Harvard law prof, Kate Capshaw (does she still get work?) as his wife (slight age difference) and Lawrence Fishburne as a racist southern cop (!) and Ed Harris in a totally over the top rendition of a fundamentalist southern serial killer.<br /><br />Weird casting, but the movie plays serious mindf** with the audience. (don't read if you ever intend to seriously watch this film or to ever watch this film seriously due to the spoilers) First of all, I felt myself rolling my eyes repeatedly at the Liberal stereotypes: the cops are all sadistic and frame this black guy with no evidence. The coroner, witnesses and even the lawyer of the accused collaborate against him (he is accused of the rape and murder of a young girl) because he is black.<br /><br />Connery is a Harvard law prof who gives impassioned speeches about the injustices against blacks and against the barbarous death penalty. He is approached by the convicted man's grandmother to defend him and re-open the trial.<br /><br />Connery is stonewalled (yawn...) by the small town officials and the good IL' boys club but finds that the case against Blair, the alleged killer, now on death row, was all fabricated. The main evidence was his confession which was beaten out of him.<br /><br />The beating was administered by a black cop (!) who even played Russian roulette to get the confession out of him. Connery finds out that another inmate on death row actually did the murder and after a few tete a tetes with a seriously overacting, Hannibal Lecter-like Ed Harris, he finds out where Harris hid the murder weapon.<br /><br />He gets a re-trial and Blair is freed.<br /><br />I think... film over....<br /><br />Then suddenly! It turns out that Blair IS a psychotic psycho and that he used "white guilt" to enlist Connery. He concocted the story with Ed Harris in return for Blair carrying out a few murders for Harris.<br /><br />now Blair is on the loose again, thanks to Connery's deluded PC principles! The final 30 min. are a weird action movie tacked onto a legal drama, Connery and Fishburne fighting the serial killer in an alligator skinning house on stilts (yes, you read that right) in the everglades.<br /><br />That was one weird film.<br /><br />So the whole system is corrupt and inefficient, the cops are all just bullies and Abu Graib type torturers, but the criminals are really psychotics and deserve to fry.<br /><br />Truly depressing on every level! The system is completely rotten and the PC white guilt types who challenge it are seriously deluded too.<br /><br />Two thumbs down. Connery obviously had to make a mortgage payment or something.
The form of the film is that of a suspense shocker. There are surprises, twists and turns, reverses and excitements. At times, this is truly an "edge-of-the-seat" film. But it disappoints, and disappoints severely.<br /><br />The villain of the piece is not believeable; his character does not hold together. I refuse to "spoil" the film, but will only say that the character we meet at the beginning just could not be he whom we see at the end.<br /><br />The second major disappointment of the film is that--finally, it becomes little more that a bloody slasher film. There is little qualitative difference between this and one of the "Friday the 13th" films. Not that every film need always be totally tasteful, but this film does drip gore on occasion.<br /><br />Though the film features the magnificent Sean Connery, even he does not measure up to his usual standard, and often just seems to be walking through the paces.
Just Cause is one of those films that at first makes you wonder quite why it was so heavily slated when it came out - nothing special but competent enough and with an excellent supporting performance from Ed Harris. Then you hit the last third and everything starts to get increasingly silly until you've got a killer with a flashlight strapped to his forehead threatening to fillet Sean Connery's wife (a typically mannered and unconvincing Kate Capshaw) and kid (a very young Scarlet Johannsen) in an alligator skinner's shack. <br /><br />The kind of movie that's probably best seen on a plane, and even then only once.
Look carefully at the wonderful assortment of talent put together to make this movie: Connery, Fishburne, Capshaw, Harris, Underwood, Beatty, Thigpen, even cameos by Slezak, Lange, and Plimpton. They prove, in spades, the adage that a good cast cannot save a bad script. The story line requires so many leaps of faith from the audience that its implausibility should have exceeded even Hollywood standards. It's not particularly original, and the "twists" are downright cruel.
As other reviewers have noted the film dies in the last 1/2 hour. However before that it suffers from predictability and a stunningly vapid performance by Kate Capshaw, who clearly never found her character and ruins every scene she's in. Connery is fine as is Fishbourne, but most scenes are manipulated for effect rather than truth which overlays the entirety with a sense of unreality. And the ending is simply bizarre. The film makers apparently knew when they pieced this mess together that all they needed were sweet potatoes and pumpkin pie to have Thanksgiving dinner, so to compensate they added an overloud "dramatic" score. Every little jump is accompanied by a crescendo of orchestration, to the point where it becomes laughable. If you want an example of major league bad film this is one to see, otherwise skip it.
Seems that the cast should ensure at least an average movie. And so I sat down for 102 minutes of unbelief. Beside Ed Harris no-one seems to own the skills of acting. Even Sean Connery, who I normally worship, must have had an off-day during the entire filming of Just Case. Not once in during the whole movie one actor could convince me.<br /><br />This made this movie look cheap and unreal.<br /><br />The story makes up a little. It is thrilling, and the plot is unexpected.<br /><br />Conclusion only watch this movie if you really have nothing more useful to do.
1st watched 2/16/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Arne Glimcher): Mystery??/Thriller with too many ridiculous plot twists. Despite the very talented cast this movie is way too predictable and just downright under-estimates it's audience. The movie-going public is not stupid and I hope will not keep filling certain stars pockets again and again despite what they are involved with. We think that this movie is going to be about something with Connery's conviction against capitol punishment in the beginning but it turns out to be nothing but a standard, contrived for the audience's sake, run of the mill, let's never get it over with, thriller. We are pulled into every silly switch in character, as they are portrayed to us when it's needed in the story, and we're ready for this thing to be over way before it ends. Yes there is some good acting here, especially from Blair Underwood, Fishburne, and Ed Harris in a psycho-supporting role but the story does not work from almost the beginning to the very long-awaited end.
The performances of Fishbourne (who appears strangely funny somehow) and (short featured)Ed Harris are remarkable, unlike Connery's who doesn't appear to find sense in his role and ends up in the motorial behaviour of a 80yr old man. In fact the screenplay doesn't make sense; imagine a 60 min. happy ending-plot plus a sudden turn appendix without any argumental structure in respect to the characters. It's more an accident than a screenplay and may be good for examination purposes at screen-wrights' schools. The more you remind the details the stronger this impression gets. The capital punishment is not an issue here, although it is a subject from the beginning; it sort of fades away without further comment. The subject-matter and environment could have been good.
A pot - boiler if ever I saw one. A supposed thriller borrowing from "A Time to Kill", "Silence of the Lambs", even an inverted "In the Heat of the Night" with a little reverse murder, a la "Strangers on a Train" thrown in, it fails abysmally where all the above, to a large degree, succeeded. Namely, in delivering thrills. The plot seems condensed from a bigger book, making the plot developments obvious and uninvolving, while the direction lacks pace and verve. To rein in any kudos, a major twist had to be delivered along the way and here it fails palpably too. Connery is clearly slowing down in his old age, barely bothering with his attempt at a US accent and besides seems too old to be the husband of Hope Lange and the father of those gosh - darn kids of his. He even has a father in law who seems younger than him. Laurence Fishburne barely gets the chance to inhabit his role and you're confused from the outset as to whether he's a bad guy or a good guy. Someone once said that flashbacks shouldn't lie - they do, confusedly, here. The rest of the playing is merely average by a reasonable cast in their underwritten stereotyped roles. The supposed climax managed too, to roll by leaving me firmly entrenched in the back, not as should have been the aim, front edge of my seat. Mediocre sloppy Hollywood film making for sure.
This movie is a crappy and forgettable Sean Connery vehicle. The performances are generally crappy especially by Capshaw, Fishburne, and the usually solid Ed Harris. Connery seems miscast as a Harvard Academic. The movie absolutely gets worse as it goes along. It is a third rate mystery that becomes extremely contrived by the time it unravels. The movie squanders an excellent supporting cast. George Plimpton also turns up in a minor role to add some gravitas to Connery as they debate the death penalty. The violence and the atmosphere pepper a third rate mystery/thriller that is manipulation to the highest degree. The scripting and direction are extremely poor. Connery's charisma and screen presence are the film's only virtue. Manipulative, Violent, and Ridiculous. 2/10 Avoid It.
This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.This is just a case of a previously worthless island changed into something worthwhile. Jesus Christ people lets throw a big fit over 2000 islanders big deal.
Because IT IS, that's why! This is the same jealous-daughter-kills-people flick we've seen a billion times. Rosanna Arquette makes anything worth watching, and Mandy Schaffer's brief nude scene (after teasing via scantily clad attire throughout the film) at the end almost make this trite blarney worthwhile, but not quite.<br /><br />* out of ****
This can't be Mandy Schaffer's last film. Somebody, do something! :-(<br /><br />Argh.<br /><br />What little life this one might have had, the directing finished off. Don't blame the cast; they did OK. Even the winemaker's younger brother was pretty well done, and he didn't even get into the movie until halfway through. And please, please put Mandy in some more movies! She's too beautiful to bury her career at such a young age. Ya' breakin' my haht, heah....<br /><br />Two specific criticisms, in case anyone cares (apparently nobody liked this movie very much). First, the way Traci kept popping up at just the right melodramatic moment, in order to see whatever she was supposed to see, and never got seen in return, was very annoying. Hollywood: please stop giving villains perfect timing luck which runs out exactly when the climax arrives. It's dumb. Write better scripts so you won't have to use that lame plot device any more. If your script isn't good enough to stand up without that, then don't produce it.<br /><br />Second, Carmen wouldn't have fallen for that fake injury trick that Traci pulled. She already had Traci fingered. More bad writing/directing there.<br /><br />I could trash this movie further but mercy forbids it. Actually I didn't hate it as much as the others seem to have. It just didn't have much of a reason for being made, unless it was purely a vehicle to show off the lovely Mandy. Oh, and to whoever didn't think she was sexy... the character wasn't very well written, but how can you say she wasn't sexy?!? One or the other of us needs glasses, and I don't think it's me.<br /><br />MORE MANDY. (Not to be confused with "Moore, Mandy" -- although I'd like to see her again too. ;-)<br /><br />P.S. Did I mention I hope Mandy makes me more movies? <:-D
Let me be really clear about this movie. I didn't watch this movie because of the plot, I watch it for the saucy sex scenes. That being said, this movie is so god damn awful I flip between pure joy of seeing a godly body of Traci (Mandy Schaffer) and cringing my eyeballs out for the disaster of a plot.<br /><br />Spoiler Alert The first scene of the movie already had me cringing.. you see a woman painting something by the lakeside, in pure bliss and serene, then a beautiful girl approach and ask if she could paint beside her. When they both finished, they show each other what they had done... and the woman painted A VINEYARD WHEN SHE IS FACING INFRONT OF THE LAKE. What kind of screwball director would make this kind of mistake?? And in another scene, Traci gets to kill her teacher's lover by smash him with the sail pole, and then she swims away, and none of the town's police suspected her once. I mean HELLOOOOO? MANDY DID NOT WEAR A GLOVE DID SHE? HER FINGER PRINTS ARE ALL OVER THE GOD DAMN BOAT!! After that, it gets worst, whenever Mandy is around, there is the "chilling" sound effect played which sounds like a cat in hissy fit. It's also a real pity Rosanna Arquette's is in this movie. I feel real sorry for her to have to star in this super low budget soft-porn no brainer. Same goes for Jürgen Prochnow, who also has the misfortune to star in this movie. All in all, 2/10.
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.
This movie is so bad, I knew how it ends right after this little girl killed the first person. Very bad acting very bad plot very bad movie<br /><br />do yourself a favour and DON'T watch it 1/10
Oh man. If you want to give your internal Crow T. Robot a real workout, this is the movie to pop into the ol' VCR. The potential for cut-up lines in this film is just endless.<br /><br />(Minor spoilers ahead. Hey, do you really care if a film of this quality is "spoiled?") Traci is a girl with a problem. Psychology has developed names for it when a child develops a sexual crush on the opposite-sex parent. But this girl seems to have one for her same-sex one, and I don't think there's a term for that. It might be because her mother Dana is played by Rosanna Arquette, whose cute overbite, neo-flowerchild sexuality and luscious figure makes me forgive her any number of bad movies or unsympathetic characters. Here Dana is not only clueless to her daughter's conduct; she seems to be competing for the gold medal in the Olympic Indulgent Mother competition. <br /><br />It's possible that Dana misses Traci's murderous streak because truth be told, Traci seems to have the criminal skills of a hamster. It's only because the script dictates so that she manages to pull off any kind of a body count.<br /><br />A particularly hilarious note in this movie is the character of Carmen, a Mexican maid who is described by Dana as around so long she's like one of the family although she dresses in what the director thought would say, "I just fell off the tomato truck from Guadalajara." Carmen is so wise to Traci's scheming, she might also wear a sign saying, "Hey, I'm the Next Victim!" Sure enough, Traci confronts Carmen as Carmen is making her way back from Mass, and bops her with one of those slightly angled lug wrenches that car manufacturers put next to your spare as a bad joke. I rather suspect than in real life those things are as useless as a murder weapon as they are for changing a tire. <br /><br />In another sequence, Arquette wears a flimsy dress to a vineyard, under cloudy skies, talking to the owner. Cut to her in another flimsy dress under sunny skies, talking to the owner's brother. Then cut to her wearing the first dress, in the first location, under cloudy skies - but it's supposed to be later. You get the picture. We're talking really bad directing.<br /><br />As for skin, don't expect much, although Traci does own a nice couple of bikinis. <br /><br />For those looking for a trash wallow, 8. For anybody else, 1/2.
I am guessing the reason this movie did so well at the box office is of course Eddie Murphy. I think this was his first movie since "Beverly Hills Cop" so at the time he was hot. Considering that one made over two hundred million and it was R and this one made about 80 million and it was pg does say it was not all that popular. I have never been a big Eddie Murphy fan, so that is probably another reason I didn't care for it much at all. This one has Eddie as some sort of finder of lost kids. He must find the golden child or the world is in terrible peril. The plot is very bad, but as bad as it is it does not compare to the special effects. I had seen better stuff done in the 70's than some of the stuff this one offers, Ray Harryhausen did better stuff. Still the main reason you see a movie like this is because of Eddie, unfortunately he is not very funny in this one at all and it just seems stupid to put him in the "Raiders of the Lost Ark" type scenes. I guess they were hoping for a fish out of water effect, but to me it just did not work.
Unlike "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai", or "Big Trouble in Little China", or "Conan the Barbarian", which are horrible films that have a certain coolness and self-deprecating humor that turn them into cult sensations, The Golden Child is just plain bad.<br /><br />The premise itself is not unworkable, and there are some funny moments. But here the Eddy Murphy "flip attitude" just deflates any feeling of tension or danger in the story. And the special effects are silly enough to do more damage to that tension. The "mystic secrets" of Tibetan Buddhism are lampooned rather than drawn upon to compel.<br /><br />Without a feeling that anything is at stake, or that the characters are faced by real danger, why should we care?<br /><br />Who should see this film:<br /><br />-- big fans of Eddy Murphy who can't help themselves<br /><br />-- I can't think of anyone else<br /><br />I'll give this film a 4 out of 10 for the occasional joke that worked.
Definitely one of funny man Eddie Murphy's lesser films is this nonsense about a kidnapped mystical child, three hundred year old dragons and a "Chosen One".<br /><br />Murphy is the "Chosen One" in question, and as the opening song suggests, he is "the best man in the world". A finder of lost and missing children, he is approached by a mysterious Tibetan woman (Charlotte Lewis) who tells him he is "The Chosen One", and that it is his destiny to find and rescue "The Golden Child". For if the child were to die, compassion would die with him, as he is the bearer of compassion.<br /><br />If all this hocus pocus rubbish hasn't ruined it for you now, it surely will once the movie begins. Suffice to say the plot is abominable and destroys the whole film. Meant to be another vehicle for Murphy's egotistical brand of humour (the comedy isn't so great mind you), the movie fails on many levels. Even Charles Dance as the evil Sardo Numspa can't do much for proceedings. Very silly and disappointing.<br /><br />Sunday, December 12, 1993 - T.V.
Well, what's to say. THE GOLDEN CHILD falls in the category "so bad, it's good". Eddie Murphy is having some funny (and sometimes quite annoying lines), but you are still entertained. Chales Dance has never been worse than his role as the villain Sardo Numspa (what a f***ed up name is this??).<br /><br />Who should watch THE GOLDEN CHILD... hm... difficult to say, but my best guess would be people who likes embarrassing movies and can be entertained by bad acting, bad plot and an even more embarrassing dialog.<br /><br />4 out of 10
Why is it that when a star reaches the top of the star chain, they ruin all the good work by making a bad movie? Burt Reynolds peaked, then started making dreadful Hal Needham car chase flicks. Arnold Schwarzenegger became the hottest property in Hollywood, only to invite derision upon himself with the appalling Last Action Hero. And here, loquacious Eddie Murphy erases memories of Trading Places and 48 Hours with this "family" adventure flick, which is an unbelievably tedious, childish and generally plain awful misfire in which the chance to see Charlotte Lewis's great big breasts in a tight blouse is the most appealing aspect of the entire film.<br /><br />The story is pure humdrum. It concerns social worker Murphy, contacted by mysterious types and told that he is the Chosen One. Chosen for what, I hear you ask. His job is to rescue a Tibetan boy with mystical powers from a race of demons who want to rule the world. As the main demon, classy actor Charles Dance looks terribly embarrassed to be in the film, but hey, I'm sure he was well paid for sacrificing his talents. Of all Murphy's films, this is easily the worst. I've read some reviews which suggest that it is nice to see Murphy in an atypical role, in a non formulaic kind of film, and while both points are loosely true there's no forgiving the fact that the film - however atypical and non formulaic it might be - is an absolute load of garbage.<br /><br />
Michael Jackson would have claimed a spot for the top-billed character in THE GOLDEN CHILD, and because he loves kids. That didn't work (and why should it?), so instead we have Eddie Murphy out to save the world by rescuing "Kid Midas". I would strongly suggest all future scriptwriters to please thoroughly study the actor's inane dialogue in this quirky fantasy - adventure - comedy that's a step closer to ISHTAR. Whatever Murphy says or does can be best liked, but don't get me wrong about his exquisite comical talent; he doesn't belong in this movie, and the same went for DR. DOLITTLE! The violence and visuals combined are reasons to stamp it as a cult camp classic, and that wouldn't have made any sense as Hollywood and movie fanatics kept cashing in on the guy. Speaking of visuals, they were pulled off amazingly well at the time of Ronald Reagan's presidential fame. Murphy is far better at COMING TO AMERICA and 48 HRS, but this stale movie isn't my touch of golden honey for a sweet crunchy taste.
Bad movie for sure. It's such a ridiculous fantasy with a lot of poor special effects, a lot of hasty scenes (the airport one for example), and a real unfunny time. (Charles Dance) is awful as the evil guy and he is much better in (Last Action Hero). (Eddie Murphy) is doing a non-comic joking, and I heard that this sunk had already succeed, big time success??!! I'll never understand why or how ?! In one TV interview I've heard (Eddie Murphy) himself, when he was nominated for an Oscar 2007, regretted it in a comic way !! <br /><br />One of the comments said (Hey...It's the 1980s !). Well, no my friend. It's the cinematic foolishness which made a lot of RAZZIE movies all over the years whether it's the 1980s or the 1950s ! <br /><br />There are 2 reasons made me write about this movie. The first is that I'll never forget the long tan fascinating legs of (Charlotte Lewis) especially when she was on bed before the bad guys attack her house, wearing just a blue shirt and OH BOY the camera was versifying about her naked legs as it should be. But how odd ! As I've watched her in following movies and she wasn't that beautiful again ?!! Anyhow the second reason is that I've found this movie's title lately at my list of the worst 100 movies ever!<br /><br />The bottom line: Bad movie, Greeeeeat legs.
I remember when THE GOLDEN CHILD was released in 1986 it was universally panned by the critics , and I`m talking panned so badly that it more or less ended the glittering career of Eddie Murphy so I guess this movie has something going for it<br /><br />It gets off to a bad start where Buddist monks kneel in front of a child with a blank expression on his face . Bad guys enter the temple<br /><br />Child sits with blank expression<br /><br />Bad guys chop up the monks<br /><br />Child sits with blank expression<br /><br />Bad guys pull out giant bird cage and stick the child inside who now sits with ... Go on guess ? You do get the impression that even if they were taking him for a sleepover at Michael Jackson`s wonderland ranch he`d still give the same blank expression , this movie would be better titled THE WOODEN CHILD<br /><br />The title sequence starts and being a movie from the 1980s a pop soundtrack features heavily . Obviously this might have been cool and funky at the time but now in 2004 it seems very dated . Not only that but it jars completely with the somewhat bloody opening . In fact that`s the main problem ( And boy it`s a serious one ) with this movie - The whole mood seems to change from scene to scene so much so that sometimes it`s like watching scenes from totally different movies spliced together . I blame the director personally but it should also be pointed out that both the screenwriter and producer should share equal blame too . Did anyone know before shooting commenced what type of movie this was going to be ? It`s part fantasy , part martial arts , part buddy movie , part comedy and it`s all crap
I will start this off by saying I couldn't get all the way through it. I picked it up on a rainy day from WalMart like the rest of the reviewers on this site. I figured there wasn't any way I would regret my purchase. Was I wrong or what? Seriously now, who approved this project? They need to be forced to watch this movie over and over until the end of eternity. That's the only fitting punishment I can think of for releasing something this bad. The shooting reminds me of the movies I used to make for class projects on a big old VHS cam. The acting isnt much better. I think the only difference is that there are a few cool cameos. Yay, who cares... Shecky Moskowitz is unfunny, and the ships comedian is an even bigger loser. That's about as much of the plot as I understood.<br /><br />Overall it's the worst movie I've ever seen. I own it on DVD and have given it to many co-workers to watch. Each comes back and laughs and says "Wow I didnt think I'd ever say I shut off an Adam Sandler movie 15 minutes in...."<br /><br />My response is always "Well now you can"<br /><br />
I can say without a shadow of a doubt that Going Overboard is the single worst film i have ever seen, and yes, I have seen Cujo. Adam Sandler is an abomination as Schecky Moskowitz, a wannabe comedian working on a cruise liner. That's the plot.<br /><br /> That's it! Nothing else in the film makes sense, it's all over the place like a mad man's breakfast, and not in a wacky naked gun kind of way, but more of a frustrating, 'throw both shoes at the t.v' kind of way. even General Noriega makes an appearance, for no reason i can comprehend (it certainly wasn't for humour). Add to the mix Miss Australia, who has the worst Australian Accent i've ever heared, and you have something which i won't call the worst film ever made, because Going overboard doesn't even fit the basic definition of a film. I highly recomend seeing this film, as it will elevate the standing of every bad film you ever see. I guarantee the first thing you'll say after seeing a bad film will be "at least it wasn't as bad as Going Overboard".
I wanted to punch the TV. Watching it was torture. I hated it. Never watch this movie. The terrorists are annoying. Adam Sandler is annoying. I normally like him but not in this one. I wanted to break the DVD. This is the most irritating film in the world. The comedian he's jealous of is obnoxious. The only remotely funny part is the rocker with the black teeth getting all the girls. It was so irritating I wanted to punch the TV. DO NOT BUY THIS MOVIE UNLESS YOU WANT TO ANNOY SOMEONE. If you even like Adam Sandler a little bit, Don't buy it. It will just make you hate him. Do yourself a favor, if you see it in the store, hide it to put everyone out of danger of buying it. Its a waste of the $1.99 I paid for it.
First: I bought it at the video store. Second: I watched it. Third: It was boring. Fourth: It was not funny. Fifth: Most of the antics were lame. And last, but not least: It's not only a bad movie, it's a total fiasco.<br /><br />I am a huge Adam Sandler fan despite this disappointing and forgotten film. I pity it because it was his first movie. Even if you are a huge Adam Sandler fan, don't bother watching this movie. Instead, just take the video, board a yacht, and throw it overboard.
I am a HUGE Adam Sandler fan, and one day I was looking at the Cast&Crew selection on one of his DVD's and saw 'Going Overboard' and decided to go out and rent it. So I went out with a few buddies of mine and rented it. We put it on and we were shocked to see an Adam Sandler that didn't hit puberty yet, he looks as if he was 12 when this movie came out. I couldn't even watch 30 minutes of this crap, I didn't laugh, chuckle, or even smirk at this movie, actually the only time I smirked was when I saw how horrid this movie was. I could not believe how hard he tried to make the viewers laugh in this movie...and it didn't work once. Although from seeing the horribly awful camera angles and hearing the disgusting script I realized why I had never heard of this movie,...because it sucks more than anything has ever sucked before. This movie, in my opinion, was the WORST movie EVER made,....EVER!
Even if you're a huge Sandler fan, please don't bother with this extremely disappointing comedy! I bought this movie for $7.99, assuming it has to be at least halfway decent since my man Sandler is in it and because I assumed some women would get naked (judging by the R-rating and scantily-clad women on the cover). Well, there are quite a few scantily-clad women, but none get naked. I'm not sure what point this was in Sandler's career, but I'm guessing it was even before his SNL days. I can be wrong. This is like watching one of his home movies. He might look back at a cheesy movie like this and reminisce about the good ol' times...but we (the audience) are left to dry. This is hardly a "movie"! Sandler does a lot of talking to the camera, and even admits at one point that this is "no-budget" movie (that's right, not a low-budget movie, a NO-budget movie). So our job is pretty much to laugh AT the quirky characters. There is no steady plot, it's like an extended sketch comedy show--but a crude and badly written one. That guy who played the nasty comedian was completely annoying and it was implausible in the first place that he would receive such a mass audience. And Sandler finds his comic inspiration by saying the one classic Henny Youngman line "Take my wife, please" and the audience is on the floor? I'm not even going to TRY to make any logic here. Sure, Sandler's current and recent movies are not known for making a lot of sense (the penguin in "Billy Madison," the midget in "Happy Gilmore's" Happy Place) but the comedy works. This is a strictly amateurish work, and even if you're curious about Adam's early days in film--you still won't be interested. You're better off checking out his start on SNL or maybe his underrated role in "Mixed Nuts." Of course, the Sandman is not the only actor wasted in this thankless vehicle. Billy Bob Thornton also makes a short appearance, Billy Zane ("Titanic") has a supporting role and the great Burt Young (from the "Rocky" movies) has a significant role. <br /><br />This awful comedy will most probably be collecting dust on the 99-cent rental section of your local video store--and rightfully so. <br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10)
This early Adam Sandler film could be compared to his life as a comic during the same period in 1989. His character's constant acknowledgement of his hidden comic genius and frustration regarding humorous material seems to come more from Sandler than the script. The film is nothing compared to his blockbuster feature films, such as Big Daddy or even the corny Billy Maddison. Unfortunately, Sandler had not yet found a way to express himself in a consistent, successful and funny manner when this film was made, much like his character. The majority of the film's "jokes" come from Sandler having conversations with himself, usually over his unrecognised comic talent and beating himself up because he's too ugly and can't get women. The film is hard to watch too because it doesn't treat itself like a real film. Sandler talks to the camera and the viewers throughout the film, often referring to the film's low budget or questionable content. The film is ultimately awkward and embarrassing to watch. I immediately wanted to forget I even saw this film after it was over, for fear that if more found out about it, it would ruin Sandler's career. Pass this one up at the video store, I rented it for free and it was still a waste of time.
Having decided some time ago to collect the films of Billy Bob Thornton (on the strength of class movies like "Sling Blade", "A Simple Plan" and "The Man Who Wasn't There" amongst others), it was inevitable that there would be the odd turkey in there. What I didn't realise however, was that there could be one THIS bad. I'll give you an idea how incredibly poor this film is - the funniest dialogue in it goes like this: "Knock Knock", "Who's there?", "The big stinking man", "The big stinking man who?", "The big stinking man - is YOU!". Yes folks, it really is that bad. Billy Bob is only in it for about two minutes (I guess he needed the work at that time in his career), and the rest of the movie is painful. For some reason though, although it's undeniably awful, I don't hate it. That's probably because I save my ire for any high budget, special effects laden junk like "The Fast and the Furious" and not a "no-budget" flick like this one. 2/10 at a push.
Worst mistake of my life.<br /><br />I picked this movie up at Target for $5 because I figured, "Hey, it's Sandler I can get some cheap laughs". I was wrong, completely wrong. Mid-way through the film all three of my friends were asleep and I was still suffering. Worst plot, Worst script, Worst movie I have ever seen. I wanted to hit my head up against a wall for an hour, then I'd stop, and you know why? Because it felt damn good. Upon bashing my head in i stuck that damn movie in the microwave and watched it burn....and that felt better than anything else I've ever done. It took American Psycho, Army of Darkness, and Kill Bill just to get over that crap. I HATE YOU SANDLER FOR ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH WITH THIS AND RUINING A WHOLE DAY OF MY LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This movie was so bad I couldn't sit through it without doing something else. There was no plot and no point. I was thoroughly bored and for a film about a stand up comedian, I couldn't recall one joke or funny line worthy of the description. Politicians with no charisma speaking technical jargon could not be less entertaining.<br /><br />So how was this made? Is there no quality control in film? Watching the girls in bikinis was the only distraction during this horrible experience.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine that Adam Sandler who has become popular and has appeared in fine comedies was able to survive after this kind of exposure. He was not funny in the least in this movie so it proves that the writing is so vital in effective comedy.
I saw this movie about 5 years ago, and the memory of it still haunts me to this day. I was fully aware at how awful it was supposed to be going into it, so I have only myself to blame. But like most, I didn't believe all the negativity. Being a Sandler fan, it just seemed inconceivable one of his movies could really be that bad. I figured it was just Sandler haters. I couldn't have been more wrong.<br /><br />What we have here is a comedy that does not contain even 1 second of anything funny. That is actually quite an accomplish. You'd think in a 90 minute comedy, they might have accidentally stumbled upon something even remotely amusing. But no, it's just horrible. It's not "so bad it's good", its just bad. You cannot laugh at how bad it is, you can only cry. You wait patiently for a joke that will at least make you chuckle, but they never come.<br /><br />Have you seen the movie The Ring? Where the people watch a video tape and die 7 days later? If this movie was on the video tape, people would die instantly, by their own hand, and there would be smile on their face as they realize their agony has ended, and that would be the first smile since they pressed play.<br /><br />You might be inclined to watch it just to see how bad it is, unable to curb your curiosity. Don't. Please don't. Trust me, I'm doing you a favor. There are 2 types of people in the world, those that think Going Overboard is the worst movie ever made, and those that have not yet seen it.
Shecky, is a god damned legend, make no mistake. Until recently I worked for a UK HiFi & Video retail chain, running their testing department. We would go through many new starters, they would be expected to to learn how to fault find the various detritus that returns as non functional in one way or another from the stores. Now to tortu^^^^^ test the resolve of these new staff members, we would issue them with a copy of Going Overboard. We had hundreds of copies of this film because whenever someone who had bought a particular model of Goodmans DVD player that had this film as a free gift, got round to sending their DVD player back, they never failed to send Shecky back also. Our new staff would be forced to use only Going Overboard to test these machines for faults until they had found a disc or two of their own to test with.<br /><br />Now, as to why this film is so bad, where do I begin?<br /><br />Adam Sandler, who can be so, so very funny, as in Happy Gilmore, or the Wedding Singer, must have been having one hell of an off day. The rest of the crew stank, and what is it with Billy Zane? His name crops up in several of the worst movies of all time, and he is a decent actor. Crazy. The production quality is absolute zero.<br /><br />I would have been inclined to give this a zero if I could, because they didn't even have the guts to call it by it's full name 'The Unsinkable Shecky Moskowitz' on release. Even so it is worth a watch so you can see just how far Sandler has come, and just how low he can go.
With Adam Sandler.<br /><br />This is without a doubt one of the most idiotic films ever made. It's about cruise ship waiter Shecky (Sandler) wanting to be a comedian on the cruise ship. First off, there is not one funny or clever line in the entire movie honestly. It is so unfunny it's pathetic. There is surprisingly not much crude or sexual humor, but the f-word is plentiful. The budget is really low, and that also ruins the film. It takes place on a cruise ship, but it seems they only had money to rent out a small boat and only had money for 10 ship extras, one of which is Billy Bob Thornton. The opening credits are animated reeeeeaally cheaply, and it is just pathetic. I hate this movie and everyone else that sees this will hate it too.<br /><br />86 mins. rated R for Language.
A friend of mine bought this film for £1, and even then it was grossly overpriced. Despite featuring big names such as Adam Sandler, Billy Bob Thornton and the incredibly talented Burt Young, this film was about as funny as taking a chisel and hammering it straight through your earhole. It uses tired, bottom of the barrel comedic techniques - consistently breaking the fourth wall as Sandler talks to the audience, and seemingly pointless montages of 'hot girls'.<br /><br />Adam Sandler plays a waiter on a cruise ship who wants to make it as a successful comedian in order to become successful with women. When the ship's resident comedian - the shamelessly named 'Dickie' due to his unfathomable success with the opposite gender - is presumed lost at sea, Sandler's character Shecker gets his big break. Dickie is not dead, he's rather locked in the bathroom, presumably sea sick.<br /><br />Perhaps from his mouth he just vomited the worst film of all time.
I stole this movie when I was a freshmen in college. I've tried to watch it three times, the second two because friends wanted to see it. "Sweet, Adam Sandler, I've never heard of this movie, but since he's so funny its gotta be funny." Wrong! I can't make myself watch this pile of crap after the dream boxing match/insult war, where burning the guy with a good zinger causes your opponent physical pain. You would think that terrible comedy hurting you is ridiculous, but after watching this you'll know its true. This movie isn't worth the price I paid for it. I've watched a ton of Steven segal movies, and I've even watched Crossroads twice... but I still couldn't watch this.
This HAS to be the worst movie I've ever attempted to watch. In the first 15 minutes, there wasn't anything to keep my interest in this movie. I was on vacation at the time, and had plenty of time to devote to a just-for-the-fun-of-it movie. The condo we were staying in had this movie in stock -- they must have got it from the $1 store or something.<br /><br />If you like Adam Sandler, this is nothing like any other movie he's made. This started with a bad premise and then just got worse. There's nothing even remotely funny in it.<br /><br />I've watched a lot of movies, including some I didn't care for. But if you decide to waste your time on this movie, don't say I didn't warn you.
This movie is by far the worst movie ever made. If you have to create a film costarring the guy who plays Lars in heavyweights than don't make the damn film. I have to say that I could watch Leprechaun in Space 6 times before I could watch the trailer for this POS of a movie. Adam sandler should be restricted from any movie after this disgrace. Watching this movie is like a mix of listening to Cher and willingly putting your dick in a blender. Anyone with half of a brain cell will realize that this movie is not worth a dime. If I had an extra dollar and had to spend it, I'd give it to the support Lorraina Bobbitt foundation before buying this movie.
Watching this stinker constitutes cruel and unusal punishment at the hands of Sandler. Truly a slow and painful death.<br /><br />'Bought the DVD in the $5.88 bin at Wal Mart. But the thought that keeps echoing in my head is, "How can I get my money back?"<br /><br />The most unforgivable thing about the movie is that the boat JUST DOES NOT SINK!<br /><br />Best constructive suggestion: Mystery Comedy Theatre. You know that show on the SciFi Channel in which some guy and his muppet-machines spoof the most unwatchable horror flicks (Mystery Science Theatre). IMMEDIATELY, spin off a comedy program and feature this flick. Without a good humorous spoof of this train wreck, I fear that viewers may actually begin following Sandler with ice picks and chainsaws.<br /><br />
I picked up this movie for $5 dollars at a discount book store, Adam Sandler is a awesome actor and i figured it would be a good movie, well, it wasn't. There was absolutely no story line at all, bad jokes, and the other comedian said "The F-Word" every other word he said,cursing usually dosen't bother me but this was over the top. And even worse than the lack of story line was the parts when Sandler would just begin talking into the camera at random parts in the movie, it reminded me of Dora the Explorer when they turn and look at the screen and ask you questions. And last of all is when they would randomly put in Bikini shots of girls at random times in the movie. In my opinion, Don't buy this movie, its a waste of money
This is definitely the worst movie Adam's ever done but at this point in his life, he was just happy to have a movie. There are 3 or 4 laughs in it but I used the fast forward button through some of it. Don't waste your time. I only saw it because I wanted to see all of his movies, but it sucked.
If you've ever seen this movie, you'd know that it! If you haven't, and want to see a classic BAD movie, I suggest you see this movie, because it ranks right down with the worst. So, if you're REALLY bored, go rent it. If you want to know what it's like, here's my little summary: Adam Sandler is hired to work on a giant cruise ship with some Ms Universe models and five other people. Adam doesn't like how one passenger is getting all the babes, and he tries to take over with the cheezy jokes. BUT WAIT! It only gets worse! You'll have to rent the movie yourself to see how bad it truly is.
I just finished watching Going Overboard. I have to say that we should send every copy of this film to Iraq and make them watch. I even tried to get a blind women to watch this and she turned it off in like 20 min. Adam Sandler could not find a better project than this? As for the writing, if thats what you want to call it, those responsible should be forced to watch this movie forever in Hell!! I believe that somewhere I read that the budget for this film was $10,000 and they were way under. Did Wallmart get a good deal on this? Every store has a big huge bin of this crap sitting on the sales floor. The only good thing about this movie is you can use the DVD as a coaster, or trade it to a friend, but then they might not be your friend anymore!!
I had never heard of this Adam Sandler movie until I saw it on the wall at Blockbuster. Being an Adam Sandler fan at the time, I rented it. HONESTLY I could only watch about 30 mins. of it. It was TERRIBLE. Do whatever it takes to keep this out of the hands of the public. I honestly hope this movie goes OOP soon, and I hope it STAYS THAT WAY!
Hello. I am Paul Raddick, a.k.a. Panic Attack of WTAF, Channel 29 in Philadelphia. Let me tell you about this god awful movie that powered on Adam Sandler's film career but was digitized after a short time.<br /><br />Going Overboard is about an aspiring comedian played by Sandler who gets a job on a cruise ship and fails...or so I thought. Sandler encounters babes that like History of the World Part 1 and Rebound. The babes were supposed to be engaged, but, actually, they get executed by Sawtooth, the meanest cannibal the world has ever known. Adam Sandler fared bad in Going Overboard, but fared better in Big Daddy, Billy Madison, and Jen Leone's favorite, 50 First Dates. Man, Drew Barrymore was one hot chick. Spanglish is red hot, Going Overboard ain't Dooley squat! End of file.
Mere thoughts of "Going Overboard" (aka "Babes Ahoy") make me want to weep. Throwing yourself out a window would be better than watching this movie. It's not even a supposed "so bad it's good" movie. I would spend money to buy copies of this movie and burn them so that people can't see it. Oh the pain, the pain...
...okay, maybe not all of it. Lured by the false promise of bikini-clad women on the movie's cover...but the HORROR...THE HORROR... ...whatever you do, do NOT watch this movie. Gouge out your eyes, repeatedly bash your skull in...do what it takes. Never again--never forget!<br /><br />
Unwatchable. You can't even make it past the first three minutes. And this is coming from a huge Adam Sandler fan!!1
I'm glad that I saw this film after Mr.Sandler became famous.<br /><br />It is bad....bad,bad,bad. There is no plot. It's like watching a painfully dull home movie.<br /><br />I really enjoy his other films......but if you're a fan like me....stay away from this one. It may change your thoughts on Adam. You may never recover from the horror that is this film....I've had a better time watching old folks play scrabble in a home.......
This movie portrays Ruth as a womanizing, hard drinking, gambling, overeating sports figure with a little baseball thrown in. Babe Ruths early life was quite interesting and this was for all intents and purposes was omitted in this film. Also, Lou Gehrig was barely covered and this was a well know relationship, good bad or indifferent, it should have been covered better than it was. His life was more than all bad. He was an American hero, an icon that a lot of baseball greats patterned their lives after. I feel that I am being fair to the memory of a great baseball player that this film completely ignored. Shame on the makers of this film for capitalizing on his faults and not his greatness.
It's impossible for me to objectively consider this movie. Not that I haven't tried, mind you - but I sit down, and I pop in the aged VHS, and I watch the opening...and suddenly I'm five years old again and clutching my very own Care Bear and watching the movie with open eyes and an eager heart.<br /><br />I can see, objectively, that this movie is a BIZARRE combination of cuddly baby merchandising-mascots and creepy prepubescent children with evil powers that has a thin story and uninteresting animation. But my inner five-year-old goes, "Yay! Care Bears!" every time I think about it. So - I'd only (cautiously, reluctantly) recommend this movie for those who saw it during their early youth and can call on the awesome power of nostalgia while watching it (like me) OR those lovably cynical Gen-X/Y-ers who deliberately seek out the wonderfully bad/strange (a category in which this movie...definitely belongs). To those actually looking for a compelling movie or wholesome family entertainment: You might want to keep looking.
I really wanted to like this movie. I absolutely love kenny hotz, and spenny rice has a charming side to him. Not that I like spenny at all. Spenny ruins this movie. He should of let kenny and his hot girlfriend pitch the movie.<br /><br />Anyways, it's pretty boring aside from a scene with Roger Ebert in it. There really isn't too many celebrities in this movie, and most don't seem to say more than one line. Overall this movie was disappointing. I would only suggest watching it if you got it with the season 1 DVD of kenny vs spenny (it comes for free on the 3rd disc). Regardless of this production, I am still very excited to check out The Papel Chase.
This is the worst documentary to come out of Canada ever!!!! I'm glad to see the guys haven't made another movie. All they want to do is get a movie made and it doesn't have to be the one they wrote. They keep changing the script to suite the person they're pitching. I could not get out of the theatre fast enough when I saw it at that year's Toronto Film Festival. Please never see this film.
Robert Taylor definitely showed himself to be a fine dramatic actor in his role as a gun-slinging buffalo hunter in this 1956 western. It was one of the few times that Taylor would play a heavy in a film. Nonetheless, this picture was far from great as shortly after this, Taylor fled to television with the successful series The Detectives.<br /><br />Stuart Granger hid his British accent and turned in a formidable performance as Taylor's partner. <br /><br />Taylor is a bigot here and his hatred for the Indians really shows.<br /><br />Another very good performance here was by veteran actor Lloyd Nolan as an aged, drinking old-timer who joined in the hunt for buffalo as well. In his early scenes, Nolan was really doing an excellent take-off of Walter Huston in his Oscar-winning role in The Treasure of the Sierre Madre in 1948. Note the appearance of Russ Tamblyn in the film. The following year Tamblyn and Nolan would join in the phenomenal Peyton Place.<br /><br />The writing in the film is stiff at best. By the film's end, it's the elements of nature that did Taylor in. How about the elements of the writing here?
This was the third remake of SLEEPING WITH THE ENIEMY After YAARANA(1995) and AGNISAKSHI(1996)<br /><br />AGNISAKSHI was the only one which worked and was a better film<br /><br />DARAAR is directed by Abbas Mustan who sadly failed in their attempt here<br /><br />the story was good but the handling wasn't that good and the heroine was shown too regressive and the climax too was disappointing<br /><br />Direction is bad Music is good<br /><br />Rishi reprises his role of YAARANA(strangely which also was a remake of SWTE) and looks too fat for the lead and is okay Juhi is decent while Arbaaz tries too hard in his debut and does manage in many scenes to chill the audiences but his voice was terrible Johny is too loud
Daraar got off to a pretty good start. The first scene really left me at the edge of my seat wondering what would happen next. Other than that, the first half of the movie is a total BORE. All the first half of the movie is about is Rishi Kapoor falling head over heels in love with Juhi Chawla. By the way, don't you think he's a little old for her???<br /><br />Things finally start to spice up towards the middle of the film when Juhi tells us about her previous husband; and wow what a lunatic is he! He was an over-protective, neat-freak with a really HOT TEMPER! He used to beat up poor Juhi for no good reason! One of the reasons I really don't like this movie is because I can't stand to see Juhi (my favorite actress) get so abused. This film in general has WAY too much abuse and bloodshed; I find it so sickening!!!<br /><br />Anyway, all I'm trying to say is if you're thinking about renting Daraar, you should put it right back on the shelf where you found it and pick something else!
For the record, this film is intriguing but its hardly original. Back in 1998 a movie starring Talia Shire called The Landlady had almost the exact same plot but with younger characters.<br /><br />The story is Amanda Lear has had a bad life, abusive father, horny doctor, mental homes, etc. She's finally released from the happy home under the guidance of her perverted doctor...who she anally abuses and kills the poor guy. (now THAT was original) The doctor had financed a mansion for her before she killed him and buried the sucker in the backyard. After moving in she falls in love with a stud named Richard, who just happens to be married to a blues singer. If you've seen The Landlady you know the rest, she kills or tries to kill anyone that gets in between her and Richard (including a roadie).<br /><br />Much of the idea's came from the previous movie, same idiot sidekick that sticks his nose in, same spying on the guy with a bowl of popcorn, same flying a bodypress. It did have some original material, the beer bottle thing was brutal. The highlight of the movie was Amanda's beautiful breasts in the hot-top scene. Somewhat of a ripoff but not a total waste of time.<br /><br />4 out of 10
Despite the high ratings given to this film by IMDB users, this is nothing more than your typical girl-with-a-bad-childhood-obsessively-stalks-married-man film. The attractive Justine Priestly's brief nude scenes may attract voyeurs, but the film is hackneyed tripe.<br /><br />* 1/2 out of ****
I got this movie because I worked at a movie store so I got free rentals. It came in, and the cover made it look alright. Hot chick, carrying a weapon, alright, I'll check it out.<br /><br />Oh man, bad move. This was so horrible, I spent half the movie watching in fast-forward to get to the nudity, which was minimal. I think MAYBE three scenes of partial nudity.<br /><br />Cheesy dialogue, crappy violence, poor excuses of characters. I feel bad putting this movie down, because I know it was made on a cheap budget, but so was "Clerks" and it became a cult classic and a franchise.<br /><br />2/10.
SHALLOW GRAVE begins with either a tribute or a rip off of the shower scene in PSYCHO. (I'm leaning toward rip off.) After that it gets worse and then surprisingly gets better, almost to the point of being original. Bad acting and amateurish directing bog down a fairly interesting little story, but the film already surpasses many in the "Yankee comes down South to get killed by a bunch of rednecks" genre because it is actually shot in the South.<br /><br />A group of college girls head to Ft. Lauderdale for summer vacation and are waylaid in Georgia by a flat tire after getting off the main road. (Note to Yankees: stay on the highway when you go to Florida.) Sue Ellen (Lisa Stahl) has to pee so she heads into the woods. When she finally finds a good spot to do her business she witnesses the local sheriff (Tony March) strangle his mistress (Merry Rozelle) to death. (Note to Yankees: do not wander off into the woods when in the South; not because you might witness a murder, but you may run across a marijuana plantation.) This is the point where the story, not the movie, actually comes close to being good.<br /><br />While Tony March will never have to practice his Oscar speech, his Sheriff Dean becomes a creepy facsimile of a normal guy torn by what he has done and what he must do. Tom Law is likable as Deputy Scott and is as authentic a Southern deputy as I've seen since Walton Goggins (Deputy Steve Naish) in HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES.<br /><br />A few scenes in the movie are worth the mention. The girls stop at a BBQ in South Carolina and display their racism when a big black guy checks them out. Sue Ellen runs into a barn to hide behind some hay bales and in a shockingly realistic moment a large snake is hiding in the hay with her.<br /><br />And in the strangest scene, Sheriff Dean makes like he's about to rape Patty (Carol Cadby) and tells her to take off her clothes. Dean has turned the radio up to drown out the noise of what he's about to do. The preacher on the radio needs to go back and read his Bible. His sermon is about how Jezebel is saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. I feel sorry for this preacher's flock. Jezebel was in the Old Testament a few thousand years before Christ was born and by no means is she one of the five people you are going to meet in Heaven.
This movie is basically about some girls in a Catholic school that end up getting into trouble because of putting red dye in one in one of their school mates shampoo and after being reprimanded for this act they decide to take off to Florida for a vacation. On their way there they meet up with some guys in a local diner and decide that they would both meet up with each other in another location later on. The girls end up on a road side near the woods and stop for awhile and while one of the girls decides to walk around a bit she sees a murder happen in which the local sheriff himself is involved. She becomes scared and runs to tell the others what happened. The other girls decide to go take a look with her and two of them get killed by the killer. Then the two remaining girls are caught by the killer and are placed in local jail cell. The deputy sheriff meanwhile is keeping watch over the girls and despite their insistence that the sheriff is the killer he ignores them both and acts as ignorant and everybody else in this movie who just can't put two and two together much less some lousy detective work at that. The best part was the rape scene between the killer and one of the girls where he decides to rape her in her jail cell and it seems that the girl actually WANTS to be raped by this man and the bare chest scene I admit was good but before their lips meet he has other things in mind. This movie reminds me of the low-budget thriller "Blood Song" with Frankie Avalon staring in it, the same motive just a different character part. It's not a movie worth renting not even for an 80's low-budget movie and the ending was the worst ending I have ever seen in a movie and it left me wanting my money back!
I saw this by chance showing on cable on wanted to like it as I thought Sandra was quite funny from what I remembered. The only facial movement I had throughout the movie was jaw dropping stunned at how awful a movie I just suffered through.<br /><br />The person who said this is one of the funniest movies of all time please point out one line, just one scene, that is even worth a chuckle.<br /><br />She is a much better singer than I remember her to be, but I didn't want to watch a lounge act.<br /><br />I think this is a movie try hard to like since they think they should and don't view it objectively.
Film version of Sandra Bernhard's one-woman off-Broadway show is gaspingly pretentious. Sandra spoofs lounge acts and superstars, but her sense of irony is only fitfully interesting, and fitfully funny. Her fans will say she's scathingly honest, and that may be true. But she's also shrill, with an unapologetic, in-your-face bravado that isn't well-suited to a film in this genre. She doesn't want to make nice--and she's certainly not out to make friends--and that's always going to rub a lot of people the wrong way. But even if you meet her halfway, her material here is seriously lacking. Filmmaker Nicolas Roeg served as executive producer and, though not directed by him, the film does have his chilly, detached signature style all over it. Bernhard co-wrote the show with director John Boskovich; their oddest touch was in having all of Sandra's in-house audiences looking completely bored--a feeling many real viewers will most likely share. *1/2 from ****
Killer Tomatoes movies have this special kind of humor - you either love it or hate it. I personally like it, but in this fourth movie the feeling is gone. The tomatoes aren't the same, jokes are lame, even the actors aren't as funny. Because that's the only thing this kind of movies are supposed to be - funny.<br /><br />So now following the plot made to laugh, is annoying. They really shouldn't have done the fourth part to the Killer Tomatoes trilogy.
What made the original Killer Tomatoes fun was it was made by people with no budget who were just being wacky for a couple of days...<br /><br />This was something with a budget, but it just wasn't as much fun. John Astin of Adams Family fame is actually making an effort here to be comedic, but he is supported by lame actors, cheap special effects and unfunny gags.<br /><br />The plot. Dr. Gangrene (Astin) escapes from a French prison and decides he is going to put a pretender on the throne of France... The hero, his French girlfriend and the Gizmo-like "Fuzzy Tomato" decide they are going to stop him...<br /><br />Forgettable Direct to Video nonsense...
There was nothing of value in the original movie, this one was even lamer. The fact that I even found it to rent was absolutely amazing. Anyone connected to this film has to be high on something! So what was the story line? What was with the girl? Was the viewer supposed to get the story line in the first four minutes of the film. Sadly, I tried several times to watch this. I even borrowed a kid from someone to get some feedback. Kid said it was stupid, and he was four years old. I find that possibly some credit could go to the filming director, as possibly some of the shots made the movie more than a B film. That might be pushing it. I did love the theme song. Good thing it was only a dollar, it was worth it. I suppose you might enjoy the film if you were high as the cast and crew would have to be. Is pot legal in France?
As an Altman fan, I'd sought out this movie for years, thinking that with such a great cast, it would have to be at least marginally brilliant.<br /><br />Big mistake.<br /><br />This is one of Altman's big-cast mishmashes, thrown together haphazardly and improvisationally (or so it feels) with the hope that it would all come together in the editing room. It doesn't.<br /><br />As Maltin points out, this turkey is notable only for the debut performance of Alfre Woodard, who outshines the vets all around her. But other than that, avoid at all costs. (Which is pretty easy to do -- it's never been released on video -- to my knowledge -- and its cable appearances have the frequency of Halley's Comet.)
What an insult to Olivia D'Abo who plays the film's heroine, Robin, to have Keanu Reeves appear so large on the box art of the film (and at least on recent reissues, to have only Reeves appear on the box), considering that she was the star. I realize that it is his name that will ultimately sell this long-forgotten After School Special, but at least give the woman some credit. <br /><br />Despite that, this has to be one of the worst teen sports-themed films that I have ever seen, and it strives very hard to add not only every teen and sports movie cliché from the class warfare between the feuding gymnasts to the teen romance. And, in striving to somehow deliver itself as an amateur alternative of Flashdance (with the music in one of the warehouse dance scenes is even quite close to Michael Sembello's notable 'Maniac' which was made famous by Flashdance, or was it the other way around?). It includes similar dance sequences and worse yet, even the 80s dance and sports traditions of corny dance-offs between the heroine and her antagonist(s), the one who doubts her successes and abilities on the team. We saw this in Trashin' (a vert ramp joust) and Rad (BMX dancing at the prom, although it wasn't much for competition, but rather for fun) for example. In fact, this movie is chock full of unrealistic corniness, such as the somewhat homo-erotic rolling in the clothes at the Salvation Army with Robin and her friend from the team.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the film is about a young girl who comes from a rather poor background. To top it off in a massive need to squeeze from audiences as much sympathy as possible, she lives with her ailing mother, her obnoxious sister, and her careless (and slightly abusive) stepfather. Needless to say, homelife is not so appealing. Add to the mix, a talent for gymnastics, but several obstacles to joining the team (including the nuisance of her arrogant, snobby teammates, and a coach who also eventually doubts her abilities to compete well). And, of course, we can't forget that she's got eyes for one of the pretty boy preppies who is dating one of the obnoxious teammates, nor that she doesn't have a steady boyfriend (although Keanu as Tommy later enters the picture). Could this kid be any more pathetic? And it seems that one mess after another comes along to embarrass herself in her painfully long, redundant, and clichéd quest to prove her worth to everyone.<br /><br />But, even the major moments of cheesiness which comprise most of the film, are hardly worth mentioning considering that the biggest distraction to this film is the horrible acting and dialog. (I like how the gym coach suddenly appears at the diner in the middle of the dance-off to scold the teammates). It makes episodes of 'Amazing Stories' look like Shakespeare.<br /><br />I imagine anyone able to locate this film and watch it these days is probably drawn to it mostly because of the nostalgic factor. For that you might be satisfied, but it is also an incredibly forced drama. So, Caveat Emptour.
It's not really about gymnastics; swap out the occasional training montages and it could just as easily be about archery, or microbiology, or a booger-flicking tournament. Instead, like every other Rocky/Flashdance derivative that flooded the 80s market, it's about conquering adversity with stick-to-it-iveness, rendering all social/personal realities irrelevant by your lonesome - with love interest standing by of course. Ronald Reagan top to bottom, in short; so as a piece of cinema it's down to the details. Some of the actors are quirky enough to liven things up - especially the love interest, brought to you by none other than Mr. Keanu Reeves, warming up for Ted; heroine Olivia D'Abo's hateful alkie dad and big-hair stepsister are more interesting than the sickly mom or her utterly inert bitch-nemeses/teammates, one of whom appears to be made of porcelain. It's my instinct to be appalled by the comic-relief black guys, but on the other hand at least they're in the movie. But D'Abo doesn't quite convince with her awkward-girl shtick, and in the absence of any other narrative focus the lack of interest in the gymnastics themselves really does matter; it's all just bodies hurtling around, and not only is the outcome of the big tournament a foregone conclusion, it's all performed by an obvious double.
I only today, picked this up at the 99 cents only store today, and I still think I got ripped off. "Dream to Believe" is a pretty boring and unrealistic gymnastics drama and $1 is just too freakin' expensive for this. This film is probably only notable for 2 things: 1. It has a young Keanu Reeves. And 2. It's directed by Paul Lynch, the man who also did Promo Night. Now onto the movie. <br /><br />It's about a girl named Robin (Played by Olivia D'Abo) who is badly injured from a car accident that also cost her father's life. So the accident prevents her from competing in gymnastic tournaments, she is often picked on during her classes and eventually she meets some wild kid named Tommy (Played by Keanu.) Robin, when not in training, works part-time, along with her mother and stepsister, at a Laundromat owned by her abusive stepfather. Eventually she is chosen to compete. <br /><br />Overall, Keanu alone and some catchy 80s tunes are what prevent me from giving this 1 star, and it's also not one of the worst movies ever, but still far from good. The DVD itself is not getting any medals either as it appears to be sourced from an old VHS and towards the end, the sound goes out of sync and when the end credits are almost over, it fades to black, even though sound can still be heard. So this can probably be passed as a bootleg. The DVD artwork makes no sense either as it has what appears to be recent photos of Keanu and Olivia and the background has nothing to do with the movie, as it's also not in the movie itself, so the cover's obviously photoshopped. In any case, avoid at all costs, unless you're a Keanu fanatic. I probably won't be hanging to it any longer. I'm probably gonna give it to The Cinema Snob, who's a great YT critic btw. Hey, if any of you have any crappy movies that they no longer want in their sight, feel free to donate to him to keep his show running.
to movie,this movie felt like one of those after school specials,only lower budget and lower everything else.i guess this was supposed to an inspirational movie of some sort,but it didn't work for me.yet some how it comes across as preachy.it has very pale shades of Flash Dance,but so what?there just isn't any excitement in this movie.the dialogue is contrived and clichéd to death.of course,the whole movie feels like a bad 80's cliché.the acting was less than stellar,though that has a lot to do with what the actors were given(or in this case-not)to work with.on top of that is the poor song choices,with really bad lyrics.i felt embarrassed for all the actors involved.they are all talented,but you can't tell from this movie.this is just my opinion of course,but i have to give Flying AKA Dream to Believe a 1/10
What was an exciting and fairly original series by Fox has degraded down to meandering tripe. During the first season, Dark Angel was on my weekly "must see" list, and not just because of Jessica Alba.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the powers-that-be over at Fox decided that they needed to "fine-tune" the plotline. Within 3 episodes of the season opener, they had totally lost me as a viewer (not even to see Jessica Alba!). I found the new characters that were added in the second season to be too ridiculous and amateurish. The new plotlines were stretching the continuity and credibility of the show too thin. On one of the second season episodes, they even had Max sleeping and dreaming - where the first season stated she biologically couldn't sleep.<br /><br />The moral of the story (the one that Hollywood never gets): If it works, don't screw with it!<br /><br />azjazz
Awful, simply awful. It proves my theory about "star power." This is supposed to be great TV because the guy who directed (battlestar) Titanica is the same guy who directed this shlop schtock schtick about a chick. B O R I N G.<br /><br />Find something a thousand times more interesting to do - like watch your TV with no picture and no sound. 1/10 (I rated it so high b/c there aren't any negative scores in the IMDb.com rating system.)<br /><br />-Zaphoid<br /><br />PS: My theory about "star power" is: the more "star power" used in a show, the weaker the show is. (It's called an indirect proportionality: quality 1/"star power", less "sp" makes for better quality, etc. Another way to look at it is: "more is less.")<br /><br />-Z
God, I was bored out of my head as I watched this pilot. I had been expecting a lot from it, as I'm a huge fan of James Cameron (and not just since "Titanic", I might add), and his name in the credits I thought would be a guarantee of quality (Then again, he also wrote the leaden Strange Days..). But the thing failed miserably at grabbing my attention at any point of its almost two hours of duration. In all that time, it barely went beyond its two line synopsis, and I would be very hard pressed to try to figure out any kind of coherent plot out of all the mess of strands that went nowhere. On top of that, I don't think the acrobatics outdid even those of any regular "A-Team" episode. As for Alba, yes, she is gorgeous, of course, but the fact that she only displays one single facial expression the entire movie (pouty and surly), makes me also get bored of her "gal wit an attitude" schtick pretty soon. You can count me out of this one, Mr. Cameron!
Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.<br /><br />There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.<br /><br />And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.<br /><br />Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.
I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"<br /><br />Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :(
Lillian Hellman's play, adapted by Dashiell Hammett with help from Hellman, becomes a curious project to come out of gritty Warner Bros. Paul Lukas, reprising his Broadway role and winning the Best Actor Oscar, plays an anti-Nazi German underground leader fighting the Fascists, dragging his American wife and three children all over Europe before finding refuge in the States (via the Mexico border). They settle in Washington with the wife's wealthy mother and brother, though a boarder residing in the manor is immediately suspicious of the newcomers and spends an awful lot of time down at the German Embassy playing poker. It seems to take forever for this drama to find its focus, and when we realize what the heart of the material is (the wise, honest, direct refugees teaching the clueless, head-in-the-sand Americans how the world has suddenly changed), it seems a little patronizing--the viewer is quite literally put in the relatives' place, being lectured to. Lukas has several speeches in the third-act which undoubtedly won him the Academy Award, yet for the much of the picture he seems to do little but enter and exit, enter and exit. As his spouse, Bette Davis enunciates like nobody else and works her wide eyes to good advantage, but the role doesn't allow her much color. Their children (all with divergent accents!) are alternately humorous and annoying, and Geraldine Fitzgerald has a nothing role as a put-upon wife (and the disgruntled texture she brings to the part seems entirely wrong). The intent here was to tastefully, tactfully show us just because a (WWII-era) man may be German, that doesn't make him a Nazi sympathizer. We get that in the first few minutes; the rest of this tasteful, tactful movie is made up of exposition, defensive confrontation and, ultimately, compassion. It should be a heady mix, but instead it's rather dry-eyed and inert. ** from ****
The characters are cliched and predictable, with everyone being either snow-white pure or wholly evil. The acting is too stilted for it to be bad in an amusing, over-the-top way. It's doubly disappointing if you're a Bette Davis fan, because her character is not a typically fun Bette-Davis-type character; she just gets to frown pensively a lot.<br /><br />On the whole, neither my wife nor I found the movie to be interesting, moving or enjoyable at all.
It as absolutely incredible to me that anyone could make the comment that this film is not preachy. It is not only oppressively preachy, but absurd, stagebound, dramatically straight-jacketed, and painfully overwrought. Watching it, one feels like an 8 year old child being punished by having to write "I will not become a fascist" on the blackboard 100 times.<br /><br />Now I understand that it was made during the height of WW2, and was intended to be a brave condemnation of Hitler and the terrible suffering he brought about, (which anyone would whole-heartedly applaud) and I'm sure it accurately captured the mood of the day. But it is presented in such an immature, over-obvious, sledgehammer way, it fails abysmally as a work of art.<br /><br />The only good performances here are from Paul Lukas, who brings sincerity and intensity to his role as a quietly heroic anti-fascist; and Lucile Watson as the amusingly ill-mannered rich grandmother who slowly comes to realize how dangerous the world has become. Though their rootless upbringing has subjected them to all kinds of hardships, the children are ridiculously shown as robotically well-behaved little snips. They do not even remotely resemble real human beings. And Bette Davis, a great actress, here is so one dimensionally noble I cringed every time she was on screen. Her every word, her every gesture is meant to convey how SUPPORTIVE and UNDERSTANDING she is of the SACRIFICES her husband has to make and the great CAUSE he is fighting for, that she must've been wired to receive a painful electric shock if she dared allowed any hint of doubt or shading to surface in her portrayal.<br /><br />So yes, this is a very IMPORTANT film, just not a very good one.
There seems to be little in the way of middle ground where Watch On the Rhine is concerned. One either likes it very much, applauding its sincerity, its liberal point of view and fine acting, or else loathes its obvious propaganda, mediocre dialogue, cardboard characters and overall tendentiousness. I fall very much in the latter category, and found the film and play,--concerning the activities of European refugees in Washington during wartime--a crushing bore, worthwhile mostly for the acting, and even then only intermittently. That author Lillian Hellman was on the side of the angels is irrelevant. Her plays were written for people who shared her point of view, and she seldom explored ideas that weren't already held by the author and audience except to point out how dreadful the "other side" is. Even when I find myself in one hundred percent agreement with what she has to say,--as in Rhine--I still can't stand the way she says it. Her characters are unreal, and while her ear for dialogue shows a certain facility for the way people talk she possesses no real brilliance or originality. She really had nothing new to say. I thoroughly agree with the late Mary McCarthy's long overdue dismantling of Hellman reputation some years ago. For those who think the theatre is dead or in extremis and yearn for the good old days, I urge a peek at Watch On the Rhine, as bad in its way as Angels In America, which only goes to show that the theatre had one foot in the grave sixty years ago.
The sign of a classic movie is that it ages like a fine red wine. This movie is no Cabarnet and certainly no Casablanca. I agree with the other reviewers that the children in the movie are an unfortunate mutation that now plagues us nightly in sit-coms and the dialogue is stilted and preachy. But let's look at the obsolete theme of the movie.<br /><br />With the passage of sixty plus years of history comes wisdom. Since Watch on the Rhine, author Lillian Hellman has been exposed as a Bidenesque plagiarist with her so called real-life story "Julia" from her book "Pentimento". As one of the most odious of a plethora of Western-based USSR apologists, it is obvious her theme in the play and movie was to stir America to action to save the bloody Soviet dictator Stalin and international communism from the fascists, who had just proved their military superiority in Spain.<br /><br />As one reviewer correctly noted, this is not a pro-American play and movie, as Lillian went to her grave an American-loathing communist. This film chronicles that familiar smug stupidity of the intellectual elites that made up the American Left then, just as now the full mooner Left of The Daily Kos and Michael Moore has bought into the conspiracy theories and once again given aid and comfort to those who would destroy America.
When I was younger I really enjoyed watching bad television. We've all been guilty of it at some time or another, but my excuse for watching things like "Buck Rogers in the 25th Century" and "Silver Spoons" is this: I was young and naive; ignorant of what makes a show really worthwhile.<br /><br />Thankfully, I now appreciate the good stuff. Stargate SG-1 is not good. The 12 year-old me would love every hackneyed bit of it, every line of stilted dialogue, every bit of needless technobabble. The writing is beyond insipid; so bland and uninspired it makes one miss Star Trek: Voyager. If your show makes me long for the worst Trek show ever, you're in trouble.<br /><br />The film Stargate is a wonderful guilty pleasure, anchored by two solid performances by James Spader and Kurt Russell, full of fascinating Egyptian architecture and culture, a wonderful musical score, and cool sci-fi ideas. With the exception of a little of the original music, none of what made the film fun appears in this show. Even Richard Dean Anderson, who made MacGyver watchable and Legend interesting, seems like he's half asleep most episodes.<br /><br />The budget must have been very low because the sets sometimes look like somebody's basement. The cinematography isn't much better, as vanilla and dull as the scripts. It amazes me that shows with a lot more style (like Farscape) and substance (like the reimagined Battlestar Galactica) have smaller, less rabid fanbases than this pap. It just doesn't deserve it.
I cannot believe how popular this show is. I consider myself an avid sci-fi fan. I have read countless sci-fi novels and have enjoyed many sci-fi movies and TV shows. I really wouldn't even consider this true sci-fi. Every episode I have sat through was like a lame, watered down version of a Star Trek episode, minus anything that might make it interesting or exciting.<br /><br />It's basically a bunch of people standing around in ARMY fatigues, talking about something boring, who occasionally go through the Stargate and end up on a planet that looks just like Earth, with people who look and sound just like Humans! It seemed extremely low budget. The characters are all forgettable one dimensional cutouts, and the many attempts at humor fall flat. It reminds me when you see a commercial with a famous athlete in it, trying to be funny, but he is not. It is just sad.<br /><br />The movie was terrible as well. There is so much you can do with a portal through space, yet every place the ARMY people go is BORING! This shows no imagination! I actually thought the TV series "Alien Nation" from a few years back (based on the movie Alien Nation) was much better. That show actually had good story lines and decent characters. I wasn't crazy about "Alien Nation", but compared to this overrated crap, it was great!<br /><br />Also, unlike the great new "Battlestar Galactica" series, "Stargate" copied the look and feel of the lame movie too closely! They should have at least updated the cheesy "toilet flushing" special effect of whenever somebody goes through the Stargate.
Im watching it now on pink (Serbia TV station) and I must say this is a crap. Shallow, no acting, effects too sloppy I mean, who made this series?<br /><br />This was a stupid attempt of the Studios to make some more money on the success of the film. OK. The film was great in 1994 when it came out. But the series?<br /><br />Some times you can see how idiotic the lines are in the speech of the characters. I mean, did they actually pay someone to write that, was that someones relative at the Studio? This is no SciFi.<br /><br />The film was the bomb, the series suck.
Having seen the first ten episodes, I must say this show sucks. <br /><br />What bothers me the most, is that the show was shot in Canada. I know it's cheaper, but they should have shot it in California, so we could have had scenes in the desert. That would have been more true to the movie. The first scene where they are outside in another world is in the mountains, with lots of pinetrees where it looks cold. That does'nt feel very Egyptian. What worked so well in the movie was that it felt like you were in the ancient Egypt. Here it feels like they're running around fighting aliens in a Canadian forrest. And it's so lame that appaerantly, on other planets, the fall comes as well. You can see leaves on the ground in the forrests that all look like forrests outside Vancouver. It just makes the show even more unbelievable and dumb. <br /><br />And then there is Richard Dean Anderson. He is no Kurt Russel. Sure he does a decent job and he tries to copy Russels performance a little bit, but he is just not as cool as Russel. And not nearly as good an actor as Russel. And Russells way of playing O Neill, well he was much more cynical. Andersons O Neil, is way too soft. I liked it that Russels version just did'nt give a s*** and had no trouble detonating the bomb until the very end of the movie. <br /><br />Michael Shanks does a really good job as Jackson though taking over from James Spader.<br /><br />Teal'c is a really annoying character. He is Jaffa. Not a Jaffa. Just Jaffa. Aaaarrgh!! A former bodyguard of a pathetic Ra character, seen only in the pilot and in one other episode so far. Teal'c speaks talks and acts like a robot. I've seen better acting from Jean Claude Van Damme.<br /><br />And the fact that Teal'c and the Ra character and the people they saved in the movie, can speak English all of a sudden is also incredibly dumb. What made the aliens so scary in the movie was that they spoke an ancient language and were real monsters. <br /><br />As for the special effects, they are really good in the pilot. But the very rare effects in the actual show are badly done and looks cheap. Especially a planet they visit with crystals. It's so obvious they walk around on a soundstage with a badly made painting in the background. It's an insult to us viewers that they made it look so cheap. Especially when they could have made it in front of a bluescreen with cgi backgrounds. <br /><br />The X-files had better effects when they aired their first episodes in 1993. That was 4 years before SG-1 started. And they did'nt have the apparent two million dollar budget per episode, that SG-1 supposedly had. They must have spend all the money on catering. Because I don't see it on the screen. <br /><br />Incredibly boring and pointless show, that could have been great if they had shot the show in Hollywood with a bigger budget and better writers and better characters.
1 How is it that everyone can understand each other perfectly without devices like universal translators or translator microbes? Did the creators of this show realize that people who were taken from different parts of the earth, in different time frames (Attilla the Hun wasn't a contemporary of preliterate Hellenic cultures, nor were the Vikings contemporary to the Pyramid builders) speak different languages and can never develop a language so similar to modern day English(except for the inflections they "do not" use), which has been influenced by Latin, ancient Greek, Danish and French? <br /><br />2 Cultural differences can't be overcome so easily, trust has to be won, yet everywhere the team arrives they are welcomed without any suspicion and start ordering people around like they are their appointed leaders. Of course real fans would comment that they are perceived as gods. The people they meet should be shocked by their technology and accuse them of witchcraft and the like.<br /><br />3 Historical background: none. Visually it might vaguely remind you of Greek or Viking culture, but anyone can dress in a bunch of tablecloths or run to a local costume rental for a plastic helmet with horns and claim to look the part. A small-town theater group probably has better props.<br /><br />4 Boring! Another lame Canuck production, which inexplicably ran for ten long years. As a kids show it could make the grade, but anyone who has a little knowledge about human behavior and language couldn't bear to even watch the first twelve episodes of season 1, like I just did. I very much wanted to believe I had found a decent sci-fi show, otherwise I would shut it of and cleansed my computer of this refuge after the first five minutes!
The episodic version of Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers plays out at a deathly slow pace, following Johnny Rico leaving his parents, the (not very attractive) girl he lusts for, and joining the mobile infantry. The aliens in the show are nothing like the barbaric bugs from the film, instead being squid-like monsters that shoot lasers out of their mouths.<br /><br />Throughout watching this version, I was continually amazed at just how fruity they've managed to make the whole thing. The show is concerned mostly with the relationships between the recruits, and the aching, prolonged gazes they give each other through their battle armour visors, with 80s synth pop sometimes arriving *during* the sparse battle sequences which at last turning up in the final few episodes. In terms of construction, it owes a debt to Top Gun, sharing much in terms of pacing and content (and all that implies).
You'd better choose Paul Verhoeven's even if you have watched it.
The plot of this terrible film is so convoluted I've put the spoiler warning up because I'm unsure if I'm giving anything away. The audience first sees some man in Jack the Ripper garb murder an old man in an alley a hundred years ago. Then we're up to modern day and a young Australian couple is looking for a house. We're given an unbelievably long tour of this house and the husband sees a figure in an old mirror. Some 105 year old woman lived there. There are also large iron panels covering a wall in the den. An old fashioned straight-razor falls out when they're renovating and the husband keeps it. I guess he becomes possessed by the razor because he starts having weird dreams. Oh yeah, the couple is unable to have a baby because the husband is firing blanks. <br /><br />Some mold seems to be climbing up the wall after the couple removes the iron panels and the mold has the shape of a person. Late in the story there is a plot about a large cache of money & the husband murders the body guard & a co-worker and steals the money. His wife is suddenly pregnant. <br /><br />What the hell is going on?? Who knows?? NOTHING is explained. Was the 105 year old woman the child of the serial killer? The baby sister? WHY were iron panels put on the wall? How would that keep the serial killer contained in the cellar? Was he locked down there by his family & starved to death or just concealed? WHO is Mr. Hobbs and why is he so desperate to get the iron panels?? He's never seen again. WHY was the serial killer killing people? We only see the one old man murdered. Was there a pattern or motive or something?? WHY does the wife suddenly become pregnant? Is it the demon spawn of the serial killer? Has he managed to infiltrate the husband's semen? And why, if the husband was able to subdue and murder a huge, burly security guard, is he unable to overpower his wife? And just how powerful is the voltage system in Australia that it would knock him across the room simply cutting a light wire? And why does the wife stay in the house? Is she now possessed by the serial killer? Is the baby going to be the killer reincarnated? <br /><br />This movie was such a frustrating experience I wanted to call my PBS station and ask for my money back! The ONLY enjoyable aspect of this story was seeing the husband running around in just his boxer shorts for a lot of the time, but even that couldn't redeem this muddled, incoherent mess.
...that Jamie Foxx would ever deliver such a wonderful, Oscar-winning performance. One of the reasons why I was so impressed with Foxx's performance in "Ray" was because from watching his hammy, obnoxious acting in movies like "Bait" and "Booty Call," I would never imagine he would ever hold the Oscar. If people told me five years ago that Jamie Foxx was one day going to win an Oscar, I would laugh right in their faces. Who knows? Maybe he's better off sticking to drama, because if you watch "Bait," it's clearly evident that comedy is not his forte. I swear, Jamie mugs so much in this movie that I'm surprised his face didn't fall off. And why does he have to do those stupid voices at every chance he gets? Anyone familiar with comedians like Bob Newhart and Steven Wright knows that doing comedy doesn't require being loud and obnoxious. If a joke is funny, it's funny. If it's not funny, then doing some crazy accent is not going to make it any funnier. The problem I have with some comedians who decide to try acting is that they favor getting laughs over being in character. In real life, normal people don't always have witty comebacks and quips. Like Albert Brooks said in an interview discussing his character in "Taxi Driver," it's important to be funny as your character, rather than be funny as a comedian. A prime example of Jamie violating that rule is the nauseatingly awful scene where his mug shots are being taken, and he starts posing for the photographs like a model. If a regular person were being thrown in jail, would he really be acting goofy while having his mug shots taken? And wouldn't the police try to scold him if he was? There are many scenes like that throughout the film. Another awful sequence is one where Jamie is on the unwittingly on the phone with the villain, and he starts doing a phony Caribbean accent. Not funny! Not to mention Jamie never seems to acknowledge the timing of a joke. Giving a comedic performance requires patience, whereas he goes straight to the punchline, whether it's the right time for it or not. I'm not even a big Mike Epps fan, but even his performance is good in comparison to Jamie's. As a matter of fact, this is the first time I felt somewhat relieved whenever he would appear on screen. Epps has the same flaws when it comes to comedy, but at least he chooses a more low-key approach. One of the few bright spots in this clunker of a comedy is David Morse, a highly underrated actor mostly known for his supporting roles as villains. He seems to be the only actor in the film concerned with grounding it in reality. However, fellow "Green Mile" star Doug Hutchison is disgustingly over-the-top as the villain. A big surprise, considering he gave a superb performance in "The Green Mile," also playing a heavy. Antoine Fuqua has proved his directing chops in movies like "The Replacement Killers" and "Training Day." Even in "Bait," he shows he can direct a hell of an action sequence. His only problem seemed to be in disciplining Jamie Foxx, who probably improvised half the script with one bad joke after another. Unless you're a die-hard fan of Foxx, please don't take the bait.
After a day at work, I sat down to relax and turned on the movie channels. The movie came up on the guide and sounded interesting so I tuned in just before it started. The first 30 minutes were enough to make me interested, but the lack of acting ability in Jamie Foxx and the slow plot movement made me want to get up and find food during the movie. If there is any credit to be given for acting in this movie it should go to David Morse who at least tries to make the movie interesting. All in all, don't plan on impressing your friends by picking this one as a renter for a movie night.
Jamie Foxx is my favorite comedian. However, I feel that he sold out in order to gain his first big budget lead role. Foxx follows in the footsteps of the likes of Chris Tucker, Martin Lawrence and Dave Chapple, who have all seen their talents wasted by stereotyping producers who think black males who commit pretty crimes is a funny concept (See: Money Talks, Blue Streak).<br /><br />Okay I laughed a few times and granted all of these comedians continue to pick up hilarious roles, but I would love to see these guys branch out ala Marlon Wayans portrayal in Requiem to a Dream. Or In Living Color's Tommy Davidson and Damon Wayans moving performances in Spike Lee's satire Bamboozled.
Jamie Foxx is fun but this movie has been done before. The bad guy plays a "malkovichian" character from "In the Line of Fire". The cops will do anything to find the bad guy - and of course the good guy has two sets of bad guys and one set of cops after him - all the while he is just trying to turn over a new leaf...
Well, i can and will be very short. This is a wrong-balanced, non-convincing film that could have been a little bit better. The script seems to not know which way to go ... from funny to cliche-wise serious... it's a bit silly. That plus too much sentences we have heard before "the hacker is in florida, or no, he is in madrid, no he is in ... , he is screwing the signal". <br /><br />4 out of 10
photography was too jumpy to follow. dark scenes hard to see.<br /><br />Had good story line too bad it got lost somewhere. Too noisy for what was really happening Bottom line is it's a baddddd movie
This is the first time I ever saw a movie with Jamie Foxx, and I bet it will be my last. I failed to see why he was funny, although people in the audience thought it was very funny when he made a face to the camera, or for saying "I am going to take a shower".<br /><br />The plot is completely predictable. The bad guy comes after the good guy. The good guy has a woman, so the bad guy uses her. In between, the officials screwing up. The final scenes are utterly unbelievable. You spend 2 years and millions of dollars chasing a guy, but you don't do your home work to solve a trivial riddle?<br /><br />There's no great acting, there isn't much of a plot or storyline, and the shooting is done MTV style. Don't waste your money on this one.<br /><br />
I love Jamie Foxx.<br /><br />And I enjoy 99% of all movies I see.<br /><br />And I walked out of this one.<br /><br />Now, I admit, it may have had something to do with the two middle-aged white women in the back of theatre who laughed at every little thing ("Oh no, Jamie's knocking on a door! HEE HEE HEE!"), but... this was just so incredibly annoying. There could be no sustained camera shot, and no camera shot from a conventional angle... everything had to be in-your-face, loud, and annoying.<br /><br />The bad guy tried to be smooth and Malkovich-like, but at this point, it's just old and tired. He brought nothing new or interesting. From all the characters, too many lines you saw coming, too many you've heard before, and too many "tough guy" lines... and I don't mind that sort of thing, really, as long as there's a bit of originality to it. In fact, pretty much the entire supporting cast just sucked.<br /><br />I love Jamie Foxx, and I think he's really funny, and I thought he was funny in this movie... but not nearly funny enough for me to endure everything else. <br /><br />This movie needed less shoot-em-up, less annoying camera shots, more emotion, more feeling, and more Jamie Foxx. I gave it a 2.
What? Is Jamie Foxx supposed to be funny?Does he really believe he is funny?Well, it's funny watching his confidence in being funny.The man has no identity whatsoever...I mean you can immediately see who his idols are, Denzel Washington and Martin Lawrence, because he tries really hard to imitate them in most of his movies.The only problem is that he does it bad, uneven, and what comes out are some parts where he somewhat looks like Denzel, with that macho-s**t attitude and then abruptly goes to being Martin Lawrence, the funny and clumsy-silly comic. There's no personal touch to all that, I mean he contributes nothing to the personality he tries to sell, and I'm sure he has nothing to say personally. He really is Mr. Dull-boy in person.<br /><br />I was really hoping Hollywood, and the black community in America would find somebody better to launch into super stardom, like Don Cheadle for example, but perhaps the pathetic Jamie better represents the generation that remixes the old.
I was one of quite a few extras in this big bomb. I just happened to be in the right place working safety for the race scenes at A.I.R. as it was know as back then.Thank goodness my scene in in the first few minutes of the movie and I don't have to sit through the whole thing. It was more of a big party than a movie set but hey, the pay was good.Attention to detail was not a strong point for this one, but who was going to know.The funny thing was seeing the cars in the track at the really slow speed and then in the movie speeded up to the what was close to normal speed.A lot of the scenes were changed as they were filmed I suppose to shave cost and time.But every one was having such a good time who cared!
This is surely one of the worst films ever made and released by a major Hollywood studio. The plot is simply stupid. The dialog is written in clichés; you can complete a great many sentences in the script because of this. The acting is ridiculously bad, especially that of Rod Cameron. The "choreography" is silly and wholly unerotic. One can only pity the reviewer who saw 23-year-old Yvonne's dance as sexual; it's merely very bad choreography. The ballet scene in the film's beginning is especially ludicrous. If you are into bad movies and enjoy laughing at some of Hollywood's turkeys, this is for you. I bought the colorized version on VHS, making the movie even worse. Yvonne's heavy makeup, when colored, has her looking like a clown all the time. And she's the best part of this film. What a way to launch a career.
This film is about British prisoners of war from the World War II escaping from a camp in Germany.<br /><br />I find "The Wooden Horse" disappointingly boring. The subject could have been thrilling, suspenseful and adrenaline fuelled, but "The Wooden Horse" is told in a very plain way. It's a collection of plain and poorly told events, with no suspension and thrill. The first half plainly tells how the prisoners of war dug a tunnel, but the events are so plain, with not enough blunders and close shaves to make me on edge. The latter half of the film is even worse, they are just moving from one place to another without any cat and mouse chase. And could the characters talk a bit less and have more action in an action film! I am disappointed by "The Wooden Horse", it wasted the potential to be a great film.
Early film directed by D.W. Griffith; it features a gloriously happy King (Arthur V. Johnson) and his Queen (Marion Leonard) - but, wait! When the King leaves the scene, his Queen makes music with the palace's Minstrel (Henry B. Walthall). When the King discovers the lovers, he decides to enact a horrific Edgar Allen Poe-type revenge. It's difficult to believe the lovers can't hear those plotting against them; although the actors are trying to look alternately noisy (the lovers) and quiet (the cement mixers). The sets make "The Sealed Room" look very staged. The performances are okay, and the story is easy to follow. <br /><br />*** The Sealed Room (9/2/09) D.W. Griffith ~ Arthur V. Johnson, Henry B. Walthall, Marion Leonard
In contrast to my fellow reviewers, I always try to find something redeeming in any film I see.Yes, the quality of the dubbing and lighting is abysmal, the acting is wooden and the opening sequence highly misleading what with all those lascivious female lesbian vampires with blood dripping.Something must be lost in the translation of the word "Bloodsucker" from the Italian in the title; almost as if the producers were originally going to film a Gothic Vampire tale and then changed their minds but could not afford to give up their dramatic opening sequence, so tacked it onto the film anyway.<br /><br />This film made in 1975 has recently been issued on DVD and comes with its own theatrical trailer which in some respects is more daring than seen in the film!Now anyone who buys this film has probably already read its synopsis anyway and knows what to expect - Italian softporn from the mid 1970s.I bought it because I am attracted to Christa Nelli (credited most often as "Krista Nell").The absence of a cast of characters I find most frustrating in a lot of these Eurosleaze films from the 60s & 70s.I had hoped Imdb would show the cast of characters as one hears their names in the film but without a cast list, it is very difficult to link them to the actor concerned.I think Krista Nell played "Cora" but underneath that massive hair style, costume and make-up it is difficult to distinguish her for sure.<br /><br />There is mostly a two dimensional portrayal by the actors of their parts and no one really stands out.Maybe something is lost in the dubbing process.What were the positive points?Well the music was atmospheric and of course if you're into beautiful lesbian soft porn its there.The external locations used were good and I would like to know where they filmed the castle on its island.It purports to be set in "Ireland" (North or the Republic?)in 1902, so everyone sports period piece costumes.Some of the scenes I found unintentionally funny especially those sex scenes!!Anyway an enjoyable romp.I rated it 4/10.
(aka: The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance)<br /><br />Lots of naked babes in this one with a couple of lesbo scenes thrown in. The film is supposed to take place in Ireland but it looks more like Rome and the Adriatic to me.<br /><br />Gothic lesbians get invited to a Count's island castle for the weekend. One by one they seem to be missing their heads due to a madperson running around.<br /><br />It's not very scary or bloody and the rooms look like they are lit with floodlights even though candles are lit. Go figure...(sic)<br /><br />Dubbing is worse than usual and the plot only serves as an excuse for the eroticism and nudity. Directed by euro horror actor Alfredo Rizzo, this is one snoozer.<br /><br />Pretty boring 2 out of 10
Wow-this one sucks. I'm gonna sum it up as quickly as possible. <br /><br />A count invites 4 naive sluts back to his castle. A bunch of nothing happens for a long time. Some lame and un-erotic soft-core sex scenes happen. Some girls get their heads cut off (off-screen)-The End.<br /><br />The only things going for this one are the decent looking sets and costumes, some bad dubbing which leads to some unintentionally funny dialogue, and a few brief nudie shots. And believe me-those things are not enough to redeem the 90-minutes of tedium that this film is. In fact-the best part is the tacked on beginning from the distributor that features some slutty goth chicks covered in blood and showing their tits-and again-this is definitely not worth the price of admission for this garbage. As everyone else has noted- the title of the film is completely nonsensical-as there's absolutely no bloodsucking, nor dancing of any sort in the film at all. It may as well have been called 'The Goat-Raper Leads the Circle-Jerk'-and at least then it would have had a better title that also pertains to nothing in the film. An accurate title would have been '90 Minutes of Torture'-another alluring title that would have at least been truthful...for the viewer. Honestly-the trailer that's on the disc shows all the best parts (and i use the term 'best' extremely loosely...) so I highly suggest watching that instead if you're still curious.  I can't imagine anyone liking this wreck of a film-please take my advice and leave this one on the shelf. 2/10 
A particularly maligned example of Italian cult cinema with a nonsensical title to boot (if anything, the alternate THE MARK OF Satan is even less relevant to the plot!), this hybrid of Gothic Horror and Giallo (with a strong dose of Erotica) only contrives a flat sort of atmosphere throughout – actually matched by handling which is downright dreadful! Here, we get the usual group of people (an acting troupe) stranded on an island (to which they were invited by a Count – since he had become enamored of the leading lady, a dead-ringer for his missing spouse)! The characters are pretty much stereotypes: middle-aged but dashing hero (played by Giacomo Rossi-Stuart and whose family history bears more than its share of violent tragedy), demure heroine, sluttish companion (recalling Mae West and emerging the most annoying of the lot!), a meek but devoted stage manager (forever chided by one and all for his unmanly behavior!), a couple of lesbians, a mysterious gardener (the ubiquitous Luciano Pigozzi who, for once, gets in on the action, if you know what I mean), an envious housekeeper (nominal star Femi Benussi though, for what it is worth, this is really an ensemble piece), a religious fanatic of a butler, an impressionable chambermaid, etc. While the film is not by any means unwatchable, the atrocious dubbing, snail's pace, shoddy production (with the scenes depicting the raging sea lifted from some black-and-white film!) and the fact that the murders only occur within the concluding half-hour do not help matters. Besides, Marcello Giombini's score, though pleasant in itself, comes off as incongruously modern under the circumstances; that said, the revelation proves a surprisingly elaborate one (considering there is surely no shortage of suspects here).
After an initial release of 4 very good Eurotrash titles, REDEMPTION has managed to scrape the bottom of the barrel with THE BLOODSUCKER LEADS THE DANCE. I found NO Bloodsuckers anywhere in this movie.<br /><br />The story is simple. A mysterious count invites several actresses to his castle for a little vacation. After some sofcore sexual shenanigans the girls get decapitated one by one. Who is the killer? Who knows? There are more red herrings in this one than at the local fish market on Friday.<br /><br />The pace is excruciating. The story is silly and the skin scenes aren't all that terrific either.<br /><br />Give this one a miss.
This movie is not only a very bad movie, with awful actors --or presumed actors--, a bored direction and a story unattractive, it also copies exactly an scene from the excellent "giallio" "Torso", directed by Sergio Martino in 1973 (two years before), one of the most celebrated psycho-thrillers of Italian cinema and a cult-movie around the world. In "La Sanguinusa conduce la danza", the director replays the bed scene between the black girl and the white girl, with an peeping-tom watching from a window of the bedroom. Naturally, the scene in Rizzo's movie is ridiculous and inferior to the softness and charming in Martino's film. To put another black girl, another white girl and another peeping-tom replaying the scene is simply the most appropriate way of prove that Rizzo's movie has no ideas, no originality, no taste, and nothing at all. I think that such things are an offense to spectator.
La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza, or The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance as I believe is it's common English title, is set on 'Ireland' in '1902' where the mysterious Count Richard Marnack (Giacomo Rossi-Stuart) invites soon-to-be out of work theatre actress Evelyn (Patrizia Webley as Patrizia De Rossi) & three more of her fellow soon-to-be out of work actress friends Cora (Krista Nell), Penny (Lidia Olizzi) & Rosalind (Marzia Damon as Caterina Chiani) to his castle situated on a small island just off the coast. At first Evelyn is reluctant but is persuaded when it is agreed stage hand Samuel (Leo Valeriano) goes along as well. Once there Count Marnack tells his guests that his Father & Grandfather both cut the heads off their cheating wives using a ceremonial knife & there's a feeling of unease when it turns out that Evelyn looks EXACTLY the same as the current Count's wife who ran away not too long ago... Along with having to worry about weirdo servants it turns out that someone wants to use the knife themselves to chop a few heads off...<br /><br />This Italian production was written & directed by Alfredo Rizzo & is total, complete & utter crap from start to finish. First things first lets start the criticism with the title The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance, lets examine that title because when I do I feel somewhat cheated that there aren't any Vampires or any form of bloodsucking whatsoever, no-one 'leads' anything at anytime & there most certainly isn't any dance or dancing so don't expect any of these things. What you should expect though is a tedious, dull, boring pointless little 'giallo' that takes over an hour before anyone is killed & any sort of murder mystery starts to take shape, the first hour of La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza is as plot less & uninteresting as anything out there. The best way to imagine it is to think of the most boring soft-core porn film you've ever seen, then cut most of the soft-core porn out & that just leaves bad actors, bad dubbing, bad dialogue, a tiny bit of soft-core sex & lesbianism & absolutely nothing else. Yep, it really is that bad. The mystery elements are crap, people do illogical things for no apparent reason & the overly complicated 'twist' ending is as bad as the rest of it, The Sixth Sense (1999) this ain't!<br /><br />Director Rozzi does an OK job & La Sanguisga Conduce la Danza actually has a nice look & feel to it despite it's obvious low budget, I mean there are scenes where he shows a 'storm' raging outside the castle however the stock footage used is in black & white! So the film jumps from bright colour to black & white whenever it cuts to the storm & back to colour again! There is one absolutely hilarious scene where a maid & her friend discuss her breasts & she lets her friend feel them who is then full of compliments, this scene is so funny & just so unnatural that it's priceless & easily the films best moment even if a bad 70's porno would be embarrassed by the dialogue! There is minimal nudity & the sex/lesbian scenes are very tame. Forget about any blood or gore as there isn't any apart from a decapitated head.<br /><br />Technically the films pretty good, the period setting & production design are actually quite impressive although it's not massive in scope it does the job effectively enough. The film has a nice sense of colour & the cinematography is fine. The film is dubbed so it's hard to give an opinion on the original performances but the voice actors are terrible & the dialogue is even worse than usual.<br /><br />La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza is a terrible film, it makes no sense, it has virtually no story for over an hour, it has possibly the most misleading title ever & is really dull & boring with a confused stupid 'twist' ending. As far as Euro horror fans go there are plenty of much better films than this so please don't waste your time, as for anyone else this is definitely one to avoid. Trivia Note: the notorious (& banned in the UK) Nazi exploitation/horror film Horrifying Experiments of the S.S Last Days (1977) AKA SS Hell Camp & The Beast in Heat was directed by Luigi Batzella & he has a fairly substantial role as a police detective in La Sanguisuga Conduce la Danza.
The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance - what a laughable title, it's so utterly misleading. It's not surprising that the film-makers try and mislead us though because this is one terrible movie.<br /><br />The story basically involves a murder mystery in a castle on a remote island.<br /><br />Very little happens in this film. And when something does wake the viewer from his stupor, it invariably is unintentional comedy in the form of atrocious dialogue delivered by a hopeless group of voice-artists. These guys are so bad they make the actors they deliver voices for appear like a group of remedial-level morons. It really is hard to determine how bad the acting is when you have dubbing this abysmal. But the voice-artists cannot be blamed for the script. It's a travesty. Unintentionally funny at best, pathetic at worst. The story in general is, to say the least, uneven. The women characters are particularly idiotic; the men are either creepy or tedious.<br /><br />The whole enterprise smacks of pure exploitation of the audience. It doesn't remotely deliver what it promises and even when the murders (finally) start happening, they all occur off screen. All we get is a few half-hearted severed head shots.<br /><br />A few people have said that this movie is a giallo. I cannot agree less with this opinion. Anyone who enjoys Italian thrillers should give this movie a wide berth as there is nothing remotely thrilling about it. It's basically a soft-core porn film with a horror angle. But it's not very erotic either.<br /><br />I can't recommend this to anyone.
The Horror Channel plays nothing but erotic soft porn Gothic flicks each night from 10pm till about 4 in the morning, but their 'scare' factor is very limited, if one exists at all. In fact I am sure I will find a multi-million pound lottery win more scary than anything this channel has to offer.<br /><br />The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance deserves special mention because it is I feel, the undisputed low of a channel full of lows. I cannot even begin to tell you how bad this film is, but for the purpose of completing the minimum 10 lines demanded by this site, I will at least give it a go.<br /><br />Firstly the title is misleading and bears no resemblance to the action on the screen. In fact the film might as well have been called 'Toothbrush' or 'Wallpaper' for all it has to do with the plot. At least they used toothbrushes...at least they had wallpaper.<br /><br />There are no bloodsuckers for miles around and whats even worse there are no dances, not one. I'm sure they were making two different films by mistake here.<br /><br />A more suitable title would have been, 'Horny Italian Count Leads Five People to a Scary Castle and Bores us Silly for Ninety Minutes.' Yes that fits better.<br /><br />The acting is terrible and and the dubbing appalling, and that guy who plays Seymour was almost as wooden in his walk as he was in his character....abysmal.<br /><br />The only saving graces of this film are a small but slightly interesting lesbian sex scene, two small and very interesting heterosexual sex scenes, and the added attraction in that every single female character gets her kit off. Bonus.<br /><br />Otherwise steer a wide birth away from this one. No vampires, no dancing, no scenes of a brutal or gruesome nature and no way on Gods earth I will ever, ever, ever watch this one again.<br /><br />No word of a lie, this film could put you off motion pictures for life.
I saw this movie when i was much younger and i thought it was funny. I saw it again last week, and you can guess the result. Some funny parts in it, very few and too long. The beginning is the only thing that is funny if you ask me.<br /><br />If you want a total b-movie this is a good pick, but don't expect too much from aliens dwarf size
This is a really dumb movie. It could be fun with the cool looking aliens and the country setting, but it just isn't.<br /><br />Some aliens hear the broadcast of War of the Worlds when a small country radio station plays it on Halloween. They come to Earth to kill humans, but instead of killing, they make people their slaves and act goofy. The front cover of the film shows these aliens riding surfboards in space...not really what they do. These aren't party aliens, they are stupid cartoonish idiots with annoying high pitched modulated voices. The alien with the most tolerable voice also happens to be the Jack Nicholson rip-off alien who always wears his sunglasses. Other than the aliens, the acting is terrible. The writing is obviously meant for children, because every character is written like a kid.<br /><br />This is a dumb movie, that only children will appreciate, maybe.<br /><br />My rating: 1/2 out of ****. 100 mins. PG for mild language.
Imagine you're a high-school boy, in the back of a dark, uncrowded theater with your girlfriend. How bad would a movie have to be, in order that you would feel compelled to leave the theater and head home before it ended? This movie is that bad. Really. Movies often become so bad that they're good; this movie is beyond that stage of bad-ness. It is painfully bad. Horribly, terribly, crime-against-humanity bad.
This was an incredibly stupid movie. It was possibly the worst movie I've ever had the displeasure of sitting through. I cannot fathom how it ranks a rating of 5 or 6.............
Sloppily directed, witless comedy that supposedly spoofs the "classic" 50s "alien invasion" films, but really is no better than them, except of course in the purely technical department (good makeup effects). And any spoof that is worse than its target is doomed to fail ("Casino Royale", "Our Man Flint" are worse than almost any James Bond movie). After two hours of hearing the screeching voices of the aliens, you'll be begging for some peace and quiet. (*1/2)
Dysfunctional family goes home for the holidays and murder and mayhem result. Violent sexy Milligan at his most home made. Little better than a home movie (as much of Milligans films are) this is a trip into depravity 1960's style. Notable for the copious nudity and sex this film is neither sexy nor gruesome, playing now more as quaint.(though decidedly r rated). The film suffers from its uneven cast and from the cheapness of the production.(No one was ever sure where the money went on his movies since he was always broke). Its a bad bad movie thats not worth seeing except as a Milligan completeist or because its got some good looking people fooling around.
If you're after the real story of early Baroque painter Artemisia Gentileschi, you'll be disappointed- however if you're after a reasonably crafted bodice ripper with an art theme, you've found you're movie.<br /><br />This film is such a foundationally inaccurate depiction of Artemisia Gentileschi's life that it almost made me weep. (Type in Artemisia inaccuracies in Google and check out some of the fact vs. fiction articles.) From a purely technical point of view though, the film was alright: the sets, costumes, and especially the chiaroscuro lighting helped create an immersive early 17th century experience; although the above mentioned GLARING FACTUAL INACCURACIES let it down a bit.<br /><br />I wonder how the director/co-writer Agnès Merlet defended her film at the time? Perhaps she refused to portray Artemisia as a victim, which would've been unfortunate, because lets face it, she was.
As others have noted, this movie is criminally inaccurate in its portrayal of the artist's life and I for one was very annoyed and offended... by its transformation of her rape into a tragic love affair, by the implication that her rapist was responsible for 'awakening her talent,' by its complete disregard for her work, by the way it turned her into a sex object, on and on, you get the idea. Also, I find it disturbing that people who aren't familiar with Gentileschi will see this film and walk away with that kind of impression of her.
Artemesia takes the usual story about the art world, eg, "You can't paint that! But I want to!" and plasters it with sex and scandal to make the whole film, well, interesting, but not remarkable.<br /><br />The story is about one of the first female painters around, Artemesia who course, is fiercely independent, but just can't stop thinking of men, and their bodies… for artistic purposes of course. She soon gets private tutoring from one of a well known artist, but soon tutoring becomes much more then art, and soon after that, scandal erupts! Funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft-porn fantasy. I mean, was Artemesia THAT much of a man-hungry person? Also, it's quite funny when she's insisting that she "paints for herself!" yet falls for the first person she sees.<br /><br />Actually, the story itself is quite fascinating, and it ends with a trial, which I always love. But I wasn't too crazy about the male lead who played her teacher, who looked rather like the person someone like that wouldn't fall for. I woulda gone for the young fisherman :P
The acting is good, the women are beautiful, and the men are handsome, so if you're looking for well-acted soft porn, this movie is for you. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. The motivation of the main characters, in particular the eponymous lead, is often a mystery. She could have just told the truth - the truth as presented in the film, not necessarily the historical truth - and her lover would have been spared time in jail for a rape he did not commit. Was she protecting her father, who went off half-cocked, as it were, when he impetuously instigated a malicious lawsuit? Was she protecting herself, with her reputation suddenly of concern when heretofore only her art seemed to matter? During the trial, this strong-willed woman turns to mush before our eyes. Conversely, her lover, who starts off as a narcissistic jerk, becomes a selfless hero during the trial. At least his motivation is clearer: he sacrifices himself for love. Naturally, since no good deed must go unpunished, we are told that she never sees him again.
An awful film! It must have been up against some real stinkers to be nominated for the Golden Globe. They've taken the story of the first famous female Renaissance painter and mangled it beyond recognition. My complaint is not that they've taken liberties with the facts; if the story were good, that would perfectly fine. But it's simply bizarre -- by all accounts the true story of this artist would have made for a far better film, so why did they come up with this dishwater-dull script? I suppose there weren't enough naked people in the factual version. It's hurriedly capped off in the end with a summary of the artist's life -- we could have saved ourselves a couple of hours if they'd favored the rest of the film with same brevity.
What did the director think? Everybody who has read the biography of Artemisia is left impressed by her guts to face a public rape trial in Renaissance times and even suffer torture in order to show that Tassi was guilty. That fact shows the real independence and emancipation - in her most terrible hour she stands her MAN. Why do movies depicting Renaissance have to be so clinically beautiful and romantic, are we afraid to see the gritty side of life or has the Hollywood happy-happy-mood won? While I would always defend a director's freedom to create his own reality in a movie I cannot make sense of turning Artimisia's life story on its head. Very disappointing choice by the makers of this film.
This flick was a blow to me. I guess little girls should aspire to be nothing more than swimsuit models, home makers or mistresses, since that seems to be all they'll ever be portrayed as anyway. It is truly saddening to see an artist's work and life being so unjustly misinterpretated. Inconcievably (or perhaps it should have been expected), Artemisia's entire character and all that she stands for, had been reduced to a standard Hollywood, female character; a pitiful, physically flawless, helpless little creature, displaying none of the character traits that actually got her that place in history which was being mutilated here. Sadder yet, was to see that a great part of the audience was too badly educated in the area to comprehend the incredible gap between the message conveyed in the film, and reality. To portray the artist as someone in love with her real-life rapist, someone whom she in reality accused of raping her even when under torture, just plain pisses me off. If the director had nothing more substantial to say she should have refrained from basing her story on a real person.
When I saw the preview, I thought: this is going to be a great movie. And indeed it could have been. The actress playing the main character was very credible, and the beauty of the filming is undeniable. However the dialogues cast a dark shadow on the whole picture. The level of language was too familiar and too contemporary for an action taking place in 1610, and it took away most of the magic of the film. However, I must congratulate the translator, because the English sub-titles were more refined and appropriate that the original French cues, and it probably explains the good rating the movie received on the imbd!
I was disgusted by this movie. No it wasn't because of the graphic sex scenes, it was because it ruined the image of Artemisia Gentileschi. This movie does not hold much truth about her and her art. It shows one piece of art work that she did (Judith Beheading Holofernese) but shows that being entered as testimony in the rape trial when she did not paint her first Judith for a year after the trial.<br /><br />I don't know if you understood this from the movie, probably not, Tassi was not a noble character. He RAPED Artemisia. It was not love, it was rape. He did not claim to accept false charges of rape to stop her from suffering while she was tortured. According to the rape transcripts he continued to claim that he never carnally knew Artemisia (aka had sex with) while she states over and over again "It's true".<br /><br />I encourage all of you people to go out and find about the real Artemisia and see what she is really about. Don't base all of your knowledge on this fictional movie. I encourage you to do some research, Artemisia really does have interesting story behind her and some amazing art work.<br /><br />Don't see the movie, but find out the true story of Artemisia.
I didn't think the French could make a bad movie, but I was, clearly, very wrong. As has been said before, this film essentially uses its title character as a point of departure; its portrayal of her life and person have little or nothing to do with the real Artemisia Gentileschi. <br /><br />The script is awful -- pretentious, stilted, and vapid -- and its rewriting of the facts is unusually offensive even in a genre that all too often makes its living by distorting, rather than retelling, history. Along with some fairly decent set design, Valentina Cervi's physical charms are the primary asset of this movie, and it's obvious from the beginning that the filmmakers were aware of this too; they waste no time in contriving various "erotic" sequences which have far more to do with titillation than with plot or character development. Unfortunately, the appeal of seeing a pretty young girl in a state of feigned sexual arousal cannot, and does not, sustain this movie. The acting is unremarkable, and the score is all too generic despite an interesting chord or two. The cinematography is OK, and there are some pretty colors, but there are also some pretty ridiculous sequences using distorted-lens effects more appropriate for a 1960s freakout movie than a costume drama. In any event, the script leaves the camera dwelling all too often on Artemisia's body, and all too seldom on her paintings.<br /><br />All told, a near-complete failure. It's not intelligent or tasteful enough to be a serious film, and it's too slow and pretentious to work as soft-core pornography. So the French can fail, after all!
It figures this is a French film, LOL, with the emphasis on young girls with much older men...why is it the French are so fixated on this kind of thing? When the age difference is this great, it really comes off as pervy! Valentina Cervi is beautiful (she bears a strong resemblance to Olivia Hussey, of Zeffirelli's '68 Romeo and Juliet, set in a similar period), but she looks about 15 and the actor playing Tassi, her painting instructor, looks...well, 50 is KIND.<br /><br />Other posters have done the work of explaining the historical record (unusually detailed in this case) of the real Artemisia, a great artist and one of the earliest recognized female painters of this period (17th century). Her story speaks to us in modern times particularly because of the age-old accusation that "all great artists were men" -- she pretty much blasts that assertion to bits -- and because the story of her rape trial is so poignant. Not only was she clearly assaulted, and forced into a degrading sexual relationship (because in those days marriage to your assaulter was the only way to avoid social shame), but Tassi was a serial rapist and possibly killed his wife and child.<br /><br />The movie does a terrible disservice by inverting this truly fascinating and remarkable real life story -- very dramatic and not in need of any "spicing up" -- because in some weird Frencified way, it's "hotter" to have an oversexed teenager drawing male sexual organs and having a hot love affair with a man old enough to be her grandfather. That's "sexy" -- the truth is boring and seems too feminist/politically correct.<br /><br />It also disturbs me that this is ONLY part of Artemisia life considered interesting enough to film. The fact that she painted for decades (her famous painting of Judith beheading Holfernes was painted AFTER, not before the rape), that she was the first woman admitted to the prestigious Florentine Academy, that she went on to have children...oh that's boring stuff. After all, that's about a middle aged woman and they aren't "hot" like teenagers.<br /><br />I understand that there is a lot of creative license in making a film (or a book) about a real historical character. You need to create dialog, have subplots, create dramatic structure. Certainly some details can be sacrificed -- it's no big deal if the dates are moved a few years, or if Artemisia is played by a blonde actress (when we know from her self portraits that she was a brunette...and a big boned one, not a skinny minny), or something like that. But to turn her story around on her, and make rape into a romance is actually sick and disturbing. It's even worse because the director is female. She should be horribly ashamed of herself!<br /><br />If you LIKE this (and I know some people could care less about the real woman artist and just like period costumes and hot sex), you will probably like "Dangerous Beauty" with Rufus Sewell and Catherine McCormack. Similarly based on heavily re-written history, with lots of heaving bosoms and jewel encrusted goblets: Bon Appetit!
Any time a movie is so myopic in its desire to present a particular ending or viewpoint that it simply doesn't bother with an actual story, it's annoying. Those are the types of movies where the ending or viewpoint is conceived first, and the story simply tacked on. For this reason we often talk of the story "jumping through hoops" as it twists about, trying in vain to progress to the preordained ending in a logical fashion.<br /><br />The story in "Comet Over Broadway" doesn't just jump through hoops, it's a three ring circus. It's so ludicrous, so ill-conceived, so disingenuous that, if you are prone to speaking aloud to the screen, you will be carrying on quite a rant before it's through.<br /><br />The central theme of this screenplay cesspool is that of a woman choosing between family and profession. Since it's all so horribly muddled it will end up offensive to people of either opinion. So, in the end there's no point to the story, the theme becomes irrelevant and, as is often the case with poor screenplays, the acting doesn't save a thing.
2 stars for Kay Francis -- she's wonderful! And she didn't deserve this horrible tripe that Warner Bros. threw her way! <br /><br />The two-pronged premise that this movie is based on is ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme. Kay is a small-town wife and mother who yearns for something bigger: she wants to be an actress. When a big-shot actor comes to town and invites Kay to his hotel to talk about possibilities, Kay tells her husband she's going to the movies. The hubby's biddy of a mother puts a bug in hubby's ear that Kay's not being truthful, and he sets out looking for her. He finds her w/ the actor in the hotel (they are only talking!) and he slugs the guy, who falls over a railing, lands face-first in a pond (lake?), and dies. Now here's the two unbelievable premises upon which the rest of the movie is based: <br /><br />1) the judge tells the jury that if it's determined that the man died *before* his head went into the water, that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder. (Whaaaaa?????? I think slugging a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most, not FIRST DEGREE murder. Give me a break! But the plot required him being found guilty of murder 1 so that he could be sent to prison for life. Whatever.) <br /><br />2) the hubby's lawyer, after the conviction and sentencing, tells Kay that it's all HER fault. His reasoning is that if she hadn't gone over to the actor's room, then her husband wouldn't have had to go after her and slug the guy and kill him. He tells her that she's the guilty one, not her husband, and she nods and agrees. What. The. Hell?!?!?! The rest of the movie is all about Kay trying to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband released from prison and right the wrong she committed by causing him to kill the actor dude in the first place.<br /><br />I can't even go on with this review. The movie was just all too painful. Four years earlier, in the pre-code days, you'd never have caught Kay playing such a wimp! In true Kay Francis fashion, though, she did do her best to make us believe that this woman was a believable character. I give her much credit for trying to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role. This character was a far cry from pre-code Kay roles and real-life spitfire Kay Francis.<br /><br />Steer way clear of this one! There are much better Kay Francis vehicles out there! (From personal experience, I can highly recommend Mary Stevens, MD and Jewel Robbery; also good are Dr. Monica and One Way Passage. I'm sure there's other great Kay flicks as well, but I'm only mentioning the ones I've seen and can recommend.)
Wow, the plot for this film is all over the place! There is so much plot and so many things that happen that it practically made my head spin!! And, as a result, none of it seemed particularly believable.<br /><br />The movie starts with Kay Francis as a housewife living in a small town. She's had some experience with local theater and has ambitions of going to Broadway. When a big-time actor arrives in town, she pursues him in hopes that he can give her a career boost. But, her husband is worried about shenanigans--as this actor is a cad. So, the hubby bursts in on them and hits the actor--and the actor dies! As a result, he's convicted of First Degree Murder!!! Not Manslaughter, but Murder 1! Now, pregnant and in need of funds, Kay goes to New York. But Broadway jobs aren't to be found, so she's forced to take any job--even Burlesque. Unable to adequately care for her young daughter, she gives it to another woman to raise. However, eventually she does find a job in a real Broadway play and everything looks rosy. But, the jealous diva starring in the play hates her for some inexplicable reason and forces her to be thrown off the play. Despondent, she makes her way to England and becomes a real star. Years later, she returns to New York to get her kid--but the child is older and thinks the woman caring for her is her real mother. At the same time, her husband's lawyer now thinks that if he gets $10,000 he can get the man out of prison. As another reviewer wrote, is this to bribe people?! How can $10,000 get him out otherwise--maybe it will buy a helicopter so they can fly into the prison yard and scoop him up!! Wow--this is enough for 2 or 3 films! And, all this occurs by the 45 minute mark!!! Believe it or not, there's quite a bit more to it. If you really care, see it yourself to find out how it all unfolds.<br /><br />This is sort of like 'kitchen sink writing'--throwing in practically everything and hoping, somehow, it will all work. Unfortunately, the film turns out to be hopelessly unbelievable and mushy despite Ms. Francis' best efforts. It's the sort of film no one could really have saved thanks to a 2nd-rate plot. It's almost as if someone just took a few dozen plot elements, threw them into a box and then began randomly picking them in order to make a movie!! Overall, unless you are a die-hard Kay Francis fan or love anything Hollywood made in the 1930s, this one is one you can easily skip. Not terrible but certainly not good.<br /><br />By the way, the child who plays Francis' daughter upon her return to New York (Sybil Jason) really was terrible. I think she was supposed to be...I think.
The competition for the worst Warner Bros Kay Francis movie is stiff. I've only seen perhaps eight of them, but Comet over Broadway is the worst so far. The very best thing about it is that it's short. Oh, and the Orry-Kelly gowns (of course) are fine. James Wong Howe's cinematography is not. Kay Francis throughout looks fat-faced and far less attractive than she normally does. Minna Gombell whom I don't know otherwise is good as a semi-tough "burlesque" dancer (it looked more like a fashion show than burlesque). The closing shot - Kay Francis and her child (when did the child learn that Kay Francis was her mother? Did I doze off?) walking up a dirt path toward a prison painted in misty outlines on a sound stage drop is beyond ludicrous. The whole film is so cheap, so implausible and so careless that it feels infected by a sour cynicism on the part of everyone who made it: Warner Bros tossing garbage to dolts who don't know, in Warner Bros' cynical estimation of them, that what they're getting is garbage.
I read somewhere that when Kay Francis refused to take a cut in pay, Warner Bros. retaliated by casting her in inferior projects for the remainder of her contract.<br /><br />She decided to take the money. But her career suffered accordingly.<br /><br />That might explain what she was doing in "Comet Over Broadway." (Though it doesn't explain why Donald Crisp and Ian Hunter are in it, too.) "Ludicrous" is the word that others have used for the plot of this film, and that's right on target. The murder trial. Her seedy vaudeville career. Her success in London. Her final scene with her daughter. No part logically leads to the next part.<br /><br />Also, the sets and costumes looked like B-movie stuff. And her hair! Turner is showing lots and lots of her movies this month. Watch any OTHER one and you'll be doing yourself a favor.
When converting a book to film, it is generally a good idea to keep at least some of the author's intended tone or conveyed concepts, rather than ignoring the author altogether. While it is clear that the director had access to and went on the advice of Elinore Stewart's children, it is key to note that the children believed their mother to be a complete liar in regards to the good, enriching, strengthening experiences of homesteading her land. The book details her life on her and her husband's adjoining homesteads in the vast Wyoming frontier; she chronicles daily adventures with her numerous friends and acquaintances, though they lived dozens of miles apart. The film, however, takes a standard stance for the time it was made, portraying this woman's experience as harsh, unforgiving, and nearly pointless. Perhaps the director was bringing some of his Vietnam War experiences with him to this movie (as some film aficionados have said), but it seems to be a lousy excuse for taking all the joy and beauty of the book and twisting it into a bleak, odious landscape devoid of friends or hope. Don't waste your time with this movie; read the book instead.
One of the most disgusting films I have ever seen. I wanted to vomit after watching it. I saw this movie in my American History class and the purpose was to see an incite on the life of a farmer in the West during the late 1800's. What we saw were pigs being shot and then slaughtered, human birth, branding. Oh and at the end there was a live birth of a calf and let me tell you that the birth itself wasn't too bad, but the numerous fluids that came out drove most people in my class to the bathroom. The story itself was OK. The premise of the story is a widow and her daughter and they move to the west to be a house keeper of this cowboy. They live a life of hardship and it is an interesting a pretty accurate view of life in the West during the late 1800's. But if you have a choice, do not see this movie.
I realize that living in the Western Plains of Wyoming during the 1900s was brutal, in fact, it probably is still brutal today, but was it monumental enough to transform into a seemingly "made-for-TV" movie? Also, women's rights were still budding in this nation during this time, so to find an independent woman determined to start fresh in this harsh territory, and still show the realism of the era … would it make for good viewing? Honestly, I don't know. I have thought about this film for the past two days, and I still can't seem to muster the strength to say that it was a horrible film, yet I can truthfully tell you that it wasn't the greatest I have ever seen. From several hodgepodge styles of acting, to two mismatched actors playing devoid of emotion character, to some of the most gruesome PG rated scenes to ever come out of late 70s cinema, it is hard to fully get a good grasp on Heartland. Was it good? Was it bad? That may be up for you to view and decide yourself, but until then, here are moments I enjoyed and desperately hated! <br /><br />This film continues to be a struggle in my mind because there were some very interesting scenes. Scenes where I wasn't sure what the director was doing or which direction he was headed, but somehow still seemed to work well as a whole. I thought the story as a whole was a very interesting, historical tale. I do not know much about living in Wyoming, especially during the early 1900s, so this film captured that image in my mind. The thought of very cold winters, no neighbors for miles upon miles, and this Polaroid-esquire view untouched by corporate America. It was refreshing to witness and sheer breathtaking to experience (though the television). There were scenes that really stood out in my mind, like the cattle-branding scene, the pig slaughtering scene, and the saddening homesteader that didn't survive their journey, that just brought a true sense of realism to this story. Director Richard Pearce did a great job of bringing the view of Wyoming to the viewers, but I am not sure he brought decent players to accompany the view.<br /><br />While I will constantly compliment the scenery of this film, I had trouble coping with the actors that seemingly walked on the set and read their lines from cards on the side. Rip Torn seemed out of place in his role as Clyde Stewart, a loner that somehow finds a connection with Conchata Ferrell's Elinore Randall. The two as actors have no chemistry at all. Their scenes that they share together are pointless and honestly void of any emotion. The pregnancy scene nearly had me in stitches because of the way these two "veteran" actors portrayed it. The brave Elinore does what she has to do to get the child out of her, while Clyde gives an approving nod when she is done. This is love? Was it supposed to be love? I don't know, I think with stronger characters we would have seen a stronger bond, but with Torn and Ferrell, it felt like two actors just playing their parts. Other scenes that just seemed to struggle in my mind were ones like when the frozen horse "knocks" on the door for food or shelter, the constantly fading and growing compassion that Clyde had for Elinore's daughter (I just didn't believe it), the lack of true winter struggle, and the entire land scene. The land scene especially because I needed more explanation on what Elinore was doing, why she was doing it, and why Clyde would build her a house if they were married! It was these simple events that if taken the time to explore, would have made for a stronger film.<br /><br />Overall, I will go middle of the road with this feature. There were definitely elements that should have been explored deeper, such as the relationship between these two strangers and the ultimate homesteading goals of Elinore, but they were countered with some beautiful scenes of our nation. These panoramic scenes which, in the span of 100 years, have changes from vast mountains to enormous skyscrapers. While there were some brilliant scenes of realism (starring cattle and pigs), I just felt as if we needed more. Depth was a key element lacking in this film, which was overshadowed by marginal acting and a diminishing story. Pearce could have dove deeper into this untapped world, but instead left open loopholes and clichéd Western characters. Ferrell carried her own, but Torn was completely miscast. Decent for a viewing, but will not be picked up again by me.<br /><br />Grade: ** out of *****
That's what my friend Brian said about this movie after about an hour of it. He wasn't able to keep from dozing off. I had been ranting about how execrable it was and finally I relented and played it, having run out of adjectives for "boring". <br /><br />Imagine if you will, the pinnacle of hack-work. Something so uninspired, so impossibly dreadful, that all you want to do after viewing it is sit alone in the dark and not speak to anybody. Some people labor under the illusion that this movie is watchable. It is not, not under any form of narcotic or brain damage. I would ONLY recommend this to someone in order to help them understand how truly unbearable it is. Don't believe me? Gather 'round. <br /><br />Granted, as a nation, we in America don't always portray Middle Eastern peoples in a tasteful manner. But how about a kid in a sheik outfit bowing in salaam-fashion to a stack of Castrol motor oil bottles? You'll find that here. GET IT? THE ARAB WORSHIPS OIL. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Having the kid fly planes into a skyscraper would've been more appropriate. Who in their right mind would think that was a funny joke? It's not even close to "cleverly offensive". It just sucks and makes you want to punch whomever got paid to write that bit in the face. <br /><br />In the middle of the film, a five-man singing group called the "Landmines" takes the stage at an officers' ball. Okay- are you ready? The joke is THEY SING TERRIBLY AND OFF-KEY. Why did I write that in caps also? Because the joke is POUND, POUND, POUNDED INTO YOUR HEAD with a marathon of HORRENDOUS sight gags. They start off mediocre enough; glasses cracking, punch tumblers shattering... then there is, I am 100% serious, a two-frame stop-motion sequence of A WOMAN'S SHOES COMING OFF. You read that correctly- the music was so bad, in one frame, the woman's feet have shoes on. In the very next- the shoes are off!!! Get it, because the music was so bad, her shoes came off! What the F???? <br /><br />Then there is an endless montage of stock footage to drive home the point that the SINGING IS BAD. If any human being actually suffered through this scene in the theater without running like hell, I would be astonished. This movie is honestly like a practical joke to see how fast people would bolt out the doors. Robert Downey Sr. directs comedy the way his son commands respect by staying drug-free. Badly. Other things to watch out for:<br /><br />1. The popular music shoehorned in wherever possible. Every time Liceman appears, a really inappropriate Iggy Pop song plays. Plus all the actors do their best to act like it got really chilly for some reason.<br /><br />2. Barbara Bach's criminally awful accent. She sounds like she's trying to talk like a baby while rolling a marble around on her tongue. There is no nudity, and there are several scenes where the boys all moan and writhe from a glimpse of her cleavage, like they're in a community school acting class and they've been directed to act like aroused retarded people. <br /><br />3. Liceman feeds his revolting dog a condom. Remember; when this movie came out throwing in "abortion" and "condom" was seen as "edgy". <br /><br />4. Tom Poston plays a mincing, boy-hungry pedophile, back when Hollywood thought "pedophile" and "homosexual" were one in the same. Flat-out embarrassing. <br /><br />5. Watch the ending. Nothing is wrong with your VCR. That is actually the ending. Tell me that doesn't make you want to explode everyone who's ever made any movie, ever. <br /><br />Watch this at your own risk. Up The Academy has been known to actually make other movies, like The Jerk or Blazing Saddles, less funny simply by placing the videotape near them.
The only thing I remember about this movie are two things: first, as a twelve year old, even I thought it stunk. Second, it was so bad that when Mad magazine did a parody of it, they quit after the first page, and wrote a disclaimer at the bottom of the page saying that they had completely disavowed it.<br /><br />If you want to see great sophomoric comedies of this period, try Animal House. It's so stupid and vulgar it lowers itself to high art. Another good selection would be Caddyshack, the classic with the late Rodney Dangerfield and Bill Murray before he became annoyingly charming, with great lines like greens keeper Carl Spackler's "Correct me if I'm wrong Sandy, but if I kill all the golfers they'll lock me up and throw away the key."
A stale "misfits-in-the-army" saga, which half-heartedly attempts to be both surreal (the foreign subtitles) AND vulgar (the flatulence gags), but just ends up being a mix of many different kinds of humor, none of them followed very successfully. Barbara Bach, the Bond Girl from "The Spy Who Loved Me", has only two or three brief scenes. What a waste! (*1/2)
I used to LOVE this movie as a kid but, seeing it again 20+ years later, it actually sucks. Up The Academy might have been ahead of it's time back in 1980, but it has almost nothing to offer today! Movies like Caddyshack and Stripes hold-up much better today than this steaming dogpile. No T&A. No great jokes except for the one-liners we've all heard a million times by now.<br /><br />I recently bought the DVD in hopes that it would be the gem I remembered it being. Well, I was WAY off! The soundtrack had only 2-3 widely-recognizable hits (not the smash compilation others had mentioned) and the frequent voice-overs were terrible. The only thing that was interesting, to me, was predicting what the character's lines were before they said them. Yep, I watched this movie that much back then! <br /><br />The only reason I am writing this review is to give my two cents on why this movie should be forgotten, sorry to say. :(
Mad Magazine may have a lot of crazy people working for it...but obviously someone there had some common sense when the powers-that-be disowned this waste of celluloid...the editing is el crapo, the plot is incredibly thin and stupid...and the only reason it gets a two out of ten is that Stacy Nelkin takes off some of her clothes and we get a nice chest shot...I never thought I would feel sorry for Ralph Macchio making the decision to be in this thing, but I do...and I REALLY feel bad for Ron Leibman and Tom Poston, gifted actors who never should have shown up in this piece of...film...at least Mr. Leibman had the cajones to refuse to have his name put anywhere on the movie...and he comes out ahead...there are actually copies of this thing with Mad's beginning sequence still on it...if you can locate one, grab it cuz it is probably worth something...it's the only thing about this movie that's worth anything...and a note to the folks at IMDb.com...there is no way to spoil this movie for anyone...the makers spoiled it by themselves...
Before I comment on this movie I just watched on YouTube, I have to admit that the reason I checked this out was to rewatch something I first saw on the TV ads in 1980: Barbara Bach's cleavage. And since the movie received an R rating, I expected to see her nude. Alas, no dice for her or of the other gorgeous actress that appeared here: Stacey Nelkin who's supposed to be a teen but was actually 20 when she made this. Seeing her in a bra and panty and later in a belly dancer outfit was just as arousing as Ms. Bach. They provide some of the scattered laughs this movie provides. In fact, I don't blame Ron Leibman for having his name removed from the credits since his role as the tight-fisted Liceman is pretty embarrassing though I did like the "seduction" scene he did with Ms. Nelkin. This also happens to be the debut of Ralph Macchio who's the loner among the misfits sent to an academy school. The others are a black kid who really loves his stepmother and Ms. Bach, an Arab who worships motor oil, and a politician's son who loves his girlfriend Candy (Nelkin's character) so much, he risks sneaking in the middle of the night see her in the girls academy. Among the supporting cast, Tom Poston plays a swishy character named Sisson who I found partly amusing. With a screenplay by Tom Patchett and Jay Tarses and direction by Robert Downey Sr. (whose son Robert Downey Jr. has a cameo early on in a soccer scene), Up the Academy is uneven with the politically incorrect humor but unless you're really offended at the scatological and sexual content, this is actually a pretty harmless comedy that Mad Magazine and its trademark cover boy-Alfred E. Newman-shouldn't be ashamed of even though they once had their name and character taken off the picture...P.S. Another one of the "misfits" was Harry Teinowitz who was born in my birth town of Chicago, Ill. He played Rodney Ververgaert. He also says one of my favorite lines: "I'm trying to come."
There are bad movies, terrible movies even boring movies...I can watch most and put up until the end, not this time. Avoid this like the plague, annoying music throughout, terrible editing, no comedy, its tackier than a novelty mug...My missus wanted to watch this thinking it would be Legally Blonde material or something kind of watchable, but never better than average, chick flick. Its the first time she was begging me to push the stop button.<br /><br />The Girls, well, they were not great to start with (Denise done OK in Starship Troopers and Wild things) but you have sank to the gravel. I feel like a mug having spent 30 minutes on this...Pamela Anderson is almost unrecognisable after much construction work to her face.<br /><br />Please take my advice if you want to avoid wasting valuable oxygen and brain cells ranting at the utter mince that is on your screen.
How could I best express my feelings about this movie: hideous? a headache? lack of coherent writing? plain stupidity? Try all of the above for this travesty. And that just for the direction.<br /><br />Story? Well I guess there is a story. Two dumb blondes look for a job after they crash a plane into a golf course. They are mistaken for a 'world renounced assassin' (sarcasm) and are 'hired' by two 'mobsters'. One thinks "taking him out" means a date, and the other gets the minor actor she dreams of. And of course, the turtle reserve for the farting turtle, that they build with the casino winnings.<br /><br />Sounds likes all this could be funny? Guess again. They try to make it funny, but its not. Filming sequences aren't well done. I've seen better filming in Hong Kong movies. Visuals are average for a late 80s film. But the problem is that its a 2007 movie.<br /><br />Not worth my time to ever watch this again. It still doesn't beat Danny Glover's "Out" movie from the early 80s as the worst movie of all time, but then again that film is in a class of its own. "F"
When I was at the movie store the other day, I passed up Blonde and Blonder, but something about it just seemed like it could possibly be a cute movie. Who knows? I mean, I'm sure most people bashed Romy and Michelle before they saw it, Blonde and Blonder might have just been another secret treasure that was passed up. But when I started watching it: Executive Producer Pamela Anderson, wow, I knew I was in for something scary. Not only that, but both of what were considered the pinnacle of hotness: Pam Anderson and Denise Richards, not to offend them, but they were not aging well at all and they're playing roles that I think were more meant for women who are supposed to be in their 20's, not their 40's. The story was just plain bad and obnoxious.<br /><br />Dee and Dawn are your beyond stupid stereotypical blonde's, they really don't have a clue when it comes to what is going on in the world, it's just really sad. But when the girls are somehow mistaken for murder assassins, the cops are on their tale and are actually calling the girls geniuses due to their "ignorance is bliss" attitudes. They are set up to make a "hit" on a guy, and they think they're just going to "show him a good time", but the real assassin is ticked and wants the case and to kill the girls.<br /><br />Denise and Pam just look very awkward on the screen and almost like they read the script the day before. I know that this was supposed to be the stupid comedy, but it was more than stupid, it went onto obnoxious and was just unnecessary. Would I ever recommend this? Not in a million years, the girls are just at this point trying to maintain their status as "sex kittens", it's more a sign of desperation and Blonde and Blonder is a huge blonde BOMBshell.<br /><br />1/10
This movie is not in anyway funny, it tries to be funny with it's lame humor, which is so dry and boring that the movie is just 2 hours of torture. Throughout the whole movie i was thinking one thing, "when is this gonna end". One thing you have to hand to them, is that they do have a very few mildly funny moments, which is also why i gave it a whole 2 stars. It is unoriginal and uses up almost every old blonde joke in the book, even the ones that wasn't funny the first time. It basically is a movie to belittle blondes and to record the whole repetoir of blonde jokes.<br /><br />To sum it all up, this movie is blonde humor gone bad, it is not worth paying any amount of money to watch, it is just that bad.
Blonde and Blonder was unfunny.Basically, it was a rip-off girl version of Dumb and Dumber, but less funny, and they used too much background noises and music.WAY TOO MUCH BACKGROUND NOISES AND MUSIC IF YOU ASK ME!!!!It starts out immensely boring, and TOTALLY inane.It doesn't pick up pace anywhere soon, and I was feeling more frustrated as this nonsense carried on.Maybe, the only thing that saved me from giving this movie a 1 was the last 30 minutes.I found it somewhat entertaining and interesting as it neared the end, but that was the only part.Also, I couldn't help but like Pamela Anderson and Denise Richard's characters a little.Even though this movie didn't get any laughs from me, it kept my attention.I wouldn't say to completely avoid this movie, but there are thousands of better films for you to spend your time and money on than Blonde and Blonder.
This has got to go down as almost one of the worst movies of all time. Awful acting, awful script... and they were the good points! One to Definitely miss! The jokes, if you could call them that, were so predictable as to be pathetic. Pamela Anderson is still relying on her body to detract from the fact that her acting is just as plastic! I sat willing to give it a chance, hoping that it was going to improve which, alas, it didn't! If it was a choice between this and a book, I suggest you settle down for a good read! I like Denise Richards, which is why I gave this movie a go, but why she has let her self be cast in this movie is beyond me!
Warning: Avoid this super duper awful movie...if you watched it you will be SOOOOOOOOO disappointed.<br /><br />Pam and Denise are grandma age now what are they doing? Trying SO HARD to be young innocent and sexy, just not working AT ALL. Pam and Denise act so horribly in this movie.<br /><br />Plus The script is absolutely atrocious, I can't believe someone can came out with such crappy ideas. With the development of movie industry, movie lovers are not as easy to satisfy as the ones in the last century. I bet the movie goers from last century will hate this too.<br /><br />Stay away from it. I think watch "White Chicks" from 2004 it's so much better that this...make no mistake at that time I thought that's the worst movie I have ever seen.
I was required to watch the movie for my work, so I didn't pay for it (on the contrary, i got paid), but I still found the movie to suck far more than average. The jokes were lame, the two lead actresses... well, to use the "First wives club" division of women's ages in Hollywood, they are no longer in their "hot chick" age but more in their "district attorney" age. What angered me most about the movie was the main plot line, which pretty much completely plagiarized "Beavis & Butthead Do America" (in which the boys are all jazzed up about some dude offering them money to "do his wife", not realizing they're expected to assassinate her). All in all, a bland piece of crap.
I was looking for a cute, simple comedy to pass the time but choosing this film proved to be an enormous mistake.<br /><br />I can't write a single good thing about it. First, the script is stupid and not funny at all, relying on tired, recycled jokes and a farting turtle for laughs. In my book, that's not funny, that's pathetic.<br /><br />Low budget 'effects' (if I can even call them effects) with horrible cinematography. In many places it feels almost like an indie film shot with no money.<br /><br />Acting... I feel sorry for the actors. Are Pamela Anderson and Denise Richards that desperate for some money that they've agreed to take part in this? (looking at their recent filmography, it would appear so.) Despite the outfits, Pamela is showing her age and as a whole, they don't even come across as sexy, let alone funny.<br /><br />This movie is not even in the so-bad-it-is-funny category. It's just bad, as if everybody involved was sick of it.<br /><br />Avoid.
What is this crap? My little cousin picked this out obviously for the overly girlie DVD art and title... I decided to watch it with her so she didn't get bored, and I sure was appalled at the horrible quality.<br /><br />First, the acting was terrible. They seem like amateur actresses reading off of cue cards. The delivery is sub-par and very formulaic. Scene cuts were terrible.. it looks like they took it straight from the story board, if there was one.<br /><br />Secondly, the jokes and stereotypes weren't original or well played at all- again, very formulaic. I can't count the times I was able to predict the next joke. I got a few chuckles out of the blatantly "subtle" sexual innuendos. The Cat, The Beaver Patch, Hung Wong?.. c'mon! Just.. stay away from this movie. It's not cute, it's not funny, it's not even stupid-funny. It's just stupid-stupid. It's like a PG kids' movie with unnecessary sexual innuendo, vulgarity, and violence to bump the MPAA rating. STAY AWAY.<br /><br />"Would you like to ride my yacht?"<br /><br />"Is that what they're calling it now?"<br /><br />"You could ride my ding."<br /><br />"Oh! I think I got blood on my stool!"<br /><br />Badly played, sir.
Sure, I like short cartoons, but I didn't like this one. Naturally, kids would love it. But then again, I'm not a kid anymore (although I still consider myself young).<br /><br />I will not tell you anything about the story, for the simple reason there is no story. How is it possible this dragon of a cartoon was nominated for an Oscar?! Well... I guess it's because people in the 30's were more happy with not much than now. In the present where we live, everything must happen fast. Look at the movies nowadays, and you will come to the same conclusion: we live in a society that doesn't allow men to be slow. That's really a shame. I wish I lived in the 30's, because it seems so peaceful. But every time has got its ups and downs, I guess...<br /><br />To conclude: if you like music (and frogs), you'll have to see this cartoon. Otherwise, don't spill your time on it.
Add to the list of caricatures: a Southern preacher and "congregation," a torch singer (Sophie Tucker?), a dancing chorus, and The Mills Brothers -- it only makes it worse.<br /><br />Contemptible burlesques of "Negro" performers, who themselves often appear in films to be parodying themselves and their race. Though the "Negro comedy" may have been accepted in its day, it's extremely offensive today, and I doubt that it was ever funny. Though I wouldn't have been offended, I don't think that I'd have laughed at the feeble attempts at humor. As an 11-year-old white boy, however, I might not have understood some of it.
Even thought I'm not the biggest of Cher fans, this movie was her crowning achievement. Granted, there were long term side-effects and risks of brain damage, memory loss (and) intellectual impairment, upon the screening such a film. A 1989 survey of Moonstruck fans by the UK Advocacy Network revealed that one-third of 300 Moonstruck fans surveyed believed Moonstruck had damaged them and an astounding 80% claimed it had irreparably destroyed their minds.<br /><br />Cher plays someone very un-Cher in this movie, a dowdy young widow named Loretta living in New York with her extended family. They're anti-American, pro-Italian and always at each other in someway. She has been going out with Johnny Camarary for a while, a nice mamma's boy man, and he asks her to marry him. She says yes. I loved her mom's questions: "Do you love him Loretta?", "No.", "Good. If you love him he'll drive you crazy because they know they can. But you like him then?", "Oh yeah, he's a sweet man Ma". When Johnny goes off to Sicily to care for his dying mother, he asks that Loretta make contact with his brother who he's been estranged from for years.<br /><br />This victory for human rights carries even greater significance, as Sicily was the birthplace of electroshock treatment. In 1938, Italian psychiatrist Ugo Cerletti, saw slaughterhouse workers using electric shock devices to cause epileptic fits in pigs, easing the job of slitting their throats. Cerletti was inspired, and began experimenting with electroshock on humans, developing the first Electroshock machine. Broken bones and fractured vertebrae that resulted from the convulsions appeared to be of little concern.<br /><br />This was,in so many ways, an anti-American movie. It's about love, to be sure, but it's also about infidelity, secrets, lonely people, and strange behavior brought on by American policies. The characters, from the frumpy BoBo at the favorite restaurant, the aunt and uncle, her parents and their problems, the ancient grandfather and his dogs are all well developed and intrinsic characters. It's somewhat of a chick flick, as it's how Loretta stops being a dowdy stuffed shirt and awakens the flower of the inner vamp. It's a Cinderella story in many ways, and that is every little girl's dream to emerge from the ugly duckling into a beautiful swan...<br /><br />Assuming free and fully informed Consent, it is well to reaffirm the individual's right to pursue happiness through brain damage if he or she so chooses. But we might ask ourselves whether we, as fans of cinema, though in no way sworn to any Hippocratic Oath, should be offering it.
Generally over rated movie which boasts a strong cast and some clever dialog and of course Dean Martin songs. Problem is Nicholas Cage, there is no chemistry between he and Cher and they are the central love story. Cher almost makes up for this with her reactions to Cage's shifting accent and out of control body language. Cage simply never settles into his role. He tries everything he can think of and comes across as an actor rather than real person and that's what's needed in a love story. Cage has had these same kind of performance problems in other roles that require more of a Jimmy Stewart type character. Cage keeps taking these roles, perhaps because he likes those kind of movies but his own energy as an actor doesn't lend itself to them, though he's gotten better at it with repeated attempts. He should leave these type of roles to less interesting actors who would fully commit to the film and spend his energy and considerable talent in more off beat roles and films where he can be his crazy interesting self.
Ok, first the good: Cher's performance and the cinematography. Although I'm no Cher fan, she gives an excellent performance and her part was well written. The cinematography was well done and captures a sense of romance.<br /><br />The Rest: a thin plotline, Nicholas Cage's performance, and a totally unhumorous and weak attempt to portray an Italian-American family from New York. Firstly, everytime time Cage opened his mouth I cringed. I don't know what kind of accent he was trying use. I honestly don't, it sure wasnt any New York or Italian accent I've ever heard. It was quite surreal. And it wasn't because I'm some stickler for accuracy, his voice just cloyed in my ears. And I like Nicholas Cage in other performances. Secondly, and this is purely anecdotal, but I have many Italian relations, friends and acquaintances in New York City, and frankly I've gotten more laughs and felt more joy in the appreciation of the Italian ethnic family by far than this movie provided. And that would be on a boring night at the house. What a let down.
I watched this movie for a project on love. please tell Nicolas Cage to learn what it would feel like to be his character, and then re-read the lines he's saying. My life cannot go on... i accidentally cut off my own hand...my brother was close by. Obviously his fault. And since when have happy endings included the nice guy who takes care of Mom sad and alone. No closure, bad script, and doesn't have enough extension of minor characters. Save yourself, unless your up for a good laugh. Costumes were done appropriately, and extras did a fabulous job. I'm sure it would have been a fun movie to make, but keep it more genre specific, I can't recommend this movie to anyone I know, because it is not an intellectual movie. It is not a chick flick. It is not a strict romantic. And I can't show kids because of the sex and questions to follow. All in all, just not a good flick.
I don't care how many nominations this junk got for best this and that, this movie stunk. I didn't know whether to turn off the set, or file a lawsuit with O.J.'s attorney for wrongful damage to my mental health. I have seldom been this bored; to call this dung entertainment is a slap in the face of every movie-goer across the planet. The whole story was stupid, the acting was uninspired, the 'drama' was emotionless. I am thankful I didn't have to pay for this unfulfilling experience.
This show is painful to watch ...<br /><br />It is obvious that the creators had no clue what to do with this show, from the ever changing "jobs", boyfriends, and cast. It appears that they wanted to cast Amanda Bynes in something ... but had no idea what, and came up with this crappy show. They cast her as a teen, surrounded by twenty and thirty somethings, and put her in mostly adult situations at repeatedly failed attempts at comedy. Soon, they realize that she needs a "clique" and cast people in their late 20s to try to pass as teenagers.<br /><br />How this show survived 4 seasons is beyond me. Somehow, ABC has now decided that it is a "family" show, and thrown it into it's afternoon lineup on ABC Family.
I'll admit I've only watched a handful of episodes, but each one seemed completely different from the next. It seems after the first season, the producers decided to completely retool the show, drop characters, introduce new ones, and rewrite the entire show dynamic.<br /><br />As you have probably surmised already, the show is about quirky, unpredictable teenager Holly (Amanda Bynes) who moves in with her high strung sister Valerie (Jennie Garth) in New York City. Decent enough premise: odd couple + fish out of water + high jinx.<br /><br />While I miss the sitcoms of yore, this show unfortunately misses the mark on funny repeatedly, and it's sad because they have some decent talent.<br /><br />On top of everything, they insisted on changing the show (Val was living with a cast regular bf one season, then he was suddenly gone, so she opens a bakery? what?) When things change that drastically, you get the feeling that even the *show* knows it's bad. I mean, completely new sets, characters written off and new show regulars!<br /><br />On a side note (this is just nitpicking), I know this is a television show and not real at all, but Val and Holly end up living in a HUGE loft duplex (there are stairs) with a terrace... in MANHATTAN! Are you serious!?
What I hate about this show is how poorly the leads are written. These women have no self-respect or dignity. The entire plot is them throwing themselves at guys. Amanda Bynes' talent is completely wasted. She was brilliant on "All That" and her own show. Why they would write her and Jenny Garth as vapid, airhead, desperate, men chasing, "old-maid" wannabes is beyond me.<br /><br />Their plots and dialog remind me of "The Simpons", Homer says whenever his cartoon character Poochie is not on screen, "Everyone should ask, where's Poochie?". All the talk centers on whining about some guy, and then whining to some guy. Sometimes they change it up and the guy whines instead. Then they get back together or break up at the end. The 2 women are either shallow, stupid, or sex addicts. The only word I can think of is "sucks".
Well, what can you say about sitcoms. There often quite lame, morale dedicative, and just plain. So is this show! It got a boring cast, although A.Bynes is okej in her perky way, the rest is just stereotypical crap....as always. We have all seen it before, and will probably see it all over again when this show is cancelled. Cause, lets face it, its a mediocre and self righteous show. As the most sitcoms are....<br /><br />Well, in short. If you wanna see some good entertainment, you can rather take a twenty minute pause in front of the mirror. Do some faces and move on.... Its more entertaining than this show!
This was disappointing. It started well enough but as it went on and lost every opportunity to soar, it fell flat. Maria Schrader's acting is dreadful, never seeming to mean what she says, or even knowing what she says until she says it. She showed no genuine emotion at all, not for her beloved goy, or her mother's story. When with Lena she seemed to have little more than an academic interest in Lena's story. There never seemed to be a real relationship between Lena and her mother except her mother seemed to be having a good time at the wedding, which isn't much. The supposed parallel between Hannah's "mixed" romance and her mother's relationship with her father was as cliché as they come, and failed miserably anyway. The wedding was completely unconvincing and a dumb finish. The climax of the protest was uninspiring, and no matter what Lena had or had not done to influence the outcome, she would surely have shown some complexity of feeling at the time, a haunted look, an inexplicable ambivalence. In fact, none of the characters in the film had any depth or spark. It was very hard to care about any of them, even little Ruth. Everything with Luis was a distraction. (Why did she dis him so when on the phone from the hotel? There was no context or explanation whatever for that.) If every reference to him was removed it wouldn't be noticed. <br /><br />A simple story made confusing by poor character development (who was whose mother, again??) weak acting, and directing that made everyone look like they were acting. You could almost hear "quiet on the set!...." I started thinking this was worthy of a 7, but as the film went on it dropped rapidly to a 4, then earning a 3 after the silliness of the wedding scene. This was about as cold and sterile a movie as I have seen. A terrible waste of a good story.
One thing that astonished me about this film (and not in a good way) was that Nathan Stoltzfus, who seems to pride himself on being the major historian on the topic of the Rosenstrasse, was one of the historians working on this film, considering how much of the actual events were altered or disregarded. <br /><br />Another reviewer said that von Trotta said she never meant for Lena to bed Goebbels, but in that case, why did she give every impression that that was what had happened? Why not show other possible reasons for the mens' release, such as the disaster that was Stalingrad, or the Nazis' fear that the international press, based in Berlin, would find out about the protest.<br /><br />Also, why did the whole storyline play second fiddle to a weak family bonding storyline that has been done over and over again? Surely something as awesome as this could carry its own history! In places, it was as if the film had two story lines that really seemed to have little in common.<br /><br />Overall, this film failed in its aim, which was to draw attention to a little-known act of resistance, which is a shame, because done better, it could have had a major impact.
(SPOILERS IN THIS)<br /><br />"Rosenstraße" is a movie about heroic women in German Nazi time. But it is way too long, it is not touching and sometimes even boring! There are too many clichés and not enough good acting.<br /><br />The storytelling (storyline) is bad. Like in James Cameron´s Titanic an old woman remembers events of her live. Good, now we´ve got a point of view. Than there is another woman introduced who does the same. Confusing is that they both are recalling events of lifes of other people! Come on! This is a lack of knowledge of basic story telling...How can Riemann know about the fate of the little girl´s mother and her interrogation for example?<br /><br />The scenes are shown in the wrong order and you rarely know when it took place. For example the scene when Riemann is proposing to Fabian. When did that happen? The scene looks like it is set in the Twenties...<br /><br />Riemann´s character is of course a talented pianist, well, she is even a Baroness! Wow. Her brother comes back from the Eastern Front, he has received a "Ritterkreuz" which he is showing in some scenes. So he is a war hero and still a fine man who preserved his conscience. And he gained knowledge of massacres committed by Germans. He even made some photographs! And so it goes, cliché after cliché is piling up and this is why the movie does not work.<br /><br />Basically von Trotta made a chick flick out of something what could have been a decent movie. And in the end it´s all very simple. Riemann finds a way to get Goebbels into bed and - ta da! - everyone is free. Which is not a historical fact but pure imagination despite the "true story" claim at the beginning. Like "Sass" it is vaguely BASED on a true event.<br /><br />It is sad but true, this IS the typical German movie these days. It is bad! Macaulay J. Connor<br /><br />
Overall an extremely disappointing picture. Very, very slow build up to the basic storyline. The role of Maria Schrader searching for her families secret past. (Every take seems to last forever…. There is really no rhythm in the film.) ***SPOILERS*** Her Mother Ruth is rescued from the Nazis, by a German woman, played by Katja Riemann. The entire character of Ruth is so one dimensional, so stereotypical. ***SPOILERS END*** The film cuts back and forth between present day New York and Berlin and Berlin 40s something. Please when you do that, give the audience an indication of what time exactly the story takes place. There is never a clear indication of time – very annoying. Worst part is, the end. ***SPOILERS*** The entire show and jabber about the Jews being so terribly tormented, simply by a bureaucratic accident! Give me a break. That's how the Jews got out of the Rosenstrasse? The question of who freed the Jews is NEVER answered. Was is Goebels who freed them? Did Lean Fischer sleep with Goebels? In Venice the film won an acting award for K. Riemann, why? – I have no idea. Must be the Jewish theme…
This game was made by Sega. Being made by Sega I didn't expect much, but I also didn't expect this junk either. For starters the camera angles work against you in this game. The motorcycle is your means of getting around. The motorcycle is the worst part in the game. Whenever you run in to something you just stick there and you don't move. You never fall off the bike or wreck for that matter. The main character hardly talks even though he's got a voice that suits him. The graphics are horrible. You ride through trees on your bike. The camera makes fighting the enemy impossible. This game wouldn't even be worth renting.
We don't have this on television in England but I walked it over the Internet on YouTube. It's dumb, immature and boring! This is from the creator of "Earthworm Jim" Douglas TenNapel, I never got into that cartoon but I must admit it better than this. The cartoonist hasn't done anything for years since now. For Doug TenNapel, this is a comeback travesty and an all time low! The story is about three cats who inherit a house and lots of money off their dead old lady master. They are argumentative and keep on disagreeing on what their want to spend their money on. "BORING"! The animation is dreadful. The main characters are meant to be cats, right? But they don't look nothing like cats! Just weird animal monster-looking creatures with big mouths, pointed teeth and bulgy eyes! The human and other animal characters are also drawn real ugly! The theme song is terrible and irritating! Also the stories are lame and are most probably copied from older shows. It surprised me how this show got 7.5/10 votes of other IMDb viewers. Television really isn't what is used to be! But now most of them is dumb, cheaply made and boring. Some of you on the website might not agree with me well I'm sorry but this is a total waste of money and a complete and utter waste of your time and feel glad that Britain don't have too tolerate this crap (oh yeah, if you have digital you have to) but I don't, so it not my problem! Loser! 2/10 (and it's very lucky to get that because I've given other shows worst!).
** HERE BE SPOILERS ** <br /><br />Recap: Mia (Helin) is returning home from capital Stockholm to rural Rättvik to celebrate her fathers 70th birthday. She is by far the youngest child, and has two sisters Eivor (Ernst) and Gunilla (Petrén). Eivor has a family and still lives in Rättvik and Gunilla has divorced and moved a town away. Mia is still single and is focused on her career. There are a lot of jealousy and almost animosity between the sisters and conflicts arise all around as they confront each other and each have personal problems they have difficult to handle. As the party goes on (and alcohol consumed), more and more secrets become unveiled and more and more conflicts arise...<br /><br />Comments: To be the work of a new writer/director it was disappointing to see this movie to follow in the exact same tracks that older Swedish comedy/dramas has been following for years. There are really no new elements or ideas. This movie draws upon three basic areas. 1) Embarrassing humor only based on characters making a fool of themselves. 2) Sorrow and 3) Anxiety. This move has the focus on the last one, almost forgetting the first point as the movie goes along. No loss though, since the humor that is there is not funny. The performances from the cast are good I guess, though it is lost behind all the anguish and soon forgotten. I had hopes that there would be new ideas and influences, but there were none. To conclude, there are better ways to spend one's time than watching this.<br /><br />3/10
Just a stilted rip-off of the infinitely better "Murder, She Wrote", it is absolutely amazing that this poorly-written garbage lasted for a full eight years. I'm sure most of the people who watched this unentertaining crap were in their sixties and seventies and just tuned in because they had nothing better to do, or simply remembered its star from the old Dick Van Dyke Show. Van Dyke, who only had a decent career in the 1960s, never was much of an actor at all (by his own admission) and he was already far too old to play a doctor when the series began in 1993. He looks absolutely ancient as a result of years of chain smoking and heavy drinking. His talentless real life son Barry, a wooden actor who has rarely been in anything that didn't involve his father, plays his son in the series.
This is an "anthology" horror film. It's made up of 4 short stories taken from the fiction of Robert Bloch (who wrote for Weird Tales and was personal friends with H.P. Lovecraft, but is most famous for the original story "Psycho"). The quality of the stories is very uneven and I didn't think very much about the film was creepy or horrific at all. It would have been better to do it as a comedy like "Comedy of Terrors." Only the last of the 4 stories was really done in a humorous way, and it's probably the best of them (the one with Ingrid Pitt). I've seen a few of these Amicus anthology films and the only one that was really worth my time was Freddie Francis' "Tales from the Crypt." The anthology style works well for the producers, because it means that they can hire a bunch of "big name" actors, employ them for only one week of shooting or so, and then bring in the next big name. So you essentially pay for 6 weeks of movie star salary but get 5 or 6 different names on the marquee. But that's very unfortunate for the audience, because the audience would like to see some scenes with Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Ingrid Pitt actually acting together. Instead they're stuck in these vignettes by themselves. So let's take them one at a time, briefly.<br /><br />The first story has Denholm Elliot, who does a really admirable job of trying to bring some dignity to his silly role as a writer terrorized by his own character. Unfortunately the actor who plays Dominic, the source of the horror, Tom Adams, just looks silly which ruins any possible horror. There's some hilarious stuff if you want to laugh at it though, like the scene where Dominic kills Elliot's psychiatrist. It's the patented scene where the killer creeps up behind the victim but nobody is watching, so the whole audience is supposed to shout out "LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!" The second story is the one with Peter Cushing. God I love that man so much. Too bad so many of his films, like this one, pretty much stink. In the story he's supposed to be pining away for a long-lost love, and he sees her likeness in a wax museum. It's a completely predictable story that goes nowhere.<br /><br />Then you have the bit with Christopher Lee, where he plays the father of a little kid who turns out to be a witch. Again this bit could have been fun if it had been played for laughs. But instead we're supposed to be horrified when Lee slaps the child and surprised when she turns out to be evil. The actress, Chloe Franks, was pretty good in that type of "Bad Seed" role though.<br /><br />The last story is kind of amusing... Ingrid Pitt plays an actress and Jon Pertwee plays an actor who accidentally buys a vampire cape that turns him into a real vampire. That's about all the story has to offer. I was surprised at how bad Ingrid Pitt's English is, I guess she must have been dubbed in some of the other films I've seen her in.<br /><br />Not a very memorable film or one that I would recommend to anyone but horror completists.
(Spoilers)<br /><br />I was very curious to see this film, after having heard that it was clever and witty. I had to stop halfway because of the unbearable boredom I felt.<br /><br />The idea behind the film would have been acceptable: depicting the way the relationship between a man and a woman evolves, through all the problems and difficulties that two people living in a big city can experience. What made me dislike the whole film were two things.<br /><br />First of all, the film was so down-to-earth that it looked as if, by describing the problems that a couple must solve on a day-to-day basis, it became itself ordinary and dull.<br /><br />Secondly, the overall sloppiness of the production, with dialogues that were barely understandable.<br /><br />Too bad.
If you've ever been harassed on the Underground by a Christian who says, "Jesus is the answer. What's the question?", then perhaps you should thank God if you've never met a Lacanian. Slavoj Zizek, the most evangelical of Lacanians, would surely exchange the word "Jesus" in that statement for "Lacan/Hegel".<br /><br />Zizek's star burns brightly at the moment, no doubt because we generally view films and pop culture purely as entertainment for our consumption. So it seems impressive when someone - anyone - comes along and says, "Hang on, films may say something about ourselves."<br /><br />The ideas Zizek expounds in this film are "true" purely because he says so. For example, Zizek explains that three Marx Bros are the ego, superego and id (God knows what happened to Zeppo, or Gummo … perhaps they're the sinthome...or is that movies themselves?). This is simply what they are. In Zizek's output, culture is not there to be investigated but merely to be held as an example of his ideology. People may object that he certainly has something to say - but how different is what he says from the Christian attributing everything to God's will?<br /><br />What's wrong with taking examples, from films or anywhere, to illustrate theory? Well, nothing at all. As Zizek seems to believe, they may even serve as a proof. However, it is merely cant and propaganda when these examples are isolated from their context. Without context, you can say and prove anything you want. For Zizek, Lacan is the answer – so he goes and makes an example of it. Everything but everything resembles the teachings of the Master and culture is there to bear this out, to serve this ideology. For instance, Zizek's exemplar of the fantasy position of the voyeur is taken from a scene in Vertigo when Jimmy Stewart spies on Kim Novak in a flower shop. But, in the context of the film, this is not a voyeur's fantasy position at all. Stewart has been deliberately led there by Novak. This presentation of examples isolated from their context continues throughout Zizek's two hour and a half cinematic sermon.<br /><br />His analysis of the "baby wants to f---" scene in Blue Velvet is laughable. Touching lightly on what he appears to consider to be the horrific (to the masculine) truth of "feminine jouissance", Zizek says that Isabella Rossilini's character not only demands her degradation but is, unconsciously, in charge of the situation. This is an example of her "jouissance". Well ... possibly. But - sorry to be prosaic - where is the evidence for this? In the film, she partially undergoes her humiliations because Hopper has kidnapped her son. Zizek may object that she also evidently enjoys rough sex with Kyle MacLachalan. But this may be due to any number of things. Isn't that the point of so-called feminine "jouissance"? According to Lacan, feminine jouissance, unlike phallic jouissance, cannot be articulated, it is beyond the phallic capture and castration of language. If this is right, then no example can be made of it. It also means that the entire concept is non-sensical and entirely mystical. It can only be designated by dogmatists such as Zizek: "There's feminine jouissance for you! Why is this feminine jouissance? Because I say so." <br /><br />What example can really be garnered from these films? Only Zizek's psychology. Why does he keep inserting himself into his favourite films, even to the point that, when in a boat on Botega Bay, he says he wants to f--- Rod Steiger too? Is this not the wish-fulfilment of someone who spends his life critiquing films? As the saying goes, Freud would have a field day with The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema - but with Zizek himself, nobody else.<br /><br />Zizek's theory that films show us how we desire may be right on the face of it, but these films cannot be strict universal examples of psychoanalytical laws. This film illustrates how Zizek desires and only extremely vaguely - as to be almost useless - how the rest of us desire. For, as any psychoanalyst knows, how we desire and what we desire cannot be fully separated - and cannot be easily universalised, if at all. Zizek's love of making everything an example of Lacan's Answer bears this out: how do we desire? like this, this is how I do it. Problem is, in Zizek's desire, everything and everyone else is rationalised into his desire. But Zizek is a Leninist and they certainly don't like letting the "subject" speak for itself.<br /><br />The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema is a summation Zizek's love of dogma and is entirely unphilosophical even if it remains very political (what dogma isn't?). Zizek has never questioned exactly what his motives might be when embarking on an analysis, what he is trying to discover, because the terms of his exploration, and therefore his ethics in doing so, are never put into question.<br /><br />Zizek is extremely prolific but all his books and this film say the same thing. He's a kind of Henry Ford of cultural theory: mass-production and any colour as long as it's black. He is perfect for today's highly consumerist society: supposedly critical while giving people the same c-ap over and over and pretending that it is something different. This is popular because people largely prefer readymade answers to their problems - which capitalism always claims to provide - rather than investigating things with any serious consideration at all. Which is kind of like being brain dead. For me, Zizek's third Matrix pill is a suicide capsule.<br /><br />PS: I loved Zizek's solemn remark - presented as a revelation about cinema and humanity - that music in films can greatly affect people's sympathies. Did this only occur to Zizek after he watched Jaws?
An old intellectual talks about what he considers art in movies. You get your Hitchcock, your Chaplin, your Bergman and some other stuff prior to the 80ies. To disguise that he has no clue what is going on in cinemas these days, he throws in The Matrix.<br /><br />But it's not only the same lame film-as-art speech all over again. This speech is reduced to outdated psychological platitudes: it-ego-super ego, anal phase, sexual insufficiency. <br /><br />It is garnished with the cheesy effect of having Zizte edited into the movies he is taking about. For someone who is supposed to know much about movies, his own is, cinematographicly speaking: yeiks.<br /><br />To put it in Zizek's own words - I saw 5\-\!7 on the screen, last night, or in the words of a great movie maker:<br /><br />Mr. (Zizek), what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you (two) points (only), and may God have mercy on your soul.
Already his first claim, that desires are always artificial, is totally fallacious.<br /><br />When a Jehovah Witness reject gets his own documentary on movies – or anything for that matter - it's time for anyone to get their own. Although far, far more intelligent than, say, Paris Hilton (I know, not too difficult) Zizek's mouth spews just as much baloney as hers, just a different kind. He combines the worst from both his professional worlds: psychoanalysis and philosophy. Both fields are notorious for conveniently offering the expert b*lls***osopher plenty of leeway to create unprovable theories, to rant without a beginning or end, and to connect concepts almost randomly, in the process misusing the English language by creating a semantic jumble only a mother can love. Example: there are three main Marx brothers hence what a "great" idea to connect them with three levels of human consciousness, the id, the ego and the super-ego. I'm kind of surprised he didn't play a clip from "Snowhite" and make an analogy between the seven dwarfs and the seven levels of Gahannah (Moslem hell). It's like the premise of Schumacher's "The Number 23": play with numbers long enough, and you can come up with any kind of cockamamie theory you want, even linking Ancient Greeks with Princess Di's death.<br /><br />However, there is an entertainment element to TPGTC: watching a raving lunatic sweat like a hog while uttering delusional chants masked as intellectual analysis can be quite a lot of fun. Why watch "Cuckoo's Nest" or any other madhouse drama when you can have Zizek for more than 2 hours? It's like watching an amusing train wreck. Admittedly, he is almost funny on one or two occasions.<br /><br />I have always been mystified by people who desperately try to elevate movie-making into an exalted intellectual social science. Giving idiotic movies like "Birds" this much thought, hence this much credit, probably has its fat creator laughing in his grave. The raw truth is that the vast majority of movies have zero intellectual value, and the few ones that do have some intelligence don't require a shrink-turned-philosopher to draw one a map to understand them – unless one is a complete idiot. Zizek sees layers and layers of meaning in the most banal movies. Hallucinogenic drugs must be rather popular and cheap in Slovenia these days...<br /><br />When Zizek showed the bathtub hole in the "Psycho" shower scene, I thought he was going to say something about galactic black holes; how they drain the life out of stars just as the bathtub hole sucks in Janet Leigh's blood. Or perhaps he could have said how the hole represents Leigh's vagina, with the blood flowing into it instead of out (as in menstruation), this representing some kind of "clever (Zizekian) irony". Speaking of which, the real irony is that if Hitchcock had really put that much thought into every scene (and the script), his movies wouldn't have been the illogical, far-fetched crap that they often are. The point of these bathtub hole analogies was to show just how easy it is to improvise about "hidden, deep meanings". And when you add Zizek's fanciful terminology from philosophy and psychology, layering these terms on top of these analogies like wedding cake decorations, you get a rambling jumble that can instantly impress the uneducated - i.e. the easily impressionable and the gullible.<br /><br />Zizek utters a number of (unintentionally) funny things here, one of the most absurd ideas being when he associates Anthony Perkins's cleaning of the bloodied bathroom with "the satisfaction of work, of a job well done". Don't laugh... Neither Hitchcock nor the writer of "Psycho" could have ever even vaguely entertained this notion that Perkins might be enjoying a job well done - the cleaning of a blood-stained toilet - while they were conceiving/directing that scene. Talk about putting words into one's (dead) mouth, but in the context of misinterpreting what the director had to "say".<br /><br />I like Zizek's initial thoughts on Tarkovsky's terrific "Solaris", but then he has to ruin a rare good impression by dragging in "anti-feminism" and other nonsense into his theory.<br /><br />Zizek's attitude towards logic is that of a dog toward its plastic bone. "I just want to play with it all day!" Logic has its rules, and is not supposed to be raped - at least not publicly - by the likes of him. He seems to regard logic, proof, common-sense, and reason as enemies or mere throwaway toys; concepts to be either avoided, twisted to fit the end-goal, or simply annihilated. Zizek is the LSD-tripped hippie, and all his favorite movies are his own personal "2001"s.<br /><br />The fact that Zizek over-focuses on two of the most overrated directors - and ones whose films often LACK intelligence, if anything - such as Hitchcock and Lynch, only further diminishes his already low credibility. I was surprised De Palma didn't feature more prominently; that's another lame director who writes inept scripts. Zizek has a field day with Lynch's incomprehensible "Lost Highway". There are just as many interpretations of that movie as there are people who watched it.<br /><br />Zizek's comment that the viewer readily accepts von Trier's laughable, "ground-breaking" physical set-up in "Dogville" made me snicker. <br /><br />However, Zizek doesn't only make up stuff as he goes along, he also indulges heavily in the "bleedin' obvious". Like all "social scientists" (an oxymoron), he wraps his very trite "observations" into articulate (if full of spitting) and sometimes complex blankets of language. After all, sociology functions in precisely the same way: it makes us believe we are hearing something new when in fact it's what we already all know, but told in an eloquent way - which fools the more unobservant listener.<br /><br />I was half-expecting for men in white suits to suddenly appear out of nowhere and strap him up in a loonie-suit...<br /><br />Slavoj Zizek: soon as a stalker in a kid's park near you.<br /><br />http://rateyourmusic.com/list/Fedor8/150_worst_cases_of_nepotism/
This film is predictable; it is more predictable then a Vinnie Testaverdi pass, when he huts the ball for the Jets. One saw the ending coming up halfway through the film. The politics reminds me when I was back east. Many people know when the fix is in. I gave this four because of the acting, but the story is lame.
This movie had the potential to be far more than it was. But it not only fails to deliver, it brings up nauseous self righteous preaching at the same time.<br /><br />John Cusack is even flatter than he was in Midnight of the Garden of Good and Evil. The difference is that this time he is supposed to have an southern accent, which he noticeably loses several times each scene.<br /><br />Al Pacino does his shtick but seems to be walking through this film and collecting a paycheck. He's good as usual but hardly standout.<br /><br />Supporting cast -- throw in female romantic interest which added little, if anything, to the story. Speaking of the story, a convoluted "who really cares" tale where Cusack is the self-righteous Mayor's boy who just has to search for "the right thing" to be done.<br /><br />People don't act this way. Cusack's character loses all credibility at the end, of which without revealing it, is preach and nauseous. The final scene makes the penultimate silliness seem profound. It's also completely inaccurate but I won't get into law.<br /><br />This is a bad, by the numbers movie. It seems interesting for the first 40 minutes and then it's really a preachy, proselytizing, self-righteous film for the last hour. Better off with mindless crap than this pile of junk.
Admittedly, I find Al Pacino to be a guilty pleasure. He was a fine actor until Scent of a Woman, where he apparently overdosed on himself irreparably. I hoped this film, of which I'd heard almost nothing growing up, would be a nice little gem. An overlooked, ahead-of-its-time, intelligent and engaging city-political thriller. It's not.<br /><br />City Hall is a movie that clouds its plot with so many characters, names, and "realistic" citywide issues, that for a while you think its a plot in scope so broad and implicating, that once you find out the truth, it will blow your mind. In truth, however, these subplots and digressions result ultimately in fairly tame and very familiar urban story trademarks such as Corruption of Power, Two-Faced Politicians, Mafia with Police ties, etc. And theoretically, this setup allows for some thrilling tension, the fear that none of the characters are safe, and anything could happen! But again, it really doesn't.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the only things that happen are quite predictable, and we're left with several "confession" monologues, that are meant as a whole to form modern a fable of sorts, a lesson in the moral ambiguity of the "real world" of politics and society. But after 110 minutes of names and missing reports and a spider-web of lies and cover-ups, the audience is usually treated to a somewhat satisfying reveal. I don't think we're left with that in City Hall, and while it's a very full film, I don't find it altogether rich.
Wow. This is really not that good. <br /><br />I would like to agree with the others in that at least the acting is good... it is, but it is nothing special.<br /><br />The movie is so precictable and i for one am sick of receiving culture info through movies.<br /><br />*/****
I was lured to see this movie by its starpower, but ultimately that's all it delivers. It plays much more like a Greek tragedy than a modern thriller about big city corruption. It's greatest flaw is its predictibability and utter lack of suspense. We know who the bad guys are from the beginning, and just follow along as they fall like dominoes. The film to its credit does abstain from gratuitous violence and sex, but has forgotten to substitute good, clean romance or excitement in any other way. All the flavor of a good, flat decaffeinated diet cola. "Q&A", which also takes place in New York, is a far better alternative, as is "LA Confidential".
Wow, a movie about NYC politics seemingly written by someone who has never set foot in NYC. You know there's a problem when at one moment you expect the credits to roll and the movie continues on for another half hour. The characters are boring, John Cusack's accent is laughable, and the plotline teeters between boring and laughable. A horrible movie.
> What a dud. It began with some promise, then became unfocused and > wandered. John Cusack's Cajun accent was laughable, Bridget Fonda's role > existed only to get a skirt into the film, and Pacino did Pacino. His entire > generation of actors -- Nicholson, Hackman, Caine, Hoffman -- have developed > a standard performance that each can deliver effortlessly (or, less > charitably, "mail in") in their paycheck films. This was > one. >
Don't get me wrong, the movie is beautiful, the shots are stunning, and the material is dramatic. However, it was a big disappointment and I actually left very angry at what Disney had done.<br /><br />BBC's Planet Earth was all of the above and more. It was subtle. It had an overall feeling of balance and showed the full circle of life and death. There was tragedy and triumph, loss and gain. It was balanced.<br /><br />Disney's edit of Earth is none of this. They tried to make it a movie us Americans would talk about. They made it DRAMATIC. They put an over the top musical score there to frighten us. They made predators evil. They made WALRUSES evil. They showed every encounter as negative. It tried to be suspenseful and succeeded, but at the expense of the lesson of balance. The movie was an hour and a half of negative portrayal and only about 10 minutes of positive.<br /><br />I am all for preventing global warning, but this was over the top political and environmental junk.<br /><br />That's another thing, I went to see it on the big screen, but was disappointed in the picture quality. It looked better on my TV at home.<br /><br />If you want to see something like this and get the whole picture, go out and buy, rent, or borrow the BBC's Planet Earth series. It is better lessons, better sound, and (if you have Blu-Ray)better picture quality.
I can't believe I am so angry after seeing this that I am about to write my first ever review on IMDb.<br /><br />This Disney documentary is nothing but a rehashed Planet Earth lite. Now I knew going into this that it was advertised as "from the people who brought you Planet Earth," but I had no idea they were going to blatantly use the exact same cuts as the groundbreaking documentary mini-series. I just paid $8.75 to see something I already own on DVD. Shame on Disney for not warning people that there is absolutely nothing original here (save a James Earl Jones voice-over and 90 seconds of sailfish that I don't believe were in Planet Earth).<br /><br />But the biggest crime of all, is that while Planet Earth uses the tragic story of the polar bear as evidence that we are killing this planet and a catalyst for ecologic change, Disney took that story and turned it into family friendly tripe. After the male polar bear's demise, they show his cubs grown significantly a year later, and spew some garbage about how they are ready to carry on his memory, and that the earth really is a beautiful place after all. No mention of the grown cubs impending deaths due to the same plight their father endured, no warning of trouble for future generations if we don't get our act together, nothing. Just a montage of stuff we have already seen throughout the movie (and many times more, if you are one of the billion people who have already seen Planet Earth).<br /><br />I have never left the theater feeling so ashamed and cheated in my life.
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.
i don't know why, but after all the hype on NPR i thought this was a new movie.....all the best footage has been used for BBC docs and NatGeo projects that you have seen if you are interested in nature programs...it has been repackaged with sappy narration and over-dramatic music for Disney to take advantage of Earth Day-there are great moments, and it is always nice to listen to Darth Vader.......oops,........... James Earl Jones speak, but I had hoped for a ground breaking movie , considering the new camera technology used in the making of this film......it has been sanitized for a child audience, so one can actually see better footage for free on youtube ....i feel that we are due for something as ground breaking as Koyannisquatsi (sic) and this movie is certainly not it
A lot of death happens in the wild. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out! But does it need to be the focus of a nature documentary? What is with this fascination with gruesome death? Do we really have to see an adult elephant torn to shreds by a pack of hungry lions? Or, a cheetah grabbing a gazelle by the throat in slow motion, no less! I thought this was going to be a family-friendly nature film! <br /><br />And, why not have the courage to show the gruesome violence in the film's trailers? Were the filmmakers afraid of losing money?<br /><br />Then in typical, comic relief fashion we get to see the magnificent Birds-of-Paradise perform mating rituals to the most annoying and stupid narration humanly possible. It was surreal! It's as if the filmmakers believed they were only addressing a roomful of First and Second graders on a school field trip! Wow! From the mean to the moronic in a heartbeat!<br /><br />If there are any future nature documentary filmmakers waiting in the wings reading this film review, why not focus on: Animals actually copulating; giving birth; laying eggs; bathing; sleeping; cleaning each other; socializing; playing; emotional displays other than fear and anger; unusual behaviors, like mouth brooding; migration; problem solving skills; culture (yes, many animal species have what humans call culture); communication skills; parenting, healing abilities, etc. In other words, stop focusing on violence or dumbing down beauty, and why not be much more well-rounded - and focus on delight and inspiration, instead?
My title above says it all. Let me make it clearer. If you have seen the BBC's "Planet Earth" , which I am sure most of you have , then you are not gonna like this movie too much. And I own all the discs of "Planet Earth" I had seen the rating for this movie very high , and read good reviews about it. I was excited to check it out.<br /><br />Alas, I went to the theater and the movie started , I saw it was a Disney movie with production companies listing BBC and Discovery. And when they started the first scenes about the polar bear, I recognized them from my DVDs at home of "Planet Earth".<br /><br />The movie continued and went on and on and on , me and my friends kept on recognizing the scenes were all from "Planet Earth".<br /><br />We were very very disappointed , as I think 90% of the footage is from "Planet Earth" . I am saying 90% , because some of the scenes I didn't recognize. I have a feeling that I simply didn't remember them.<br /><br />So finally what this movie really is , is a compilation of different footages from the different discs of "Planet Earth" , with a narration aimed at kids. Yes, the narration is quite kiddish. Let me give you an example. When they show the polar cubs walking away from the mother cub , the narrator says "The polar cubs are not like human kids. They don't always listen to their mothers" ( I don't remember the exact words , but this is how it is ) So in a nutshell. This is condensed "Planet Earth" for kids !
For those who'd like to see this movie? I'd say: go! Without the narration it might be a very good movie/documentary. But the music, the narration and some of the implemented story lines make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me. Following several animals, their life in several seasons one gets the feeling that it is an animal soap we're watching. But the melodramatic point of view just doesn't cut it for me, moreover if a predator finally catches up on a prey (one exception left there) the camera zooms out or skips to another scene. I ask myself why that happens, if they were to show reality, why cut the scenes that a melodramatic fairytale remains? I think the moral is important for the mass of the crowd, cause after all: it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet.
The Invisible Man is a fantastic movie from 1933, a cutting edge film for it's time where objects appeared to rest on top of a man who was truly invisible. Go ahead, take a look at the film, you will be shocked that it was made in 1933, it was the first true special effects movie. Come 2000, computer aided special effects seem like child's play, audiences are not blown away by special effects, instead they are disappointed if they are not done right. The special effects in Hollow Man, the update of the HG Wells story, are OK, but not the biggest problem with this film directed by Paul Verhoeven, who you might remember from Showgirls and Total Recall. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Caine, a scientist dabbling in the world of bio-invisibilation (yeah, I know that's not a word) but of course is battling higher ups who are threatening to take away the team's funding. So, as movie characters who are about to have their funding cutoff are prone to do, he makes the ultimate sacrifice and becomes a guinea pig for the invisibilation (yeah, I know, I used that non-word again) process. The process has dire consequences, no Caine does not die, but instead becomes a horny, violent creature, aka a guy. Now that he's invisible, Caine stalks a sexy neighbor, a co-worker, former girlfriend Linda (Elisabeth Shue), and the man who took away his funding. Then a funny thing happens, Caine becomes a new supernatural being, "The Thing That Won't Die." Laughing in the face of all things natural, Caine faces down death and spits in it's face, as it take what feels like hours for this creature to die, dragging the ending of the movie out. The movie is silly, stupid, and finally laughable with the way realism is sometimes used, sometimes not. There are neat possibilities in Hollow Man, but of course, not one of them is explored. For a more interesting look at an invisible being, get ready for some good old-fashioned black and white cinema, and check out the 1933 Invisible Man. Kevin Bacon will still be invisible when you come back, probably still alive at the bottom of a volcano.
One could wish that an idea as good as the "invisible man" would work better and be more carefully handled in the age of fantastic special effects, but this is not the case. The story, the characters and, finally the entire last 20 minutes of the film are about as fresh as a mad-scientist flick from the early 50's. There are some great moments, mostly due to the amazing special effects and to the very idea of an invisible man stalking the streets. But alas, soon we're back in the cramped confinement of the underground lab, which means that the rest of the film is not only predictable, but schematic.<br /><br />There has been a great many remakes of old films or TV shows over the past 10 years, and some of them have their charms. But it's becoming clearer and clearer for each film that the idea of putting ol' classics under the noses of eager madmen like Verhoeven (who does have his moments) is a very bad one. It is obvious that the money is the key issue here: the time and energy put into the script is nowhere near enough, and as a result, "Hollow Man" is seriously undermined with clichés, sappy characters, predictability and lack of any depth whatsoever.<br /><br />However, the one thing that actually impressed me, beside the special effects, was the swearing. When making this kind of film, modern producers are very keen on allowing kids to see them. Therefore, the language (and, sometimes, the violence and sex) is very toned down. When the whole world blows up, the good guys go "Oh darn!" and "Oh my God". "Hollow Man" gratefully discards that kind of hypocrisy and the characters are at liberty to say what comes most natural to them. I'm not saying that the most natural response to something gone wrong is to swear - but it makes it more believable if SOMEONE actually swears. I think we can thank Verhoeven for that.
I get to the cinema every week or so, and regularly check out this site, but never before have I felt compelled to comment on a film.<br /><br />To my all time list of shockingly bad films - Last Man Standing, Spawn, The Bone Collector - I can now add the drivel that was 'Hollow Man'.<br /><br />From the awful opening titles - a ridiculously over-long run through of cast and crew put together with alphabetti spaghetti - through to the insulting finale - a world record number of cliches and some of the most absurd dialogue and acting to have ever made it to cinema - this film is dismal, and only the impressive computer graphics keep you from walking out long before the end.<br /><br />This isn't just my opinion - it was that of my friends, and everyone around us. When large sections of an audience are laughing and groaning during and after a serious thriller, its clear that the film is hopeless.<br /><br />Not only that, it was sick too. The director took the action beyond the bounds of realistic fare for a violent film, and into the realms of an over the top blood soaked B-movie. It's difficult not to imagine the director as some sort of dirty old man, because the extent of the invisible man's forays out of the lab and into the outside world extended only to two attempts at having a feel of some breasts. Perhaps sex could well be the first thing on a bloke's mind if made invisible, but aside from the aesthetic pleasures of the ladies involved, it hardly makes entertaining cinema.<br /><br />[spoilers follow]<br /><br />Get past the films sick exterior, and things are even worse. Whilst Kevin Bacon does a good job of acting increasingly twisted as 'hollow man', the rest of them - perhaps handicapped by a dire script - do an even better job of being hollow cast. One long time member of the team is found strangled in a locker by the invisible man, "He's finally snapped" shrugs one colleague without a hint of emotion. This is par for the course, and the lab team swing between sheer terror and complete indifference with such speed that you wonder how they got into acting. They pad their way through the lab corridors terrified, guns poised, but then seconds later one of the crew skips happily off back down the corridor to get blood for a hurt colleague. The lead female treats the invisible man with courtesy and good humour even after he's insulted and abused her, and there seems to be little reaction to his breakouts, even after he drowns the Pentagon chief, "He drowned in his pool last night" reports the same female, spectacularly failing to put two and two together.<br /><br />The script is littered with this kind of badly acted pedestrian dialogue, and the rest is just an A-Z of film cliches, which get laid on thicker and faster as the film progresses to the point of complete disbelief and amusement at the end.<br /><br />The 'eureka' moment at the computer, the female undressing at the window, the looped security video - the list really is endless - the predictable disregard for strength in numbers, the decision not to kill the two main stars but just put them in a place of probable impending death and leave them to their own devices, the almost-dead good guy appearing out of nothing to save the woman, the bomb and ubiquitous countdown timer, the fireball explosion which just burns up before reaching the heroes, the falling lift which just stops before hitting them, and more than anything else, the immortality of the bad guy.<br /><br />The invisible man is burnt to a shred with a makeshift flame-thrower, electrocuted, whacked round the head with a bar which had just sliced straight through one of the lesser actors, and then having apparently survived the explosion, fireball and total destruction of the labs, has more than enough life left to climb up through the fireball for one last pop at the films heroes - by which stage the disbelieving audience are cringing and looking at their watches.<br /><br />That this exceptionally bad film actually made it to the cinema is astounding. Even the name of the film is as hopeless as the movie itself, and not even impressive special effects come anywhere near saving this one, which should be avoided at all costs.
(some spoilers) - as if you wouldn't know how it'll end<br /><br />My expectations for HOLLOW MAN were high. A very good commercial, a director like Paul Verhoeven and actors like Kevin Bacon and Elisabeth Shue, plus a very interesting theme - invisibility. Every premise for a great movie was accomplished. Unfortunately these things didn't matter at all. The movie was very very week, without suspense and awfully predictable. <br /><br />It's all about a bunch of scientists who discovered invisibility. After the tests on animals succeeded, Kevin Bacon decides to test it on himself. Once he's invisible, he changes completely, realizing the advantages of not being seen. From this to murder there's a very thin line.<br /><br />Hollow Man is an ill movie. It suffers of the disease that many new movies have: the special effects. From a challenging theme that could have lead the producers to a great tensed psychological thriller, Verhoeven ruins everything focusing only on special effects, without giving a damn about the real value of the movie. I must admit, the fx are awesome, probably the best i have seen since Matrix, but that's not enough to make a movie good. Actually that's the problem with the movies today. Just like Verhoeven, most directors care only about spectacular scenes - and nothing more. The exceptions are very few, and probably the Matrix is the only movie that combines perfectly fabulous special effects and great plot.<br /><br />After Starship Troopers, Verhoeven disappoints again. In stead of a great film, HM is cr*p. There are only 2 reasons why you could watch this movie: 1. the special effects 2. the joke with Superman and Wonder Woman (i won't spoil this moment for you...)<br /><br />Okay, so what went wrong with the movie? Everything. Let's see what i can remember.<br /><br />--- It's not tensed at all. It should've been, but it's not.<br /><br />--- It's too predictable . You know from the beginning who will die and who will live.<br /><br />--- In stead of focusing on the psychological part, Verhoeven cares only about the effects.<br /><br />--- Very many cliches. <br /><br />--- Of course the bad guy wakes up a few times before dying.<br /><br />--- Just like in every low quality horror, the first rule is to let the characters separate as much as possible. Every time there is somebody alone in the lab, perfect victim for Bacon.<br /><br />--- Some holes in the plot. Example: at the beginning, Bacon has to scan his finger to enter the lab. After he's invisible, how can he do that?<br /><br />--- The ending: absolutely horrible.<br /><br />--- After Shue hits Bacon in the head, Bacon falls down to the ground. Then Shue and Brolin leave quietly and slowly, without looking back. Is that normal? Then Bacon gets up, attacks them, they "kill" him again. And then Shue screams "I heard an explosion" (happened minutes ago), and they suddenly run inside. Didn't she hear that explosion some time before?<br /><br />--- There's a scene in which you can see the microphones hanging above the actors. Come on, Mr Verhoeven , i expected much more from you!<br /><br />So that's about Hollow Man. What was supposed to be a great movie turned into a scam. <br /><br />Vote: 4 out of 10 (for the special effects)
Leave it to Paul "sex on the brain" Verhoeven to come up with a pointlessly sleazy and juvenile version of the INVISIBLE MAN story. If he'd direct a Pokemon film, I'm sure he'd turn it into some massive orgy of sorts. I don't mind sex or even sleaze (check my other reviews) on film but frankly, it's obvious the director has a one track mind and he couldn't see interesting aspects about an invisible man storyline than the kinky implications it comes with it. It's a shame because it could have been good if the film didn't spend so much time having an invisible Kevin Bacon grope women. <br /><br />The game cast of actors does what it can with the one-note cheesy script but I felt bad for some of them, including William Devane, who is totally wasted here.<br /><br />But then what could I have expected from the director of SHOWGIRLS, which, btw, is much more entertaining than this stilted & bad film.
Going into this movie you know that this is movie has six lab technicians in a sealed lab with an invisible maniac. So right away you're guessing who will live and who will die. The survivors end up being exactly who you'd expect them to be, so no points for plot twists there.<br /><br />And if you're not sure if this is a B-movie or a movie that just happens to take place in a lab with an engaging story, William Devane plays a part: instant B-movie status.<br /><br />The movie is promising in the beginning. At the lab we are introduced to the invisible gorilla who is becoming increasingly violent. Oooh, foreboding. The best scene in the whole movie is when the lab team makes the gorilla visible again. Great special effects. Same thing when they make Bacon invisible.<br /><br />There are a couple of bare breasts, a really lame dirty joke and enough out of place swearing to give this movie an R-rating that it really didn't need.<br /><br />For a thriller there weren't really any surprises, except when Shue makes like MacGyver in the freezer, which is more of a 'Whaaaa?' OK, there is one surprise. That's when Caine (Bacon) comes back one last time in the elevator shaft. It was a surprise but only because you're yelling at TV, 'Noooo! You're dead already! End the movie!' Speaking of yelling at the TV,that's all I did for the last 25 minutes or so. 'Put on your f#@%ing goggles!' Instead of putting their infrared goggles on so that they can see him, they try every other trick in the book (fire extinguishers, sprinkler systems...).<br /><br />The story really lost it at the end. But the special effects were good; that's the only reason I give it a 2/10.
This is the kind of movie that leaves you with one impression.. Story writing IS what movie making is about. <br /><br />Incredible visual effects.. Very good acting, especially from Shue. Everything is perfect.. Except.. The story is just poor and so, everything fails.<br /><br />Picture this, if you had the power to be invisible.. What would you do? Well, our mad scientist here (played by Kevin Bacon) could think of no other thing to do but fondle and rape women.. This is all his supposedly "genius" mind could think of. Does he try to gain extra power? No. He doesn't even bother research a way to get back to being visible. The guy is basically a sex crazed maniac.<br /><br />Add to that, the lab atmosphere, you have all these young guys.. Throwing around jokes like they were in a bar.. If it wasn't for all the white coats and equipment, you would think this is a bad imitation of "Cheers." Very shallow and poor personalities and very little care is put into making you think these guys are anything but lambs for the Hollow Man's wolf.<br /><br />Even as a thriller, the movie falls way short because most of the "thrilling" scenes are written out so poorly and are full of illogical behaviors by the actors that are just screaming "this is just a stupid thing I have to do so that the Hollow man can find me alone and kill me."<br /><br />If you read the actual book, while the Scientist (Cane) goes after women, there is a lot of mental manipulation and disturbing thought that goes into his character. In the movie, Cane is just the sick guy who goes to a crowded marketplace to rub his body in women and get off on it. Just sad.
Within the realm of Science Fiction, two particular themes consistently elicit interest, were initially explored in the literature of a pre-cinematic era, and have since been periodically revisited by filmmakers and writers alike, with varying degrees of success. The first theme, that of time travel, has held an unwavering fascination for fans of film, as well as the written word, most recently on the screen with yet another version of the H.G. Wells classic, `The Time Machine.' The second theme, which also manages to hold audiences in thrall, is that of invisibility, which sparks the imagination with it's seemingly endless and myriad possibilities. And this theme, too, has again become the basis for a film adapted from another H.G. Wells classic, `The Invisible Man,' the realization of which, here, is `Hollow Man,' directed by Paul Verhoeven, and starring Kevin Bacon and Elisabeth Shue.<br /><br />Sebastian Caine (Bacon) and his colleagues have for some time been conducting experiments for the U.S. Government, exploring the possibility and practicality of invisibility, which they have, at last, achieved in a number of the primates upon which they have tested their method. They have, in fact, progressed to the point that effecting the invisibility is assured; their only problem now is bringing the subject back to the original `visual' state of being. It's a problem, however, that Caine, after diligent effort and too many hours in the lab, has solved-- or so he thinks. And when the application of his theory on a live subject is successful, he decides to present the results to the board of directors, in an effort to thereby maintain the funding necessary for the continuation of the project.<br /><br />At the last minute, though, Caine demurs, fearing that control of the project will be wrested from him before they can proceed to the next level-- the testing of a human subject. And he takes it upon himself to become that subject, securing the assistance of his research team by telling them that they've been given approval by the board to do so. But something goes wrong, and Caine becomes trapped in his cloak of invisibility; and as he and his team struggle to find the solution to his considerable dilemma before it's too late, it all begins to take a toll on Caine's mind. And suddenly, his fear of losing funding and control becomes inconsequential, as he finds himself facing the imminent danger of losing much more than that. Now there's a very real chance that he may lose everything-- Including himself.<br /><br />Verhoeven has crafted what is initially an exciting, even thought provoking film; he establishes a good pace and uses the F/X at his disposal to great effect, though he does tend to allow the striking visuals to overwhelm the character development. Anyone familiar with `The Invisible Man,' or actually anyone who can logically follow the progression of the story, will know early on that Caine is not destined for happier times. Still, Verhoeven has a style of storytelling that is definitely going to capture the attention and engage his audience. But he seems bent on rushing toward the climax, and along the way he abandons any and all of the nuance that has made his film thus far successful, opting to enter into a final sequence that is nothing more than a mindless blood-and-gore fest that betrays his audience and everything he's worked for earlier in the film. Rather than seeking an intelligent resolution to Caine's suffering, and using some inventiveness and imagination to take the film to it's inevitable conclusion, Verhoeven takes the low road, and though it may succeed on a purely visceral level, any meaning one could derive from the story dissolves like so many ashes in the wind, along with anything that would have made this a memorable film. And it's a shame, because Verhoeven has it at a higher level than much of what is offered in this genre, and he allows it to sink unnecessarily to one much lower.<br /><br />Kevin Bacon does a good job of creating a character that is believable, if only on the surface, which seemingly serves Verhoeven's purposes perfectly. There's little depth to Bacon's portrayal, but it has more to do with his director's agenda than his own acting abilities. Verhoeven simply does not allow Bacon the time to develop Caine to any extent; the character is mainly a vessel around which Verhoeven can build his story, and toward that end, it works. The film would have been better served, however, had Verhoeven and Bacon collaborated more closely on at least developing a bond between Caine and the audience that would have prompted some emotional involvement on the viewers part, something that would have drawn them in a bit, rather than leaving them at the gate, as it were, as mere observers of an F/X laden extravaganza.<br /><br />Elisabeth Shue comports herself well in the role of Linda McKay, Caine's willing accomplice in the ill-fated experiment, but it's basically a thankless part that offers little challenge, especially to an actor of Shue's caliber. The same can be said of Kim Dickens (so magnificent in the 2001 film, `Things Behind the Sun'). Her character, Sarah Kennedy, does little more than support the action and F/X. Both actors are capable of so much more, and deserve better than what they are given to work with here.<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Josh Brolin (Matthew), Greg Grunberg (Carter), Joey Slotnick (Frank), Mary Randle (Janice) and William Devane (Dr. Kramer). Entertaining to a point, and even successful on a certain (low) level, `Hollow Man' is one of those films that leaves you contemplating what could have been. Like an annual fireworks display, it will give you some momentary thrills, but after awhile it'll begin to blend in with all the others you've seen, without anything special to set it apart. And it's too bad, because given the talent and abilities of those involved here, it could have been so much more. I rate this one 4/10.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />
I don't normally feel much of an incentive to comment on films I don't like, but in a case like this one, I just have to say something. This movie is terrible, illogical, and stupid. There are so many flaws in the storytelling that I don't even feel obliged to elaborate on because it's time for me to move on from this experience. The most annoying point is, however, that at no point in the film does anyone explain whether the motivations for Bacon's character's madness are due to a power trip or a physiological reaction to his condition.<br /><br />Granted the special effects are impressive, and in the past Paul Verhoeven has done some good stuff (the director's cut of Robocop on DVD is great). However, this movie is stupid and generally doesn't come near to explaining the point or technical aspect of the subject matter, and instead settles for predictable action without any enjoyment.<br /><br /> In short, as many other reviews here say (wish I had read them before...) - Stay away from this film!
Unfortunately, one of the best efforts yet made in the area of special effects has been made completely pointless by being placed alongside a lumbering, silly and equally pointless plot and an inadequate, clichéd screenplay. Hollow Man is a rather useless film.<br /><br />Practically everything seen here has been done to death - the characters, the idea and the action sequences (especially the lift shaft!) - with the only genuinely intriguing element of the film being the impressive special effects. However, it is just the same special effect done over and over again, and by the end of the film that has been done to death also. I was hoping before watching Hollow Man that the Invisible Man theme, which is hardly original in itself, would be the basis of something newer and more interesting. This is not so. It isn't long before the film turns into an overly-familiar blood bath and mass of ineffectual histrionics - the mound of clichés piles up so fast that it's almost impressive.<br /><br />On top of all this, Kevin Bacon does a pretty useless job and his supporting cast are hardly trying their best. Good points might be a passable Jerry Goldsmith score (but no competition for his better efforts), a quite interesting use of thermal imagery and the special effects. I was tempted to give this film three out of ten, but the effects push Hollow Man's merit up one notch.<br /><br />4/10
<br /><br />Paul Verhoeven finally bombed out on this one. He became a joke on himself. Once again we have a film which includes sex and violence, immorality, leering at women and lots of attitiude talk between the characters and dollying pans.<br /><br />Its all for nothing. Because their is no action at all in this film. It fudges all its set pieces. All the actors give the kind of performances form a Verhoeven film. In other words rampant over acting on almost every level. Starship Troopers got away with it because it was such a macho world the characters inhabited. In this scientists are acting the same way. Sorry Paul but Soldiers and scientist are not really made of the same mindset.<br /><br />One major flaw in the plot was that after escaping for that one night to do evil things Kevin Bacons character then returns back to the science lab where we have already spent more then enough time watching these animated manniquens (Elizabeth Shue excepted) walk and talk. Why not show the extent of what the character could do in the outside world. How could they possibly track him if he could be anywhere at all??? Think os all the different things that could have been done with this concept, both in terms of story and characterisation. Then look at what this film does and you really how badly done and concieved the whole project really was.<br /><br />More insulting is the Doco on the DVD where everyone is claiming that Verhoeven is some kind of MAd Genius. Well one out of two isnt that bad.<br /><br />This film has nothing of note in it. Just like the title says.<br /><br />Hollow!!!
Other than some neat special effects, this movie has nothing to offer. They threw in some gore and some nudity to try and make it interesting, but with no success. Kevin Bacon's acting was pretty good, but he couldn't salvage the movies lack of plot.
I love special effects and witnessing new technologies that make science fiction seem real. The special effects of this movie are very good. I have seen most of this movie, since it's been airing on HBO for the past couple of months. I must admit, I MAY have missed a few scenes, but I'm usually drawn into movies, and have seen some scenes more than once. But every time I see some of "Hollow Man," I feel depressed, almost like a "film noir." I'm not sure why; perhaps it's that I don't want Kevin Bacon to be evil, and there's disappointment in that. But I think it's witnessing just HOW relentlessly evil he becomes. Regardless, I can recommend this movie for excitement (although some parts move slowly), but I do NOT recommend for youngsters under the age of 14 (perhaps 12, if they are mature).
The buzz for this film has always been about the fabulous graphics that make Kevin Bacon disappear. Sadly, they stopped there. They should have continued to make the script disappear, then the silly set, and finally every visible element of this film. Because, there's nothing else there to show.<br /><br />Gary Thompson and Andrew Marlowe are listed as the writing credits for this film. I don't really think they exist. I think they bought this script at "Scripts-R-Us", where you buy a standard blank "Monster Movie" script and just fill in the blanks. There's a monster stalking us. Let's split up. (They actually "let's split up" in this movie). Hit Alien/Giant-bug/Monster/Invisible-man with crowbar. Not dead yet. Burn Huge-rabbit/Shark/Invisible-man in unsurvivable fire. Not dead yet. You know, the standard stuff. Even the minimum number of elements that were specific to an invisible man movie (IR glasses, spraying with something like paint) were handled badly. <br /><br />What is sad is that there were lots of possibilities for this to be a fascinating movie. They psychological issues for the subject, the deterioration of the mind due to the process, treating an invisible subject, and many other ideas were touched on for usually less than 2 seconds and would have been far more interesting. Had there been any desire to save Kevin Bacon in the end, it would have been a much better movie. All in all, it stunk.<br /><br />I would mention some of the incredibly stupid elements of the ending of the movie, but I don't want to do any spoilers. Suffice it to say that these characters are so stupid they don't think about pulling the plug on a machine rather than...
This movie is worth watching if you enjoy marvelling over special effects. There are some interesting visuals.<br /><br />Aside from that, it's typical nineties/aughties hollywood fare of dazzle without substance. True to the title.<br /><br />It's not worth picking apart the story. That's like performing brain surgery on a dinosaur. There's not much there to begin with. It's nothing original and not very special. So don't go in for the story at all. Just look at the effects.<br /><br />As has been mentioned, it got a little flashy at the end, diluting the purity of great FX treatment of an invisible (and at times half invisible) man. However if you ignore the "standard" pyrotechnics, it's a sight to behold (or not to behold).<br /><br />All in all, it's a decent FX film worth seeing for that purpose and that alone.
Shortly after seeing this film I questioned the mental competence of every actor and actress that accepted a role. Elizabeth Shue is a commendable actress, why would she embrace such an overrated opportunity? I must give credit where credit is due, though. Some moments in the movie were unpredictable and rather transfixing, but they hardly made up for the scathing perverse tendencies of Kevin Bacon's character, Sebastian Caine. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, man or woman, that has any form of self-respect to account for.
Another violent, angry fantasy from Paul Verhoeven. Verhoeven is a puzzle: it's difficult to tell whether he takes his sordid impulses seriously, with sardonic intent or operates in complete oblivion. He also seems completely ignorant of the fact that all the brilliant visuals in the world (and this has some outstanding ones) cannot hide a negligence to story, dialogue and performance. Kevin Bacon plays a corrupt scientist who has discovered invisibility and uses it to drive himself into moral bankruptcy. Bacon is normally a likable actor who occasionally shows his dark side (`The River Wild') in an attempt to offset his boyish looks; given the material, however, Bacon isn't nearly hateful enough to compel. The other principals are Elisabeth Shue and Josh Brolin, neither of whom are gifted enough to make a solid impression and who, when forced to deliver inane dialogue, embarrass themselves. The climax is a study in preponderance and disbelief has to be truly suspended.
To describe this film as garbage is unfair. At least rooting through garbage can be an absorbing hobby. This flick was neither absorbing nor entertaining.<br /><br />Kevin Bacon can act superbly given the chance, so no doubt had an IRS bill to settle when he agreed to this dire screenplay. The mad scientist story of 'Hollow Man' has been told before, been told better, and been told without resorting to so many ludicrously expensive special effects.<br /><br />Most of those special effects seem to be built around the transparent anatomical dolls of men, women and dogs you could buy in the early seventies. In the UK they were marketed as 'The Transparent Man (/Woman/Dog)' which is maybe where they got the title for this film.<br /><br />Clever special effects, dire script, non-existent plot.<br /><br />
That's what I found myself saying time after time in the remarkably inept 3rd act of this sorry excuse for a film. First off, the computer effects are absolutely mind-blowing! Those computer wizs' really deserve a pat on the back. The rest of the movie, though...<br /><br />None of the characters act in a realistic manner, especially in the aforementioned, despicable 3rd act (I promise I won't give it away, but trust me, it's not worth keeping a secret!). A lot of laughs in the film come unintentionally, like when they try to explain that an invisible man's eyelids don't work. Please, give the viewers more credit than that!!!<br /><br />Some of the sexual aspects of the film were interesting. What would you do, after all, if you were invisible? No one could catch you! These issues were dealt much more intelligently in the classic The Invisible Man from 1933. There is one scene of violence in particular that is so incredibly ambiguous, and is not mentioned once later on. If more attention had been paid it, Kevin bacon's mad scientist might have made a little more sense. <br /><br />The movie would actually be much more successful as a porno, since the premise could actually be carried out in a unique and interesting manner. But this piece of work... go see something else. Or don't, and live with the consequences!<br /><br />3/10
I rarely make these comments but I felt compelled to spare others the pain I endured in watching this movie. It's so stupid and implausible both in the overall story and in the details that you simply can't suspend disbelief. The problem starts early, when you see a government researcher tooling around in a new Porsche and dining with his team in a restaraunt that looks like a castle, overlooking the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. That kind of life on a government salary? Hah! It only gets worse. Toward the end, when the bad guy starts killing off the good guys, the latter group act so stupidly that you want them to die, in order to cleanse the gene pool. The special effects are pretty good - any producer's money can buy that - and the lead actors have been great in other films, but the screenplay and direction here are moronic. Many people have wondered whether there was some deliberate intelligence behind Paul Verhoeven's previous, facially stupid movies (Showgirls, Starship Troopers), but this movie should stop the wondering. He's just plain bad.
This picture started out with good intentions, Bacon the scientist out to test the theory of invisibility, and Shue is cute as usual in her role. It all falls apart after that, it's your typical Hollywood thriller now, filmed on a soundstage with special effects galore, minus any kind of humour, wit or soul. In other words, don't waste your time watching this. Get the audiocassette tape with John DeLancie as the Invisible Man instead, also starring Leonard Nimoy. Now that was good, and HG Wells is well served, unlike with this mess.
C'mon guys some previous reviewers have nearly written a novel commenting on this episode. It's just an old 60's TV show ! This episode of Star Trek is notable because of the most serious babe (Yeoman Barrow's) ever used on Star Trek and the fact that it was filmed in a real outdoor location. Unlike the TNG and Voyager series which were totally confined to sound stages.<br /><br />This use of an outdoor location (and babe) gives proper depth and an almost film like quality to a quite ordinary episode of this now dated and very familiar show.<br /><br />Except a few notable exceptions i.e "The city on the edge of forever" , "assignment Earth" and "Tomorrow is Yesterday" The old series of Star Trek needs to be seriously moth-balled and put out of it's boring misery. Half a dozen good episodes from 79 is quite a poor batting average.<br /><br />This is typical of the boring stuff Gene Roddenberry produced back then actually, contrary to popular belief where some people worshiped the ground he walked on, he actually made a LOT of rubbish! He doesn't deserve to be spoken of in the same breath as Irwin Allen for example.<br /><br />Just look at the set of the bridge of the Enterprise from a modern point of view. They used wobbly plywood for the floor, cafeteria chairs with plastic backs and cheap cardboard above the instrument panels. You can clearly see the folds in the paper ! Every expense spared or what !
Okay, now what the hell is this supposed to be? Is it a family fantasy movie to cash in further on the huge success of Spielberg's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"? Or a throwback to the glorious days of prehistoric epics such as "When Dinosaurs Ruled the Earth" and "The Lost World"? Perhaps it's an intellectual & philosophical masterpiece we all fail to comprehend? Yes, that must be it! Whatever it is, the creators of "The Day Time Ended" (good old John 'Bud' Cardos of "Kingdom of the Spiders" and writer David Schmoeller of "Tourist Trap") must have been sniffing quite a lot glue when they penned down the ideas for this demented hodgepodge of genres. The story doesn't make the slightest bit of sense and the narrative structure is incoherent as hell but, hey, who cares as long as it's got papier-mâché dinosaurs, miniature spacecrafts, headache-inducing light & laser shows and spontaneously combusting supernovas! The voice-over introduction is practically inaudible, but no worries as it's all gibberish! Did you know that the definition of 'time' isn't what we all think it is? Time doesn't necessarily pass by chronologically, it is one giant paradox! Words that were spoken thousands of years ago are still floating around now and even things that will happen in the future are already surrounding us. I have absolutely NO idea what all this means, but apparently it provides an easy excuse to gather tap-dancing midget aliens and well-mannered dinosaurs on screen together. I deliberately say well-mannered dinosaurs, because at a certain point one of the prehistoric monsters politely knocks on the front door before menacing his targets. The crazy plot revolves on a family of weirdos living in their solar-powered house in the middle of nowhere. Grandpa is extremely annoying, the granddaughter even more, granny is a walking & talking advertisement billboard for plastic surgery, the youngest son strangely resembles Prince Valiant and the young mother is … incredibly hot! Chris Mitchum for some reason also pointless wanders around the filming sets as the hot mommy's husband on business travel. The special effects are purely cheesy and absolutely laughable (I sincerely hope that the other reviewer who talked about "excellent special effects" was being sarcastic), but the absolute most genius aspect here are the dialogs! Just read this wondrous example of extraordinary writing: <br /><br />Grandpa: "You know what this is, don't you? This is a time-space warp!<br /><br />Stevie: "I'm not quite sure if I know what that means, dad"<br /><br />Grandpa: "Well, I guess nobody really does" <br /><br />Make up your mind, gramps! Do you know what it is or don't you? And stop talking about "The Vortex" like you're some kind of expert in the field! "The Day Time Ended" is an incredibly childish and not-worth-bothering-for fantasy movie, though I can totally understand that some of its fans cherish the film because they saw it at young age and became fascinated with the flamboyant effects. The ending completely comes out of nowhere, like they suddenly ran out of money or like the effects of the mushrooms they were eating wore out unexpectedly.
I saw this when it was in the theater, it started out so strong I mean back in 1980 this was a bold movie and the special effects were excellent AT THE time. Now you would have to of been at least 30 or so in 1980 to really understand this point because studying film historically misses the mind set at the time the expectations, and other related psychological factors. Now as I said the movie was engaging suspenseful and very entertaining. It builds to an excellent climax then.... IT ends I mean the person that described it as having a water balloon break in your hand before throwing it, besides being a very poetic description. In my experience, it was just not strong enough. My wife and I were well... how can I say this? We were upset, I mean we paid money, invested the time to watch the movie which was excellent. "We both felt we were robbed with an ending that convinced us both the production company must of run out of money and could not raise enough to finish it correctly. In fact my wife said it best, it did not end, IT JUST STOPPED!
When I ordered this from Blockbuster's website I had no idea that it would be as terrible as it was. Who knows? Maybe I'd forgotten to take my ADD meds that day. I do know that from the moment the cast drove up in their station wagon, donned in their late 70's-style wide collars, bell-bottoms and feathered hair, I knew that this misplaced gem of the disco era was glory bound for the dumpster.<br /><br />The first foretelling of just how bad things were to be was the narration at the beginning, trying to explain what cosmic forces were at play to wreak havoc upon the universe, forcing polyester and porno-quality music on the would-be viewer. From the opening scene with the poorly-done effects to the "monsters" from another world and then the house which jumps from universe to universe was as achingly painful as watching an elementary school production of 'The Vagina Monologues'.<br /><br />Throughout the film, the sure sign something was about to happen was when a small ship would appear. The "ship" was comprised suspiciously of what looked like old VCR and camcorder parts and would attack anyone in its path. Of course if moved slower than Bob Barker's impacted bowels, but it had menacing pencil-thin armatures and the ability to cast a ominous green glow that could stop bullets and equipped with a laser capable of cutting through mere balsa wood in an hour or two (with some assistance).<br /><br />Moving on... As the weirdness and bell bottoms continue... We found out that they're caught in a "Space Time Warp". How do we garner this little nugget of scientific information? Because the oldest male lead tells his son that, in a more or less off-the-cuff fashion, like reminiscing about 'how you won the big game' over a cup of joe or an ice-cold bottle of refreshing Coca-Cola. Was pops a scientist? Nope, but he knew about horses and has apparently meddled as an amateur in string theory and Einstein's theories.<br /><br />The recording I watched on DVD was almost bootleg quality. The sound was muddy and the transfer looked like it had been shot off a theater screen with the video recorder on a cell phone, other than that, it was really, really, really bad. (There's not enough 'really's' to describe it, really).<br /><br />I know some out there love this movie and compare it to other cult classics. I never saw this film on its original release, but even back then I think I would've come to the same conclusion: bury this one quick.
I cheer for films that fill in subject matter gaps in world cinema. So after watching the trailer for "Water Lilies," I expected to like this film because I thought I'd stumbled on something unique: a movie that honestly portrays teen lesbian love - sort of a female version of "Beautiful Thing." <br /><br />The main characters are young French women 15 years old. Marie is slender, reticent and pretty in a tomboyish way; Floriane is outgoing, athletic and beautiful; and Anne is loyal, pudgy and behaviorally immature. The erotic interrelationship between Marie and Floriane is always simmering in this movie, if not at the surface, then just below it. <br /><br />"Water Lilies," however, is not about the dawning of lesbian love upon two teens; it is about sexual frustration, suffering, ennui, teens working at cross-purposes and - in at least two instances - joyless, mechanical sex. It also proves that screenwriters and film-makers mar their own creations when they become too manipulative.<br /><br />In the extra features on the "Lord of the Flies" DVD, director Peter Brook says, "French cynicism starts with the arousal of sex," meaning the French regard children as angels while they regard adolescents and adults with a pervasive cynicism. Part of the downfall of this film is film-maker Celine Sciamma has gulped a mighty dose of this cynicism.<br /><br />"Where is the joy?" I asked myself while watching this film. Yes, first love can be painful and frustrating, but it can also be joyful and triumphantly erotic in a fresh, life-affirming way. These positive aspects are missing from this movie; there is no balance.<br /><br />Organically, this movie wants to be a poignant celebration of first love. But Sciamma is too impressed with her own cynicism and cleverness and ruins the film. First, what is the point of showing only the plump girl nude? I know there is an established tradition of tasteful teen nudity in European cinema, as evidenced by films like "The Slingshot; The Rascals; The Devil, Probably; The Little Thief; Murmur of the Heart; Friends; Beau Pere" and "Europa, Europa"; but this instance is a petty authorial intrusion - "See, audience, I can make a film where I show only the unattractive person nude." Either no nudity or evenly distributed nudity would've been an honest way to go.<br /><br />There is a scene in a club where Floriane and Marie are dancing. What follows next is not just Floriane cynically manipulating Marie; it is film-maker Sciamma cynically manipulating her audience.<br /><br />Perhaps the biggest betrayal of authenticity and organic honesty takes place when Floriane warns Marie she's about to request something that is "not normal." Marie understandably asks, "Who cares about being normal?" Then Sciamma plays false with her audience and the hurtling momentum of the movie, because Floriane's request is a phony, derivative and substitute question - not the authentic, heartfelt question the movie, Marie's character and the viewers who've invested their time deserve. <br /><br />Here are also two moments which clank falsely on the viewer's nerves: 1) Since when do the French - of all people - take baths wearing bathing suits, and with a turtle to boot? 2) What teen - of any nationality - would chomp down on an apple core that's been thrown in the garbage in order to get a taste of the beloved's mouth?<br /><br />The three main actresses are promising and, if they find better vehicles for their talents, may become excellent actors. Louise Blachere (Anne) is the best actress in terms of technique and could have a successful career in supporting roles. Adele Haenel (Floriane) could become a leading lady, or a bombshell, or both. Pauline Acquart (Marie) possesses an intensity and magnetism which are unmistakable. In the future, she could play everything from an emotionally crippled librarian to a mysteriously sensual seductress to a reluctant politician riding a meteoric rise in acclaim.<br /><br />All in all, "Water Lilies" was very disappointing. Will an honest film-maker please make an authentic movie about two young women falling in love! No - not necessarily for the sake of this middle-aged guy - but so young lesbian girls can have something of quality they can watch and identify with. And yes, to fill a subject matter gap in world cinema.
For anyone craving a remake of 1989's Slaves of New York. What are there, seven of you? Here it is... was.<br /><br />This undercooked movie has studiously vapid characters (Well they're club-kids, ya big jerk!) that are in holding patterns. The big question seems to be, just how long can a young adult remain juvenile? It took three people to write this 'story'? Good god, it was easier to come up with Citizen Kane. Rather than take viewers back, this movie should just embarrass anyone who was a scene-ster in the early 90s.<br /><br />The idea that a fifty year old woman envies a bunch of self-absorbed kids from a different era is the world as only self-absorbed, twenty-somethings could imagine it. The odd sidebar about library work is not the sub-plot one expects from the equivalent of Parker Posey's Breakin 2: Electric Bugaloo. Her "I'm serious about graduate school!" while a stripper grinds on her is hysterical. Posey's shtick is always amusing, but there are projects that are beneath her. I was asleep before it crossed the 40 minute mark.
Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did.
For the first couple of seasons, I thought The Apprentice was a highly engaging and exciting show. The combination between reality TV and a 16 week job-interview was innovative, and the producers of the show managed to keep the show relevant and not too "out there".<br /><br />The new season 6 is nothing more than a big joke and it has absolutely nothing to do with business - at all. In the earlier seasons they used to put a lot more emphasis on the business-related tasks - now the focus is mostly in the boardroom where the contestants are expected to do EVERYTHING to keep them on the show (that means lying, trash-talking, backstabbing etc.). The boardroom can be entertaining to watch, but it's entertainment at it's low-point - Sometimes you wonder if you are watching a repeat of an old Jerry Springer episode. The tasks on the show are, at most, boring and mostly a showcase for the companies who are dumb enough to pay NBC for the publicity. And what is the deal about half of the contestants living in tents in season 6? That is just plain stupid and has nothing to do with business in real-life. <br /><br />I have absolutely NO respect for any of the contestants this season, they all seem like idiots to me. In earlier seasons at least some of the contestants had a bit of integrity, now it seems like the contestants would kill their own mother to keep them on the show. It also seems like Donald Trump's massive ego becomes bigger and bigger for every season that pass by and to be honest, I can't see why anyone with a common sense would want to work for him. His rationality in the boardroom mostly doesn't make any sense at all and sometimes it seems he just like to trash people for what it's worth.<br /><br />R.I.P The Apprentice. Please NBC, for God's sake, get the show off the air as soon as possible. It's just too embarrassing to watch. The Apprentice was once a great TV-show, but now it's just a big fat joke.
I LOVED the Apprentice for the first two seasons.<br /><br />But now with season 5? (or is it 6?) things are getting just plain too tiring.<br /><br />I used to like the show, but its become Donald Trumps own ego fest. Granted its his company you'll be working for, but come on! some of the things says "You're FIRED" is just insulting.<br /><br />after watching the show, I would not want to work for him. not because he is arrogant, pompous or such. Its just that the show is unrealistic and the way he handles things makes me just squirm. Good Entertainment? YES, but tiring as the back stabbing gets so tiring.. its not team work, its not personal, its just business. watch your back jack.
I bet you Gene Simmons and Vincent Pastore negotiated in advance how many episodes they would be willing to appear in. Isn't just too contrived for Gene to switch to the ladies team and then throw himself on his sword? And Big Pussy? What the hell was that "look at me, I'm a rat!" double episode crap? All that cliché mafia banter- COME ON! The big names voted off just happened to already have received money for their charity and got a custom tailored exit. Hmm... This is not reality but staged drama! Mark Burnett's other show, "Survivor" also raised questions for me when Johnny Fairplay stages his departure when he clearly had just a short time before his child is to be born.<br /><br />Yuk!
I can't stand most reality shows and this one is worst than the one with Paris Hilton, and sure it's his company. But "you're fired" or "you're hired", for how many seasons now? After watching the show I wouldn't want to work for the guy with his ego and all and I think watching paint dry has more entertainment valve.<br /><br />I'd love to hear just one person get up and say "Donald I quit and take some of your money and buy a decent hairdo". I see he's even trying to buy fame in the wrestling WWE. I hope he gets hurt so I don't have to see his pathetic face anymore. It must be sad to want fame so bad and have no talent and make an ass of yourself trying to buy it. I'd give this show a negative mark if I could but it gets a 1 and it doesn't deserve that.
One has to wonder if at any point in the production of this film a<br /><br />script existed that made any sense. Was the rough cut 3 hours<br /><br />long and was it trimmed into the incoherent mess that survives? <br /><br />Why would anyone finance this mess? I will say that Tom<br /><br />Wlaschiha is a good looking young man and he does what he can<br /><br />with the dialogue and dramatic (?) situations he is given. But<br /><br />characters come and go for no apparent reason, continuity is<br /><br />non-existent, and the acting, cinematography, and direction are (to<br /><br />put it politely) amateurish. Not One Sleeps is an unfortunate<br /><br />choice of title as it will probably prove untrue should anyone<br /><br />actually attempt to actually watch this film.
Jochen Hick wrote and directed this little thriller of a suspense film based on the concept that the AIDS virus was a sheep virus mutated by the government to rid the world of gays and was apparently tested on convicts in the years before the outbreak of the hideous disease. Were it not for the poignancy of the concept of the film, this would fall into the category of the many films about the ruination of the world by a rampant non-prejudicial infective organism.<br /><br />Stefan (Tom Wlaschiha) journeys from Berlin to San Francisco to investigate his father's scientific suppositions about the induced sheep virus and its effects of the convicts in whom it was infused. He meets with some disdain and resistance to a dead theory, but also encounters some folks who know of the theory and support his investigation. Simultaneously with his visit a series of serial murders takes place, each victim killed in a similar manner and each murder apparently accompanied by strains of music from Puccini's opera 'Turandot' which just happens to be opening at the San Francisco Opera. A police investigator Louise Tolliver (Irit Levi) and her companion cop (Kalene Parker) follow the murders while Stefan makes the rounds of the sex clubs and bars in San Francisco trying to locate men who may have been guinea pigs for his father's theory. He encounters a strange lad Jeffrey (Jim Thalman) with whom he has a cat and mouse attraction and a prominent Doctor Burroughs (Richard Conti) who seems oddly involved in the cast of suspects. How this all come to an end is the play of the film, a story as much about the search for self identity between Stefan and Jeffery as it is a case for investigation of murders.<br /><br />While Tom Wlaschiha, Jim Thalman and Richard Conti do well with their roles (they are the only three who have any prior acting experience in the film!), the quality of the film sags considerably by the less than acceptable minimally talented Irit Levy and Kaylene Parker: when on screen the credibility of the story drops below zero. There are some small cameos by other actors that brighten the screen for the moments they inhabit, but in all the film is drowned by the incessant replay of 'Nessun dorma' as sung by Mario del Monaco from a recording o the opera - and that seems to be the reason for making the film! Good idea for a film and some good characterizations by the actors, but there is no resolution of the initial premise that started the whole thing. Grady Harp, February 06
Poorly written conspiracy drama/mystery about the possibility that AIDS was introduced to the public by the government. Wlaschiha plays a gay researcher looking for answers--that within this foggy plot would be hard for anyone to find. Despite the cinematography itself being commendable, the camera hungers for characters of true depth instead of the shallow, amateur acting it unfortunately has to convey. Grade: D+
I don't give much credence to AIDS conspiracy theories but its sociologically interesting to see the phenomenon dramatized. In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, the suffering and paranoia of the scared and dying often generated such dark fantasies. This was especially true in the politically radical and sexually extreme demi-monde of San Francisco. The city, renowned for its beauty, has rarely appeared uglier than in this film. A sense of darkness and decomposition pervades every scene.<br /><br />While the acting and plot can't be said to be well-done the films unique cultural context and oppressively dark mood at least partly saves the film from being a complete loss. Actually, I found the most interesting performance to be Irit Levi as a crusty and cynical Jewish, lesbian (?) police detective. She's interesting, though not necessarily convincing.<br /><br />Highlights: the film's use of the garishly tragic Turandot is an effective motif and there is a sublime silent cameo by iconic performance artist, Ron Athey.
The cliché of the shell-shocked soldier home from the war is here given dull treatment. Pity a splendid cast, acting to the limits of their high talents, can't redeem 'The Return of the Soldier' from its stiff-collared inability to move the viewer to emotional involvement. Best moments, as another reviewer noted, come when Glenda Jackson is on screen; but even Jackson's crackling good cinematic power can't pull this film's chestnuts from its cold, never warmed hearth. Ann-Margret, she of sex-kitten repute and too often accused of lacking acting ability, finds her actual and rather profound abilities wasted here - despite her speaking with a nigh-flawless Middlesex accent. The hackneyed score, redolent of many lackluster TV miniseries' slathered-on saccharine emotionalism, is at irritating odds with the emotional remoteness of the script, blocking, and overbaked formalism of the direction; except for its score and corseted script and direction, 'The Return of the Soldier' has all the right bits but it fails to make them work together.
The Good Earth is perhaps the most boring film I've seen in my life. The plot is slow and lacking. The acting is borderline comical. While I love Paul Muni, I can now say i have seen a film that does not do his true ability justice. The only saving grace I found with this film is it's production value. The use of hundreds of extras throughout the film creates a very believable and interesting environment. Also, the beautiful effects used to create the illusion of millions of wasps sells easily and was revolutionary at the time. Other than the production value I can say little else that is good or entertaining about this film.
The Good Earth is not a great film by any means, it is way to ordinary. Maybe it was different in the 1930's but who would want to see the life of a farmer. It is not very interesting to me. Yes, Luis Rainer and Paul Muni do an excellent job acting but the film dragged on way too long. I could have told you the ending of this movie by the first act. In short Wang Lung (Muni) a small time farmer who does not want to be like his own father turns out exactly like him. Both falling in love with their wives just as they are on their death beds. The film does a complete 360 going from one generation to the next. Also this film did not have any good character actors or funny moments, it just was depressing stuff about lasting as a farmer during a time of crisis.
A couple of farmers struggle in life in a small village in China. Wang Lung (Paul Muni) buys O-Lan, his future wife, who becomes his slave (Luis Rainer). American stars appear in the leading roles, talking with fake accents and emphasizing old stereotypes and patriarchal ideology. A good wife, many children and land are the best things for men to have. They are seen as property and investment. Because it is a big budget movie, in which many extras cooperate, big sets are built and special effects take place, the movie makers could not take the risk of hiring less popular actors. Luise Rainer won an Academy Award for this performance, which is definitely the worst in the movie. Her immutable face builds a barrier between her and the audience. O-Lan is supposed to be the heart of the family and the best character to sympathize with. On the other hand Paul Muni gives a better performance, showing his talent ones again. Another problem with the movie is the ending. It seems like Franklin did not know when to end the picture. This film could be dangerous if it is taken as a truly example of Chinese culture and traditions.
Luise Rainer received an Oscar for her performance in The Good Earth. Unfortunately, her role required no. She did not say much and looked pale throughout the film. Luise's character was a slave then given away to marriage to Paul Muni's character (he did a fantastic job for his performance). Set in ancient Asia, both actors were not Asian, but were very convincing in their roles. I hope that Paul Muni received an Oscar for his performance, because that is what Luise must have gotten her Oscar for. She must have been a breakthrough actress, one of the first to method act. This seems like something that Hollywood does often. Al Pacino has played an Italian and Cuban. I felt Luise's performance to be lackluster throughout, and when she died, she did not change in expression from any previous scenes. She stayed the same throughout the film; she only changed her expression or emotion maybe twice. If her brilliant acting was so subtle, I suppose I did not see it.
Well I'm probably about to be lambasted by everyone on this site, but The Good Earth is one of the worst structured films I've seen in a long time. We have a 2 and a half hour film that feels like its three and a half because it has two films in one. The first film tells the story of a family that has to move form their home because of drought and famine. They have to travel south to the cities to find food or work of some kind. Conveniently they happen to find a bag of jewels and at the same time they find out that the drought has ended. Yeah OK. With this knowledge they return home with their riches and everything is fine and wonderful again. <br /><br />Well that takes about an hour and a half of film and while its incredibly lifeless at this point it does have a nice arc to it. You would think this would be a fantastic place to end the film. However, the film then continues on for a whole other hour. And in this remaining time, its takes a simple story about a family dealing with the hardships of the world and turns it into a sappy melodrama about betrayal and jealousy between lovers. Oh yea and the age old, money is the root of all evil blah blah blah. Just because you know your making an epic film doesn't mean that your story can go on needlessly for more than it has to. Also the main idea I would gather about this film is that the earth is good to this family and holds them together. Then why do we spend an hour telling a story about a rich man falling in love with another woman, and why is the final moment of the film dedicated to a wife that our main character hasn't even cared about through most of the film. <br /><br />Oh wait and the film isn't the only thing thats poorly written, the main characters wife makes absolutely no sense. She complains a lot about how she was a slave and she never wants to have a slave and yadda yadda yadda. Then why at the drop of a hat is she willing to sell her only daughter into slavery. Even if they are starving at the time of this idea, it still doesn't make sense when 20 minutes later in the film she is complaining about not wanting a slave again. <br /><br />There are other films from the thirties that should be paid attention to. The only thing this one has going for it is the cinematography. The land is shot beautifully, oh and the sequence with the locusts is quite impressive. Too bad that were in a film that had nothing to say. <br /><br />One last thing. I know that at this point in time Hollywood was focused mostly on stars and they figured that a good actor can portray anything. For most of the film Paul Muni does portray an Asian man to the best of his ability, but once it hits the half point where the film goes on for no reason he loses it and just becomes regular old Italian Paul, they even cut his hair so he looks like Tony from Scarface(also a better film than this). Of all the main characters in the film I think maybe three are actually Asian, the rest are just Americans being silly. Oh and please Ms. Rainer that was a really nice one note performance, not, if i could i rip the Oscar out of your hands, oh i would. <br /><br />The Good Earth is one epic waste of time. If you want something along this vain to watch on nice evening get The Grapes of Wrath, a film that truly deserves all the praise it gets. Mainly because it wasn't written by a monkey.
The Good Earth follows the life a slave girl and a poor farmer in China. The movie is based on the novel by Pearl S. Buck. The story is great, but I hated that they decided to cast Anglos in the lead roles. Walter Connolly is laughable as the farmer's father. He has such a heavy American accent, as do most of the lead actors, that I could not bear listening to him speak.<br /><br />It is a shame that Hollywood could not get past their racist beliefs to cast Asians in the lead roles. To take Anglos and make them look like Chinese is akin to Anglos putting shoe polish on their faces to play African-Americans.
Well, what was fun... except for the fun part.<br /><br />It's my second least favorite so far, I even thought it was worse than 'Lazarus' and 'Ghost in the Machine'.<br /><br />Let's start with the good. The teaser, it was incredibly well done and also emotional. Being the great animal lover that I am, it was fun seeing so many beautiful animals in this episode.<br /><br />But then there's all the bad, and believe me there is a lot of it. Little made sense, so those animals were being abducted by aliens and impregnated? whaaa??? the dialog was also pretty awful. There were about one or two quotable lines. <br /><br />and worst of all, having pretty much all those animals die was very unpleasant for me. In the end... what's the point? they all pretty much died. We didn't learn anything, we weren't entertained, and I couldn't even find Sophia's death sad... just very frustrating.<br /><br />* star. shame because Season 2 was doing so well.
Amazing. That's what you'd say if you sat through this film. Simply, incredibly, amazing. It's actually so amazing that anyone was stupid enough to dump money into making this monstrosity that you simply can't believe what you're seeing. That, my friends, is what is truly scary about this film. Somebody thought it was a good idea to make it. <br /><br />Well, here's another amazingly original story: High School student (occasionally seemed like college—go figure) has whore for a mom, lives in a trailer park, and is an "artist" who is ridiculed for his "being all different." Well, of course, this poor ridiculed boy is eventually killed and, here's the original part, his soul inhabits a scarecrow (beneath which, he is killed by his slutty mama's latest john). Then he goes around with the standard killing off of all the people that done hurt him. Awww.<br /><br />Here's the breakdown:<br /><br />The Good:<br /><br />--Amazingly funny movie—even if that's not what the clearly drunk filmmakers wanted.<br /><br />--This and the sequel on one disk in the Wal-Mart $5.00 bin—so it's only a little overpriced.<br /><br />Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help:<br /><br />--The violence and gore are kind of sub-standard. One person is stabbed with a corncob.<br /><br />--Sounds like they put some effort into the music—but it doesn't really fit the movie—and isn't all that good.<br /><br />The Bad:<br /><br />--Terrible, terrible acting.<br /><br />--Another slasher let-down with sexy women—none of them removing clothing. When did that cease being a staple of low-brow slashers??<br /><br />--Ridiculous story.<br /><br />--The scarecrow vomits up one-liners that would make Freddy Krueger and Arnold Swartzenegger blush.<br /><br />--Standard underlying love story goes nowhere, and is poorly done.<br /><br />--Some of the people killed seem like they were chosen at random—you never really know who anybody is and then they're killed. And you only assume that they must've had it coming.<br /><br />The Ugly:<br /><br />--Extremely average slasher fare, just with a murdering scarecrow instead of… well, all that other crap.<br /><br />--Nowhere near as interesting as Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, Pinhead, Chucky, or even Angela from the "Sleepaway Camp" series—all of which are better than this atrocity.<br /><br />--The absolute worst dialogue I have ever heard in my LIFE. The script is laden with a level of retardedness that I never imagined could exist. I'm serious here—it's a full step beyond terrible. Don't get me wrong, though, it's funny as hell—but I've never heard more asinine banter—even in "Slumber Party Massacre III." This film makes "Jason X" look like Shakespeare.<br /><br />--The man who kills the boy that becomes the scarecrow: Worst wig ever. Dialogue to match.<br /><br />Memorable Scene:<br /><br />--The one where elementary-school youths spew out their own witty dialogue: "Hey, let's go find small animals to torture. Huh huh."<br /><br />Acting: 3/10 Story: 3/10 Atmosphere: 2/10 Cinematography: 1/10 Character Development: 2/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 5/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 1/10 (No nudity, Mom's a whore, girls wear no bras) Violence/Gore: 5/10 (Low quality, mediocre amount) Dialogue: 0/10 (Extremely ridiculous, blatant, over-the-top and painfully funny—so bad it's good. My first rating for dialogue in any film!) Music: 5/10 Direction: 2/10<br /><br />Cheesiness: 10/10 Crappiness: 9/10<br /><br />Overall: 3/10<br /><br />Another one for just people like me who enjoy watching pure crap. Or Slasher-film completists. This is not a good movie, at all. Laughable dialogue and characters keep it from being truly boring.<br /><br />www.ResidentHazard.com
This movie could be used in film classes in a "How Not to Script a B-Movie" course. There are inherent constrictions in a B-movie: Budgets are tight, Time is precious (Scarecrow was apparently shot in 8 days) and the actors are often green and inexperienced. The one aspect you have complete control over is writing the best script you can within the limitations set before you. Scarecrow's script seems to have been written in a drunken haze. I could go through about fifteen examples of the nonsensical scripting of this movie, but I'll just mention one: The Gravedigger. The character of the gravedigger is introduced about an hour into the movie. He seemingly has no connection to any of the other characters already in the movie. He is shown with his daughter, who also has no connection to anybody else in the movie. The gravedigger is given a couple scenes to act surly in and then is killed to pad out the body count. Why give the Gravedigger a daughter? Why give the daughter a boyfriend? Why introduce them so late in the movie? Why not try to make them part of the ongoing storyline? Scarecrow doesn't seem to care.<br /><br />The "story" of Scarecrow goes something like this: Lester is a high school kid (played by and actor who'd I'd peg to be in his early 30's) who is picked on by the other kids. He is an artist who draws birds and has a crush on a classmate named Judy. His mom is a lush and the town whore. One of her reprobate boyfriends makes fun of his drawings (by calling him a "faggot" for drawing birds instead of "monsters and cowboys." If you have a high school student still drawing cowboys I'd think him to more likely be gay than a high school student who draws crows) and later, kills Lester, in a cornfield, under the titular scarecrow. Magically, Lester's soul goes into the scarecrow. Somehow, this transference changes Lester's soul from that of an artist into that of a wisecracking gymnast (I know some reviews have called the scarecrow a Kung-Fu scarecrow. I disagree. The scarecrow practically does a whole floor routine before jumping onto the truck during the climax of the movie). The scarecrow then goes on to kill those who tormented him, those who smoke pot in the corn field, those who dig graves, boyfriends of daughters of gravediggers, pretty much anyone who showed up on the movie set.<br /><br />The bonus feature on the DVD should be mentioned. The director (a Frenchman) does an impromptu version of rap music, admits he enjoys not having executives around on set so he can screw his wife while working and gives a quote to live by (and I'm paraphrasing): "Life ez a bitch, but et has a great ass"<br /><br />Number of Beers I drank while watching this movie: 5 Did it help: No Number of Beers needed to enjoy this movie: Whatever it takes to get to blackout drunk level.
I desperately want to give this movie a 10...I really do. Some movies, especially horror movies are so budget that they are good. A wise-cracking ninja scarecrow who can implement corn cobs as lethal weaponry...definitely fits this 'budget to brilliance' system. The depth of the movie is definitely its strong point and the twists and turns it implements, keeping the audience at the edge of their seats really drives the creepy...ninja... puberty-stricken... pre-thirty year old student...non-cowboy drawing...wise-cracking...son-of-a-bitch scarecrow into the limelight as the creepiest horror icon of the year. All I can really say is, 'can you dig it' and recommend watching movies such as Frankenfish if you enjoy this sort of hilarious horror.<br /><br />(WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY SMOKING!?'
This movie had the potential to be a decent horror movie. The main character was decently done and I felt sorry for him and there was a decent amount of backstory. HOWEVER, everything else sucks. The director, Emmanuel, is quite incompetent at film-making. He uses some of the most idiotic shots ever.<br /><br />- a couple of random sequences of random images dispersed throughout the film. I don't know if he tried to be deep and intelligent and poetic but he wasn't. It was stupid. Random shots of the trailer the main character lived in, random buildings, random pan shots of buildings, random cat which walks away. WTF? And clouds. Lots of gloomy dark clouds.<br /><br />- he really liked this technique of having a scene cut up into different shots rather than being just one continuous shot. EX: Guy is trying to light his weed and the camera circles around him. Instead of just one shot, he edits it into like 10 different shots so its really EDGY! and HIP! and SMART! stupid.<br /><br />The acting is horrible but it's what makes the movie so funny. And the scarecrow is a gymnast cause he flips and spins and twirls all the time. And some of the deaths could have been better. You expect the main bully to have a long well built up death but nope. A simple corncob in the ear . The love interest was hot. Voluptuous. Which is why this movie gets a 2.
Oh dear lord. This movie... It was horrible. I am a HUGE fan of horror movies. And most of the time, horror movies other people say are bad, I like. The actor who played 'Scarecrow' was amazing, I will say that. But this plot was awful. It made no sense! It had way too much gore, and an unnecessary (and revolting) sex scene at the beginning. I do believe the director was trying to be 'shocking' or whatnot, but it just came out awful. To add to the pile of festering crap they called a plot, the actors (besides 'scarecrow') we're awful, and I cared so little about them that I soon forgot who was who. In conclusion, this movie made me sick. If you can avoid watching this movie in anyway, please do.
Spirit of a murdered high school geek animates a scarecrow which then takes revenge on everyone.<br /><br />This movie really annoyed me. It has a great looking monster, has some good low budget effects, some atmosphere but manages to short circuit the good stuff with bad. Half way in I started to fast forward and then step through the chapters on the DVD.<br /><br />The problems with this movie are many. First off the cast looks about thirty and yet they are suppose to be in high school. You don't believe anything from the get go as a result. The scarecrow, while looking great isn't much beyond that. He says stupid one liners and moves in a manner more designed to be funny then scary. Is this a comedy or a horror movie? Its a problem that goes beyond the one liners to much of the dialog and set up. It seems more send up of every cliché than heartfelt horror film. I some how expect that the film was made for a very narrow audience in mind, horror fans who want to mock the genre rather than embrace it.<br /><br />Despite the good looking monster this is a film to avoid. Even if you pick it up in the bargain bin for under five bucks, you're paying too much.<br /><br />Avoid.
With all the excessive violence in this film, it could've been NC-17. But the gore could've been pg-13 and there were quite a lot of swears when the mum had the original jackass bad-hairdewed boy friend. There was a lot of character development which made the film better to watch, then after the kid came back to life as the scarecrow, there was a mindless hour and ten minutes of him killing people. The violence was overly excessive and i think the bodycount was higher than twelve which is a large number for movies like this. ALmost every character in the film is stabbed or gets their head chopped off, but the teacher who called him "white trash" and "hoodlum" (though the character lester is anything but a hoodlum, not even close, i know hoods and am part hood, they don't draw in class, they sit there and throw stuff at the teacher). The teacher deserved a more gruesome death than anyone of the characters, but was just stabbed in the back. There were two suspenseful scenes in the film, but didn't last long enough to be scary at all. As i said, the killings were excessive and sometimes people who have nothing to do with the story line get their heads chopped off. If the gore was actually fun to see, then it would've been nc-17. Two kids describe a body they find in the cornfields, they describe it as a lot gorier than it actually was, they explained to the cop that there were maggots crawling around in the guys intestines. His stomach had not even been cut open so there was no way maggots were in his stomach, though i would've liked to see that. The acting was pathetic, characters were losers, and the scarecrow could do a lot of gymnastix stunts. I suggest renting this movie for the death scenes, i wont see it again anytime soon, but i enjoyed the excessive violence. Also, don't bother with the sequel, i watched five minutes of it and was bored to death, it sounds good but isn't. The original scarecrow actually kept me interested.
The director states in the Behind-the-Scenes feature that he loves horror movies. He loves them so much that he dedicated the movie to Dario Argento, as well as other notable directors such as George A. Romero and Tobe Hooper. Basically dedicating this movie to those great directors is like giving your mother a piece of sh*t for Mother's Day. The first thing they did wrong was the casting. CAST PEOPLE THAT CAN ACT. Also, don't cast a person that is 40 years old for the role of a misunderstood, 18 year old recluse. That's right, he's been in high school for 22 years. The reactions made by people as they watch their boyfriends get their hearts ripped out is amusing. Or like one part when a guy gets stabbed in the ear with an ear of corn (haha get it), and his girlfriend just goes, "Oh..my.. God?" The scarecrow himself is quite a character. Doing flips off cars and calling people losers.<br /><br />The movie does have one redeeming factor... oh wait, no it doesn't.<br /><br />If you absolutely MUST see this movie, than just watch the Rock and Roll trailer on the DVD. It covers about everything and has a really gnarly song dude.
Scarecrow is set in the small American town of Emerald Grove where high school student Lester Dwervick (Tim Young) is considered the local nerdy geek by teachers & fellow students alike. The poor kid suffers daily humiliation, bullying, teasing & general esteem destroying abuse at the hands of his peers. Unfortunately he doesn't find much support at home since his mom is a slut & after Lester annoys one of her blokes he chases him into a corn field & strangles the poor kid. However something magical happens (no, the film doesn't suddenly become good), Lester's spirit gets transfered into the corn fields scarecrow which he then uses as a body to gain revenge on those who tormented him & made his life hell...<br /><br />Co-written, co-produced & directed by Emmanuel Itier who according to the IMDb credit list also has a role in the film as someone called Mr. Duforq although I don't remember any character of this name, I suppose anyone who ends up looking at the IMDb pages for Scarecrow will probably already be aware of it's terrible reputation & I have to say it pretty much well deserved since it's terrible. The script by Itier, Bill Cunningham & Jason White uses the often told story of one of life's losers who gets picked upon & tormented for no good reason getting their revenge by supernatural means in a relatively straight forward teen slasher flick. We've seen it all before, we've seen killer scarecrows before, we've seen faceless teens being killed off one-by-one before, we've seen one of life's losers get his revenge before, we've seen wise cracking villains who make jokes as they kill before & we've seen incompetent small town Sheriff's make matters even worse before. The only real question to answer about Scarecrow is whether it's any fun to watch on a dumb teen slasher type level? The answer is a resounding no to be honest. The film has terrible character's, awful dialogue, an inconsistent & predictable story, it has some cheesy one-liners like when the scarecrow kills someone with a shovel he ask's 'can you dig it?' & the so-called twist ending which is geared towards leaving things open for a sequel is just lame. The film moves along at a reasonable pace but it isn't that exciting & the kills are forgettable. You know I'm still trying to work out how someone can be stabbed & killed with a stick of corn...<br /><br />Director Itier doesn't do a particularly good job here, the kill scenes are poorly handled with no build up whatsoever which means there's never any tension as within two seconds of a character being introduced they are killed off. Also I'm not happy with the killer scarecrow dude doing all these back-flips & somersaults through the air in scenes which feel like they belong in The Matrix (1999) or some Japanese kung-fu flick! To give it some credit the actual scarecrow mask looks really good & he looks pretty cool but he is given little to do except spout bad one-liners & twirl around a bit. Don't you think that being tied to a wooden stake in the middle of a corn filed all day would have been boring? I know he's a killer scarecrow but I still say he would have been bored just hanging around on a wooden stick all day! There's no nudity & the gore isn't anything to write home about, there's a decapitation, someones face is burnt, someone is killed with a stick of corn, someone gets a shovel stuck in their throat, some sickles are stuck in people's heads, someone has their heart ripped out & someone has a metal thing stuck through the back of their head which comes out of their mouth.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $250,000 this was apparently shot in 8 days, well at least they didn't waste any time on unimportant things like story & character development. Technically this is pretty much point, shoot & hope for the best stuff. If you look at the guy on the floor who has just had his heart ripped out you can clearly see him still breathing... The acting sucks, the guy who played Lester's mum's bloke is wearing the most stupid looking wig & fake moustache ever because he played two roles in the film & the makers needed to disguise him but they just ended up making him look ridiculous & don't get me started on his accent...<br /><br />Scarecrow has a few fun moments & the actual scarecrow himself is a nice creation with good special make-up effects but as a whole the film is poorly made, badly acted, silly, too predictable & very cheesy. If you want to see a great killer scarecrow flick then check out Scarecrows (1988). Not to be confused with the Gene Hackman & Al Pacino film Scarecrow (1973) or the upcoming horror flick Scarecrow (2008) which is currently in production. Scarecrow proved popular enough on home video to spawn two more straight to video sequels, Scarecrow Slayer (2003) & Scarecrow Gone Wild (2004).
This movie is so aggrivating. The main character looks like he's 35 and I've seen scrawny beanpoles with more balls than this guy. The plot twists are so predictable its not even worth watching for the humor factor.<br /><br />Also some of the worst dialogue I've heard in 3 years, "lets go find a small animal to torture".<br /><br />Ugh.....I can't even continue, don't watch this pile of garbage, it was made in 8 days.<br /><br />The one highlight is the drunk dude calling the main character a faggot for drawing pictures.<br /><br />2 out of 10, unwatchable
Holy @#%& this movie was still warm and juicy from the pile it was made with. I tried to watch this pile of festering waste but found it easier to slash my wrists and slug back a shooter of Lysol floor cleaner than endure more than half of the crap that was on my screen. I rank this well below anything I have ever watched on film or TV, and thats saying something. I once witnessed a cow crap in a field. I watched the steaming pile for a hour and a half, who knows... it might have moved or something. Well that was time better spent than watching this tripe. The acting was non-existent, the plot was somewhere other than on this film. I think I saw a cut seen early on where the plot managed to escape and was riding off in the background on the back of a old pickup truck heading to Portland in hopes of becoming a Steven King shi77er. Please tell me director is getting medication he so desperately needs. It's pretty clear he needs heavy medication and I'd willing to front the money needed for his lobotomy reversal. Bah... I can't give this review the full punch it needs because nothing this painful can ever be done justice in typed word alone. Let me just say that if your looking for a flick to pass some time and you see this Chilton on the rack, walk to your car, start the engine, then shove both of your fists straight into the fan until it you can't feel your bones vibrate anymore. Be sure to have your wallet in hand also because you were going to waste the cash anyway. You might as well have the privilege of wasting it yourself.<br /><br />By the way, I watched this after a "buddy" of mine sent his girlfriend over so I could see it. HE dint come over, SHE had too. Whats worse is that she had to watch this $%&@ thing TWICE! I heard their married now and he gets to visit his balls once a month. I hope it was because of this film.
I saw this not too long ago, and I must say: This movie is terrible. I watch crappy movies for fun. Scarecreow is not fun. Scarecrow is stupid. You have an incredibly corny villain that enjoys screaming awful puns as he kills his victims(actually worse than the one contained in this sentence). He has his hard luck story that he uses to justify his killings. "Everyone picks on me. The only girl that thinks I'm not trailer-trash likes one of the guys that pick on me. I want to kill everybody. Wah." OK, I'm exaggerating. But the premise to this movie alone is enough to put it near the bottom of the list of crappy movies.<br /><br />Adding to what I just said, the kid's mom is promiscuous, he walks in on his mother and her current boyfriend getting it on, mom's boyfriend tells him to leave, kid refuses, insisting that he isn't going to leave his own house. Boyfriend chases kid into corn field. He kills kid right in front of mom, mom screams in terror, boyfriend is like, "OMG! I didn't mean to!" Then he tells mom not to say anything to the police about it. Kid was killed under a scarecrow, though. So, like any kid who gets murdered under a scarecrow, he comes back as a killer scarecrow with a vengeance. His victims "haven't been stalked like this before..." (Scarecrow's official tag line)<br /><br />To make matters worse, this movie was filmed in a whopping 8 days. That's right, 8 days. I was going to give this movie a 2, because in spite of itself, it has one or two redeeming moments. (They're spoilers, so I won't spoil it for you, if you actually want to see this crap.) I could have somewhat forgiven the bad acting, the horrible special effects, the abysmal script, and the bad camera work, but I simply have no respect for lack of effort on that level.<br /><br />This movie isn't nearly as good as I'm making it out to be. If you want to see an example of how not to make a movie, or if you enjoy watching bad movies, like I do, then watch this at your own risk. Everyone else should stay a safe distance away from this movie at all times.
WOW is all i can say if your reading this is either watched it or are thinking about it. trust me watch it!<br /><br />i laughed so hard at so many parts of this movie the worst acting ever made is very funny! I cant believe they superimposed the school sign! I must have played that scene over and over again just to laugh more and more every time. If a movie like this can be made it gives us all hope in making our own movies. even the costume was bad. it looked like my 7 year old cousin could have done a better job on making it. heck i bet he could have written and acted better as well. all i know is that i have to watch the second part just so i can see if it was as bad as the first. its a cool idea about a killer scarecrow but a much better job could have been done. hopefully another killer scarecrow movie comes out, just not like this one.
Perhaps one of the worst teenage slasher films I ever did see. I'll start with the bad points of t he movie, which pretty much covers the entire film. First of all, something no one can avoid: TERRIBLE ACTING. I swear they picked up some random kids off the street based on how they looked. Secondly, BAD/UNCONVINCING CHARACTER WORK/DEVELOPMENT. You hardly even know half the kids who are killed in here. All you figure is that they deserved it one way or another. The scarecrow's character was overdone, and a cheap rip-off of the other great fantasy killers such as Freddy or Pinhead. Next: BAD DIALOG: The Scarecrow was full of horrid one-liners that would make you laugh, only because it was so terrible. Lines like "Let's go find some small animals to torture!" really just leaves you with an eyebrow raised. Last but not least: Next off: BAD CASTING. How old was the guy who played Lester? Like 30? The back of his head was balding for God's sake. There is much more I could say about this film, like it's cheap special effects, it's "high school film class" effort, but the point is understood. It's just bad film making at it's worst. As for what I found to be "good" in the movie: -Entertaining for those with low, low, LOW standards -Would help put insomniacs to sleep. -A very cheap laugh, or even a giggle.
First off, let me start with a quote a friend of mine said while watching this movie: "This entire movie had to have been a dare. You know, like, 'DUDE, I BET YOU COULDN'T MAKE THE WORST MOVIE EVER'". With this movie, they've made a good effort at achieving that title. The effects are, of course, poor. The plot/dialogue is like a collage of of bits stolen from every B horror movie ever made. The actors, I'm assuming, are supposed to be in college. Yet parts of it (especially at the beginning) make it seem like they're supposed to be in high or middle school. It makes no sense. The Scarecrow going around killing people isn't the least bit enjoyable. (SPOILER: At the end, when they chant Lester's name and he reappears, the black guy and Scarecrow are both laughing, probably out of relief they were on their last scene, and at the cheesy dialogue.)
Let's face it; some lame kid who dies and has his soul transfered into a scarecrow. Das no gonna happen neva! OMFG This stupid loser kid who can't stand up for himself gets his ass handed to him by some drunk bastard screwing his mom. Right as he dies, he looks up at the scarecrow and he let's his spirit go into the scarecrow. The drunk guy covered up his death by making it seem suicidal and thought he had gotten away with it. We later see he is tossed out of the trailer and later earns another encounter with the scarecrow. They had a brief encounter which includes the drunk calling him a loser and the scarecrow rebounding with "Takes one to know one, loser!" The scarecrow flips off the building, calls him "daddy-o", and then beheads the poor man. We can see how this awesome movie unfolds from that. He goes on to kill many people, afterward. He mainly kills the people who gave him a hard time in rl and goes off to kill some random ass people, just for some laughs. No laughing here. He adds a punchline to every kill, too. Every time he killed someone, he would do some karate flips and finish it all off with one of his signature punchlines. In the case of someone who was hard of hearing, he would say "Here, have an EAR of corn!" then shove it up their ass. OR we can actually take an example from the movie! He just got done killing a cop and was on his way to killing the only person who ever stood up for him. Her father, the sheriff, yelled to the madman to stop, and he said "Hey, stay awhile!" and threw a dagger threw his chest and stuck him onto some tree. In the end of the movie, he killed two guys and threw in the punchline "Gotta split!" and killed two guys by shoving a scythe into their heads. Wowzors, this movie made me want to cream my pants so bad. Maybe next time this guy makes a movie, it won't be gay.
I've gotta say, I usually like horror movies that i've never seen... however, this one was just to pathetic for my gory taste. I'm used to the gory, gut wrenching types... but this particular movie was lame. The acting was horrible (yet the corny (no pun intended) one-liners were cute). And the sequel to it, Scarecrow Slayer was even worse! Yes, probably, when it first came out, there was a huge rave about it and people liked it. But when movies like The Ring and The Exorcist of Emily Rose come out, movies like these make movies like Scarecrow seem childish. If you want a movie to just pass the time, pick this one! The special effects are cheesy as heck. But seeing that it was a low budget movie, I can kind of see where that would come in. This will kind of remind you of the movie "Children Of The Corn." Independent movies rock.... most of the time. So if you want to see a scarecrow killing people with corncobs, or in the sequel, 2 scarecrows going at it, then these movies would be for you.
I'm watching this on the Sci-Fi channel right now. It's so horrible I can't stop watching it! I'm a Videographer and this movie makes me sad. I feel bad for anyone associated with this movie. Some of the camera work is good. Most is very questionable. There are a few decent actors in the flick. Too bad they're surrounded by what must have been the director's relatives. That's the only way they could have been qualified to be in a movie! Music was a little better than the acting. If you get around to watching this I hope it's because there was absolutely NO other option! The sequel (yes sequel) is coming on now....I think I'll skip it! Jason
Wow, what can I say about this film? It's a lousy piece of crap. I'm surprised that it got rated as high as it did. What's wrong with this film? Here's a better question: What's NOT wrong with this film.<br /><br />The story itself is just crap and cliché. Here's pretty much what it's about...Some kinda nerdy kid with no friends gets picked on, gets killed, and comes back as a scarecrow for revenge. "All" of that is packed into 86 minutes of worthless film. If you haven't seen this movie don't waste your time watching it. Also, the second one isn't much better, so don't bother watching that either...I rated this movie a three because I liked the scarecrow's outfit, not because there was anything good about the movie. I think you get the picture.
A far as B-movies go, SCARECROW is one of those that are so bad, that it becomes incredibly annoying to sit through. A lonely loser high school student who is constantly picked on by classmates and rejected by girls, ends up walking in on his trailer trash mother having sex with a drunk redneck. He then chases the kid out into a nearby cornfield and kills him. Apparently, the kids soul was transfered into a scarecrow which then goes around killing the bullies who tormented him as well as teachers. This scarecrow, aside from having a snappy one-liner for each of his victims, can also do Matrix-like flips through the air and kill people on sidewalks in broad daylight. Also, why did he always look like a rotted corpse? Just like the two needless sequels that followed this, this isn't even worth a laugh.
Okay, 'enjoy' is a pretty relative term, but flexibility is in order when you're dealing with a filmmaker of James Glickenhaus' calibre.<br /><br />McBain is truly one of the most ridiculous, over the top action films I've ever seen, without the nasty edge of The Exterminator. Other reviews have commented on a suspension of disbelief regarding the film's heroic middle aged commandos, but how about making a film in the Philippines that is set in Colombia? All the extras are Filipino. In fact the only character who looks remotely Hispanic is good ol' Victor Argo as the much reviled 'El Presidente'! Oh yes, we also have Maria Conchita Alonso overemoting like crazy as a rebel leader. There are tons of explosions and bodies flying everywhere in this amusing paean to the glories of American imperialism.
I purchased this film on the cheap in a sale, having read the back of the DVD case and assuming that either way I can't lose, it if was rubbish then no loss, if it was any good then bargain...<br /><br />Then I watched it...<br /><br />I am normally a fan of Christopher Walken, but in this film he commanded very little screen presence, seeming not to do a whole lot, even the death of his friend near the beginning which sparks off the "action" in the plot seems to affect him very little, and his eventual revenge is just boring and undramatic.<br /><br />Normally a film which has themes as grand as revolution and revenge are able to capture the audience and snare them into feeling something for the characters, however watching this film felt more like seeing a series of confused, and almost random events that loosely tied together towards it's eventual conclusion...<br /><br />At this point I wept...<br /><br />I thought this film was the most horribly painful piece of viewing I have ever been subjected to, the scene where the pilot sacrifices himself by refusing to jump out the explosive laden truck due to not wanting to kill any civilians is not so much tragically sad as it is unnervingly horrible and painful, although not quite as bad as the emergency surgery on the wounded girl. The acting was poor all round, the script and story was weak, the "action" was even weaker, and the "visuals" were but bluntly not all that visual. To summarise there are films which are good, films that are bad, films that are so bad they are good, films that are terrible...<br /><br />And then on a whole new level is "McBain"
This was an absolutely terrible movie. Don't be lured in by Christopher Walken or Michael Ironside. Both are great actors, but this must simply be their worst role in history. Even their great acting could not redeem this movie's ridiculous storyline. This movie is an early nineties US propaganda piece. The most pathetic scenes were those when the Columbian rebels were making their cases for revolutions. Maria Conchita Alonso appeared phony, and her pseudo-love affair with Walken was nothing but a pathetic emotional plug in a movie that was devoid of any real meaning. I am disappointed that there are movies like this, ruining actor's like Christopher Walken's good name. I could barely sit through it.
Creep is the story of Kate (Potente), an intensely unlikeable bourgeois bitch that finds herself somehow sleeping through the noise of the last underground train, and waking up to find herself locked in the tube station. After somehow meeting workmate and would-be rapist Guy on a mystery train that runs after the lines have closed, things go awry and she finds herself pursued by what lurks beneath the city's streets. Her story is linked to that of George (Blackwood), an ex-con working in the sewer system; they meet in the final third of the film, brought together by their attempts to escape the monster that pursues them.<br /><br />The pair proceed through a set of increasingly unlikely locations; from the Tube station, they end up in the sewage works before somehow finding themselves in some sort of abandoned underground surgery. Most Tube stations don't have toilets, so how one has a surgery is beyond me. Naturally, the film cares to explain that the surgery doesn't have running water. Yet it has electricity? Just one of many inconsistencies that work against the atmosphere of everyday believability that the film tries to create.<br /><br />The monster itself is a problem. There's a complete lack of reasoning for its actions, it just kills people for no obvious reason. And then of course it keeps some alive for no real reason either, perhaps just so that they can eventually escape and give the film an extra 15 minutes or so running time. I understand that natural evil is supposed to be scary, but then the film attempts to explain itself via a photo of a doctor and his son, and a few shots of some jars containing babies, and yes, it is just as tired and pathetic as it sounds. It also fails to explain how the creature has been underground long enough to lose the ability to speak, communicating only in raptor screams, but not long enough for its pair of shorts to decay. Hmm.<br /><br />This doctor business leads to scene that is the film's desperate attempt to implant itself on your memory, and while it is gory and uncomfortable to watch, it just isn't enough. The final third of the film hinges on an emotional relationship that never existed, and the characters break down and recover for little or no obvious reason. George breaks down, unable to cope with something despite stating that he wants to escape so he can see his daughter again, and Kate becomes emotionally tough seconds after going to pieces over someone that ripped her off for a travelcard. Yeah.<br /><br />After starting out as a "this could happen to anyone" movie, it quickly falls apart as it introduces ideas that make it more and more unrealistic. A complete lack of emotional interest in the characters and an absence of suspense make this one to avoid.
The London Underground has something inherently creepy about it, with its long winding tunnels, the escalators taking you deeper and deeper underground, and of course the rats roaming the tracks.It a source of wonder that it is not used in horror films more often. It was used in the seventies horror Deathline aka Raw Meat, featuring a cannibalistic tribe living in a disused tunnel, and the celebrated chase sequence in American Werewolf in London. So I was pleased to see that someone else had tried to capitalise on the atmosphere of the tube at night with the recent UK production Creep.<br /><br />I thought the film started off well, with a highly effective credit sequence that was genuinely unnerving, followed by a scene in the sewers that sets up the premise of there being something evil lurking below the streets of London. However, Creep went downhill from here, and I found myself wishing that I'd switched it off after this opening scene, leaving me with a favourable impression of the film. All the characters become unsympathetic and unlikable, even Potente herself, and the director felt the need to hit us over the head with social commentary about homelessness. he also made the mistake of showing the "monster" in full lighting, where he ceases to become remotely scary, and reveals his name to be Craig. How can you have a monster called Craig? It turns into an X Files-type thing, and reminds one of the episode Tombs. In fact, I was wishing Mulder and Scully would turn up and sort them all out for me.<br /><br />As for the infamous sexualised violence, it is very graphic, disturbing and totally unnecessary. It seems to be there merely to shock the audience rather than for any intrinsic plot value. The trouble is it is so over the top and horrific that it actually numbs you to the rest of the horror, which is a mistake as it's only halfway through the film.<br /><br />So there you go. The only redeeming feature of the film for me was a rare appearance from Ken Campbell, one of my favourite occasional actors. You don't see him very often, but when he's on screen he acts everyone else into a corner. Casting him as a sewer inspector was a stroke of genius, unfortunately the only one evident in the film.
The potential was there. I saw Creep and thought, 'Oooh, this is getting interesting' several times. Yet somehow the interesting plot lines wound up unexplained or ignored, like they never happened. The lead character was irritating throughout the movie, and at one point my fella and I both shouted that we wanted her to die. There are some genuinely spooky/scary moments, but these are grossly overshadowed by the moments that just annoyed the hell out of me. It's another one of those horror movies that crops up and intrigues you for a while, but ultimately leaves you frustrated and a little confused about what the movie makers were trying to achieve.<br /><br />The one saving grace of this movie is the bad guy, but when the baddie is more likable than the lead character you know you're on to a loser.
I'll keep this short as a movie like this doesn't deserve a full review.<br /><br />Given the setting, this movie could have been something really special. It could have been another "28 days later" or even a "Blair Witch Project"<br /><br />The first 20 or so minutes of the movie I was really excited, directer did a decent job with cinematography and suspense, although I don't think He managed to capture true eeriness of an empty London Underground.<br /><br />Characters were a big let down. Our "heroine" in this movie is a worthless piece of crap, and you really don't care if she dies or not. As many people have said before, I was rooting for the homeless people and the black guy, who managed to give me a chuckle or two(whether intentional of the writers or not).<br /><br />The main villain, is kept in the dark for the first half of the movie, but when he is revealed I was really disappointed. I won't spoil it but lets just say my 10 year old sister could probably beat him in a wrestling match.<br /><br />All in all this is just another mediocre horror film which falls into the trap of following a simple Hollywood formula. This film had a lot of potential but really failed to hit the mark.<br /><br />Just to highlight how lame this movie was, the characters in this movie had at least FIVE TIMES to finish off and kill the main villain. INSTEAD THEY RUN AWAY.
I was so disgusted by this film, I felt obligated to warn off others. This film has no story, plot or hint of purpose. The film starts after the standard "lets be scary" movie intro, which by now every film watcher has become accustomed. So we can ignore the beginning completely. We are soon introduced to the main actress and from this point it becomes clear to all that you have just wasted your hard earned and would be better off watching static. (Unless you have seen white noise - EEK) Acting is a DISGRACE and all of them should return to the travelling pantomime from where they came. Having said that, even the best actors in the world would struggle to make this film remotely watch able. Their poor performances merely contribute to the disaster. Senseless violence and what I can only assume is the written word of yet another junked up "eccentric" writer, who probably considers himself to be an artist, has resulted in a film which will test your patience. It was not until my fellow watcher turned to me and said, "We have been watching this for 45 mins" did I realise that this film is as thin and tasteless as a cup of tea without a tea bag. Clearly something was missing and unfortunately it wasn't the audience. Rather than suggest what the film is missing, let me tell you what it has: Dumb Blonde (surprise surprise), Victims, bad-monster-guy-thing, about 2 mins of storyline which is stretched over hours, days, weeks, months... and credits.<br /><br />Want a silver lining? Well, the blonde girl is a bit saucy looking in some of the scenes, but expect to want to see her face ripped off for the rest of the film!
Absolutely laughable film. I live in London and the plot is so ill-researched it's ridiculous. No one could be terrorised on the London Underground. In the short time it is not in service each night there are teams of maintenance workers down there checking the tracks and performing repairs, etc. That there are homeless people living down there is equally unlikely. Or that it's even possible to get locked in and not have access to a mobile phone in this day and age...<br /><br />The worst that's likely to happen if someone did find themselves there after the last train is that they might get graffiti sprayed on them. Although this has been coming under control due to the massive number of security cameras on the network, another thorn in the side of the story. (Remember in London as a whole we have more security cameras than any other city in the world.)<br /><br />If it had been set in a city I am not familiar with perhaps I could have enjoyed it through ignorance, but it's not a high quality film so I just couldn't bring myself to suspend my disbelief and try and enjoy it for the banal little tale that it is.<br /><br />I would have given it 0/10 if such a rating existed! Possibly the most disappointing film I ever thought I would like.
Yet another example of the complete waste of UK Lottery money. Just how commercial did this film prove. The Film Council ,who funded this miserable garbage should be stranded, on one of the London Undergrounds disused stations, for allowing this clichéd, dismal specimen to be committed to film, a half mutant thing made up of all the horror movies the director has seen and felt fit to imitate, most notably Deathline. Amongst its many sins is the quite obvious failure to make the lead character remotely sympathetic until the last minute. It's a little bit too late then! Surely all those development executives, at the UK Film Council, could have noticed this at the script stage. Add to this the terrible acting and the laughable appearance of the creature and you get a prime example of how not to scare.
!!!!! OF COURSE THERE'S SPOILERS !!!!! I'm sure this project started off as a screen writing workshop on avoiding clichés in horror movies: Female protagonist - Check Bad things happen to drug takers - Check Heorine knocks out villain - Check Heroine doesn't notice villain recovering unconsciousness - Check Frame the sequence so we see recovered villain creep up behind heroine - Check Unfortunately it seems someone has sent this cliché list to a film studio instead of using it for class . Dear oh dear if only London transport was as regular as the clichés turning up here . In fact there's so many clichés and seen it all before moments that no one actually thought about going into detail as to what the eponymous creep is or how long he's been killing people on the underground . I'm led to believe it's the result of some human experiment and perhaps it's not until that night he decided to take his revenge out on humanity but all this is so vague as to be meaningless Not to be totally negative I doubt very much if the producers thought they'd be making a film that was going to sweep the Oscars that year and there's always a market for horror movies . Likewise I doubt if it cost too much produce and had one eye on the DVD market rather than cinema distribution and I will state that it's slightly better than 1972's DEATH LINE which also featured a murderous cannibal hiding in the London underground . it's just that when you think all the clichés have been used up in this film another cliché comes along to raise its ugly head
......in a horror movie that is. Alright first off , lets start with Kate. Her main goals include getting laid by George Clooney, looking good and last but not least screwing everyone over. Gotta love her. She had about 3 amazingly good chances to finish off this sicko but ..... instead she ran. I mean she didn't wanna bring Guy out for 10 minutes and when she did it was too late. I mean the guy tried to rape her. I cant get into these movies where the main character is a sad idiot. I mean who honestly would have any sympathy for a guy who finishes off everyone she has meet in a night. The movie kept going on. And as a result lost all its credibility.
Okay I must say that before the revealing of the 'monster'. saying that he really didn't fit into that category, just some weird thing that had an annoying screech! And personally I think a granny could have ran away from that thing, but anyway. I actually was getting into this film, although having the main character a drunk and a heroine addict didn't come as an appeal. But such scenes as when she runs away from the train, and you can see the figure at the door was kind of creepy, also where the guard had just been killed and the 'monster' put his hand on the screen.<br /><br />But then disaster stuck form the moment the monster was revealed it just became your average horror, with limited thrills or scares. Slowly I became more bored, and wanted to shut the thing off. I like most people have said was rooting for the homeless people to make it, specially the guy, he gave me a few cheap laughs here and there. I think this film could have really been something special instead it became what every other horror nowadays are! Just boring and well not worth the money.<br /><br />if you are looking for a cheap scare here and there, or a mindless gore fest (which is limited, hardly any in fact) by all means give it a go, but for all you serious horror watchers look somewhere else, much better films out there.
Please, be warned: this movie, though a pretty bad storyline, was one of the most gruesome movies I have seen...EVER. Just remember that before you settle on your sofa to enjoy the movie.<br /><br />So, it officially begins with a party. Just your average party but there's some guy there. He's pretty into Kate...if you know what I'm saying. Memorise his face; it'll help later.<br /><br />So anyway Kate goes of to find George Clooney (didn't I say the plot was bad?) and so takes the tube. That's London underground at the middle of the night, but she's just stupid like that. So the timetable says the next, and last, train will come in 7 minutes. Now Kate, dumb party girl that she is, decides that she can have a nap in the spare 7 minutes. Typically, she misses the train and finds herself locked in the London Underground. Alone. Well, almost...<br /><br />So the movie just carries on from there. Blood, guts, limbs, even certain parts of the body I shall not mention are slashed and gashed and eventually amputated from the body.<br /><br />In short, it's a typical horror; pretty but thick damsel in distress-type women and sick, weird psycho. Or as the case may have it, Creep.<br /><br />I'd say give it a go if you're into Saw, Hostel or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre but for the rest of us, Scream with satisfy out horror needs thankyou very much.
This film is a perfect example of the recent crop of horror films that simply are not fully realized. There are two routes to take in horror films: either you don't really explain what's going on (or who the killer is, like in Texas Chainsaw Massacre) or give the characters a lot of back story and characterization so that everything is explained (Halloween could potentially be an example of this).<br /><br />Unfortunately, Creep fails in this area. I see absolutely no reason to give a small shred of the back story for Craig without fully capturing the essence of his character or his motivation. No character is fully realized, although the circular nature of Kate's character in the film is the most accomplished part of the story.<br /><br />In the end, this story is mostly unmotivated and none of the performances give it the necessary life to make it enthralling or interesting enough to overcome the lack of context and empty film-making that drag down the film.<br /><br />This film will go down as another example of a film (as most are) that could be so much better even though it would never be great. The only thing that was used properly in the film was the setting: the characters, story, direction, and overall writing would have benefited from a serious face lift.<br /><br />Creep does serve a purpose as a mindless, silly horror movie with no intellectual or emotional investment, but sadly, that's about it...
Basically what we have here is little more than a remake of the hilarious 1970's classic kitsch horror 'Death Line' which ironically was like this cobblers, also partly filmed at the disused Aldwych underground station.<br /><br />Making good use of the now disused Jubilee Line platforms at Charing Cross as well as the aforementioned Aldwych, this film contains basically the same plot - dodgy murdering mad zombie in the tunnels preying on the lost passengers who have missed the last train - originality is not this film's strong point.<br /><br />Indeed strong points are sadly lacking. The gore ranges from the poor to the unnecessarily over gory whilst the sub-Gollum nutter is never really fully explained as seems little more than an under developed plot device.<br /><br />Franke Polente has little to do with a thin script than run down a lot of tunnels and scream every so often, indeed she was like pretty much everyone else in this film, out-acted by a small dog and a pack of tame rats.<br /><br />If creepy films set on the London Underground are your bag, or you just want to play 'spot the tube location' them pick this up on DVD when it hits a bargain bin. If you are looking for classic horror, go and dig up a copy of Death Line (aka Raw Meat).<br /><br />If you are looking for a quality well written and acted film, you will need to change trains.....
Creep - "Your journey terminates here." Some very graphic scenes and...well, yeah, that's about all for this film.<br /><br />No real plot, no storyline. No likable characters, well, 'characters' isn't correct considering you don't have a clue who anyone really is. I mean, they are being chased by some weird looking 'thing' in the sewers (who is this thing? why is he there?), that's quite scary I guess, but do I really care? No, I don't. Why don't I? Because I don't have a clue who these people are and I don't know if I should want them to live or die. It's one dimensional and relies upon gore and sound effects to scare you, which it rarely does.<br /><br />This film lacks any meaning, any purpose. It feels like I fell asleep and missed out the 45mins of build up. It jumps right into the action. Basically, some women and her friends get locked in the London Underground, get chased by a weird creature, then they eventually escape from it.<br /><br />Creep has its moments which make you jump, the art is good, the location is excellent and the sounds are OK, but that isn't what makes a decent horror film, so unfortunately all that goes to waste.<br /><br />It's nothing new. Another predictable modern 'horror', where Kate (the lead 'character') consistently does the stupid "hey, I know you lot sitting at home think I should do the sensible thing in this situation, but, oooh no! I'm going to do the total opposite because I'm a dumb blond" thing. I wish they wouldn't do that, it's done so many times, it's boring and gets predictable. In fact, I'm pretty annoyed the silly woman didn't get stabbed by the, erm, grey alien-looking creature.<br /><br />"Your journey terminates here" is the films tag line. Well, Creeps journey terminates only a short while into the film. If you've had a few beers, got a couple of mates back at yours,then sure, watch it by all means. But if you want something original and clever, avoid.
I just rented Creep and was not at all impressed. I didn't feel anything in this film. I felt sick because the gore alone was shocking.<br /><br />I walked out of my living room several times in desperation that something would happen with this film. Haven't we seen this all before? I didn't like any of the characters barr the guy in the sewer cage. I felt bad for him. But then again I couldn't think as to why he was still alive and not murdered by the Creep? So many questions need to be answered.<br /><br />Someone mentioned references to the PS2 game Silent Hill and I can see similarities vaguely.<br /><br />Not a bad film, not a good one. judge for yourself.
This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Worse than the most abhorrent American dross; worse than Glitter - Mariah Carey in American dross par excellence. I can only imagine that the writer and producer were taking huge amounts of recreational pharmaceuticals, and when discussing the plot actually thought it was a good idea. it's not. It is abject rubbish from very bowels of Satan himself (who could probably have written a better script had he put his mind to it). Robert Jones as Exce Producer, spending our tax payers money (lottery money folks) on this piece of nonsense, should be accountable. Who on earth thought it would be a good idea to re-make Deathline??? I ask you - camp as a Christmas Tree, Deathline ... 'Mind the doors' is classic of really bad British film, we really don't need a reminder. And we certainly don't need a poor, second rate, badly scripted, badly developed and badly piece of rubbish like this. All this this from the UK funding agency that brought us Sex Lives of the Potato Men... I rest my case.<br /><br />Do Not Pay ANY money to see this. It is absolute and utter crap - the one saving grace for the producers is that they got a huge wedge of cash... our cash... for making it. They should hang their heads in shame.<br /><br />I am staggered at the low, low standard of this film. It makes me Mgr that our national body for the support of film actually thought it was worth supporting. There is no hope for the British film industry whilst idiots are running the show. Harvey Wienstein where are you? Come back, we forgive you!!!
All logic goes straight out of the train window in this British horror film, set in the London underground and starring the usually reliable Franka Potente (Run Lola Run), Franka plays Kate, a businesswoman on the way from an office party to meet friends who falls asleep at an underground station, only to wake up and find she has been locked in and finds herself being chased by "someone" or "something" with killer intentions.<br /><br />Plot holes and unbelievability are rife and there are very few moments that are actually jumpy/ scary but plenty that are just plain dull.<br /><br />All in all an unpleasant film that should just stay locked underground forever and do us all a favour.<br /><br />The only plus point here is the inclusion in the cast of popular veteran actor Ken Campbell, who's done better than this – that's even including "Erasmus Microman"!.
I was really, really disappointed with this movie. it started really well, and built up some great atmosphere and suspense, but when it finally got round to revealing the "monster"...it turned out to be just some psycho with skin problems......again. Whoop-de-do. Yet another nutjob movie...like we don't already have enough of them.<br /><br />To be fair, the "creep" is genuinely unsettling to look at, and the way he moves and the strange sounds he makes are pretty creepy, but I'm sick of renting film like this only to discover that the monster is human, albeit a twisted, demented, freakish one. When I saw all the tell-tale rats early on I was hoping for some kind of freaky rat-monster hybrid thing...it was such a let down when the Creep was revealed.<br /><br />On top of this, some of the stuff in this movie makes no sense. (Spoiler) <br /><br />Why the hell does the Creep kill the security Guard? Whats the point, apart from sticking a great honking sign up that says "HI I'm A PSYCHO AND I LIVE DOWN HERE!"? Its stupid, and only seems to happen to prevent Franka Potente's character from getting help.<br /><br />what the hells he been eating down there? I got the impression he was effectively walled in, and only the unexpected opening into that tunnel section let him loose...so has he been munching rats all that time, and if so why do they hang around him so much? Why is he so damn hard to kill? He's thin, malnourished and not exactly at peak performance...but seems to keep going despite injuries that are equivalent to those that .cripple the non-psycho characters in the film.<br /><br />The DVD commentary says we are intended to empathise with Creep, but I just find him loathsome. Its an effective enough movie, but it wasted so many opportunities that it makes me sick.
I was sadly disappointed by this film due to the fact that it felt false and the characters were not strong enough to carry the films pretty weak attempt at horror. The basic idea for the film was interesting but unfortunately it wasn't able to excite, really scare or shock me - there was one part in the entire film that I thought was gruesome but even that didn't redeem it. I did get to like the character of Kate by the end of the film as she seemed to soften and become a little more realistic by the end, the character played by Jeremy Sheffield was not actually needed for this film and I think the director/writer got carried away with the myriad of characters used for no purpose, if he had left it at the basic characters making it more of a solo effort on Kate's part, it may have worked - Jeremy's acting was wooden to say the least and I felt uncomfortable watching the bad on screen chemistry - or lack of it. Such a shame. Disappointing.
Honestly, I went to see the movie, not because of the actors, not because of the plot but because it was rated 17 here in Luxembourg and a movie has to be really brutal or pornographic to be put in this category. Believe me, being a movie-freak, I have seen quite a lot of brutal films in my lifetime (Ichi the killer, Irreversible, Hellraiser) but this movie was by far the most disturbing and brutal picture I have ever seen. <br /><br />The plot is plain stupid, the directing is awful, acting was mediocre even the music was a cheap copy of so-called "Horror Soundtracks". There isn't a single intelligent aspect in the whole movie, and some of the scenes are really hard to stand. (especially the scene, where you see the embryos in the glasses and hear the baby cries--horrible). I can't understand why the movie was rated 16 in Germany, where normally the criteria are real tough (e.g. kill-bill (brutal but it made fun of itself and had great allusions to Asian cinema and besides a magnificent directing) even a movie like state of grace is rated 18). No one can call this a Horror movie, because actually it was more about showing gore than about scaring the public (Showing the "Creep's" face in the middle of the movie was a very bad decision); for me (excuse my expression) it is just one insane director living out his disturbing fantasies. In some scenes you see violence, that has absolutely nothing to do with the plot nor does it explain anything. The plot has holes and flaws, the dialog is boring, honestly I can't mention a single positive aspect of the movie except for the British and Scottish accent.<br /><br />If I had something to say, I would ban this movie from the theaters, I fully understand why none of the big production companies invested their money in this crap.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to getting feedbacks to my thread and I'd be happy to discuss about one or the other topic.<br /><br />"Livin' the dream baby, livin' the dream" David Aames
I am compelled to write a review of this IMAX feature as a means of warning others to SAVE YOUR MONEY. Almost any episode of Desmond Morris' "The Human Animal" or David Suzuki's "The Nature of Things" could have bested the material presented. Not only does the director fail to make use of IMAX's incredible 65 to 70 mm film stock and gigantic presentation screen, everything on screen is extremely unimpressive given the accessibility of such programming mentioned previously. Viewers are introduced to a pregnant Heather, her husband Buster, and their niece and nephew. We follow them for an interminable forty-odd minutes as they eat, sweat, listen to music, etc. Although we are given access to scenes inside the human digestive track and learn about babies' natural diving reflexes, do we really learn anything more than most grade-school graduates? Are we even remotely entertained by the trans-Atlantic Heather? Do we care? Avoid this film at all cost. If you do wish to see an IMAX feature, I suggest the beautifully photographed "India: Kingdom of the Tiger" or the technically thrilling "Space Station 3D". Trust me.
This film differentiates itself from the run-of-the-mill "wonder of the human body" documentaries by bravely, if bizarrely, opting to elicit disgust in the viewer. In one scene, the camera closes in on a gigantic 50-foot zit as a teenager squeezes pus and fluid out of it. In another, the camera is semisubmerged in a swamp of half digested food and stomach acid as parts of a pasta salad drop in from the esophagus and plop into the goo. In a final tour de force, the camera takes the viewer on a harrowing ride through a forest of...teenage armpit hair. Unfortunately, I'm not making any of this up. See this film if you must, but: bring your vomit bag, and don't have pasta salad beforehand.
After what I thought was a masterful performance of two roles in Man From Snowy River, WHY was Kirk Douglas replaced by Brian Dennehy in the sequel? It just wasn't the same without Spur and Harrison, as portrayed by Douglas. Maybe he recognized how poor the plot was--Jim returns after extended absence, to find Jessica being pursued by another man. He could not expect any girl to wait that long with no contact from him, and not find competition. For a Disney movie, this contains foul language, plus the highly unnecessary part when Jim & Jessica shacked up without being married--very LAME. Quite an insult to viewer intelligence, according to members of my family. I'll stick with the first one, and try to forget I ever saw the sequel!
The original movie, Man From Snowy River, is one of the best I've seen, nearly perfect. A Lady and the Tramp storyline in two senses--rich girl/poor boy, and ability vs. bloodline. The sequel, however, is not only a shameless attempt to capitalize on the good name of the original but also a ridiculous, overblown Disneyfied mess best summarized as "Rambo Meets the Black Stallion." Without the charm of The Black Stallion. The young hero comes back from a 3-year absence, and suddenly he's Superman on horseback; in the original, good film, he was real and believable, but sadly reduced to a caricature in the sequel. I've hardly been as disappointed in a movie, and at times this thing made me quite angry--they missed hardly a cliché. Brazen audience manipulation--do studio heads think that all you have to do with a horse-loving audience is put pretty horses in front of them, to make them happy? A mess of a movie.
This film, like the first one ("The Man From Snowy River") has the same good and bad features, perhaps even more so than the original. Unfortunately, the bad outweighs the good. <br /><br />The GOOD - Magnificent scenery, better than the first film. I love those high country shots in Australia. Tom Burlinson is still a likable guy, as "Jim Craig." Bruce Rowland did a nice job with the music, too.<br /><br />The BAD - Once again we get an extremely obnoxious feminist heroine "Jessica" (Sigrid Thornton) who is a world-class pouter with an extremely annoying face and manner about her. In this film, we also get a big downgrade in who pays the father. Previously it was Kirk Douglas, now replaced by the always -profane Brian Dennehy. Speaking of that, it is a disgrace that a Walt Disney film would includes usages of the Lord's name in vain. That was one reason was almost totally down the tubes in the 1980s. This film, like the first one
I bought this adaptation because I really liked Anne Brontë's novel when I read it some time ago and usually particularly enjoy BBC dramas. But I'm very disappointed, I never thought it would be as bad as that: the whole series made me laugh much more than moved me as the novel had.<br /><br />First of all, the music (and songs) seems totally out of place in a period drama (sounds as if it's been written for a contemporary horror film)and like another commentator, I was particularly annoyed by the way the cameras spun and spun round the actors. I've seen some scenes filmed that way in "North and South" and it seemed all right there but in The Tenant, it's definitely overdone and simply annoying. Camera movements cannot make wooden acting lively.<br /><br />Most of the second roles were difficult to distinguish at first and the script lacked clarity. None of the characters were properly introduced at first. The little boy gave a very good performance, he's very cute and the best feature of the film.<br /><br />SPOILERS Tara Fitzgerald's characterisation of Helen Graham made her appear cold and harsh, letting no emotion pass through. She doesn't seem to be able to cry at all in a realistic way. I just couldn't believe Markham could have fell for her and I'm not mentioning the awful hairdo she was given. I could not help feeling some sympathy with her husband! Fancy being married to such a virago... Besides, he was the only main actor that sounded right to me. Toby Stephens I found just OK, Helen Graham's brother not very good. <br /><br />Maybe it's difficult to adapt a novel that deals with such bleak subjects as alcoholism and cruelty. Besides, what is only hinted at and left to the reader's imagination in the book is dwelt upon with complaisance in the TV adaptation: making some scenes both gross and comic, (like when Huntingdon's eye starts bleeding) and others far too sexed up for a period drama! I mean, don't we get enough of those bed scenes in contemporary dramas?
Brilliant book with wonderful characterizations and insights into human nature, particularly the nature of addiction, which still resonate strongly today.<br /><br />As for the movie... eh. Nothing special. The cameraman clearly had an unfortunate addiction to circling and circling and CIRCLING around everything, making the viewer quite nauseous. Why the director didn't put a stop to this is beyond me--but maybe he was too busy trying, and somehow failing, to draw good performances from these normally excellent but inappropriately-cast actors. All in all, a weak adaptation. Your three hours would be better spent reading (or re-reading) the book.
Before I go on I have to admit to being a huge Bon Jovi fan. In fact thats what attracted me to the DVD case in the first place. I probably would have bought it anyway being such a big horror fan and having enjoyed the first Vampires title so much.<br /><br />But this isn't half as good. Not even Jon could save this film for me. My main problem would be that it simply isn't scary. Apart from Jon's character Derek Bliss none of the other characters make an impression and you couldn't care less whether they die or not, especially the annoying vampire / drug addict woman. The female vampire simply isn't scary or sexy. Rather she looks like an anorexic 14 year girl, no wonder she is so desperate for blood then. Another huge problem is that everything is just "too bright". There is no atmosphere or sense of dread. I know the first Vampires being set in New Mexico wasn't exactly the twilight zone in terms of creepiness but yet it still managed to be dark and foreboding when it needed to be. This film has no tension like that.<br /><br />The story is basically the same as before. Vampire wants Berzier's cross to be able to walk in daylight. However the story has less cool bits this time. There is no wow factor in knowing this is the master of all master - the original vampire, as in the first film. You really don't care who or what this one is. There is no army of masters. Instead she hides out in some old ruin which looks more like a Disneyland attraction then a creepy temple.<br /><br />So there you have it really. Lack of scares, lack of atmosphere, lack of interesting story. A real let down for me personally.
Really bad movie, the story is too simple and predictable and poor acting as a complement.<br /><br />This vampire's hunter story is the worst that i have seen so far, Derek Bliss (Jon Bon Jovi), travels to Mexico in search for some blood suckers!, he use some interesting weapons (but nothing compared to Blade), and is part of some Van Helsig vampire's hunters net?, OK, but he work alone. He's assigned to the pursuit of a powerful vampire queen that is searching some black crucifix to perform a ritual which will enable her to be invulnerable to sunlight (is almost a sequel of Vampires (1998) directed by John Carpenter and starred by James Woods), Derek start his quest in the search of the queen with some new friends: Sancho (Diego Luna, really bad acting also) a teenager without experience, Father Rodrigo (Cristian De la Fuente) a catholic priest, Zoey (Natasha Wagner) a particular vampire and Ray Collins (Darius McCrary) another expert vampire hunter. So obviously in this adventure he isn't alone.<br /><br />You can start feeling how this movie would be just looking at his lead actor (Jon Bon Jovi); is a huge difference in the acting quality compared to James Woods, and then, if you watch the film (i don't recommend this part), you will get involved in one of the more simplest stories, totally predictable, with terrible acting performances, really bad special effects and incoherent events!.<br /><br />I deeply recommend not to see this film!, rent another movie, see another channel, go out with your friends, etc.<br /><br />3/10
Listening to the director's commentary confirmed what I had suspected whilst watching the film: this is a movie made by a guy who wants to play at making a movie. The plot is the kind of thing that deluded teenagers churn out when they're going through that "I could write a book/screenplay/award winning sitcom" phase. There's a germ of an interesting idea buried in there (probably because its a sequel to some-one else's movie), but it is totally buried under an underwritten, badly executed and laughably un-thought-out script.<br /><br />The lines are dire, and the performances are un-engaging, though again, I'm inclined to blame the director. He does not appear to have consulted the actors at all about what is required, rather plonked the script in their hands, pointed the camera at them and told them to get on with it. Who knows, with a little coaching, these actors could have acquitted themselves better (say what you like about musicians in movies, Jon Bon Jovi was excellent in Row Your Boat and more than acceptable in The Leading Man).<br /><br />As it stands, the cast have no chemistry whatsoever. A beautiful opportunity to use the classic sex and vampirism parallel is passed up when, in order to infect Bon Jovi's character with vampire blood from his ailing co-hunter, he is given a transfusion. She should have bitten him. Mind you, they should have looked vaguely interested in each other throughout the rest of the film too. The only real moment of sexual tension, between the two female leads, is by the directors own admittance accidental. He had originally intended to use this silent sequence as an excuse for more pointless plot exposition - so, I suppose the finished product could have conceivably been worse. But not a lot.<br /><br />Frankly, as movies go, this is badly plotted, silly and forgettable. Even as trashy movies go it's not sexy enough or gory enough to be entertaining. It could have been a fun and bloody little romp, but the director has left with more of a comedy, for all the wrong reasons.
This is not a good film. The acting is remarkably stiff and unconvincing.The film doesn't seem to know whether it is going for a real horror approach or to go down the camp and kitsch route. I never saw the first film but this one doesn't stand up on its own merits, there are several unconvincing plot twists and the viewer is never made aware of the importance of the lead female vampire. Not worth the effort of watching
First of all, Jon Bon Jovi doesn't seem to be in place in a vampire movie. Together with the other not so interesting characters and the poor storyline the whole movie becomes predictable. If you keep that in mind and you're a total vampire movie fan, you can have some fun with a few of the scenes. Don't expect any Tarantino-style chapters here and neither an Anne Rice storyline. (I expect to have have forgotten the whole movie by tomorrow ;)
Hi folks<br /><br />Forget about that movie. John C. should be ashamed that he appears as executive producer in the credits. bon jovi has never been and will never be an actor and the FX are a joke.<br /><br />The first vampires was good ... and it was the only vampires. This thing here just wears the same name.<br /><br />Just a waste of time thinks ...<br /><br />JAKE Scorpio
This movie isn't very good. It's boring, and not much blood for a horror film. The plot just trods along with not much happening. And I think the female vampire was so stupid. She had many chances to kill the vampire hunters since it shows her having lighting like reflexes. But, whenever she has one of them pinned, she just takes her time and something always happens where she doesn't bite them. No wonder this went straight to cable.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: Not anywhere near as good as the first Vampire movie. You're a SUCKER if you waste your time on this.
This movie was messed up. A sequel to "John Carpenter's Vampires", this didn't add up right. I'm not sure that I enjoyed this much. It was a little strange. Stick to the first "Vampires", it's a good movie. "Vampires: Los Muetos" wasn't a good attempt of a sequel.<br /><br />4/10
The last reviewer was very generous. I quiet like the first movie, but can't say I enjoy this one very much. The beginning is bearable, but it goes downhill pretty quickly. I just don't see Jon Bon Jovi as a "bad-ass vampire hunter" and the vampire princess is neither sexy nor scary. A lot of the scenes just do not make sense. I mean any normal person would suspect something is up when a strange woman suddenly appearing out of nowhere to seduce you, let alone an experienced hunter. Why Una is able to communicate with Jovi? Nothing was ever explain in this movie, you wouldn't mind if it was entertaining, but that was too much to ask. This has to be one of worst vampire movie I have seen.
Ugh, what can I say other than, ugh. I rented this film because it was labeled as a sequel to the original Vampires. This movie could not have been any lamer. Lacking not only in plot, but the acting is atrocious. Combined with some obvious plot holes makes this movie a very hard one to watch. Many times I questioned my own sanity at continuing to watch the film long after the plot had jumped the shark. Here's a sampling of the lamer aspects...<br /><br />***SPOILERS***<br /><br />Professional "Slayer" insists on sleeping outdoors by himself at night. He wakes up to a woman crying, sitting no more than 3 feet from him in the middle of nowhere. He immediately goes to comfort her without questioning her sudden appearance. She goes from crying to seducing him, and he lets it happen with obvious results...<br /><br />One of the main characters is Zoe, was bitten by a Vampire, but as long as she takes these "experimental pills" she got in Mexico City, she's fine, although her body temperature is below room temperature...<br /><br />Guard outside of monastery where hero is staying the night is killed by vampires, hero leaves the next day. He then returns a day later only to be surprised that the vampires attacked the monastery the night after he left...<br /><br />...avoid this movie.
I only rented this because i loved the first movie. However, calling it John Carpenters Vampires: Los Muertos is just a con trick to get you to rent it. He is in fact executive producer and clearly had nothing to do with the making of this film (Jeepers Creepers Anyone?)<br /><br />A tragic storyline, terrible special effects and Jon Bon Jovi as the least convincing Vampire Hunter of all time. It's not even comically bad.<br /><br />What we end up with is a dull, uninvolving film with a terrible script and indefinsibly bad and clichéd acting. It just reeks of low budget.<br /><br />Avoid like the Bubonic plague.
John Carpenter's career is over if this sad excuse for a movie is any indication. His excuse is that he only produced it. Jon Bon Jovi looks like a girl. In fact, Bon Jovi and the two Vampire girls, Natasha Wagner and Arly Jover probably all fit in the same clothes. In short, it was hard to tell which one was cuter in an anorexic ramp-model sort of way. Bon Jovi has the most charisma. At least he looks happy when he is smiling. The two Vampire Girls on the other hand are all cramps and complaints. At one point they are about to give each other a wet kiss, but stop. Amazing how each Vampire movie has some set of morays for the respective vampires. At one point, Arly Jover is providing fellatio to a very dumb Vampire Hunter and then she sucks his blood while doing the sex act. It would have been an erotic moment except that it was filmed like a total goof, and the male actor looked mildly amused as he watched Arly Jover move her head to mimic something that was very obviously not happening. As far as gore is concerned, a few heads are ripped off, and the blood spurts profusely. These scenes have so little suspense or build-up that when they happen it is almost funny, and there is no "horror" pay-off from the scene. All you get as a member of the audience is a feeling of "Wow, that sure was a lot of red paint splattering on the walls. I wonder who has to clean it up." Throughout the movie, these Vampire Hunters who are obviously trying to kill Arly Jover (the top vampire in the world??) keep reaching out to her. At one point, Bon Jovi goes into the abandoned Church and after he just shot her with an arrow (and has done so on other occasions), he says "I am not trying to hurt you. I just want to talk to you. I want to get to know you." HUH?? Of course, the dumb vampire Arly jumps out to say hello and Bon Jovi sticks her again with another impaling device. "Why Can't We Be Friends" the 1970s hit song by WAR should have been the theme song for this movie. Aside from all of the other silly moments, there is a transfusion sequence when Natasha Wagner has all her Vampire blood removed, and the town people all line up to donate blood for her transfusion. I guess Blood Type is not important? Anyhow, all her Vampire blood is removed. Bon Jovi then decides that if that blood is transfused into him, he can beat Arly by becoming a vampire also. Of course, as the vampire blood is transfused into him, none of his healthy blood is removed. So apparently Bon Jovi is walking around with twice as much blood as any human can have in his body. And just like the first VAMPIRES, this one also has the vampires-bursting-into-flames special effect.
Thanks for killing the franchise with this turkey, John Carpenter and Tommy Lee Wallace. This movie sucks on so many levels it's pathetic. The first VAMPIRES was fun, but this low budget retread makes me yawn.<br /><br />Jon Bon Jovi (the poor man's Kevin Bacon) drives around Mexico with a surfboard housing a hidden compartment holding his vampire killing gear ala Antonio Banderas's guitar case in DESPERADO. He picks up some lame "hunters" along the way (including an annoyingly feminist infected girl who takes pills to keep from turning into a vampire), and they set out to stop some female master vampire who is given no backstory and so we could care less about her or her quest (to walk in the sunlight by stealing the Black Cross and performing a ritual to allow her to do so). If you've seen the first VAMPIRES, you've already seen this, and done much better.<br /><br />John Carpenter has been responsible for a lot of bad movies lately. Frankly, I think he's past his prime and incapable of making another horror classic. The only decent film he's done since THEY LIVE (1987) is VAMPIRES. Everything else is complete crap, right up until the unbelievably cheap looking and retarded GHOSTS OF MARS... and now this waste of celluloid. Where are more greats like ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, HALLOWEEN (1), ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and THE THING?<br /><br />Carpenter crony Wallace proves he can't write his way out of a paper bag with his paper-thin script packed with yawns, groans and recycled gags from the original. Did I mention I hated every character in the movie? There was not a single memorable character in the whole film. How does that happen? This film has nothing to recommend it. Not even the DVD presentation is good; the menu looks awful.<br /><br />By comparison, JASON X: "FRIDAY THE 13th IN SPACE" was a masterpiece. Now that is how you make a sequel and (re)energize a franchise, ladies and germs, as well as create an exciting DVD menu.
This "Debuted" today on the SciFi channel and all I can say is "I am speechless" I taped it today so I could watch it tonight after work. I had high hopes, Now I am tearing apart the closets looking for a length of rope so I can hang myself. Possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I wish I could say something nice like "It was fun to make fun of this movie" but this movie is giving me nothing to work with. I know you are not supposed to post spoilers here with out prior warning but I am going to anyway "This movie sucks" There I said it! They should show this flick to film students to show them what NOT to do! My nine year old niece could make a better film. The only decent thing about this film is the sound and/or sound track. OH! I just found a rusty C-clamp in my old tool box. I am going to put it on the thumb of my left hand and tighten it until the pain erases the memory of what my eyes have seen. I could just tape over this VHS but I think I will burn it in the fire pit instead. I could wash with soap but I fear I will never be clean again. Christmas is coming. Buy this movie and give it to people you hate. -Mike
This movie is one of the most awful movies ever made.How can Jon Bon Jovi play in a movie? He is a singer not an actor, What?Is he killing vampires with his guitar? And what about the dreadful plot? O my God this movie really sucks. In the end is the Queen of vampires played by the eternal vampire Arly Jover (Blade) surrounded by an army of vampires, but when the "fantastic" slayers arrive only 4 vampires are left!! What happened with the other 10-15 vampires? They run out in the sun??? And what about the "Grand Finally" when Bon Jovi blows her head with a shotgun??? That's really a "NOT" . In "Buffy the vampire Slayer" in 100 episodes not a single vampire is killed with A SHOTGUN??? This really is a lack of originality!
This movie was very very mediocre and very very gory. everyone left their acting lessons at home and totally forgot how to act I mean it was so bad and had no real plot and kindergarteners could have written a better story plot wait what story plot. not at all scary!
The same difficulty I have with the musical version of "Les Miserables" applies equally to "Oliver." Instead of the composers' writing in the stylistic period of the play settings, they merely wrote Broadway-type melodies, which were historically unidiomatic and stylistically skewed.<br /><br />Too, the blatant brutality and unsavory activities of the dramaturgy do not mix well with some of the sunny ditties which permeate the score. It's a uncomfortable mixture that leaves a decidedly sour undertaste.<br /><br />The casting of the boy Oliver doesn't help matters: tentative of timbre and vexingly precious, there's something less than solid here. Fagin performs his traditional routine adequately, though the tunes he's obliged to sing have little basis in period manner.<br /><br />"As Long As He Needs Me" is given a strident rendition, throaty and strained. The two big production numbers, "Who Will Buy" and "Consider Yourself" seem over-produced, with everything but the kitchen sink thrown in. It's one thing to go all out, yet another to cross over the line into excess. <br /><br />The gloom, despair and depravity of much of the novel does not seem to lend itself to such ditties and choreography. While the novel is considered a classic, I must confess I have trouble with Mr. Dickens' consciousness, in that his works tend to emit a negative vibration. This may be due to the extension of his joyless personal life, which was full of disappointment and regret. <br /><br />Not all the combined talent of this production, either on- or behind camera, can overcome the unconstructive nature of the basic material. All this results in an uncomfortably downer experience for me.<br /><br />
The producers made a big mistake casting Mark Lester, who couldn't act or sing, in the title role. Aside from his very bad "acting", all of Lester's singing had to be dubbed by a girl. I don't know why they cast him at all, since there would have been so many boys who could have played the part infinitely better and done their own singing as well. Shani Wallis was far too old to play Nancy, who was only supposed to be 16. The current West End version is so much better than the movie in every way. Ross McCormack is the best Artful Dodger of all time and he is certainly far better looking than Jack Wild ever was. It was clearly political to award this old-fashioned musical so many Oscars after the tumultuous events of 1968.
Must every good story be "improved" with added corny Broadway music? Apparently those who can't come up with their own plots think that classic literature is just there for the plundering. I confess that Oliver Twist and similar stories are not my favorites, as it is certainly true that Dickens often wrote things that leave you considerably bummed out, and this was a great example of just that... So of course, take this serious tale and add nauseating music and camp it up with every character from prancing orphan boys to mincing bobbies and suddenly it's uplifting? Argh. Fetch me a basin.<br /><br />The four stars in my rating come from casting, which I could liken to that of My Fair Lady. Each of these films had a cast that a play version could be proud of, but then they must go and have them sing (see complaint above). Unlike My Fair Lady, those singing here could actually do so and they mercifully spared us the singing voice of Oliver Reed (pardon if I'm mistaken, it's been a while).<br /><br />My biggest complaint I've stated. Why embarrass everyone except the truly shameless by putting silly songs into a perfectly good story? Seldom has this been done to good effect. Generally it ruins the story. It did with this one. Jury's still out on whether this story is worth saving, but with all that gadding about, it's impossible to tell.
I like musicals but as a Dickens fan I HATE this one. **MILD SPOILERS** Starving boys who have enough energy to sing and dance in the workhouse? The poor of London coming out to sing? Fagin and Dodger walking off into the sunset? Not exactly faithful to the novel. As I recall, Dodger was publicly hanged and Fagin went crazy in prison. **END OF SPOILERS**<br /><br />Oliver Reed is very weak as Sykes, doing little more than growling to indicate his evil. Worst however, is Mark Lester as Oliver, who often comes across so awkward and passive you wonder if he's really the main character. His portrayal is in no way helped by the fact that the best they could do when he sings is dub in the voice of a girl. Guess they didn't realize that boy trebles can be found in almost every church in England.<br /><br />Self-respecting Dickens fans: stick to David Lean's amazing 1948 film or the BBC 6-hour adaptation from the mid-80's. Avoid this bloated whitewash of a musical.
Well, I saw this movie yesterday and it's - unfortunately - worse than you could think. First of all the plot is idiotic, it has no sense at all. The screenplay is full of intentionally funny dialogues. The audience was laughing many times. And the suspense is very low. Actors play so-so, with an exception of Sharon Stone, who has some good moments but also some awfully bad acting moments. The saddest parts are when she tries to be aggressively sexy and says things like "I want to *beep* you " and it looks like, let's say it gently, a very very mature woman acting rude and not sexy at all. That erotic tension from BI1 is totally gone. From the technical point of Basic Instinct 2 is a mediocre movie - better than typical straight to DVD, but on a far lower lever than the original movie. For instance the scene of crazy joyride is done poorly. The director of Basic Instinct 2 is no Paul Verhoeven and it shows. The new composer is no Jerry Goldsmith and its shows. The script is done by people who are no match for Joe Eszterhas. There's no substitute for Michael Douglas in it. The film looks cheap and badly edited at times. I'm sorry but my first thought after I left the theater was: "Why heaven't they made this movie earlier and with original talents behind the success of the first movie?" All to all the original movie is like Citizen Kane compared to this. The first Basic Instinct is a classic and was a kind of break-thru in the popular cinema. It was provoking, sexy and controversial. It had the best Sharon Stone's performance in her career. It had this specific Paul Verhoeven's style. Unfortunately Basic Instinct 2 is a unintentionally funny movie, badly directed and a sure Razzie Award Winner in many categories. It's a pity that they made this film.
It's not like I have overwhelmingly fond memories of Verhoeven's original pants-down shocker - it always struck me as a glossy, well-made airport-novel-of-a-movie. Thrilling, sexy trash, but trash nonetheless. It was also a film that tapped into a certain sexual zeitgeist. After a decade of anti-sex AIDS-induced hysteria, a film about a wildly-sexual hotbod who thrill-kills to heighten her sexual pleasure was pretty enticing stuff. Basic Instinct 2 was always going to struggle to provide the same social relevance and immediacy, so the fact that it's desperate attempts at raunchiness are so lame can sort-of be overlooked. All it really had to provide was that thin veneer of titillation and a mildly engaging story and all would have been watchable. That it resoundingly fails on so many levels, and in such a way to be a career nadir for everyone involved, is really quite extraordinary to watch. Let's state the obvious for starters - Sharon Stone is too old for the part of sexual magnet Catherine Trammell. What was so photogenic thru Verhoeven's lens looks like mutton dressed as lamb in the hands of gun-for-hire Michael Caton-Jones, who's flat, drab colours and static camera render her undeniable beauty totally moot. I like Sharon Stone a lot, but if the first film launched her career, BI2 could kill it. She has no chemistry with stuffed-shirt David Morrissey - their only sex scene is embarrassing too watch. His dough-faced mamma's boy of a character made me yearn for the swaggering, orange-skin machismo of Michael Douglas. Supporting turns by David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling waste these fine actors on talky exposition scenes and cliché-heavy posturing. And what of the much-touted sexual shenanigans? Poorly-lit, fleetingly-glimpsed, as utterly mainstream as an episode of Desperate Housewives - the European sensibilities that Verhoeven brought to the sexual content of the first film are sorely missed. Don't watch this film for carnal thrills - there are none and what there is is tragic. The film is, as a whole, convoluted to the point of utter confusion, boring and laughable. The last 40 minutes in particular, where you come to the realisation that the film is, in fact, not going to go anywhere of interest at all, are particularly gruelling and hilarious in equal measure. As a failed sequel, Basic Instinct 2 will come to occupy similar cinematic ground as Exorcist 2 The Heretic, Beyond The Poseidon Adventure and XXX2. As a vanity project, it rivals Battlefield Earth in its misconception. As a multi-million dollar piece of Hollywood film-making, it's a travesty that will be hard to top as the years worst.
I saw this film at the London Premiere, and I have to say - I didn't expect much, but I did expect something that was at least mildly entertaining.<br /><br />The original "Basic Instinct" was no great film and is still something of a "smut classic" but it was entertaining. I can recall countless times flipping through channels on TV on a late Friday or Saturday night having come across the movie and finding myself beginning to actually pay attention to it.<br /><br />However, this lame-brain, waaay-belated sequel has nothing. Is Sharon Stone still gorgeous? Well, let's put it this way -- for a 47-year-old, she's pretty hot. Is she as beautiful as she was in the original? No. She also has clearly had plastic surgery on her face, and her haircut in this movie is somewhat unappealing. She doesn't look as soft or genuine or innocent as she did in the original -- which is sort of the whole point of being an evil seductress, and whatnot.<br /><br />The rest of the performances range from bad to terrible -- and Michael Caton-Jones (a typically safe director -- one who doesn't always do great work but manages to make worthwhile movies) has officially delivered his first true turkey; a movie so bad people were laughing at certain moments that were intended to be serious.<br /><br />I hear the film went through multiple editing sessions, and it's very clear from the start. Nothing makes much sense. The whole plot is a cosmic mess and the ending -- oh my! Talk about stupid AND unbelievable. (Still predictable, though.) I saw "Gigli," I saw "Son of the Mask" -- and although I'm not looking to "smear" this film, I can say with my own authority (which you don't have to agree with at all, mind you) that I prefer both those films over this catastrophic failure.<br /><br />By the way, Stone left five minutes before the movie began and people in the theater began throwing things at the screen during a particularly outrageous and insulting scene inside an orgy-type nightclub.<br /><br />"Basic Instinct 2" -- basically, it stinks, too.
It's been about 14 years since Sharon Stone awarded viewers a leg-crossing that twisted many people's minds. And now, God knows why, she's in the game again. "Basic Instinct 2" is the sequel to the smash-hit erotica "Basic Instinct" featuring a sexy Stone and a vulnerable Michael Douglas. However, fans of the original might not even get close to this one, since "Instinct 2" is painful film-making, as the mediocre director Michael Caton-Jones assassinates the legacy of the first film.<br /><br />The plot of the movie starts when a car explosion breaks in right at the beginning. Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone, trying to look forcefully sexy) is a suspect and appears to be involved in the murder. A psychiatrist (a horrible David Morrisey) is appointed to examine her, but eventually falls for an intimate game of seduction.<br /><br />And there it is, without no further explanations, the basic force that moves this "Instinct". Nothing much is explained and we have to sit through a sleazy, C-class erotic film. Sharon Stone stars in her first role where she is most of the time a turn-off. Part of it because of the amateurish writing, the careless direction, and terrifyingly low chemistry. The movie is full of vulgar dialogues and even more sexuality (a menage a trois scene was cut off so that this wouldn't be rated NC-17) than the first entrance in the series. "Instinct" is a compelling torture.<br /><br />To top it off, everything that made the original film a guilty pleasure is not found anywhere in the film. The acting here is really bad. Sharon Stone has some highlights, but here, she gets extremely obnoxious. David Morrisey stars in the worst role of his life, and seems to never make more than two expressions in the movie- confused and aroused. "Instinct 2" is a horrible way to continue an otherwise original series, that managed to put in thriller with erotica extremely well. Paul Verhoeven, how I miss you....<br /><br />"Basic Instinct 2" never sounded like a good movie, and, indeed, it isn't. Some films should never get out of paper, and that is the feeling you get after watching this. Now, it is much easier to understand why Douglas and David Cronenberg dropped out, and why Sharon Stone was expecting a huge paycheck for this......-----3/10
It's hard to believe, after waiting 14 years, we wind up with this piece of cinematic garbage. The original was a high impact, dark thriller that achieved "cult" status demonstrating the fine art of cinema as directed by Paul Verhoeven. This film adds nothing, delivers nothing, and ultimately winds up in the big box of failed sequels.<br /><br />The opening sequence could have triggered an intriguing set of plot developments using a considerably talented and able cast. Unfortunately we are treated to a 90 minute dissertation in the self-indulgent life of Catherine Tramell... or is it Sharon Stone. Possibly a copulation of both.<br /><br />If the desire is too see a continuation of the sensually provocative stying of sex as in "B.S.1", forget it. You wind up with soft-porn boredom which ultimately upholds the old adage that a woman can be more alluring in clothes than out of them. It's interesting to note that the wonderful Charlotte Rampling was romping around in her skivvies, via the 1966 GEORGY GIRL, when Ms. Stone was only 8 years old. A very talented actress and quite adept at holding her own even here.<br /><br />If you're a true cinema fan then you must see this film and judge it using your own rating system. If not, you might as well wait for the DVD release in the "rated" version, "unrated" version, "collectors" edition, or "ultimate" version, and perhaps in another 14 years we will be saturated with news of "Basic Instinct 3" at which point Ms. Stone will be 62 years old and nobody will really care.
In my book "Basic Instinct" was a perfect film. It had outstanding acting on the parts of Stone, Douglas and all the supporting actors to the tiniest role. It had marvelous photography, music and the noirest noir script ever. All of it adding up to a film that is as good as it will ever get!<br /><br />This sequel is the exact opposite, it cannot possibly get worse, bad acting and a lame script, combined with totally inept direction, this is really bad, boring, annoying. The only thing that somewhat keeps you concentrated is the relatively short wait for the next scene that is an exact re-enacted copy of the original. These copies are so bad they make you laugh and I laughed a lot in spite of myself, because it was like watching the demolishing of a shining monument. The only thing that is good in this horrible mess are the excerpts of the Jerry Goldsmith score of BI1. Michael Caton-Jones and the half-wit responsible for the script even included the "There is no smoking in this room" dialog in the interrogation scene and yes she sends her attorney (who is now a solicitor) away! <br /><br />I am sorry I have seen this awful film that should have never been made! It does damage to the original, so bad is it. The only redeeming value is the realization that cosmetic surgery (and I am sure Ms Stone afforded the best surgeon money can buy) can do a good job but can obviously not restore the perfection of the original. And what concerns the human body applies to film-making, too. There should be a law: Don't ever make a sequel to a perfect film!
The film is pretty confusing and ludicrous. The plot is awful...but on the plus side the acting is pretty good, with a few good shouts and rants. Sharon stone is OK this time...not even half as good as the original mind you. The murders aren't as gory as the first one either, which is a shame. Its not the unpredictable mess everyone say it is though. The sex is pretty graphic at times while others it is clear it is fake (they are fully clothed). The script is weak most of the time, but the scenes with banter and arguments between Dr.Glass and Washburn are highlights. The plot twists a few times, but the ending is awful. The tension is always constant with a huge dollop of 'Oh my god!'. The chase sequences are brilliantly directed, and shots and camera angles are impressive and bring a bit of class to an otherwise, rush-felt film. Sharon stone is a bit old for this too. The bits where we see her breasts were, in the first one, delights. This time around, they are too horrid to describe. The films its self is rather average, but it is worth a go. Mainly because the film does deserve some good buzz...with the opening sequence being a highlight. Not to be critical, but if you liked the first one - leave this one. Don't ruin the run. You'll be glad you left this stone unturned.
This film is awful. The screenplay is bad, the is script mediocre, and even the sex scenes are worthless. The thrill and intrigue of the original film are completely lacking. This movie was shot in a dark, shadowy and monochromatic style (a la "War of the Worlds"), which is so disappointing after the beauty of the original film. Greg Morrisey's brooding character displays one facial expression throughout the film. The twists and turns of the original plot are woefully lacking here; the few that do exist are simply anticlimactic. The only highlight is Sharon Stone's performance as Catherine Tramell, faithfully continued in this sequel, but it isn't enough to make up for the other shortcomings. The only circumstance under which a "Basic Instinct 3" should be made would be if Michael Douglas agrees to join the cast.
After eagerly waiting to the end, I have to say I wish I wouldn't have joined the whole series at the first place. The final episode was everything against the previous seven years. It has ruined everything. The journey was 23 years, but captain Janeway has the power to reduce it... let say, seven years only. Why seven? Why not just one? Or nothing? Why not avoid the whole adventure? Crewmemebers were dying all along the journey. Why she wants to save Seven of Nine only? The others don't count or what? The most ridiculous part when the crew states that getting home is not really the most important thing to them. As the say, "journey is more important than the destination". Unbelievable. And at the finale scene the are surrounded by other Federation ships and the Earth is in sight. Nothing about landing, returning to the normal life.<br /><br />Worst ending ever.
I sat through almost one episode of this series and just couldn't take anymore. It felt as though I'd watched dozens of episodes already, and then it hit me.....There's nothing new here! I've heard that joke on Seinfeld, I saw someone fall like that on friends, an episode of Happy Days had almost the same storyline, ect. None of the actors are interesting here either! Some were good on other shows (not here), and others are new to a profession they should have never entered. Avoid this stinker!
I've been going through the AFI's list of the top 100 comedies, and I must say that this is truly one of the worst. Not just of the 90 movies on the list I've seen, but of any movie I've ever seen. Drunks are funny sometimes, Dudley isn't. Liza almost made it worthwhile, but alas... just go watch Arrested Development if you want to see her in something good. Seriously, Dudley laughing and drinking is supposed to be funny? I would highly recommend almost ANY other movie on the AFI's top 100 comedies for more laughs than this. If you want to see a funnier "drunk", try The Thin Man. Funnier movie in general, any Marx Brothers movie will kill (especially if you're as drunk as Arthur).
After the superb AANKHEN(2002) which was a remake of a Gujarati play he comes with WAQT which too looks like a stage play<br /><br />In stage plays, we have characters shouting, overacting here too the same<br /><br />The first half shows Amitabh almost kidding the 40+ Akshay Kumar who acts too funny like a small nerd<br /><br />The film has a good message how not to spoil your son but sadly the way Amitabh wants to make Akki responsible is absolutely fake<br /><br />Even his reason for hiding his sickness, his runnign from the hospital and the melodramatic speech by Akki is a put off<br /><br />Some emotions do touch you but most are too over the top<br /><br />Rajpal's comedy is hilarious but too stretched in second half <br /><br />Direction by Vipul Shah is too overdone though some scenes are good Music is okay<br /><br />Amongst actors Amitabh overdoes it in the first half but is superb in emotional scenes Akshay Kumar too does his part well but looks umcomfortable in some too weepy scenes His chemistry with Bachchan is matchless Rajpal is a highlight, he makes you laugh without overacting and just his presence and his dumb behaviour and deadpan humour he is a riot Boman is good in some comic parts but too loud at places Priyanka is the heroine so nothing to do, this is her last film with Akki so far Shefali is awesome though she looks too young for Bachchan
I cannot believe that the Indian film industry still puts out such third-rate dross as Waqt. For starters, the storyline is totally implausible – spoilt son gets thrown out of family home so as to teach him some self-sufficiency. So what does he do? He promptly goes on to win some national talent contest by doing some star jumps in front of a panel of judges (I honestly am not joking here). In the meantime, his dad is dying of lung cancer, but keeps it a secret from the son, but he survives long enough to see his son become famous, to see his new grandson and also make a new toy giraffe with his own hands.<br /><br />The acting is cringe worthy in its hamminess – no effort was made to try and act in any convincing manner by any of the main players in this film. As usual for Indian films, the family lived in a huge mansion and seemed relatively untouched by the concerns of the real world.<br /><br />To be honest, the main losers when such dire films are made are the intelligent viewers who made the mistake of seeing such a film. The actors, such as Amitabh Bachchan and Akshay Kumar, will still be revered as Gods by those people who have nothing but blind faith in Bollywood.
I saw the 7.5 IMDb rating on this movie and on the basis of that decided to watch this movie which my roommate had rented. She said she had seen it before. "It's funny and sad! I cried the first time I saw it," she gushed. Maybe compared to other Bollywood movies this deserves a 7.5 out of 10, but in comparison to all the other movies I have seen in my lifetime, this deserves no more than a 3. Any movie where I can perpetually guess what is going to happen next is no good for me. The characters are unbelievable, how the act is not realistic at all and their motives are contrived. It is over dramatic and the songs aren't all that great. My biggest problem with Bollywood movies is the lack of subtlety. All the emotions are way too overdone and thus not at all realistic. Any emotion or bond between characters that is the least bit subtle must be magnified with an unnecessary song. I think I understood that the relationship between the father and son was more like one between friends than one between a parent and child without having to have it conveyed via a five minute long song. The stupid comic relief complete with laugh track was not funny or necessary (we get it, Laxman isn't the sharpest tool in the shed). If a movie tries to elicit tears through the most hackneyed means possible it just isn't meaningful, just a bit embarrassing.<br /><br />*****SPOILER*****<br /><br />Generally if someone has terminal stage lung cancer their son who lives with them would know something was wrong without having to be told. Too many plot holes to count. At first the movie was amusing and cute in the way Bollywood movies are to people who don't watch them that avidly but it just got tedious. It takes a lot of skill to make a movie that is amusing and heartwrenching and the best way to do it is usually not having all the amusing parts in the first half of the movie and all the heartwrenching parts at the end.<br /><br />*****SPOILER OVER***** Perhaps it had a very little more depth than other Bollywood movies that I have seen, but not much at all. I spent more time laughing at the stupidity of the movie than the parts that were supposed to be funny. I didn't shed a single tear nor did I feel like it, rather I was overwhelmed with a feeling of disgust at the attempt at a dramatic ending. I don't recommend this movie if you want to watch something good, I recommend it if you want to watch a Bollywood movie that is kind of sad.
This movie's full title is "Waqt: Race Against Time". That's a race no one can ever win, but you can certainly cut your losing margin by not wasting any of your precious "waqt" on this bakvaas. This movie was clumsy and manipulative in a way that made K3G look honest. It strained my credulity too far. It was ridiculously stupid in its storyline, and deserves to be mocked for it.<br /><br />It's not quite as awful as Baghban or Black, but this movie has nothing to recommend it. Stupid, pointless, with a ridiculously OTT performance by Amitji. The central "plot" is another nasty example of the crudely manipulative propaganda that infests so many "family" BW films. If my father, who raised me, and who I love dearly, treated me like Big B did Akshay, I'd shoot him myself. To say nothing of the trivialising of terminal illness.
Those 2 points are dedicated the reasonable performance from Akshay Kumar. I know Bollywood films do not really strive to be realistic but PLEASE a Walt Disney production is more realistic than this plot. The father is dying and does what any good parent does...kick his son out the son with his PREGNANT wife. A few things that were too hard to swallow- 1. Priyanka 'cool indoor swimming pool in the bedroom' and to go from that to living hungry in her in-laws garden shed???????? 2. Akshay suddenly got the job as a stunt man, gets bitten by rabified dogs, to then just walk off. This film is an INSulT to our intelligence I really cant believe i contributed financially to the 'people' who made this film by taking my family to see it, we left the cinema with a frown, please do not subject yourself to this mess to watching this take my advice and do not waste your 'waqt'.
this is just usual Indian garbage that gets turned out as cinema, as Indians we can proudly boast that we have the biggest cinema industry, however it also the worst.<br /><br />how can other poor countries have films with real characters that challenge the views of their respective societies and we just keep on pumping out garbage. take a look at Russia, Iran, china and Latin America, look at the brilliant films they have and we get crap like Kisna!!<br /><br />get real people, no wonder the international community in general laughs at Indian cinema.
PROS: Akshay Kumar's performance(is it just me or does this guy always manages to trump AB in their movies together?). Some touching scenes in the 2nd half.<br /><br />CONS: The whole 1st hour(the jokes were flat to say the least). Every scene involving Rajpal Yadav. Major stupidity in AB's decision making. Let me get this straight, he believes brutally insulting his son's soul in every possible way(that will likely ruin their relationship beyond repair) is a better way for him to make Akshay finally take some responsibility then actually telling him the truth?? WTF? He considers Akshaye is too soft to bear the fact that his OLD father is soon gonna die due to cancer, but thinks insulting him will make him stronger? Am I the only one who doesn't see the logic here? Easily the movie's biggest flaw.<br /><br />- Akshay becoming a stunt man. LMAO!! We're told he finished 1st in college every year and has a degree in MBA. But when the time arrives to support himself, and his pregnant wife, he becomes a stunt man. LOL!! How abt actually applying for a normal job in ur field? Or Heck, anywhere else where ur life isn't in danger? This is some incredibly dumb writing.<br /><br />- The ending. I hate this sort of melodramatic crap. Everything is pushed down our throats to feel sorry for AB's character, which I couldn't. The entire thing reminded me a little too much of Srk in KHNH(which I hate). This "please feel sorry for the guy with the illness" crap has run its course. I felt more like puking than sympathy for the OLD man. Couldn't watch the final 20 or so minutes because of it and thus had to fast fwd. the whole thing.<br /><br />Bottomline: Waqt is just too dumb to be called a good movie. Its obvious director Vipul Shah targeted this at the emotionally fragile chicas and oldies who could care less about a story that actually makes sense. Give 'em some decent song picturizations, fancy outfits, plenty of glycerin-filled scenes and some star power and they'll happily lap-up crap like this.
well well One cant b wasting time just cause of a big star-cast ..i think all i could see is a bunch of talents wasting their time on a big screen with some pathetic humor which will appeal to i do not know who? some pathetic songs that will be heard by who? some pathetically abrupt turnings justified by who? race against time? u mean waste against time? OK so first you spoil your kid,then you teach him a lesson wow we are so ignorant of this fact whoever said its a brilliant new concept probably is some other species other than human alright fine let me come comment like humans do movie has a nice message to be given but it could well have been given by a stranger sitting besides you in the bus rather than you going for such a wasteful movie to learn it Hindi movies have proved it a lot already and also i cant waste my time writing about waste anyway!
First of all there is Gujarati Theatre then there is Bollywood. Both have their strengths and fan following. Director Vipul Shah should look elsewhere instead of Gujarati Theatre when making a Bollywood production. First he made Aankhen (adapted from a Gujarati play) - which had a unique plot, but could not hold as a Hindi film. Now he's adapted another Gujarati play and named it Waqt - a race against time. In sum, the emotions are alien. The plot development is not for Hindi films. For example, the role play between father and son is best left to Gujarati Theatre - don't bring it in a Hindi film. Even the comedy track is best left for the Gujarati stage. All performances are average - nothing to shout about - barring Shefali Chhaya Shah who is fantastic.
I found this film to be quite an oddity. From the very get go I found it extremely hard to like this movie, and now after a little thinking about it I can pretty much pinpoint the reason why. Jean-Marc Barr, although I love him to bits (I think Zentropa is one of the best movies ever made) is quite miscast here, and although I can't figure for the life of me who would be better, I am sure someone could have taken his place quite easily and make this film work. Everything else is fine, except for the stabs at weak comedy (A Meet The Parents Joke is not really needed, filmmakers!) and I really like Richard E. Grant as the British Major. It just suffers from one thing.. Jean-Marc.
ALL FOR LOVE ( as it titled when it was broadcast at the weekend ) is a romantic period drama featuring Captain Saint Ives a French officer in Napoleon`s army who is captured by the British and imprisoned in Scotland where he meets and falls in love with a young maiden who visits the prison . There`s also a storyline involving a murder .<br /><br />I will be honest and confess that I wasn`t too taken by the movie since I`m not much of a fan of period dramas and the screenplay feels somewhat episodic but I will say that this is well acted by everyone involved and it`s got a good cast that features Miranda Richardson , Anna Friel , Richard E Grant , Michael Gough and Jason Isaacs . The costume design as you can expect is also excellent <br /><br />I`ll be very surprised if this movie doesn`t get any complaints after being broadcast on BBC2 at teatime . Captain Saint Ives lies in bed with a prostitute where a nipple is fully exposed and there`s a scene of French prisoners bathing that includes full frontal male nudity not to mention a murder scene where blood is clearly seen . You really do have to worry if BBC schedulers have any type of clue as to what they`re doing
Around the late 1970's, animator Don Bluth, frustrated with the output his company, Disney was churning, defected from the Mouse House to form his own studio. His first production, THE SECRET OF NIMH, was a brilliant feature that still holds up well to this day. This was followed by AN American TAIL and THE LAND BEFORE TIME, both of which were made under the involvement of Steven Spielberg and were commercially successful. Although none of those two films had the dark adult appeal of NIMH, they still are very charming, enjoyable features for both children and grown-ups. But before long, Don Bluth had his first major misfire with ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN; critics were especially harsh on this film, and matters weren't helped by the fact that it opened alongside Disney's THE LITTLE MERMAID.<br /><br />Considering that the movie has such a friendly-sounding title, one would expect ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN to be pleasant family fare. Instead Bluth provides a surprisingly dark story involving gambling, deceit, crime, mistreatment, and murder. That itself is not a problem for an animated feature per say, but it does call into question over whether the film is for children. On the other hand, it's hard to say whether adults will find much to enjoy in ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN. In short, it's a movie with a major identity crisis.<br /><br />Set in a dreary junkyard of New Orleans, the movie starts out when Charlie B. Barkin, a rough-and-tumble German shepherd, is run over by a car courtesy of his former gambling casino partner, a nasty, cigar-puffing pitbull, Carface. Before you know it, Charlie finds himself in heaven, albeit by default. Here a whippet angel, Annabelle, tells him that "all dogs go to heaven because unlike people, dogs are usually loyal and kind." This line represents the confused nature of the movie, since the dogs in the movie, the whippet aside, are presented as anything but.<br /><br />Upon realizing that he's been murdered, Charlie steals his way back to Earth and plots to get even with Carface. With the reluctant help of his dachshund pal Itchy, Charlie "rescues" Carface's prize, AnneMarie, a human girl who can talk to animals (in order to predict who will win the rat races). Charlie claims that he will help the little cutie find her a family, but in reality he is using her skills to win fortunes at the race so that he can build a more elaborate casino of his own to bring Carface down. Although he refuses to admit it, Charlie does grow to love AnneMarie...<br /><br />The concept of the story isn't as problematic as the execution. Aside from the human girl AnneMarie and a flamboyant musical alligator who appears about three-quarters through (with the vocal pipes of Ken Page), none of the other characters emerge as likable, nor frankly, are even worth caring about. Unfortunately, that also applies to Charlie; in trying to make him an anti-hero, the script (composed by more than ten writers) only succeeds in rendering the character TOO unlovable. As such, the audience feels no empathy for Charlie, and worse, his redemption at the end of the movie does not come across as convincing. (Further damaging to the character is the disappointingly uncharismatic vocal performance from Burt Reynolds.) Besides the lack of an endearing lead, the movie's other problem is in the structure of the story. The slowly-paced plot jumps all over the place and makes a habit of throwing in extra scenes which serve no purpose but to pad out the movie's running time. The aforementioned musical alligator (who resides in a danky sewer infested with native rats) seems to have been thrown in from nowhere, as does a scene where Charlie tries to show his generosity to AnneMarie by feeding a pack of pastel-colored pups pizza. The whole screenplay feels like a rough first draft; a bit more polish could have made this a tighter, impactful story.<br /><br />Matters are not helped by the lackluster musical numbers by Charlie Strouse and T.J. Kuenster (AnneMarie's song and the gator's ballad are the only good ones; the latter in particular benefits from Ken Page's mellifluous vocal) or the uneven voice cast. As mentioned, Burt Reynolds' stiff and lifeless Charlie detracts from his already unlikeable character even further (the only exception is a fiery confession to Itchy about his true intentions toward the end). Dom DeLuise as Itchy is pretty good, but he's had better roles, notably Tiger in AN American TAIL and Jeremy in THE SECRET OF NIMH. Ken Page, as mentioned, is awesome in anything he does, but his character has such a small part that his overall contribution is unremarkable at best. Similarly wasted are Loni Anderson (as a collie who once sired a litter with Charlie), Melba Moore, and Charles Nelson Reilly. Judith Barsi as AnneMarie is probably the only voice that comes across as truly memorable, partially because her character is the sole legitimately likable one in this depressing and joyless show.<br /><br />Barsi aside, the only real positive about ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN is the animation. Technically, this film has some of the most imaginative visuals from Bluth's team (by 1980's standards, that is), particularly a frightening scene where Charlie has a nightmare about ending up in a fiery underworld ruled by a gargantuan satanic canine-demon. If anything, the movie is more of a triumph of animation than storytelling.<br /><br />On the whole, however, I cannot recommend ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN as good entertainment. Even though I recognize that the movie has its fans and the climax does admittingly provide some energy and a moving conclusion, the overall package is not in the same league as Bluth's better efforts. Animation buffs will marvel at the lush artistry, but by the time it's over, ALL DOGS GO TO HEAVEN could very well leave a bad taste in your mouth.
Wow, what a waste of acting talent. My husband and I sat there, both thinking, this has to get better, these actresses are too good to have wasted their time on this crap. Unattractive characters, hackneyed script, and listless pacing make for a long two hours. I actually couldn't hack it and left to do the grocery shopping (cat litter being more appealing than this film). The husband stayed and confirmed that it didn't get better--by the time Buddy is killed, you were wishing they all would get hit by a car and end their miserable lives. It would be infinitely more entertaining. Beautiful scenery and costumes can't keep this one alive.
I went to see "Evening" because of the cast. I'd gone to see "Norman's Room" for that reason -- that movie offering Diane Keaton, Leonardo De Caprio and, also, Meryl Streep -- and had loved every minute of it. Same for "The Notebook" even though it was chick-flit lite. And my feeling was, anything offering performances by Vanessa Redgrave, Meryl Streep, Patrick Wilson and Glenn Close would be at least as good. Instead, I found sometimes even the greatest actors cannot overcome trite, simplistic and -- on one occasion -- truly offensive material.<br /><br />Now I had no problem with the way the film was structured. I actually enjoy movies that cut back and forth in time to tell a story...so long as one era illuminates the other and vise verse. But while Vanessa's character being on her deathbed and recalling a past event she felt "was a mistake" was riveting, at times, the part actually showing what that "past mistake" was does nothing to clarify the matter. In fact, it makes it seem meaningless in the silliest "girl meets boy, girl gets boy, girl loses boy" fashion, and in the most unbelievable, clichéd, wrong-headed way possible.<br /><br />And from here be spoilers, so bear that in mind should you continue reading.<br /><br />First of all, Claire Danes was brutally miscast. Not only does she not even begin to resemble Vanessa Redgrave as a young woman, she has nowhere near the chops when it comes to acting. Don't get me wrong, she can be good in the right role -- just not this one. And Patrick Wilson was miscast, though he has the acting chops to almost pull it off. He'd have been better suited to the part Hugh Dancy played -- the rich confused WASP -- and not the object of sexual attraction to one and all; he's a bit too WASP-y for that. Hugh Dancy? One note -- "I'm a tortured drunk and wait till you find out why." And the "why" (I'm a closet case in a sexually repressed world, so I have to drink to excess and make a fool of myself in front of everyone I know) was so offensive to me and the manner in which he died (as you knew he would because that's the only thing that can happen to a faggot in the Fifties) so ludicrous, wrong-headed and mishandled, I nearly threw my candy at the screen.<br /><br />As for the modern part between Toni Collette and her sister, her fear of commitment, her jealousy of her sister's "perfect life," her sister wondering if she's made the right choices, her pregnancy and her too-perfect boyfriend (which actually might have been more interesting and meaningful if played by Patrick Wilson, and Ebon Moss-Bachrach might have been a more interesting Harris, given his dreamy eyes) -- anyway, all this was hashed over in the 70's and 80's. And in much greater depth. Do we REALLY have to present it, again, and all as if it was fresh and momentous?<br /><br />And to top it off, Meryl Streep doesn't even appear until the last ten minutes of the movie, all in old lady makeup that hides many of her facial expressions. She's still good, but only because she's Meryl, and Meryl can find a way to pull off even the silliest dialog under the heaviest of makeup.<br /><br />So to put it simply, this movie has every cliché in the "really meaningful message" movie book, and it adds a few that really had no business being trotted out, again. At two hours long and laced with "Lifetime Movie-of-the-week" music that is guaranteed to rub you raw, it's a complete failure in both the "meaningful" and "moviemaking" aspects. I give it "3" only because of Meryl and Vanessa.<br /><br />Now, if all you require from your films is twadd le, then please set my comments about "Evening" aside and have the time of your life. But if you want a truly meaningful experience being served up by great actors and filmmakers who know what to do with a simple story about life and death and all the nonsense it brings, rent "Norman's Room" and find out what truly great acting is.
The story of a woman (Ann) on her death bed, her two daughters (Nina and Constance) and her thoughts about her past. The flashbacks are concerning a weekend where young Ann is in the wedding of her friend Lila. At the wedding she meets Harris who will impact her for the rest of her life. Through all the ups and downs of her professional and family life she remembers him as her true love. Her daughter Constance is older, more "responsible," a mother of two and has things together. Nina jumps from boyfriend to boyfriend and job to job and is unsure of her direction in life.<br /><br />First of all the good. The period detail in the movie is great. The dresses, hair, cars, houses, etc. really put you in another time and place. And there is some very quality acting in the movie. Vanessa Redgrave is quite good at portraying the main character and her fragile mental state as her life comes to an end. Claire Danes is beautiful and does a great job as the main character when she was young (and she is an outstanding singer). Hugh Dancy brought a lot of life to the character of Lila's brother Buddy.<br /><br />Now for the bad, which unfortunately is everything else. Things constantly disrupt the story as it is being unfolded for us. The chemistry between young Ann and Buddy is great. They have fun and dance. Then... you are supposed to believe that she doesn't really like him more than a friend and that his pining only annoys her. And I thought the whole, "he might be gay" thing was out of the blue and didn't serve a purpose.<br /><br />Then we have Harris. The character acts wooden and creepy. Had this been another genre, you would have known that Harris was the serial killer from the get go. It is an unbelievable stretch to think that all these girls loved him so (but they do portray the other guys as pretty lame to try and help him out).<br /><br />And the grandest problem of all. Why don't Ann and Harris get together? They fall for each other. They have this great night of sex in an old dirty gardener's shack, come home to find out about Buddy's tragic end and then...<br /><br />Nothing.<br /><br />They meet up a few years later and get all misty eyed about each other and I couldn't help but wondering why. WHY? The movie doesn't let you know why they were forced to marry other people and so I had a hard time feeling sorry for them.<br /><br />The part of the story in the present is fairly boring. The cliché good daughter and the cliché bad daughter. Nina changes over the course of the movie but I am not sure why. I'm not sure what convinces her to change her life. There is a "touching" scene where the daughters are connecting that coincides with old Ann dreaming she's chasing a butterfly. It is really lame and embarrassing.<br /><br />"There are no mistakes", Ann advises at us. The statement doesn't ring true with the story. And it doesn't ring true after seeing the movie and wishing they hadn't wasted the talent of such good actors.
Some of these viewer comments are just ridiculous. Not painful to watch with your significant other? I was apologizing to my boyfriend the entire movie. <br /><br />It was so slow and awfully strange. <br /><br />Both Redgraves,Vanessa and Natasha were unfit for this, especially with Vanessa doing that ridiculous brash American accent. <br /><br />Claire Danes was the same wiggly-lipped awkward girl that she was in My So-Called Life. She has yet to push herself in any way. Girl, find a new way to pretend to cry! <br /><br />Meryl Streep was one of the only redeeming part of this movie, she was on screen for five minutes, and I swear to God, she reached out of the movie screen and slapped me awake. <br /><br />Oh! And Hugh Dancy, who gets better every time I see him. <br /><br />Glenn Close and Eileen Atkins were also great in their two and a half scenes. <br /><br />I mean, this was a well-shot movie, it was very pretty, the settings were interestingly dressed, providing relief for the intense boredom I was feeling. <br /><br />I don't know, It's just pretty pathetic when a movie that boasts a cast comprised of "The greatest actresses of our time" sucks so much. It sure had more than a few noticeable editing errors, and the main character (Ann) was a huge jerk. I was glad she died. But that's because I felt bad for Lila, Ann's friend -- mostly because these two ladies were better actors and made me feel a little empathy. <br /><br />Ugh. BAD job, Evening the film. You weren't entertaining and you weren't even thought-provoking. I sure hope the book was better, so it didn't waste even more of people's time. 3/10
This crap is like watching paint dry. I'm so disappointed because I was so eager to see it.<br /><br />There simply is no meaning to this film. If it were never made, no one would notice or care. It's hyped up because of all the big names in it, but if "nobody's" were in, nobody would give this film any love.<br /><br />Seriously, I was at the point where half-way through the film I would look at Vanessa Redgrave and think, "Hurry up and die already!" This is like the "Joy Luck Club" without any of the friggin' joy. It's the "Ocean's 13" (nothing but a big-named cast) of mother-daughter movies and completely anti-climatic...oh until it's finally over.<br /><br />I'm sure they'll all be nominated for Oscars...<br /><br />- 4 stars for cinematography and the ability to convince great actresses to commit to this junk.
I knew that 'Evening' was a girlie film, so I was expecting to be bored. A wicked tease on IMDb had said that it was a 'chick flick' but that your companion would survive.<br /><br />Survive? Yes. I am still here, but when the two of us came out we were amazed to find that it had only lasted two hours - it seemed a much longer evening than that! I suppose that, for Yanks, it is supposed to be elevating or fascinating because it is about rich people living on the beach - well, next to the beach, in a house with a wide verandah and a lawn but no apparent lawnmower. If that sort of thing impresses you it might seem quite a short film.<br /><br />There's a Monty Python film about a Knight who just won't die. He ends up a wriggling (why do Yanks add an third syllable to this word I wonder) torso in the road still shouting threats at his nemesis. This film is also about a sort of living dead. Vanessa Redgrave (inappropriate name for the grave dodger shown here) goes on and on dying whilst having inappropriate guilt. She's not worried about having been a wide-eyed, breathless bimbo, but imagines herself a murderess.<br /><br />Obviously, being a girlie film, there's a chap who is supposed to be the Mr Darcy/Heathcliff character. I'm not a woofter, so I can't claim to be a good judge of such things, but the tedious wimp who is wheeled out for this role seems only to have the title of servant in his favour. He's a bloodless cypher.<br /><br />As you might gather, the main characters aren't much cop, but the minor ones manage, amazingly to be much worse. There's a fellow whose only job is to react to the news that his girlfriend is preggers. Fair enough, but it isn't the role of Hamlet - why ham it up so badly? Forgetting that it was a girlie film, I thought he was going to be thrown out because any decent girl-friend would have told him that face-fungus didn't flatter him, but then I realised that she must have encouraged him to grow a 'beard' because he looked worse without it.<br /><br />I kept awake by noticing which actors and actresses had their earlobes attached or free and noting interesting bits of scenery - if you're dragged along to it, see if you can spot the stuffed buffalo head, just the sort of thing you'd expect in a beach cottage.<br /><br />Apart from the obligatory wedding, there is only one piece of action. You'd have thought that they'd have got it right. Sadly, though, the hit and run accident is carried out by a car that couldn't be there. When the accident is discovered the cast wander about shouting for a character that they can't know is nearby (but we do as the audience). If they don't have any clue that the person is within a couple of miles of the place, then why do they wander about aimlessly shouting for him? I suppose that the director's excuse is that it is supposed to be a half-remembered dream sequence...<br /><br />Another scenery item that caught my attention was a copper bottomed saucepan. I didn't think that the technology to do this was developed until the fifties.
Just PPV'd this. I don't want to waste too much time on this as most of the posters here put it better than I ever could, but I did want to say a few things.<br /><br />I didn't know which was funnier: Redgrave chasing tiny moths and tripping over her nurse; Close wailing that her "precious" boy (whom she and the Mr. had decided was a drunken loser) has been turned into roadkill; that the tone-deaf Ann schmoozed with Peggy Lee; or the horrid CGI of Crypt Keeper Annie gazing at her younger self!<br /><br />I never bought Danes as the younger Redgrave. I didn't buy Richardson and Collette as sisters, either. If Meryl Streep's daughter wants to be an actress, she better get Mama to give her a few lessons! I had zero idea why any girl (or Buddy) would make fools of themselves over vapid stud du jour Harris! Ann's daughters are as whiny and thoughtless as she, Luc is a retarded slacker on crack, and I didn't give a rot about any of them! Evening gives Chick Flicks a bad name!
With a cast list like this one, I expected far better. Venessa Redgrave spent the majority of the movie lying in bed. The best actresses in the world cannot make anything very interesting when their acting is limited to lying down and falling asleep throughout the entire movie. The plot summary says that a secret is revealed to the daughters as their mother comes closer to death. The thing is, she never tells her daughters anything except cryptic advice to be happy. All the relationships in the movie are underdeveloped. I also felt that the back and forth between the past and present was unnecessary. It seemed as if the idea was stolen either from the book the Da Vinci Code in which the device was used to increase suspense, or from The Notebook in which they used the device to create the never ending romance of the story's main characters. Either way it was a cheap device in this movie because it didn't work to create anything. It was a way to attempt suspense in a movie that has none. I left wondering why good movies can't be written for women. It really was a disappointment.
I saw this in a sneak two days before the official opening, and I must say I was extremely disappointed. And I have to put the majority of these problems on the decision to cast Claire Danes in the lead role. Depending on what you think about Danes, she was either horribly miscast, or is so far in over her head that she should be the early favorite for the 2007 Razzie for Worst Actress. I think we were supposed to be sympathetic to her. Instead, she is completely unlikeable. The other "great" actresses do an OK job, but certainly don't light up the screen. Out of all the "great" actresses in this movie, I'd say the one who did the best job was Natasha Richardson. Streep is barely in the picture, and only appears near the very end.<br /><br />Horrible screenplay as well. It comes off more as them reading lines than truly being "in character."
This is, without a doubt, the most offensive "chick flick" I have seen in years, if not ever. The writing & characterizations are so riddled with stereotypes that the film verges on parody. Before walking out of the theater an hour and five minutes into this disaster, we were subjected to the following themes: having a baby will solve all of your problems, "performer types" are miserable messes, & musicians can't be good mothers unless they toss their dreams for a more conventional lifestyle. What a waste of a talented cast & some great-looking sets & costumes. When Natasha Richardson told Toni Collette that unless she lives a more mainstream life, she'll end up - shudder - "alone!", I felt queasy. I can't believe this movie made it to theatrical release. It's the sort of fare one expects from those "women's" cable channels that I always pass right by when channel-surfing. I am female and over 35, so I should be part of this film's target audience, but boy, does "Evening" miss its target.
I never expect a film adaptation to follow too closely to the novel (especially a beloved one, like Evening) but when I saw that the book's author, Susan Minot, was a screenplay writer and executive producer on the film, I thought that Evening would be a good adaptation.<br /><br />If you enjoyed the book, don't bother with this movie. It is so far afield of the book that the two hardly bear any resemblance to one another.<br /><br />Here, our characters are completely different: the bride is in love with Harris. Harris is the son of the housekeeper. Buddy is a drunk, in love with Ann and/or Harris. I don't think a single character made it from the book to the screen; oh it just gets worst with every passing moment.<br /><br />And, really, didn't we learn from Bridges of Madison County that cutting from the story we are meant to be enthralled in, to scenes of our heroes' grown children having obnoxious and juvenile fights, simply does not work on film? This film is a disaster. Skip it.
Cast to die for in a movie that is considerably less. Vanessa Redgrave is dying but before she goes she begins to tell her daughters the story of her life and of her secret love...<br /><br />This is one of those movies which has the look and expectations of being a great film simply because they have so many great actors and actresses in it so it seems to be about something other than the potboiler that it really is. Not bad as such but with Redgrave, Toni Collette, Glenn Close, Meryl Streep, Clare Danes,Natasha Richardson,Eileen Atkins, Patrick Wilson,Hugh Darcy and others (all giving fine performances) you expect more than a weepy story thats a bit more than a harlequin romance.<br /><br />Wait for Cable.
Almost as tedious to watch as it was to read, Evening is a gorgeously produced failure...until Meryl Streep walks in and quietly shows her other cast members how to act this kind of stuff. Vanessa Redgrave is shockingly off in her role as the dying Ann and Claire Danes is a cipher. Perhaps if Vanessa and Claire had switched roles we could have seen the vibrancy in the young Ann that gave her entrée to the rarefied world of the story and we could have imagined that the older Ann actually was dying. <br /><br />I was hoping the addition of Michael Cunningham to the writing credits would smooth out the jumpy storytelling but alas. It gave me a headache.
I looked over the other comments and was thoroughly amused to find that clearly only people who actually worked on the movie had commented. I mean, I hate to say bad things about an amateur production, but if you make a bad movie and want to comment on it, tone it down a little. "Groundbreaking" is a little over the top. This is a Boston based college production that doesn't even achieve the level of most amateur college film. It's what you would expect a bunch of kids to do. A silly action film without much creativity. It's pretty funny if you're willing to poke fun at it. Not something you will ever see unless you are a student at Emerson college.
"The 40 Year Old Virgin" exists in a world I don't understand. A world where an electronics store employee can tell his boss to "f*** off" and broadcast videos of his naked ass throughout the store and not get reprimanded. A world where it's really funny to go drunk driving and smash into other peoples' cars. A world where it seems okay for a boss to sexually harass her underlings. A world full of raging and offensive stereotypes of ethnic minorities. And a world without any funny jokes! I am absolutely shocked at the seeming chorus of viewers who liked this movie. I thought every scene was like a bad Saturday Night Live sketch - not very funny to begin with, and stretched out beyond all rational thought. The chest-waxing scene went on FOREVER.<br /><br />The characters, aside from Carell, were totally one-note. And the romantic elements were completely contrived, particularly the scene where Keener finds porn in Carell's apartment. That was just lame.<br /><br />And I also found the "Aquarius" sequence totally annoying and excessive. I hated hated hated this movie!
It is amazing to me what passes for entertainment today. maybe I am a dinosaur from the fifties, and I am out of touch with todays movie going generation, and apparently that is the case with regards to this movie, since so many people loved it. I found it foul and vulgar. I haven't said that about many movies in my life but this one fits the bill. The humor is sophomoric and crude. I am not a politically correct person, and even I found the gay jokes, not only not funny but downright offensive ( I'm not gay). The main character in the movie is not even a likable person, just pathetic. When the movie was finally over i heard a number of people comment on how disappointed they were in what they had just pay good money to see.
About 15 minutes in, my wife was already wanting to leave. Not so much because of the material, but the lack thereof. They decided to fill in the blanks where the funny stuff should've been with as much language and absolutely vulgar talk as they could. When this would let up (very rare), we'd sit back and watch (not laughing, mind you) and wait for the next gross-out or offensive remark(s). After about 35 minutes, we both got up and left. Everything we'd read said how great this was. The trailer looked good and Roger Ebert actually called it "intelligent" and said it wasn't a crude sex comedy. Did he go to the right movie? Along with Be Cool, it's the only other movie I've ever walked out on...and I have no regrets. I'm sick of trying to go see comedies in America.
Wow! This film is truly awful. I can't imagine how anyone could have read this badly written script and given it the greenlight. The cast is uniformly second rate with some truly horrendous performances from virtually all of the cast. The story is disjointed, fragmented and incoherent. The telling, leaden and predictable. No wit, no charm, no humour. Not sexy in the least. The characters remain as flat as the proverbial pancake. There's also a strong current of misogyny which became increasingly hard to stomach as the film went on. When your lead (Carrell) is unfunny and unappealing it's uphill from there. Despite it's phony turn-around ending where love triumphs over lust I was left with a sick feeling in my stomach. If this is what passes for humour and social comment then we're definitely doomed.
After we counted the use of the f word, oh, about 22 times in the first 10 minutes or so of the film, listened to some really bad actors going on about a woman and a horse, and pretty much acting like 12 year old boys being naughty together, well, we turned it off. Relying on gratuitous profanity and potty humor is a sure sign of a loser Hollywood movie, the product of unimaginative and no-talent writers. <br /><br />We did give it a second chance, thinking surely it would get better. No dice. Later, my boyfriend skipped through the rest of the movie in case it improved, still no dice.<br /><br />The main character did have a cool bike.<br /><br />I wouldn't recommend this to anyone except maybe really immature adolescents, or frat boys.
At least with the teenage geek gets the girl films, the guy is usually unpopular with girls. In the 40 Year Old Virgin he is replaced with a 40 year old guy who is popular with women but somehow has remained a virgin. But then you are not supposed to engage your brain with this film or did I miss the bit about him being comatose for 20 years?<br /><br />One of a series of films where 40 somethings act like teenagers and women for some reason find this a sufficiently attractive quality that they want a serious relationship with them. I find it hard to understand how a country that has produced such excellent TV comedies seems to think it has to rely on crude and shallow characters for laughs. They've done the gross out movies. They've done the let's act like all Americans have a mental age of 15. Where will they go next? <br /><br />This film is crass and crude entertainment with nothing to recommend it.
Bela Lugosi is not typecast in this fantastic twelve-part adventure serial, playing the lead as Frank Chandler/Chandu the Magician, enjoying his role as a representative of the forces of White Magic pushed against those of Black, while displaying vigourous fighting skill, successfully wooing a young Egyptian princess, and cutting a lean and dashing figure in yachting gear, complete with nautical cap. The somewhat lumpy plot engages Chandler/Chandu in an ongoing series of escapades pointed at achieving the rescue of his fiancee, Princess Nadji(Maria Alba) and others from the clutches of the idol-worshipping sect of Ubasti, which covets Nadji's blood in order to revivify an ancient mummified princess entombed upon the mysterious island of Lemuria. Director Ray Taylor, an old hand at such entertainments keeps events moving briskly, but repeated scenes and footage, a good deal of which is to be found in the previous year's Skull Island setting from KING KONG, and the port locale from SON OF KONG, reduces original action to less than 60 minutes from the serial's running length of over two and one-half hours and, if viewed at one sitting, becomes lacking in effect to most viewers, unless insomniac.
"The Return of Chandu" is notable, if one can say that, for the casting of Bela Lugosi as the hero rather than the villain. Why he even gets the girl.<br /><br /> The story as such, involves the Black Magic Cult of Ubasti trying to capture the last Egyptian princess Nadji (the delectable Maria Alba) and use her as a sacrifice as a means of reviving their ancient leader who just happens to look like Nadji. Lugosi as Chandu, who possesses magical powers, tries to thwart the villains.<br /><br /> Director Ray Taylor does his best with limited resources and extensive stock footage. Fans of King Kong (1933) will recognize the giant doors that were used to keep Kong at bay in several scenes. The acting is for the most part, awful. The actor who plays the high priest (I believe Lucien Prival) for example, uses that acting coach inspired pronunciation that was so common in the early talkies. The less said about the others the better.<br /><br /> It is a mystery why Lugosi accepted parts in independent quickies at this stage of his career, because he was still a bankable star at Universal at this time. Maybe it was because in this case he got to play the hero and get the girl, who knows. As his career started to spiral downwards in the late 30s, this kind of fare would become the norm for Lugosi rather than the exception.<br /><br />
Ever notice how in his later movies Burt Reynolds' laugh sounds like screeching brakes?<br /><br />Must have been hanging out with Hal Needham too much.<br /><br />And from the looks of "Stroker Ace", WAY too much.<br /><br />Can you believe this was based on a book? Neither could I, but it was. And probably not a best-seller, I'll wager. <br /><br />Burt's another good-old-boy in the NASCAR circuit who hitches up with Beatty as a fried chicken magnate with designs on his team. Anderson provides what love interest there is and Nabors does his umpteenth Gomer Pyle impression as faithful mechanic/best friend Lugs. <br /><br />A lot of people here are friends of Burt's or Hal's. Others must have needed the work. And even real NASCAR drivers get in on the act, and look to have more talent than those with SAG cards. <br /><br />As far as laughs go, Bubba Smith (pre-"Police Academy") gets them as Beatty's chauffeur. And Petersen, in full Elvira mode, gets lots of appreciative leers as a lady who wants to get to know Lugs real well. REAL WELL.<br /><br />It's a shame that Burt threw away as much time and effort in a film like "Stroker Ace" where it didn't matter whether he bothered to act or not. They didn't bother to write a character for him, why bother to act?<br /><br />Two stars. Mostly for Petersen, and for the out-takes at the end. Now THEY'RE funny.
Oh man is this movie bad. It flows horribly. The story is about a race car driver who is in love with himself, and then has to promote a chicken fast food chain and while doing this, doesn't love himself. He tries getting out of the contract and horrible, painfully unfunny gags ensue. Jim Nabors seems as if he's sleepwalking, not acting. You'll miss such Burt sidekicks as Dom Deluise and Jerry Reed while watching this stinker. Loni Anderson's hair is downright scary, proving that tons of hairspray didn't go out in the sixties. Or maybe that was a wig. Speaking of, Burt's wig wasn't bad in this film. His worst "wig day" was in "Smokey and the Bandit 2". Anyhow, this movie is the worst Reynolds car movie, ever, ever, right up there with "Cannonball Run 2". The original "Smokey" and "Cannonball" (and "Hooper" which, thankfully, had no sequel) are great, funny films. This one isn't. Even Ned Beatty, who is a great actor, stinks. You'll long for a Jackie Gleason type villain who is fun to hate. And mind you, this isn't one of those fun movies to bag on. It's lousy, pure and simple. Even the outtakes at the end were tiresome and boring, and worst of all, unfunny. And least I forget, "Stroker Ace" was one of the first heavy nails to seal Burt's coffin before his somewhat-revival years later in "Boogie Nights", another film that, like "Deliverance" years earlier, shows that the man can act quite good when he has a decent platform to do so.
This is one of the most insipid, lackluster, unoriginal, and pointless movies ever made! It almost feels like everyone involved in this project didn't even try to make an appealing movie. This is nothing more than a continuation of a tiresome series of films that attempt to cash in on the success of Smokey and the Bandit, which I think is the best film of them all. As for this waste of film stock, Burt Reynolds sleepwalks his way through the entire movie, Jim Nabors is wasted, the other actors aren't given very much to do, the car races are obviously stock footage, the humor is uninspired, and many of the scenes are more dull and lifeless than staring at a wall for two hours. "Stroker Ace" is simply a superfluous film with nothing unique or distinctive about it.
Burt Reynolds came to a point in his career where he appeared to just be going thru the motions. He'd show up, party with his friends on film, and take home a big paycheck. It didn't seem to matter to him that the product he was representing was pure crap.<br /><br />No film epitomized this more than "Stroker Ace" which makes "Cannonball Run" look like a classic and "Cannonball Run II" look watchable. Save for a few race scenes there is absolutely NOTHING worth seeing here. Even the beautiful Loni Anderson hams it up so bad as a dumb blonde it's embarrassing.<br /><br />If the thought of Burt hamming it up with Jim Nabors and dressing like a chicken sounds funny then this is your movie. Otherwise pick almost any other film comedy and it won't be any worse.
It occurs to me that some of the films that have been banned during the course of cinema history were actually very important and very good films. I'd like to argue that instead of banning challenging, controversial movies the censors should consider banning films that are so bad that they pose a threat to your IQ and your sanity. If they were to do so one of the first films to be quickly hidden away would undoubtedly be "Stroker Ace". This film is awful with a capital 'A'. It is the worst film Burt Reynolds ever starred in.... quite a feat for for a man with "Cannonball Run II", "Cop And A Half" and "Rent-A-Cop" on his CV!<br /><br />The wafer-thin story introduces us to successful stock car racer Stroker Ace (Reynolds), a man who loves fast cars and fast women. He gets stuck in a demeaning contract with crooked promoter Clyde Torkle (Ned Beatty). The contract requires him to do some humiliating promotional work for a new chain of fast food restaurants, such as dressing up as a giant chicken. Thrown into the mix are Lugs (Jim Nabors), Ace's dim-witted pal, and Pembrook Feeney (Loni Anderson), a bimbo with a brain fractionally smaller than a pea who is wooed by Ace.<br /><br />Hal Needham, the director of this low-grade garbage, was formerly a stuntman and he made numerous films that relied on his expertise in staging spectacular stunts and car chases/races. Some of these films were OK, like "Hooper" and "Stunts Unlimited", but with "Stroker Ace" he reaches a career nadir. The characters are so stupid that you actually feel pity for the actors playing them. Anderson especially is saddled with such a dumb role that it makes you grind your teeth with despair. The humour is weak and infantile throughout, and the stunts and race sequences are unremarkable. Even the out-takes during the closing credits (which can be found in all the Reynolds-Needham collaborations) are generally unfunny, which gives the impression that maybe the film wasn't much fun to make. "Stroker Ace" is a stinker of considerable magnitude.
This should not have been listed as a Colombo because in my opinion it does not resemble any of the other Colombo ever made. This should have been listed as a movie starring Peter Falk and not playing the caracter of Colombo because it does not do justice at all to our great lieutenant Colombo.
Whenever a Columbo story deviates from the familiar plot (colorful killer commits crime, Columbo smokes out killer, Columbo becomes a pest in the process), the writers somehow are never able to match the quality and interest of most traditional episodes. This episode deviates in the extreme, and the result is a major flop.<br /><br /> Would you believe: Columbo never faces the villain till the very end?!!<br /><br />Frankly, I was tempted to turn it off about two-thirds through.<br /><br /> Oh, the sacrifices we self-appointed reviewers make!!!
Seriously what were they thinking? Over the course of years the Columbo series has tried out some new things and diverted away from the usual successful formula but this movie really overdoes it. This movie is basically very different from any other Columbo movie but the differences are not for the good of the movie.<br /><br />Main thing that of course makes this movie different from any other Columbo movie is the fact that there is no murder being committed. The entire premise of this movie is totally different and it places the Columbo character in a totally different environment and situation. Also the overall is just totally different and more 'modernized'.<br /><br />Director Alan J. Levi did some other Columbo movies in the past, which all very much sticked to the usual formula. It also makes it an odd choice that he got picked to direct this movie.<br /><br />The Columbo character himself also feels quite different, perhaps because of the reason that he gets placed in a totally different environment and situation, when he helps out his nephew after his bride disappeared right after the wedding. The absence of some good relieving and trademark Columbo humor also doesn't exactly make this a good or enjoyable watch.<br /><br />In all honesty, the movie doesn't begin too bad but the movie starts to become more and more ridicules with its story as it progresses. It's such a stupid written kidnap-thriller with a story that starts to become more and more unlikely. It also makes the movie more and more unwatchable. This is a very little interesting Columbo entry that also really doesn't know to entertain its viewers in any way.<br /><br />It also doesn't help much that the supporting actors aren't the most talented ones around. Despite the fact that his character is put in such a totally different situation and the movie is shot in such a completely different style, Peter Falk still holds up well and his presence still somewhat saves this movie. Can you just imaging how this movie would had been without him? It would had been an extremely bad and ridicules cheap movie I can tell you.<br /><br />An odd Columbo entry, which could be described as a failed experiment to divert from the usual formula.<br /><br />4/10
The script for this Columbo film seemed to be pulled right out of a sappy 1980's soap opera. Deeply character-driven films are great, but only if the characters are compelling. And in this film the only thing compelling was my desire to change the channel. The villain's dialog sounds as if it were written by a romance novelist. The great Lt. Columbo himself is no where near his famous, lovable, self-effacing, crumpled self; and the bride/kidnap victim is a whimpering, one-dimensional damsel-in-distress (she cowers in fear from a tiny scalpel held flimsily in the hand of her abductor - come on!!! I could have knocked the scalpel out of his hand and kicked him in the you-know-what in 2 seconds). In any sense of reality, this character would have at least TRIED to struggle or fight back at least a little. And speaking of reality....the story revolves around a kidnapping which is worked and solved by the police. The POLICE?? Give me a break. Everyone knows the FBI takes over EVERY kidnapping case. This was NO Columbo, just a shallow and totally predictable crime drama with our familiar Lt. Columbo written in and stretched to 2 hours.
I love Columbo and have seen pretty much all of the episodes but this one undoubtedly ranks as the worst of the lot. A mind-bogglingly tedious, pointless, muddled pile of unwatchable drivel that wastes both the time of the viewing audience and of the acting talents of an exceedingly bored-looking Peter Falk. The 'plot', such as it is, just seems to be made up as the film goes along with not even the slightest hint of the ingredients to the formula that made the show such a brilliant success to start with. One part of the proceedings which I found extremely puzzling ( or possibly annoying ) was Peter Falk's character being introduced to the guests at the wedding as 'Lt' Columbo. If the producers insist on keeping Columbo's first name a secret, why couldn't they have omitted this line altogether as it sounds ridiculous? Like I said, this is the pits and all true Columbo fans would do well to avoid it like the plague.
Loyalty to Peter Falk is all that kept me from giving this awful picture the (1) it deserved. (For that matter, loyalty to Mr. Falk was what kept me watching this film all the way from heads to tails.) Even if you forgive all the glaring errors, this was just plain the poorest excuse for a made-for-TV "Columbo" film ever. I'm glad I watched it on TV for free; would have hated to have coughed up the bucks for a print.
Absolute garbage. The reason that this is so terrible is not because it deviated from the formula, but because the plot was just pathetic. <br /><br />The supposed star didn't do anything to solve the case - and neither did anyone else really - it was just routine police work. Utterly tedious.<br /><br />You sat right till the end hoping for a twist - and got nothing but a huge sense of disappointment. <br /><br />There was so much potential in having a relative in apparent kidnap. Could the Lt's personal involvement finally cloud his judgement? <br /><br />All the obvious signs were of a stranger doing it. But surely a genius like Lt C, by constant conversation with the wronged husband, would gradually uncover a fiendish plot involving a tape recorder playing in the shower room while a masked groom surprises the bride, hides the body and then plants subtle clues. It could have been good. It was a complete waste of time.
An uninspired and undistinguished "new" Columbo which sees the man-in-the-mac attend his nephew's wedding, only for his bride to disappear on their wedding night. Columbo investigates...<br /><br />And that it is about it: indifferently plotted and surprisingly laden with a flat script, given that it is written by Robert Van Scoyk, who penned the highly enjoyable Columbo story "Murder Under Glass" in the detective's heyday; there is not even a murder to speak of and the greatest amount of ingenuity afforded to Columbo by the script-writer is the narrowing down of suspects via the photos taken at the wedding, which include everybody who was there!<br /><br />Devoid of every Columbo trait possible, I thought I was watching an episode of Hill Street Blues. An insult to the history of the series, with appropriately soap-opera style acting. Very avoidable stuff.
Most definitely the worst Columbo ever dreamt up. No murder and the abandonment of the tried and tested formula makes this a real drag. Falk looks bored throughout and so will you be if you waste anytime watching this.
This show stinks. For parents, they usually want their kids to watch something good for them. It is usually educational, funny, and bright.<br /><br />Is it educational? No. the Doodlebops sing and that's it. They usually sing about themselves, they don't try teaching anything.<br /><br />Is it funny? No. The Doodlebops instead say something which is not intended as a joke, and laugh at it.<br /><br />Is it bright? It's so bright, it's painful. As far as color,s everything is extremely bright, so that's good. But NOTHING is ever wrong in the world of the Doodlebop's. Therefore, they are always happy. a kid in trouble will become depressed because they have never been exposed to being sad.<br /><br />The show is also extremely cheesy. Every syllable is said to the highest level of exaggeration and very corny. It's overkill.<br /><br />For kids, it's entertaining, but past the age of 2 you won't want your kids to see it. They'll never know how to grow up.
My children watch the show everyday that its on. Its a great program for younger children. However they need to stop showing re-runs and do some more actual shows and get rid of Rooney's and Deedee's YELLOW TEETH. Moe is the only Doodle bop with clean white pearlie teeth and the children notice these things and ask if the 2 don't ever brush their teeth? Does the show ever make its way to the United States and if so where can we find its schedule at. And one other thing if we might be able to add. Moe you need to stop hiding so much. Sometimes when you pop up out of no where you scare the younger children and whats with the pulling of the rope? What does that signify? other then getting wet all the time. They need to add newer things to their show instead of the same ole same ole. Kids loose interest that way.
Normally when I write a review for a movie online, it is for one of three reasons. Either, I have found something exceptionally lacking in a film that otherwise would have been excellent, I feel that the public's perception of a film before viewing it is inaccurate for a number of reasons, or I believe that the purpose or message of a film needs to be clarified or explained with the help of other reviewers. While all of these reasons may appear to be somewhat negative, I find that writing a review that lavishes nothing but praise and statements such as, "This is one of the best films of all time!", does nothing to enlighten a potential viewer on its merits and downsides, nor does it often give reasoning as to why a movie is so good, which should be the point of the review in the first place. With that being said, War of the Worlds is nothing more than a hurried, incompetent attempt at a money grab; piggy-backing its loathsome carcass on the multi-million dollar advertising campaign of the film of the same name directed by Steven Spielberg. Many people will buy this DVD in anticipation of the summer blockbuster and many more poor souls will buy it looking for more material on the same subject. This movie is not even "so bad" that it becomes funny or endearing, rather the audience will be so unbelievably disappointed as to reach the point of anger. Now with most of the insults out of the way, allow me to give some arguments as a warning to those more fortunate than I. <br /><br />Judging from the cover and the lack of any publicity for this film (I found it as SAM's Club for 8 bucks), I assumed that the cast would be no-names and that the special effects would be nothing too spectacular. Check. This is not a big deal for me, as I find a large budget and an over-reliance on big name stars and SE can diminish an otherwise decent movie. I also did not expect to be blown away by great dialog or a moving score. Check again. What I did hope for was an actual serious attempt at a classic theme and a few alien/battle scenes. <br /><br />Now, as per IMDb's policy any spoilers must be announced in advance, no matter how small, so here is fair warning. The movie opens with a lot of inane small-talk, followed by a trip to an observatory to look at a red dot. Seriously, it is a pictures of a red dot in a tube. It is very hard to describe every little issue in depth, but by the end of the first ten minutes, the combination of shaky camera-work, spliced scenes, and a LOT of walking begin to frustrate the viewer. However, the costuming is surprisingly not bad and the hope that the pods will reveal something mysterious keeps you going. The next 30 minutes basically go as follows: one of the main characters walks to one of the pods, he looks at the pods and talks to another main character about looking at the pod and it may be hot. They both walk back to town. These walks aren't two seconds or added so that dialog may be exchanged. They are twenty seconds or more and are there simply to add filler to an already bloated three hour movie. In a particularly grueling scene, the main character is shown looking at a pod, then he is shown pacing and panting, then he looks at the pod, then he takes a one minute walk through a field to town, then comes in to town and walks into a building, then he has a cup of coffee and says "Thank you Mary" to a random maid that serves him coffee, then he puts down the coffee and walks out the building, then he walks a minutes through the field and back to the pod. I apologize for the extreme run-on sentence, but it is perhaps the best way to summarize this entire film. Characters speak way too long about mundane things, they walk a lot, they send other people to walk, the camera fluctuates between high speed and slow speed, but for no dramatic effect, simply the camera man is a sophomore at Tech somewhere. The editing is mind-bogglingly bad. People actions make little sense. For instance, when the professor goes to a farmer's house and says that he needs the farmer to give him a ride to town, the farmer stutters and paces around. When the professor says that there is a pod and that men might be trapped inside, the farmer locks him in a shed only to see the professor grab a pitchfork and open the weak shed a second later. Nothing of any consequence of course comes from this entire scene, as the professor runs into the main character a moment later so they can begin their afternoon walk. The entire film feels as if someone at one point had a good idea about making a film, but absolutely no idea how to put that in motion. I have seen better high school video productions. Finally, the special effects are laughable and do nothing to advance the story. I get the feeling that the director really wanted this film to become somewhat of a cult classic of campy garbage. However, it is so awful in technical aspects, and in sheer common sense that it only makes people mad. Avoid this film at all costs.
I am currently sitting here, forcing myself to finish this. I figure I blew 6 bux on the VHS, might as well suffer for it. I remember about 4 or 5 years ago doing a search on the internet for "War of the Worlds" cause of the rumors of the Spielberg movie at the time, and I missed the old TV series from the early 90's. The website make it out that this was a multi-million dollar budget rendition of the classic book. It was going to be a "perfect translation". Perfect CRAP is more in tune with this film.<br /><br />First off, the video on this movie was glitched! It looked as if I was watching the Full Motion Video from an old mid-90's PC or Playstation CD-Rom video game. Sadly enough, the color quality was similar. The acting made Shatners classic "dramatic pause" look damn near Shakespearean in quality. The CG rendering of various scenes was horrendous, and green screen sequences were worse than those seen in old Dukes of Hazardd scenes.<br /><br />Secondly, it is slow and terribly drawn out. I sat thru 45 minutes of the video (no promo's at the beginning) before the cylinder actually Opened to reveal the first alien. After that, the alien was a terribly constructed CG squid. I am now an hour into it and the most of the alien weaponry I have seen is a spinning silver disk (crappy down even) attached to a mechanical arm. The dramatic scenes are murdered with overly done instrumental's. The last thing on that, for an alien invasion in the turn of the century 1900's NO ONE is concerned for their life. It's like they have no concept. Even though media was slow, word of mouth spreads fast and people would have known. The "illusion" of day and night was shoddy at best. Simply changing the color around the people to purple, blue or green does not signify NIGHT TIME. Perhaps some lighting and actual night time shoots would have given a MUCH better illusion. THere is a lot of wasted sequences throughout the film of just watching the "hero" gallop around or walk down silly roads. Get on with the film. I know how people get around, you do NOT need to be so in-depth.<br /><br />Now, finally an hour and 5 minutes into the film and they show the alien machines. Mighty Morphin Power Rangers had better looking effects. Even the skeletons of vaporized humans looked as if animated by a freshman high school computer app class student. The animations do NOT match up to the scenery at all.<br /><br />In closing folks, if you want "The War of the Worlds", do one of four things. 1) Watch the 1953 original, 2) watch the early 90's TV series, 3) wait for Spielberg's rendition to be released shortly, OR 4) Read the frikkin book (something we all probably did in elementary English class). AVOID THIS MOVIE. IT IS A WASTE OF YOUR MONEY.
I must admit I burst out laughing when I saw one reviewer compare this to LOTR. Well yes, if you exclude the dwarfs, the cast of thousands, the great special effects, the big battles, the strong characterization, the decent plot, the good acting, the classy direction and everything else. Which leaves you with the walking. And boy, does this film do walking! If Mr Piano had his way, this would probably be an uninterrupted three hours of hardcore walking through the Wisconsin countryside, but every 40 minutes or so these pesky Martians pop up for a few seconds to interrupt him before he goes for another bit of a ramble. You've never seen so much walking in a movie. If this really had a $20m budget, most of it must have gone on Mr Piano's shoes, because he had to get through plenty of pairs with all the walking he does. Which explains why there's no money left for decent effects, a decent video camera or proper actors. Honestly, it's like watching some bizarre fetish video for people with a thing about going for long walks in period costumes. Even on fast-forward, this is a looonnnggg walk.<br /><br />As for the sci-fi stuff, I think it was a mistake to put Martians in the film: they only get in the way of the walking, which is clearly much more interesting to the director than the story.<br /><br />I wonder how much Mr Piano charges to walk dogs?
Wow...<br /><br />I picked this up at the local Wal-Mart after reading online that it had been released early. I've been following this online for some time, and just had to buy the film.<br /><br />Wow...<br /><br />I guess the thing that really struck me was the editing, or lack thereof. Time and again, characters (usually The Narrator and whoever he is with) are shown walking...and walking...and walking. I am not an editor, but I do know that you can cut between someone leaving point A to show them arriving at point B. There is no need to show almost the entire journey! Wow...<br /><br />I actually ended up feeling somewhat sorry for the actors involved in this. They seem to have been given no direction as to what to do during scenes other than to look scared or look happy, depending on what action was to be added at a later date.<br /><br />Wow...<br /><br />Why it was decided to do almost all the effects using CG is beyond me. Even ILM still employs miniatures sometimes. One of the most distracting uses of green screen in this film is the constant rushing about of (according to the end credits) the same group of people representing the citizenry of different towns and cities, including London. At times these folk are coming and going with no regard as to the angle of the shot or the distance they are from the camera. In one shot in London, there appear to be at least two men over six feet tall walking just behind the narrator's brother (played by star Anthony Piana without his distracting mustache). Not since GETTYSBURG have I seen such a fake piece of facial hair.<br /><br />Wow...<br /><br />Why Timothy Hines talked up this film the way he did is beyond me. It is a turkey, plain and simple. On the plus side (at least for me) it has provided some of the most genuine laugh-out-loud bits of hilarity I have seen in quite a while.
Is it possible to give a movie NO STARS? I suppose not. However many stars IMDb displays this just think zero and you'll get my drift. Director and photographer Timothy Hines didn't have much of a budget compared to Spielberg's Herculean effort with the same material (rumored to be the most expensive movie ever made), but that need not be an insurmountable handicap. I've seen some wonderful work done on a comparative shoestring ("Soldier and Saints" is a recent example). With hard work, integrity and, above all, talent it is certainly possible to realize a faithful rendition of Wells' novella -- and at fraction of what was spent by Dreamworks on its "War of the Worlds". Unfortunately, Hines failed in all these departments. Even if he had had Spielberg's budget and Tom Cruise signed for the lead his movie would have stunk just as badly as this barnyard animal he's foisted on us.<br /><br />Primarily, Hines seems unable to tell a story. Thanks to digital video technology he can record images and sound, but he shows little aptitude for assembling a narrative with what he records. A guy walks down a country lane, a lot. He talks badly aped Received English to some other guy. Then he walks down the same lane, only shot from the back this time to show he's returning -- clever, eh? Walking and talking, for nearly an hour that's all that happens. OK, I'll grant that one extended excursion from the main character's house to the impact site on Horsell Common to show that it's a considerable distance from one place to the other might be useful (a first-year film student could storyboard a more economical and more aesthetical establishing sequence than this, btw), but half a dozen times? Back and forth, back and forth, et cetera, et cetera with some yakkity-yak in between. Remarkable. The only explanation for this surfeit of redundancy other than total artistic ineptitude is a desire to pad out thirty minutes of wretchedly amateurish CG works into something that could be offered as a feature-length film. Finally the Martian fighting machines appear and the walking and talking becomes running and talking, or shrieking. Later we get staggering and wailing for dessert.<br /><br />Thankfully, much of the dialogue is lifted straight from H.G. Wells' text; else we'd have no idea what is going on. But is it not the whole point of cinema to illuminate a text, to realize what words alone can't convey? If a film relies on dialogue or monologue to tell us what we see or how to feel, why bother? Why not do a radio play? Orson Welles made himself a household name doing just that. However, Hines thinks he's a filmmaker, so he's content to mouth the words and swallow the meaning.<br /><br />Secondly, Hines was able to buy some CG effects of a sort for his movie, but he has no idea how to use them. Now I for one have no unquenchable sweet tooth for eye candy. I believe good science fiction cinema doesn't need dazzling technical effects. Some really potent Sci-Fi's have flourished on virtually none at all. But "The War of the Worlds" as film requires a certain baseline effort. Wells tells a story that hinges on things can be seen and heard and even smelled. The effects don't need to be complex; they can even be crude (e.g. fighting machines on wires gliding over miniature streets as seen in the George Pal/Byron Haskins 1953 version), but they must be handled well. Unfortunately Hines' effects are both crude and incompetent – tripod fighting machines higher than a cathedral spire stomp around making a noise like a pogo stick bouncing on linoleum – Martian squidoids even though oppressed by four times the gravity of their native world scurry and flit about without perceptible effort – skeletons totally denuded of flesh and muscle writhe and scream -- the same damn horse and buggy greenscreens its way across the foreground a dozen times (flipped left for right occasionally in hope that we might not notice) – and on ad nauseum. Crude technique is forgivable. So you have a CG fire effect that's less than convincing? Fine, we can work around that. Just don't use it too often and only show glimpses of it. That stomped woman sequence looks more like a crushed plum? Throw it away. It's not necessary. You say your Martian flyer looks like a toy on a string? If you must use it, go ahead, but please don't show it twice! But no, Hines won't listen. We get the worst looking stuff used again and again. Gotta get those 180 minutes somehow, boy.<br /><br />Next we have acting, or more precisely too much acting. Whether in a speaking role or just paid to die on queue everybody in this film is acting his little heart out. Evidently Hines thinks he's getting a bargain -- More fleeing in terror over there! You, quaking behind that tree, let's have a real conniption fit this take. You call that writhing in agony? Nonsense, my grandmother can writhe better -- Nevertheless the cast as a whole and individually stink. They aren't even good amateurs. But this needn't prove fatal. Many a good movie has been made with rancid acting. That's what directors are for. And editors. Which brings up another point… Who the hell let Tim Hines edit this cheese factory? If America's butchers were as adept at meat cutting as Hines is at film cutting your next hamburger would be all fingers and no beef. In spite of the near three-hour running time there is lots of stuff missing from this movie -- not sequences, but single frames, creating a herky-jerky effect that's nauseating to watch. Maybe Hines intention was to simulate the effect of a hand cranked cine camera of the 1890's. If he was I can say he doesn't know how to do it.
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.
After hearing the word of mouth of just how bad this film is I took the plunge and bought the DVD. That said everything previously mentioned about this film is true. For a film that claimed to have a budget in the millions it just does not show on the screen at all. The list of problems with the film could drag on forever. Chief amongst them is the film is simply too long. It dragged on for a few minutes short of 3 hours. Nearly an hour probably could have been cut off the run time had the editor simply removed the overabundance of scenes dealing with nothing more then the main character wandering around aimlessly. <br /><br />Secondly, as many had pointed out from the "trailers", the special effects are anything but special. The tripods looked OK in a few shots here and there but beyond that everything was grade-Z 1970's or 1980's quality. Probably the worst effects of all were the horses, which stiffly tottered back and forth as they moved. The heat ray effects were laughable, as people were reduced to bones that somehow were still able to flail about without any muscles. Also pitiful was the Thunderchild sequence, in which the Thunderchild, described in the book as an ironclad ram, looked nothing of the sort. Instead it resembled a World War 1 era destroyer, complete with deck guns (which fired but had no visible crew), and torpedo tubes. <br /><br />The colors and backgrounds were just as bad as the effects. Most laughable of all was a scene early on in which the main character and his wife go for a nighttime stroll and he points out Mars to her in the sky. Well, the sky is black, but the views of the characters and the landscape around them is broad daylight. There is also a very sharp demarcation between the real landscape, bathed in full sunlight, and the fake black night sky with overly large fuzzy stars. To detract even further, the color of the scenes made no sense. In some they are bathed in orange light. In others green light. In still others it's blue light. In some instances the outsides are orange lit but the interiors of houses are green or blue. The frame-rate and camera is very shaky, giving everything a stuttering look.<br /><br />Finally, the acting is overall sub-par. One man portrays two characters who's sole difference was one lacked a mustache. This led to some confusion at times as to who was who and where they all were. The English accents, even to American ears, are outrageous. <br /><br />In summary, this movie could very well make a claim to being the worst film released in recent times. I have not seen Gigli or some of the other recent flops but this one, because of it's poor quality in every respect, must easily be worse then anything that mainstream Hollywood has put out. I would not be surprised if the movie makes it to the bottom 10 or 20 in the IMDb rankings. It's a pity that Mystery Science Theater is not still around.
Nu Image, UFO and others produce films for the SCI FI channel that come in with budgets of roughly $2 million. Some feature extensive effects work, others feature recognizable casts and still others feature both -- for $2 million.<br /><br />Mr. Hines initially claimed that this film was budgeted at $20 million dollars but it's painfully obvious that this was probably produced for $750,000 if not considerably less than that. Few sets are utilized, a number of scenes are shot against green screen and most effects seem incomplete and amateurish.<br /><br />It's painful to watch. Not so much because it is poorly directed, poorly executed and misguided but because many of us have been following the progress of this production for quite some time and had high hopes for this film despite its relatively modest budget.<br /><br />Those of us who believed in this movie when it was originally announced have joined the legions of those spoken of by P.T. Barnum.
I love movies, and I'll watch any movie all the way through, just to give it a chance. I can finally say that I found a movie I can't watch all the way through. The acting is terribly stale and monotone, the CGI looks like a computer geek did it in his mother's basement with minimal software, and.....the long scenes of just...walking!!!! And this movie is THREE HOURS LONG!!! I didn't even make it 15 minutes until I fast forwarded the DVD. The scenes with the aliens are very short. Ummm, instead of naming this "War of the Worlds", lets name this "War of the Walking Long Distances". This cost 5 million dollars to make! What they spend the money on, the dramatic opening song?<br /><br />Oh, but on a positive note, one scene you need to watch is when the aliens first begin killing people. That's hilarious, not because people are dying, but because when they turn to skeletons, they still squirm for 20 seconds afterward.<br /><br />So....like I said, if you are a fan of boring, stale, action-less movies, here is one for you DVD collection. But I didn't write this for you, I wrote this for the billions upon billions of other people who will HATE this movie. It is not worth your time or money<br /><br />I know this is by the book, but the book isn't that long, and I'm a complete book worm/nerd/geek/whatever, but why? Just get the Steven Spielberg version, it's not all that good, but it's 10 times better than this!! <br /><br />I give this a BIG, FAT ZERO out of 10.
Finally i thought someone is going to do justice to H.G. Wells's classic , not another version set in the wrong locale or era , but one based firmly on the book . Well it definitely follows the book pretty closely , and that is the only plus to this mess.<br /><br />This is 180 Min's (yes 3 hours) long , the book is only around 150 pages .<br /><br />If Timothy Hines had the nerve to come on here and say "if you can do any better ..." i would say "yes , i could" and i have never used a video camera or been to any sort or drama school in my life.<br /><br />I paid good money to get this crap over to the UK from the USA , do not make the same mistake as me .
Save the $8.97 you'll spend at Walmart to buy this DVD and go see the real film by Steven Spielberg.<br /><br />I'm a filmmaker, and being an avid fan of H.G. Wells, I had to buy this hoping to sit down and watch three hours of good entertainment. Instead, it took four days to finish watching this because I couldn't stand watching more than 10 minutes at a time. It's horrible.<br /><br />There are reports that Timothy Hines had a $20 Million budget for this production. Where the heck did it go? Did he use most of it to buy a new house? Finance his retirement? Or what? Let me start with what is actually good about this film. It does stay true to the book AND there are a few good performances in it. I can respect the actors who obviously tried to make this a good film. But good performances were quickly overshadowed by horrible... and I do mean horrible special effects. Any freshman film school student could have done a much better job with the CGI. To me, most of it looked like "stop action" card board cutouts that were used rather than sophisticated CGI software that a $20 Million project should be using.<br /><br />There's no excuse for the amateur post production that was applied to this film. My own partner and I sat down and recreated our version of the Ferry scene using software that cost less than $1500.00 and within a day had five minutes of scene that looked better and more realistic than what Hines created. I've seen films with budgets of less than $2 Million look better. Much better.<br /><br />In my opinion the special effects used in the original King Kong were more sophisticated and better than Hines' special effects in this film. IN fact, I have a much better appreciation for Attack of the Killer Tomatoes because of this film. There's no excuse with today's technology for a film to look like a 50's B-Movie unless that was the intention, which shouldn't have been with this particular project.<br /><br />A problem I had with the DVD transfer was that the film is jerky, another demonstration of amateur film-making.<br /><br />Overall, I have to say that I produced a $45,000 project in 2003 that have better cinematography and special effects than this film.<br /><br />I strongly encourage anyone who appreciates good film-making or who is a fan of WOTW to leave this film on the shelf and watch Attack of the 50 Foot Woman instead. It would be easier on the eyes.
I'm not really sure how to even begin to describe how bad this movie is. I like bad films, as they are often the most entertaining. I love bad special effects, bad acting, bad music, and inept direction. With the exception of the music (which was better than I had expected), this movie had all of those qualities. <br /><br />The special effects were amazingly bad. The worst I've seen since my Nintendo 64. Some scenes to watch for include the Thunderchild, the woman being crushed by the mechanical foot, the Big Ben scene, the train wreck... Wow, there are so many bad effects! On the plus side, though, SOME scenes of the alien walkers are well done.<br /><br />The acting was about as bad as it could possibly have been, having been based directly on H.G. Wells' book. For having such good source material, it's almost as though the actors were trying to be so over-the-top as to make it funny. And then there's the mustache... the single most distracting piece of facial hair I've seen in a long time. Of course, only half the movie contains acting. The rest is characters walking around aimlessly and poorly rendered effects shots.<br /><br />To say that Timothy Hines is an inept director would be an injustice to inept directors. With the use of different colored filters between shots for no particular reason, the use of poorly rendered backgrounds for even inside scenes, the bad green screening, it's amazing to me how this man ever got approval to direct a movie. I wouldn't imagine it would be possible to turn a brilliant book into this bad a movie. Bravo, Mr. Hines. Bravo. <br /><br />My advice to anyone who plans to see this movie is to do what I did: have some friends who enjoy bad movies over, drink, play poker while watching it, keep drinking, and maybe you'll make it all the way through. It does make for an excellent bad movie, so have fun and laugh yourself silly with this disaster.
Holy freaking God all-freaking-mighty. This movie was so bad, I thought I was on drugs. In a bad way... The character acting is the poorest thing I've seen in quite some time. This movie was more akin to Lord of the G-Strings, IMHO(it's a real movie). Most of the movie appeared to be done on a horrible green screen. My favorite part was when they are in the carriage, and you can tell there's no horse. They're fleeing from alien monsters, and going about the same speed as a swift jog. Then it switches to a far-shot with a ridiculous CG horse. And the CG in general seems to be sub-par to 1992's Beyond the Mind's Eye. I mean, Come on, really. It felt like a horrible episode of Hercules, only without Kevin Sorbo there to save the day. Worst. Movie. Ever.
Holy freaking God all-freaking-mighty. This movie was so bad, I thought I was on drugs. In a bad way... The character acting is the poorest thing I've seen in quite some time. This movie was more akin to Lord of the G-Strings, IMHO(it's a real movie). Most of the movie appeared to be done on a horrible green screen. My favorite part was when they are in the carriage, and you can tell there's no horse. They're fleeing from alien monsters, and going about the same speed as a swift jog. Then it switches to a far-shot with a ridiculous CG horse. And the CG in general seems to be sub-par to 1992's Beyond the Mind's Eye. I mean, Come on, really. It felt like a horrible episode of Hercules, only without Kevin Sorbo there to save the day. Worst. Movie. Ever.
If this film had a budget of 20 million I'd just like to know where the money went. A monkey could make better CGI effects then what was wasted for 3 hours on this dreadful piece of garbage, although I must admit the machines and the martians would have looked really, really cool on an original play-station 1 game, and early PC games from the mid 90s if a game had ever been made. What puzzles me is where did the money go? Pendragon films could have made a great film with good old fashioned models and computer controlled cameras a la George Lucas circa 1975-83, and actors who actually look like they care about what they are doing (or ruining in this case) for about the same 20 million. This is quite possibly the worst film EVER made! I would rather sit through a 24 hour repeat screening of Ishtar than watch this film again. I hated it completely! I regress. I say this IS the WORST film EVER made because unlike other bad movies like Plan 9 or Killer Tomatoes, or Santa Claus Conquers the Martians, these are films that are so bad you have a special place in your heart for them, you love them. There is no love for this film and no place in my DVD library for it. I sold it to a guy for a dollar. I'm betting the money for the film was spent on booze and other vices for the cast and crew. Shame on you Pendragon films! I want my money back!
I have just lost three hours of my life to this travesty, and I can honestly say I feel violated. I had read the reviews and heard the warnings, and I thought I was prepared for anything - at best I thought, a faithful (if misguided) attempt at an original adaptation; at worst, a so-good-it's-bad "Plan 9" for the new millennium. So when I managed to pick up a copy in Walmart while in Florida and brought it back to the UK, I joked to my friends "Prepare for the worst movie ever made!" Oh, cruel Karma. There is absolutely NOTHING to recommend this film. The "special" effects look like the work of a first year design student using a Spectrum ZX81. The acting is terrible, the accents are WORSE than terrible (one artillery mans' accent seems to take us on a tour of the British Isles, from Scotland to Wales via Northern Ireland), the dialogue is stilted, the editing is non-existent, the production values prove that no expense has been gone to. Words really cannot describe how bad this movie is; from the Union Flag flying from the horribly CGI'd Thunderchild (the Royal Navy flies the White Ensign, NOT the Union flag) to the woodworm ridden acting, this is quite simply a crime against film making. When you consider some of the literally-zero-budget fan films that are available on the 'net (the Star Wars short "Troops" for example), the whole "we're enthusiastic amateurs" argument goes right out of the window. And if you believe an interview with Hines on the Pendragon website, this film had an 8 figure budget! I can only assume that dodgy facial hair does not come cheap in the US. Maybe the problem is that Hines & co tried to make a film of the book, rather than turn the book into a film (if that makes any sense). Characters and extras spout chunks of text verbatim without trying to convey the feelings behind the words. Ironically enough, the ONLY person who even came close to giving a decent performance was Darlene Sellers, the ex-soft porn actress. My advice? Pray like crazy that Jeff Wayne doesn't screw up, and go watch the Spielberg version. It may not be true to the text of the book, but I can say this; As a lifelong HG Wells fan (and Englishman as well) Speilbergs film IS true to the Spirit of the book. Maybe customs were wrong to let me carry this monster into the country, but I will say this: Timothy Hines stole three hours of my life, and I want them back.
Well, on it's credit side (if it can be said to have one), Timothy Hines DID manage to capture the original setting of H.G. Wells' outstanding novella. But other than that - well, to call a spade a spade - it sucks bigtime. What the Master Ed Wood could have done with the alleged $20 million dollar budget! Timothy Hines really does make Mr. Wood, who was a flawed genius anyway, look like the best filmmaker of all time. The special effects (I guess you'd call them that) are not even up to computer game standards. The acting is, well, perhaps about dinner theater comparable, and the accents are atrocious. At the risk of sounding offensive, a lot of the acting from the principal male characters is (especially Poor Ogilvy), well, ahem, . . . GAY! Poor Ogilvy minces and flounces about the bogus English countryside, waving his asbestos white handkerchief about as if it were heat resistant armor. Hey, the Stormtroopers in "Star Wars" had neat white body armor too, and it didn't work either, they still got blasted. Even when Ogilvy and Company get fried by the Martians' 'Heat Ray'(?), they flounce and mince in some weird kind of dance, even when they're theoretically DEAD and reduced to skeletons, which persist in unseemly dancing and writhing. Maybe Timothy Hines rented the skeletons from Ray Harryhausen, being left over from "Jason And The Argonauts". Or was it "Josie And The Pussycats"? I dunno. The soldiers, presumably because they're 'military', all seem to just rather unconvincingly explode, like the soldier on crutches and his unfortunate comrades carrying the stretcher just beyond him. Wow! I loved it! But the 'soldiers' all looked like they were either fascist troops from the Spanish Civil War, or Boer Commandos (which would be more or less correct for the period. Perhaps that was some bit of shrewd subtlety on the part of that wicked genius Hines?). Oddly enough, the character of the Curate looks exactly like he's drawn in the original illustrations by Warwick Goble, and he also turns in the most convincing job of acting. Oh, yeah. Musn't forget the THUNDER CHILD. In the book, the warship is described as an ironclad torpedo-ram. It was MEANT to RAM enemy ships. Yet, it's bow was crumpled after ramming the Tinker-Toy constructed Martian War Machines, with a tiny jagged hole in the forepeak, and she sank. An ironclad warship like THUNDERCHILD could've rammed the TITANIC and survived, but I guess the Royal Navy was bound by the same lowest-bidder constraints as our own Military. The costumes are all wrong, especially the British Army and Police uniforms, cobbled together mostly from USMC Alphas. And Timbo, in an obvious homage to Western Films Of Yore, has obviously set his movie in Wild Western England, because all his riders are using western saddles. The accents being used by just about everyone appear to be a mixture of some kind of Scottish regional accent used by Clan Macabre, and magically delicious Irish accents from County Malarky. On the credit side, and contrary to what one reviewer wrote, the only genuine, authentic feature of this Thing is the artillery. The guns are not from the Civil War, but appear to my eye and research as bona-fide British nine or 12 pounder Rifled Breach Loaders, perfectly authentic to the period. So was the ammunition shown being used. But the Artilleryman, who is a driver in the Horse Artillery, was not shown correctly driving his limber. You don't sit on the frigging limber box and drive a gun team, you ride the nearside wheel horses. The Opening, using what I believe is authentic period film footage, is okay, and the score's not bad. However, to the best of my knowledge Weybridge has never had an underground, and it certainly didn't in 1898.<br /><br />But growing up reading this novel, I am very disappointed. Even more disappointed then I was at Spielberg's zillion dollar, special effects laden version. Maybe his version would have profited by swapping Anthony Piana for Tom Cruise, and vice versa. I have a lot more to say, but I'll let it go at this for now: I wish somebody would make a GOOD version of "War Of The Worlds" that's faithful to the original. Timmy's vision is fine for a high school film class, or maybe I should say pretentiously stupid for a college-level film student, and about as bad, which is about the best I can say for this thing, but that's about it. Oh, yeah. Just where DID the budget go? And what happened to Michael Caine? I'd like to hear HIS comments! I have a sneaking suspicion that Timbo "Orson Wood" Hines' breathtaking, bound-breaking cinema masterpiece just might be the risk-taking director's ticket to cult stardom, because, I must confess a guilty pleasure at watching this movie, which I didn't pay for anyway but was thoughtfully sent to me by a friend who burned a DVD copy for me, with no malicious intent that I've been able to determine. I must add here that I thought Blackmoon's dubbed and abridged version was not only a vast improvement, but an absolute, hysterically funny (in a good way) treat to watch. I find it hard to watch Master Timbo's version after Blackmoon. Keep it up, Tim! Make your own version of "DUNE", now. It just awaits the hand of a master like you! And all you headupyourass snobs who hated Cloverfield? FORGET IT. It CANNOT BEAT TIMBO HINES ARTISTRY FOR SHEER HILARIOUS AWFULNESS! HEY GET A LIFE!TIMBO IS WORSE THAN THE MASTER ED WOOD! I KID YOU NOT!
Hines and Goforth, the perpetrators of this crime, begin on the wrong foot first step, by assuming that Wells wrote Gothic horror and that all of his lines are meant to be taken seriously. That simply isn't true. Wells was very much an inheritor of the Enlightenment, and his main concern was that Victorian self-satisfaction might leave the British unprepared for the world the new technology could produce - both the good and the bad.<br /><br />Two terrible consequences follow - the protagonist is portrayed as a wimpy screamer (I was reminded of Fay Wray in the original King Kong), rather than a man struggling to live out the ironies of an unbelievable catastrophe; and the dialog reeks of 'Victorianisms' uttered seriously that Welles clearly meant to be taken tongue in cheek.<br /><br />All of this looks suspiciously like Ed Wood with an enormous budget to waste on CGI effects - which by the way are so poorly accomplished, the Warner Bros. cartoon factory of the 1940s could have done a better job. (Gobs of spattered blood looked like red balloons, I expected them to float away any minute.) Think The Yellow Submarine as done by the old EC Comics.<br /><br />Worse yet is the loss of theme, which robs the film of any reason to exist. Although the makers of this film return the story to its Victorian era, they utterly miss the uncanny way Wells' story predicted many of the horrors of the First World War - a fact not unnoticed by Wells himself, who, after the war, reworked the theme in The Shape of Things to Come.<br /><br />Without any theme, all we have here are a lot of people running around getting blasted into cartoon balloons, when they're not trying out for a high school production of a drunken student's rewrite of Macbeth.<br /><br />Really, this is the worst, most senseless piece of drivel I have suffered through since a friend talked me into seeing the Eastern European cartoon "Fantastic Planet" thirty years ago. That film was so pretentiously dull, my friend and I and two total strangers gave up ridiculing it about half-way through, and sat near the screen playing cards, using the movie as light by which to see the cards - its only usefulness, as far as any of us could tell.<br /><br />But I already have electric lighting in my apartment, so I didn't need this put-down of Wells for anything.<br /><br />Do not avoid this film - steal every copy you can (don't pay a cent) and burn each and every one of them. God in his wisdom created us just for this purpose.
Let this serve as a warning to anyone wishing to draw attention to themselves in the media by linking their name to that of a well-loved and well-respected, not to say revered author, in order to draw attention to their home-movies out on DVD.<br /><br />Hyped to the skies by its obviously talentless makers, in fact lied about only to be revealed, finally, as ludicrously inept in every department, the fans of Wells and of his book have been after the blood of its Writer-Producer-Director since it appeared on DVD.<br /><br />Many good points have been made by the other comments users on this page. Particularly the one about using this as a teaching aid for Film School students, since this "film" does not even use the basic grammar of scripting, editing, continuity, direction throughout its entire 3 hours running time. It is possible the Director did show up for the shoot. Certainly there was no-one present who knew even remotely what they were doing.<br /><br />An ongoing thread continues to evolve on this IMDb page which should at least furnish the watchers of this witless drivel with a few laughs for their $9.00 outlay.<br /><br />Much was promised. Absolutely nothing was delivered. Except "Monty Python Meets "War of The Worlds" with all the humour taken out.<br /><br />Indefensible trash. Just unbelievable.<br /><br />There are REAL independent film-makers out there to be checked out. People who actually try to work to a high standard instead of flapping their gums about how great their movie is going to be.<br /><br />People could do worse than keep an eye on Brit film-maker Jake West's "Evil Aliens" for example.
WOW!<br /><br />I just was given this film from a friend of mine, who bought it for 1.98 at Walmart, and he felt that he got taken! It is beyond boring, most of the scenes are filmed in front of a green screen, the acting is somewhat improvised, almost as if they didn't have a script. The Martians are CGI, which look like they were done by a novice, or a Fan produced movie. I cannot stress just how bad this DVD really is!<br /><br />Example: In one of the scenes, the martians are torturing a local female captive. She goes from a woman in front of a green screen, to a CGI copy of that woman. The change is totally noticeable, and when she is killed, you can see that it is a computer figure, looking like something from a game back in 1990!<br /><br />If at all possible, avoid this movie like the plague! You can download two trailers from their site, and see how god-awful it really is!
Twenty years ago, the five years old boy Michael Hawthorne witnessed his father killing his mother with an axe in an empty road and committing suicide later. On the present days, Michael (Gordon Currie) invites his girlfriend Peg (Stacy Grant) and his best friends Chris (Myc Agnew), Jennifer (Emmanuelle Vaugier), Lisa Ann (Kelly Benson), Ned (Brendon Beiser), Mitch Maldive (Phillip Rhys) and Trish (Rachel Hayward) to spend the Halloween in the country with his grandparents in their farm. He asks his friends to wear costumes that would represent their greatest innermost fear, and together with his Indian friend Crow (Byron Chief Moon), they would perform an ancient Indian celebration using the carved wooden dummy Morty (Jon Fedele) that would eliminate their fears forever. The greatest fear of Michael is to become a serial killer like his father, but something goes wrong and Morty turns into his father, killing his friends.<br /><br />"The Fear: Resurrection" is a disappointing and pointless slash movie that uses the interesting concept of eliminating the greatest innermost fear of each friend before it grows, but in a messy screenplay full of clichés. There are some exaggerated performances, like for example Ms. Betsy Palmer; others very weak, but in general the acting is good. Unfortunately there is no explanation why the dummy is brought to live; further, in spite of being surrounded by close friends, the group does not feel pain or sorrow when each one of them dies. The low-pace along more than fifty minutes could have been used to built a better dramatic situation. In the very end, Michael shows a charm that his father was interested that I have not noticed along the story. I do not know whether the previous reference was edited in the DVD released in Brazil with 87 minutes running time. The special effects are very reasonable for a B-movie. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Fear 2: Uma Noite de Halloween" ("Fear 2: One Night of Halloween")
Five-year-old Michael sees his mother getting axed to death by his serial killer father "The Highwayman," who later commits suicide. "20 years later" grown Mike (Gordon Currie, from PUPPET MASTER 4 and 5) invites seven of his friends to his secluded grandparents home to "master their own fears" at a Halloween night costume party. Morty, a life-size wooden doll kept in the attic by the Indian handyman, becomes possessed by the dead father's spirit and kills them off using their phobias. Characters are thrown out a window, drowned in a toilet, eaten by rats, blown up, etc. Morty morphs into the dad and a tree, walks around and makes stupid wisecracks. After finding a girl chopped up and stuffed in a cardboard box, the characters remain in the house, act cheerful, crack jokes and have sex.<br /><br />The Morty design is good and Betsy Palmer (Mrs. Voorhees from the original Friday THE 13TH) is surprisingly delightful as the grandmother, but this thing is even more senseless and confusing than the original and is full of false scares, bad acting, brain-dead characters, repeat flashback footage and annoying distorted camera-work. Plus the only two minority characters (the Indian and a half-black girl) are the first to die. BLAH!
This movie was crap with a capital "C." The opening scene showed promise. But that "promise" was broken shortly after the viewer learns where the plot is going.<br /><br />And the wooden statue, Morty, who was rather creepy in the original film, looks plain goofy in this one. It was so obviously just a guy in a cheap plastic costume. (And by the way, who else thinks "Morty" is one of the most un-scary names on planet earth? It ranks right up there with "Jimmy" or "Fred" when it comes to horror value. Or why not just name the wooden statute Henry-freakin'-Kissinger. "Run, it's Dr. Kissinger!" That'd be about as scary as "Morty.)<br /><br />And then there's a scene where the "hero" hits his father's tombstone with---"a sledgehammer?" you might guess--"a two-by-four?" someone might venture. No, he angrily beats his father's tombstone with a twig---a freakin' twig. But worse than that, once the characters walk away, the tombstone actually, and inexplicably, bleeds. Oh brother!<br /><br />There's also a Native American guy who lives with the main character's grandparents, but apparently, does nothing except Morty-maintenance. He perpetuates creepy Morty-legends, warns those who scoff, and even fixes Morty's arm when it becomes damaged during a childish prank. But for all his respect for and tenderness toward Morty, does Morty give a rat's hairy behind? No.<br /><br />The movie drags on, and eventually several people die in ways that correspond to their worst fears (sort of). This film is a real yawner. Don't rent it.
Those of you who, like me, were disappointed with the original 1995 horror yarn, "The Fear" will find more to be disappointed with in this silly little sequel. It sort of follows a similar plot, but it is impossible to connect to the original, with the exception of the presence of Morty, the mannequin monster made of wood. Here is a brief overview.<br /><br />Twenty years after Mike Hawthorne (Gordon Currie, in a decent performance) witnesses his father brutally murder his mother and then take his own life, Mike is still suffering from the fear of that day. In hopes of ridding his fear, Mike takes his girlfriend and a bunch of friends up to his grandparents' home. His plan is for everyone to dress up in costumes that represent their fears, and then present the fears to the mannequin Morty. According to an Indian friend, this process is supposed to magically take away one's fear. What Mike doesn't know is that Morty is possessed with his father's spirit, and begins killing off the friends...or is it really Mike himself doing the killings? Who cares?<br /><br />A have a few troubles with this film. The first lies with Morty. I thought the original made Morty look rather convincing. This time, it is painfully obvious Morty is a man (actor Jon Fedele) in a fake looking suit. This can especially be seen in early scenes, where Morty is still supposed to be inanimate, but if you watch closely you can see him blinking. Another trouble is that most of the characters don't try hard enough. Some of them do, namely Betsy Palmer, of Friday the 13th fame, who was excellent in this film. But most of them don't make the effort or weren't given the chance. Finally, there are the killings. The opening scenes involving ax murders were very convincing. Actually, when I saw them I thought I was in for a good movie. When the second half of the movie arrives, and the killings really start, everything falls to pieces. Deaths are either uncreative, unseen, or foreseen (glimpses of the next scene as Currie has a blackout). One character dies in the end and no one, including the viewer, even notices. While more characterization was needed in the beginning half, it wasn't too bad. The second half was. I think new director Chris Angel got to this point and really didn't know how to shoot the violent scenes, so they turned out real sloppy and pedestrian. A silly ending doesn't help either. Thus, unless you really loved the original and enjoy plucking splinters out from under your skin, you should probably skip "The Fear 2: Halloween Night." Zanatos' score: 4 out of 10.
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.
Mike Hawthorne(Gordon Currie)is witness to the brutal murder of his mother and suicide of his father Morty(Jon Fedele). Twenty years later, Mike gathers a group of his friends to his family's cabin in the woods for a Halloween party. While playing a game where the guests confess and confront their worst fears...Mike tries to summon the spirit of his late father. It is soon discovered that Morty's spirit inhabits a wooden Indian in the cabin. The statue comes to life and the blood bath begins.<br /><br />Most of the F/X are not very convincing and the movie takes on a cheap teen slasher theme. Stale story pitifully acted. Cast members of note are: Kelly Benson, Phillip Rhys, Emmanuelle Vaugier, Byron Chief-Moon and veteran actress Betsy Palmer.
I have not seen the first film and if it anything like this have no great desire to. <br /><br />Having just watched it a few hours ago I am struggling to remember a thing about it. <br /><br />From what I remember it's main plot seems to be a group of very annoying people stay at a house with that dodgy old woman from Friday the 13th and are stalked by plank of wood man.<br /><br />Some people die, the film ends, I am starting a law suit against the person who sold me this film as I want compensation for the missing time in my life. <br /><br />I will pay u £1 to take this film off my hands......oh wait I already gave it away to a "friend".
Before starting to watch the show, I've heard it was great and aesthetically very interesting. What a deception, the scripts are so dumb that I am quite sure the authors are son and grandson of Scoobidoo writers. And what about the SFX and colors, they are so extreme that it is painful to watch, colors are not saturated they are over saturated, like scripts are overwritten and show is overrated. This show is like a bad pie in which a child would have put only sugar and butter thinking that because these ingredients are the best, they are sufficient. Unfortunately for this show, the only two ingredients of this show are finally vacuity and a total lack of credibility.
i am very disappointed with this movie because i like these french actors and i liked "Buffet Froid" from this Director (bertrand blier) but the script of "Les Acteurs" is VERY POOR. why these actors they agreed to play this poor scenario.
I am really shocked that a great director like Chuck Jones started out making some of the most incredibly boring cartoons I've ever seen. I did not laugh once throughout this short, and it's a Bugs Bunny cartoon, for Christ's sake! Bugs Bunny cartoons are always funny, not boring! Alas, this short turns out to be Good Night Elmer (another incredibly boring Jones short) with the addition of Bugs Bunny.<br /><br />The first warning sign of a dull cartoon is always no gag payoff. Good Night Elmer was boring because it dragged on the same two gags forever with predictable payoff. This cartoon, on the other hand, is afflicted with the second warning sign of a dull cartoon: there's too much dialogue. The cartoon at least has more than two gags up its sleeve, but most of them seem longer than they are thanks to the immense padding of the dialogue. At one point, Elmer finishes eating dinner, and comments, "That was weawwy awfuwwy good weg of wamb," possibly the most redundant dialogue I've ever heard in a cartoon (characters reading text out loud in the later-era Woody Woodpecker cartoons doesn't count in my book). Even though this cartoon is only 8 minutes long, it feels like 20 thanks to redundant dialogue like this.<br /><br />Elmer's Pet Rabbit was not a fun cartoon for me, but if you've sold your soul to Chuck Jones and are unable to acknowledge that he directed a few clunkers during his career, you might enjoy it.
I am amazed at the amount of praise that is heaped on this movie by other commentators. To me it was rather a disappointment, especially the combination of historical facts, fantasy and the main character's internal turmoil does not work at all (in Vonnegut's book Slaughterhouse Five and even in George Roy Hill's adaptation for the screen it does). Credibility is often overstretched. Too many questions are left open. Did I miss some central points? Or did I fail to spot the lines that supposedly connect the dots? <br /><br />A boy called Campbell, Jr., grows up in upstate New York. At home his father has many technical trade papers and one book. It has photographs of heaps of dead bodies in it. The boy leafs through the book, his dad doesn't like his doing that. What should this tell me? The family moves away from upstate New York to Berlin. BANG. It is 1938, the boy is a married man in Berlin and a theater playwright. What kind of plays does he write? In what language? Is he successful? His wife is an actress and looks glamorous. The parents move back to the USA and invite their son to do the same. He does not. Why? Because having grown up in Germany he feels more German than American? Because he is successful? Because his wife is? Because he likes his life there? Because he likes the Nazis? Because he is just plain lazy and doesn't like change? Don't ask me.<br /><br />Possibly, the man just does not care, is not interested in politics, is a kind of an existentialist. He states that he is deeply in love with his wife. He speaks of his Republic of Two (meaning he and his wife). There is little to no evidence proving his love for his wife in the movie, it much more seems a Republic of One.<br /><br />On the request of an American agent Campbell, Jr., agrees to broadcast anti Semitic Nazi hate propaganda to American listeners as a device for transmitting encrypted messages to American authorities who read between the lines. The crucial meeting with the agent on a Berlin park bench is short, unexciting and anti climactic, the decision to play along comes pretty easily with no explanation, the rise up to broadcaster seems to be uneventful and apparently fast.<br /><br />So now we have Campbell, Jr., presenting himself over the air as the Last Free American. The scheme for transmitting secret messages is fairly realistic and exciting - although one wonders what happened when Campbell, Jr., really and honestly had to cough, hiccup etc. (must have scrambled the messages terribly). Anyway, the Nazis lose, the wife dies (touring in the Crimean for German troops - I never heard such tours really happened on German front lines in WW II), Campbell, Jr., says he goes to the Russian front but does not go, is captured by an American soldier who recognizes his mug (how come?), is dragged to a sight-seeing tour in Auschwitz, is then released and resettled with the help of the Crucial Agent somewhere in the City of New York.<br /><br />AND THIS IS WHERE THE STORY REALLY STARTS <br /><br />BANG. From now on it is like a short story by Paul Auster. It is 1961, Campbell, Jr., lives in New York tenement as a has-been and mourns the loss of his wife. Nobody really cares - or do they? Yes, somehow they do, and his neighbors offer some sort of distraction. Auschwitz survivors. A painter. Some American supremacists „discover" him and want him to be their figurehead. They even find his presumed dead wife for him, or is she his wife? Anyway, in the end Campbell, Jr., calls in at the Israeli consulate, and they obligingly give him the Big War Criminal treatment, placing him in the cell adjacent to Adolf Eichmann's. He writes his life story and, once this task finished, hangs himself on the typewriter's ribbons without getting sooty the least bit.<br /><br />While I can see that there must be an issue of guilt and of loss, I just had the impression that the main character is a person who at all times is pretty indifferent to everything and hardly capable of love for anyone. So I found it difficult to sympathize for this looser who mourns his loss. Amazingly, many reviewers focus on his status as a potential war hero, having put his reputation at stake for playing the Last Free American. I assume according to them this took a lot of courage. As a matter of fact, however, the movie suggests that by accepting the assignment Campbell created for himself a win-win situation, as he would have been politically on the safe side no matter who had won the war. The danger of his being uncovered never comes up during the first part of the story.<br /><br />One might argue, that the whole story is a dreamlike fantasy and that nobody should bother with historical accuracy or a logical development of the story which explains everything. But even then it fails to make a point, primarily, I suspect, because the love affair in the Republic of Two falls completely flat. This is a pity, especially if you consider that the wife was played by Sheryl Lee, a talented, versatile and sensuous actress. She has much too little screen time and is forced to use a ridiculous German accent. Another somehow neglected aspect are the different texts (confession, broadcast and hidden messages), but I guess this is largely unfilmable. Maybe I should give the book a chance.
This was an awful movie! Not for the subject matter, but for the delivery. I went with my girlfriend at the time (when the movie came out), expecting to see a movie about the triumph of the human spirit over oppression. What we saw was 2 hours of brutal police oppression, with no uplift at the end. The previews and ads made NO mention of this! Plus, for all that they played up whoopi goldberg, my recollection is that she is arrested and killed in the first 20 minutes! Again, the previews say nothing about this! (not that you would expect that, but it's just more of the problem). If I had known how depressing this movie would be, I would've never have seen it. Or at least, I would've been prepared for it. This was a bait and switch ad campaign, and I will NEVER see this movie again!
The concept for Sarafina appears to be a sound one, that is aside from the musical perspective. It attempts to combine upbeat African music with a story describing the atrocious conditions and atmosphere that black people were forced to endure at the time the film was set. The contradictions of each of the two elements are too glaring and the film never justifies such rapid shifts between jubilation and terror. Had it simply been a drama reflecting these conditions it may have been a good film, however the scenes of school children being shot down by soldiers don't exactly sit well next to the songs. <br /><br />Aside from the poor premise the acting isn't the best either, Goldberg gives a mediocre performance as does the remainder of the cast. Overall a disappointment.<br /><br />3/10
I just didn't get this movie...Was it a musical? no..but there were choreographed songs and dancing in it...<br /><br />Was it a serious drama....no the acting was not good enough for that.<br /><br />Is Whoopi Goldberg a quality serious Actor..Definently not.<br /><br />I had difficulty staying awake through this disjointed movie. The message on apartheid and the "tribute" to the students who died during a student uprosing is noted. But as entertainment this was very poor and as a documentary style movie it was worse.<br /><br />See for yourself, but in fairness I hated it
One scene demonstrates the mentality of "Terminator Woman" pretty well: Karen Sheperd and another woman are trying to escape from the villain's camp. Karen runs across an armed guard, who points his gun at her, but after a few seconds throws it away and challenges her to a fight. Karen kicks him in the balls, picks up the gun and runs away! Then again, when a film is directed by a martial artist and written / produced by another member of his family, you know you shouldn't expect too much. Karen Sheperd and Jerry Trimble do get some amusing banter going early on, and the film might have turned out better if it had focused more on their love-hate relationship. But after about 20 minutes they get separated, and the film slows to a crawl, and even with the occasional fight scene to liven things up, it lacks excitement. The finale has Trimble fighting Qissi inside a cave and Sheperd going womano-a-womano against the beautiful Ashley Hayden on a speedboat, but the fights are intercut in a way that breaks their flow and diminishes their value. On the positive side, kudos to the costuming department for giving Karen the chance to show spectacular cleavage throughout the film! (*1/2)
This film has got several key flaws. The first and most significant of which is the clear lack of a good plot! This sadly makes the film not only difficult to watch but also sends the watcher certain feelings of hopelessness, as if he or she is wasting valuable time of their short life. This means that the film cannot captivate it's audience, instead it encourages the viewing public to grow contempt for the film and everything associated with it! In short, it really is very very very very very very very BAD! Do yourself a favour and chew on a large rubber shoe, you'll find it far more interesting and enjoyable than watching Terminator Woman.
You may want to know up front that I am not a Mormon, unlike a good number of those who have already reviewed this film. I mention this so you'll understand that the way I look at the film may differ greatly from those in the faith. For some, being critical of the film might be seen as being critical of the faith--and that is NOT my intention. So, my review is that of an outsider trying to look inside and learn more about who this man and his people were. Well, after seeing the film, I doubt if I have learned much at all. Since I have been a history teacher, I have a good basic understanding about Young as well as Joseph Smith as well as the teachings of the church. But anyone wanting to see this film to really learn anything will probably be disappointed because the film seems so gosh-darn nice--too nice and too unrealistic in its portrayal. Plus, you learn practically nothing about the church's beliefs other than they are nice people, work hard and some have many wives (and this latter part is only barely hinted at in the film). Instead, the people are almost cartoon-like in their simplistic portrayals. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and their followers are angelic, the non-Mormons were all devils and Brian Donlevy (playing EXACTLY the same sort of role Edward G. Robinson later played in THE TEN COMMANDMENTS) is the trouble-maker who claims to be a Mormon but just comes along so the film can have a bad guy. It's all so very simple....too simple. Almost like an indoctrination film or infomercial.<br /><br />Brigham Young especially was a very complex man--with many good points (an excellent organizer and visionary) as well as bad (don't even get me started on his views about Blacks within the church or intermarriage). To portray him in such vague terms is just plain silly. It's also a lot like how Gandhi was portrayed in the film with Ben Kingsley--only the facts that led to his being almost super-human were emphasized. Heck, now that I think about that, this is the trouble with most religious films--they often come off as one-dimensional, trite and bland. Let's have a full and more complete film of these men--one that will stick to facts and not emotional appeals.<br /><br />Now if you can ignore the fact that you won't learn very much about the faith or its second leader, the film is enjoyable enough. It's obvious someone at 20th Century-Fox really cared about the film, as they had a wonderful cast of both premier actors (Tyrone Power), up and coming actors (Linda Darnell, Jane Darwell and Vincent Price) and wonderful character actors (Dean Jagger, John Carradine and Brian Donlevy). The film also had wonderful location shooting and lots of gloss. It just didn't have a lot to tell us other than they were all "swell". Plus, there were plenty of factual errors and a few just plain dumb scenes. A few of the mistakes include Young taking over the helm immediately after the death of Joseph Smith (it was three years later), no mention of the various Mormon denominations and splinter groups, talk of "gold in California"--even though it was 1847 and gold wouldn't be discovered until 1948, as well as no specific mention of polygamy or Smith's many wives. Just plain dumb scenes include Carradine pulling out a gun and waving it about in the courtroom scene--and no one seemed to care--even though it was a very hostile audience! Don't you think at least the judge would tell him to put it away and stop threatening people with it?!<br /><br />One final comment. Do not, I repeat, do not watch this film when it's shown on American Movie Classics (a one great station that has sunk a lot in recent years). While I am critical of the film because of its simplistic message, I was horrified with the complete disrespect the station had for the church and its traditions. What I mean is this. The film was punctuated with ads for penis enlargement formulas as well as tons of pop-ups (some advertising a show that features the "sexiest cast"). Talk about disrespectful and gross and I would be just as offended if they did this for any other religious film. By doing this, they not only insult the faith but marginalize their market--after all, who is into hearing about these things AND the life of Brigham Young?! Is this a movie, in this form, that you can show to your kids or recommend to others?!
This film, though ostensibly a comedy, is deadly serious. Its subject is Imperialism (with a capital I): how Britain, foolishly, humiliatingly, tries to convince itself that it's still a great power after World War II. At home, the Empire is run by amiable dolts, benevolent Tories who are so in-bred that they can't distinguish close relatives; the Offices of Government consist of long forgotten archives (a dig at Orwellian paranoia?), inhabited by indolent rats, and ante-rooms wherein lounge bored synacures, reading popular novels.<br /><br />Abroad, Britain clings to the old pomp; but pomp out of context looks threadbare and silly, especially when its embodied in bumbling twits. Carlton-Browne is an unsentimental picture of decline, with none of the lachrymose rot that marred the supposedly anti-imperialist Jewel in the Crown.<br /><br />The film is also about the Cold War, bravely admitting that it's a dangerous farce, whose participants deserve mockery and contempt, not fear and respect. It's about how colonialism, characterised more by neglect than tyranny, destroys the colonies it deserts, robbing them of amenities, power, and, most importantly, self-respect, leaving them vulnerable to the machinations of dangerous cowboys.<br /><br />It's the seriousness, of course, that kills it. That's not to say that weighty subjects can't be treated in comedy - The Miracle Of Morgan's Creek, Dr. Strangelove and The Life Of Brian have all proved that. Indeed, one might suggest that serious themes should only be treated by comedy - it allows for a clearer-eyed view.<br /><br />The problem with Carlton-Browne is that every situation must have a significance beyond the merely comic, so that it becomes weighed down and unfunny. In the three films mentioned above, much of the comedy arises from character reaction to an extreme situation, not the extreme situation itself. Here, the script is too poor to sustain rich comic characterisations, and some of the greatest comedy talent ever assembled - Peter Sellers, Terry-Thomas, Raymond Huntley and John le Mesurier - are criminally wasted.<br /><br />Terry-Thomas, sublime so often, shows that he couldn't handle lead parts, and that he needed to play sneering, arrogant bounders, not brainless toffs. The music is made to carry much of the comedy, but its heavy irony only draws attention to the lack of hilarity on screen. (To be fair, unlike the majority of British comedies of the period, which were stagy and underproduced, the Boultings often try to make their points through film itself, by montage and composition) Only Huntley manages to raise genuine laughs, and that's by essaying a character he could have played in his sleep.<br /><br />None of the Boultings' farces have dated well - they're never thought through enough. Although Carlton-Browne revels in the decline of the Empire, it also seems to be anti-democratic and militaristic. I'm sure this wasn't intended, but these blunders are bound to happen if you allow worthy intentions to take precedence over comic intelligence and film form.
The main reason people still care about "Carlton-Browne Of The F.O." is that it features Peter Sellers in a second-billed role. But watching this film to see Peter Sellers is a mistake.<br /><br />Sellers plays Amphibulos, a vaguely reptilian prime minister of the dirt-poor island nation of Gaillardia, formerly a British colony, now hosting a lot of Russian diggers during the height of the Cold War. Amphibulos wants to play both U.K. and Soviet interests against each other for easy profit, "everything very friendly and all our cards under the table". Terry-Thomas is the title character, a lazy British diplomat anxious to show Gaillardia that Great Britain hasn't forgotten them, all appearances to the contrary.<br /><br />A positive review here says: "The reason this movie is considered average is because the comedy is understated." I would argue that the reason "Carlton-Browne" is considered below average is because the comedy is non-existent.<br /><br />After a decent opening that establishes the film's only two strengths, a sympathetically doltish Terry-Thomas and John Addison's full-on larky score, things quickly slow down into a series of slow burns and lame miscommunication jokes. The low opinion of Carlton-Browne by his boss and the obscurity of Gaillardia (which no one can find on a map) is milked to death. By the time we actually reach the island (after a labored series of airsick jokes), expectations are quite low.<br /><br />They're still too high, though. The island itself, which seems to exist either in Latin America or the Mediterranean, is so pathetic its honor guard faints at the airport, and the review stand falls apart in the middle of a parade. The army is apparently still horse drawn, allowing for another lame aural gag by a thick-accented announcer: "In war, the army uses many horse."<br /><br />Sellers never quite takes center stage even when we're on his character's island. The plot is taken over instead by Ian Bannen as King Loris, who inherits the throne of Gaillardia after his father's assassination. Bannen is dull and plays his part as straight as it is written. Normally this would make him the likely target for scene-stealing by Sellers, but trapped behind a thick accent and greasy moustache, Sellers is only a threat to those of us who remember him far more happily in two other films made this same year, "The Mouse That Roared" and "I'm All Right, Jack."<br /><br />Strange that this film, like "Jack", was a Boulting Brothers production, with Roy Boulting here serving as co-director alongside Jeffrey Dell. Usually Boulting films combine wicked social satire with anything-goes comedy, but here there are only fey jabs in either direction. Amphibulos works his mangled-English vibe for all its worth ("This man is like, how do you say, the bull in the Chinese ship") while Carlton-Browne is generally ragged on by his superior far more than he seems to deserve.<br /><br />The weakest and most protracted element of the film is young Loris's romance with Ilyena. Score one point for her being played by ravishing Luciana Paluzzi, dock one for the fact that they are apparently cousins is never addressed.<br /><br />The film winds up with a lamely staged revolution whose surprise resolution will surprise no one, and a final bit of action by Carlton-Browne that would seem to nail the lid on his coffin literally. Apparently he lives to see another day, but the film of the same name is strictly DOA.
It was meant to be a parody on the LOTR-Trilogy. But this was one of the most awful movies I've ever seen. Bad acting, bad screenplay, bad everything. THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. I don't doubt any second that there are people who'll like this sense of "humor", but there have been better parodies on movies from acclaimed directors as Mel Brooks or the Zucker Brothers. I'm working in a movie theater and in DVD Shop and the success for this movie was similar in both areas: At the movies it was a nice (but no big at all) success during the first two weeks but then, when the reviews of those who have seen it were not too good, the movie dropped very fast. In DVD sales it was good for short time but then nobody asked for it anymore. In the last ten years, the two worst movies I've seen are The Ring Thing and Torque. I can't decide which one was worse, but I'm happy that there a so many good movies so I don't have to think too much on this question.
This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There is absolutely no storyline, the gags are only for retards and there is absolutely nothing else that would make this movie worth watching. In the whole movie Fredi (oh my god what a funny name. ha ha) doesn't ask himself ONCE how he came from a plane to middle earth. There are plenty of stupid and totally unfunny characters whose names should sound funny. e.g. : Gandalf is called Almghandi, Sam is called Pupsi ... and so on. I didn't even smile once during the whole movie. The gags seem like they were made by people whose IQ is negative. If you laugh when someone's coat is trapped in the door (this happens about 5 times) then this movie is perhaps for you. Another funny scene: They try to guess the code word for a closed door (don't ask why- don't ever ask "why" in this movie) and the code word is (ha ha): dung. So if you laughed at this examples you might like this movie. For everybody else: Go to Youtube and watch "Lord of the Weed": it's a lot, lot more fun.
This sounded like a really interesting movie from the blurb. Nazis, occult , government conspiracies. I was expecting a low budget Nazi version of the DaVinci code or the Boys from Brazil or even Shockwaves. Instead you get something quite different, more psychological, more something like from David Lynch. That was actually a plus. But the way the story is told is just awful.<br /><br />Part of the trouble is the casting. Andrienne Barbeau's character starts off the moving being somewhat timid and afraid. She just doesn't do that well, even at her age, though she certainly tried. The actor cast as the son apparently thought this was a comedy. Most of the other actors also seemed to have thought this was a campy movie, or at least acted like it, rather than simply being quirky. The only one that I thought did really well was the daughter, Siri Baruc.<br /><br />Another big part is the pacing. It starts off very slowly. So slowly you might be tempted to turn it off. But then it gets compelling for a while when you get to the daughter's suicide and the aftermath. But shortly afterward, it all becomes a jumbled mess. Some of this was on purpose, but much of it was just needlessly confusing, monotonous, and poorly focused.<br /><br />The real problem, is it's simply not a pleasant movie to watch. It's slow, dull, none of the characters are likable. Overuse of imagery and sets. Some movies you see characters get tortured. In this, it's the viewer that does. It does have a few creepy moments, most notably the creepy Nazi paintings and the credits, but the rest of the movie is mostly just tiresome.
This is a movie of tired, yet weirdly childish, clichés. There's a Nazi witch master performing sf-related experiments in the basement? Oh please! <br /><br />Aiming for a creeping sense of horror and fear, the general impression of the film is that of a very immature conception of fright. Not having any expectations beforehand, I am left with: an aged Xander from Buffy and a heroine with ape-like face who doesn't seem to know how to act. Said Adrienne Barbeau have I only only encountered before in the much more enjoyable "Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death".<br /><br />Camera and editing adds to the general impression of lame.
Can I please say first of all, that I felt so strongly about this movie that I signed up to IMDb specifically to review it. And my review? This is easily the worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />The synopsis of the movie sounded interesting- Nazis, occult, time travel, etc., but the movies plot failed to properly bring all these elements together. Remember the episode of South Park that featured manatees writing Family Guy using 'idea balls'? Did these manatees also write Unholy? Its like the writer wanted to include all these different ideas, but had no idea how to link them all together, and then to make things make even less sense, included a Donnie Darko-esquire time travel theme to the ending, messing up the chronology.<br /><br />I could tell from early on that this was a bad movie. Special effects were too low budget for anything better than straight to DVD. The acting wasn't great, but in fairness I've seen worse. I will praise the Nazi paintings, they were creepy, but the evil Nazi butcher guy was just comic.<br /><br />I don't have a vendetta against this movie or anything, but to be honest, I'm not even into the horror genre. But this movie cannot be described as a thriller or a drama. If this story had been well told, this would have been a good movie. But it has been over hyped. Waaaaay over hyped.
When I started watching this movie I saw the dude from Buffy, Xander, and figured ah how nice that he's still making a living acting in movies. Now a weird movie I can stand, given that it's a good dose of weird like for example David Lynch movies, twin peaks, lost highway etc. And you sort of have to be in the mood for one. This one however made me mockingly remember the crazy websites about there about conspiracy theory's that make absolutely no sense. I mean come on people Nazi's who conspire with America to make an unholy trinity of evil powers? I was surprised they didn't mention the hollow earth in this movie with Hitler flying saucers and lizard people. Maybe if you had like 60 grams of heroine with this movie it would make some sort of sense, but seriously I don't condone drugs like I don't condone this movie. It should be burned, shredded and forgotten just so good ol' Xander might get another acting job. It wasn't his acting though, that was alright, but the script just didn't make any sense. Sorry.
I'm not sure this is a spoiler; perhaps it is a public service. If you are one of those people focused on instant gratification who skip end credits, you will miss the final line of the end credits news announcer's voice-over, which states the U.S. has just surrendered to Nazi Germany on May 7, 1945 to end WWII. Here are just a few of the problems with this close: <br /><br />1)The older viewer must conjure up the equivalent of two or three more UNHOLY movies in their mind's eye to fill in the yawning chasm between movie events and this startling conclusion.<br /><br />2)The average person will really kick themselves that they did not "watch" one of these UNHOLY fill-in-the-blanks flicks created in their own head for free, instead of shelling out time and money to see this UNHOLY from the video store (or on cable).<br /><br />3)This end credits sequence of imagined news bulletins may be the first information some younger viewers are exposed to about WWII, leading them to the conclusion that George W. Bush is the latest heir to the Nazi throne.
I read Rice's novel with interest, and became quite enchanted with its characters and heartbreaking tale based on historical truths.<br /><br />However, I was simply APPALLED at this disastrous adaptation. The casting was based merely on physical appearance, and not acting talent (with the obvious exception of Peter Gallagher, who was neither blond-haired, or able to act his way out of a wet paper bag). The cast's embarrassingly clumsy and inconsistent attempts at affecting a French accent was hilarious, but not in an entertaining way. I found myself wincing through this muddled and melodramatic tripe, and was surprised I made it to the end.<br /><br />A warning to fans of the novel - stay away from this one.
This movie was so badly written, directed and acted that it beggars belief. It should be remade with a better script, director and casting service. The worst problem is the acting. You have Jennifer Beals on the one hand who is polished, professional and totally believable, and on the other hand, Ri'chard, who is woefully miscast and just jarring in this particular piece. Peter Gallagher and Jenny Levine are just awful as the slave owning (and keeping) couple, although both normally do fine work. The actors (and director) should not have attempted to do accents at all--they are inconsistent and unbelievable. Much better to have concentrated on doing a good job in actual English. The casting is ludicrous. Why have children of an "African" merchant (thus less socially desirable to the gens de couleur society ) been cast with very pale skinned actors, while the supposedly socially desirable Marcel, has pronounced African features, including an obviously dyed blond "fro"? It's as if the casting directors cannot be bothered to read the script they are casting and to chose appropriate actors from a large pool of extremely talented and physically diverse actors of color. It's just so weird! This could be a great movie and should be re-made, but with people who respect the material and can choose appropriate and skilled actors. There are plenty of good actors out there, and it would be fun to see how Jennifer Beals, Daniel Sunjata and Gloria Reuben would do with an appropriate cast, good script and decent direction.
The story and the show were good, but it was really depressing and I hate depressing movies. Ri'Chard is great. He really put on a top notch performance, and the girl who played his sister was really awesome and gorgeous. Seriously, I thought she was Carmen Electra until I saw the IMDb profile. I can't say anything bad about Peter Galleghar. He's one of my favorite actors. I love Anne Rice. I'm currently reading the Vampire Chronicles, but I'm glad I saw the movie before reading the book. This is a little too"real" for me. I prefer Lestat and Louis's witty little tiffs to the struggles of slaves. Eartha Kitt was so creepy and after her character did what she did The movie was ruined for me; I could barely stand to watch the rest of the show. (sorry for the ambiguity, but I don't want to give anything away) Sorry, but it's just not my type of show.
"Feast of All Saints?" Where...? When...?<br /><br />Was the Feast of All Saints storyline and theme edited out? <br /><br />What a waste of a wonderful title! There is never anything in the story that has the remotest connection to the "Feast of All Saints." Nor is there anything in the story about "All Souls Day" which the term is referencing. Why bother to use this title if you never intend to including any kind of storyline or theme about "All Souls Day" or the "Feast of All Saints"? <br /><br />Embarrassly Bad Script & Amateur Writing <br /><br />How did they attract such great talent to this clunker? The writing is so amateur--characters that have known each other all their life go into big long speeches about their life history for the sake of the audience. Not at all the way people talk to each other. <br /><br />What was the Director Thinking?<br /><br />The directing is equally bad! The forced and overly deliberate style feels amateurish. In one scene, a character is yelling "Take your hands off of me" and NO ONE is touching him! The most badly directed scene however, is the incredibly over-the-top battle scene at the beginning of the film.<br /><br />Excessive Gore in a Very Fake, Silly Battle Scene<br /><br />There are so many dead people in the most fake battle scene. It looks like a Saturday Night Live skit!! You can see extras waiting for their cues to walk across camera. Everyone plays their death scene like 4th grade boys--exaggerating every little gasp and twitch. The blood on battle victims is so excessive and carelessly applied it looks like someone used a ketchup dispenser and just squirted straight lines of red on the costumes.<br /><br />This whole battle scene comes off as the spoof of a really cheesy war movie. You almost expect someone like Will Ferrell and Mike Myers to ride up on a horse and deliver the punchline.<br /><br />Who in Real Life Would Ever Behave this Way?! <br /><br />The most ridiculous bit of writing, directing and casting is actually the focus of the scene: <br /><br />A little girl is standing under the dead body of her hanging father--who is terribly mutilated, and literally dripping blood form his gaping wounds. Even a totally idiot would know he is dead! Yet she is--very monotonously--repeating over and over "Daddy, daddy..." while looking at someone off-screen. She delivered it with about as much believability and passion as you could expect from an non-actor kid that had been repeating the line for the cameras all day.<br /><br />Even if the poor kid had any acting skills, the scene is completely unbelievable. The little girl wouldn't even BE in the middle of the battlefield after hours of carnage--surrounded by hundreds of dead bodies, while she calmly stands there!! Natural instincts would had the kid screaming and terrified, running AWAY from the bloody carnage! <br /><br />Are we Suppose to be Horrified or Laugh...?!<br /><br />One particularly goofy detail, that gives the scene an SNL satire tone, is the father hanging, with a huge hook through his mouth and cheek. He looks like a fish on a hook! The unintentionally funny details, make the whole scene come across as fake and silly.<br /><br />In Fantasy La-La-Land, Mothers and Daughters are the Same Age! <br /><br />Another funny detail, is that you see a central character--the little girl's mother--at the end of the scene and in the next scene, that occurs 20+ years later, she looks exactly the same! She is still young and beautiful, and now the same age as her daughter! <br /><br />I almost turned the movie off right there because the direction and writing were obviously awful--but I tried to stick it out because I wanted to see the Louisiana settings and I like all the actors. I don't know what these fine actors were thinking when they accepted these roles!<br /><br />Who was the Targeted Audience?<br /><br />The excessive amount of blood and badly acted violence in the opening scene are weirdly out of place with the soap opera storytelling tone that follows. It is also a strange way to start a movie that, for the rest of the time, seems targeted to romance novel reading females. Weird inconsistency in tone!
The story and the show were good, but it was really depressing and I hate depressing movies. Ri'Chard is great. He really put on a top notch performance, and the girl who played his sister was really awesome and gorgeous. Seriously, I thought she was Carmen Electra until I saw the IMDb profile. I can't say anything bad about Peter Galleghar. He's one of my favorite actors. I love Anne Rice. I'm currently reading the Vampire Chronicles, but I'm glad I saw the movie before reading the book. This is a little too"real" for me. I prefer Lestat and Louis's witty little tiffs to the struggles of slaves. Eartha Kitt was so creepy and after her character did what she did The movie was ruined for me; I could barely stand to watch the rest of the show. (sorry for the ambiguity, but I don't want to give anything away) Sorry, but it's just not my type of show.
There's so little here of the fantastic Anne Rice book that what IS here makes no sense. Some of the characters--intense and surprising characters--don't make it to the screen at all, and those who do are watered down to the point that there's no reason for their existence.<br /><br />Where's the relationship between Christophe and Marcel? Where's the continued affair between Marcel and Juliet? Why does Dolly Rose appear at all, since her story's never explained? Where's the rape and redemption of Marie, whose greatest attribute (and downfall) is that she can pass for white--and her marriage to Richard? Why does the film end with Marcel's beating at the hands of his father? We learn nothing of Aglae beyond that she's a bitch who hates her husband; why no backstory explaining this hatred? <br /><br />As for the performances, there's not a one that's better than mediocre, though that's likely due to the lousy script. Best of the lot is that of the actor playing Richard--but Richard's not on screen enough to salvage the film. Worst is Jasmine Guy as Dolly Rose, though again, it comes down to the actress having nothing to do with what little she's given to work with.<br /><br />All in all, this is just terrible. I thought it'd be impossible for any Anne Rice book-turned film to be worse than EXIT TO EDEN, but FEAST OF ALL SAINTS makes that mess look like a critical hit. How is it that Rice is such a slut she'll allow her best works to become such junk on the screen?
A slick romanticizing of the sexual exploitation of NewOrleans black women by white men of power and privilege. Ooh. Does that whet your appetite? Well, then, belly up to a VHS or DVD and gorge on this gratuitous trolling through a seamy segment of history. For good measure, it's adapted from the book by celebrated hack Anne Rice. The directing is as cloying and melodramatic as the cheesy dialog. Most of acting is amateurish. The production's sole worthwhile note is that it employed practically a dozen black actors, all of whom have scarcely been in employed in today's market (Jasmine Guy, Ben Vereen, Pam Grier, Eartha Kitt), including some faces that have barely been seen at all (Bianca Lawson, Rachel Cuttrell). It also is, despite itself, a sterling showcase for Nicole Lyn. The pompous and ponderous James Earl Jones is on-hand as well. So, is the late Ossie Davis, a minimal talent who owes his success to having been affiliated with the legendary Negro Ensemble Company. This film should be rated "T" for tripe.
College students, who are clearing out a condemned dormitory, are stalked by an elusive killer.<br /><br />The Dorm That Dripped Blood (aka Pranks) is a bit of a mixed bag for slasher fans. The movies production values are pretty low and the story for the most part is pretty routine, there's even a creepy bum hanging around for a red herring. In fact much of the story's build-up is pretty forgettable, save for one or two brutal murders. But the movie is really made better by its surprisingly intense climax (in an atmospheric setting) and one fairly bold, unconventional conclusion.<br /><br />The cast is lackluster for the most part. Stephen Sachs is the best of the lot as he does a pretty nice turn in character. Also look for a young Daphne Zuniga as an ill-fated student.<br /><br />Over all this is a pretty standard B slasher effort, but the finale is well worth savoring and for this viewer saved the movie from being a complete ho-hum.<br /><br />** out of ****
Daphne Zuniga is the only light that shines in this sleepy slasher, and the light fades quickly. If not her, than what other reason to watch this. five college kids are signed up to prepare an old dorm for its due date of demolition. Problems are automatically occurring when a weird homeless man is soliciting, and the group are short a few people. Then, a killer is on the loose. I honestly wanted to say I was going to enjoy this one. It had a fair set up, or maybe that was just Daphne Zuniga in it. The film is too slow, and almost as silent as a library. Most of the acting is below average, and the "point-of-view" moments are so old news. Acclaimed composer Christopher Young of such films as "Hellraiser" and "Entrapment" scored this, in a repetitive cue line that was better made for a TV movie. Still, it seems higher than the movie deserves. So, other than Young and Zuniga, this one scrapes the bottom of the barrel.
Over Christmas break, a group of college friends stay behind to help prepare the dorms to be torn down and replaced by apartment buildings. To make the work a bit more difficult, a murderous, Chucks-wearing psycho is wandering the halls of the dorm, preying on the group in various violent ways.<br /><br />Registered as one of the 74 'video nasties' listed by the U.K. in the 1980s, The Dorm That Dripped Blood had a good reputation built up for it prior to first viewing. The term 'video nasty' strikes into mind some images of some great explicit gore, violence, sex, etc.: All the things a horror fan dreams of. So, after hearing all of that info, I settled into Pranks (alt. title) expecting a sleazy slasher experience. . . and that's what it tried to be, but failed pretty much completely. Visually, the film's not great. The cinematography, gore (except for a couple scenes), and overall direction all fail. It's simply not enjoyable to watch. The unoriginal script is lacking and often throws in random things without any real reason (like the opening kill). There are some cool death scenes, including a pretty nice face melt (which can be seen on the poster), but that's about it for the positive. The acting is pretty bad, the story seems unimportant, the killer isn't cool or scary, and it suffers the one major error that any slasher flick should always avoid: it's a bit boring. Overall, for a film done by a few UCLA film students for $90,000 (which would be over double that today), The Dorm That Dripped Blood isn't a total mess. It has a couple good things, and is fairly watchable. . . But, as a slasher flick looking to be on the level of films like The House on Sorority Row and Pieces. . . it just cannot compare. Don't expect much, and you may at least be entertained. I hate to say it, but this is one of the few films I've seen that would actually be better with a remake. . . and yet, they go after great works like Black Christmas. Oh well. . .<br /><br />Obligatory Horror Elements:<br /><br />- Subgenre: Slasher<br /><br />- Violence/Gore: There are some brutally cool kills, and the gore is okay for the most part. . . but nothing special. Also, they off-screened some of the best murders.<br /><br />- Sex/Nudity: There's a little unappealing (to me) nudity, but not very much.<br /><br />- Cool Killer(s): Nah. The ending monologue(s) of the killer made him/her pretty uncool.<br /><br />- Scares/Suspense: A jump scare or two, but nothing too effective.<br /><br />- Mystery: I suppose, yeah, but I simply didn't care enough, and it's as obvious as the nose on the killer's face.<br /><br />- - -<br /><br />Final verdict: 3.75/10. Bah! Humbug! <br /><br />-AP3-
I'm not looking for quality; I'm just trying to get through the 74 famous video nasties that were banned in Britain. This one was initially banned and re-released in 2001 with a whole 10 seconds cut.<br /><br />Some college kids spend their Christmas vacation preparing a dorm for renovation. There are some creepy characters lurking about along with the four kids. Which of them is the slasher? The actual killings are not very gory, so this video nastie is not really nasty. There is the requisite flashing of the boobies, but it has nothing to do with the college kids.<br /><br />I had a suspect very quickly and I turned out to be right. Maybe I've seen too many of these. The end twist was clever; I have to give the writers credit for that bit of originality.
Probably one of the most boriest slasher movies ever, badly acted and badly written.<br /><br />THE PLOT Five students staying behind during the holidays closing down a dorm, but somebody has designs on them and starts killing them off one by one, the main suspect is the creepy groundskeeper John Hemmitt played by Woody Roll, or could it be one of the five characters.<br /><br />ACTING Not that bad not that great either apart from Daphne Zungia who dies way too quickly and should have been the main heroine, and the rest well quite dull although Laura Lapinski the main heroine sometimes has her charm and you do feel sorry for her in the end.<br /><br />THE KILLS Can't really see why they banned this, the kills look fake mostly, one guy has his hand sliced in half in the beginning which looks really fake, but the others are quite nasty like one girl gets her head run over by a car, one girl gets boiled alive and another gets burned alive.<br /><br />OVERALL Not really a great slasher could have been a lot better
An uninteresting addition to the stalk 'n slash cycle which dominated the horror genre in the 1980's. This was filmed as Pranks but released as The Dorm That Dripped Blood which is an obvious steal from the 1970 horror anthology The House That Dripped Blood. Daphne Zuniga is the only recognisable face in the cast and this was her first horror movie (she has also appeared in The Initiation and The Fly II).
The two things are are good about this film are it's two unknown celebrities.<br /><br />First, Daphne Zuniga, in her first appearance in a film, young and supple, with looks that still encompass her body today, steals the very beginning, which is all she is in, and that is that. She is obviously just starting out because her acting improved with her next projects.<br /><br />Second, the score by then known composer Christopher(Chris) Young is what keeps this stinker from getting a one star...yeah, I know one star more is not much, but in this movie's case, it is a lot.<br /><br />The rest is just stupid senseless horror of a couple a college students who try to clean out a dorm that is due for being torn down, getting offed one by one by an unsuspecting killer, blah, blah, blah...we all know where this is going.<br /><br />Watch the first eighteen minutes with Daphne Zuniga, then turn it off.
Eh, not a particular good slasher flick. So-so acting, effects, decent yet familiar and uninventive soundtrack.<br /><br />There are three deaths in close succession near the beginning of the movie that make for a fairly good scene in which it would seem anything goes. Apart from that, there's a lot of characters wandering around, not realizing what's going on, or chasing after red herrings; more killing of time, than of people. There are other deaths, and the killer is an equal opportunity murderer, not partial to any one implement. The killer also likes to set other people up to kill innocent people as well. The identity isn't revealed towards the end, and motive is pretty thin, and we really don't care.<br /><br />Supposedly the movie takes place around Christmas, but this isn't a major factor. One scene gets lit by Christmas lights, that's about it.<br /><br />The movie is rather dark with a muddy picture most of the time, at least on the videotape I watched. Some of the dialog got a little lost in some of the opening scenes. The ending should have been stronger than it was. We think we realize what happened, although there's a chance something else did.
I heard so much about this movie how it was a great slasher and one of those early 80's movies that die hard fans of most slasher movies just had to see. Well, I rented it and I have to say that although it kept my attention as far as the suspense goes for most slasher films such as "April Fools Day", "Friday 13th" and "Prom Night", this film could have been right up there with the above mentioned only it lacked true enthusiasm and potential from the characters as well as the on going story. Characters that I found were unfortunate to be in this movie was the weirdo guy with the frizzy hair that kept creeping around the dorm and of course leading up to his true climatic role during the end with he faces the killer. Another would be the dirty scruffy looking guy with the jean jacket, he could have played more roles in this movie that might have made the movie more interesting, instead, the movie played this guy as just another loser out there making unknown calls while he sleeps with his girlfriend and then drops his part and cuts him off until the end which was a waste, I was disappointed in his part in the end. As far as the true identity of the killer goes, when the identity was released as to who he was, I just laughed, but it was all to obvious and he really made a true jerk out of himself as well as an annoying character after his true intentions were revealed. This movie should be one to at least watch once for all slasher fans but don't spend your hard earned money on it in some rare hard to find collectors inventory.
It's the early 80s. There's a group of suspiciously old-looking teens. And there's a maniac stalking around. Yes, this is slasherville.<br /><br />This movie is called Pranks. Why is it called Pranks? I haven't the faintest idea. Unless your idea of a great prank is to repeatedly hit someone's dinner with a baseball bat - on balance, not a great prank; in fact quite a rubbish prank if truth be told. But there you go.<br /><br />The film itself concerns a group of teenagers who are tasked with cleaning out a decommissioned dormitory. They become aware that a psychopath is on the loose. To combat this development, they split up and wander about in the dark. It ends in tears for most of them.<br /><br />Pranks is a badly made slasher movie. The DVD release I viewed was the Vipco one. It appears to be cut of a fair bit of violence. This makes the DVD even more pointless because, let's face it, a slasher movie shorn of violence is a waste of time. For slasher-film and video nasty completists only.
((NB: Spoiler warning, such as it is!))<br /><br />First off, this is a teen slasher flick -- the Spam-In-A-Cabin genre, as Joe Bob Briggs piquantly put it. If you're looking for Roshambo, this isn't it and wasn't going to BE it. I'm desperately unimpressed by stabs at its cinematography, directing or acting performances.<br /><br />Secondly, this wasn't Zuniga's first horror flick, it was her first screen appearance period, cinema, TV, whatever. For what it is worth; neither is Daphne Zuniga Susan Sarandon or Katherine Hepburn.<br /><br />Thirdly, you have to give even a lame slasher flick props. Sure, it follows the deeply insulting formulaic message of its genre: any young woman having or showing interest in sex is beef on the hoof, and the harvest time is now.<br /><br />Except this one gives the chop to the sweet, virginal protagonist as well! Now THERE is a mediocre teen death film that has the courage of its convictions! Interesting that this was said ingenue's only film role. Another One Hit Wonder, except that term gives the lass too much credit.<br /><br />(Then again, this film probably has one of the highest percentage of one-movie actors in history. Of the nineteen credited actors, a whopping thirteen never appeared in any other film. Three appeared in one other movie by the same producers. Only one other besides Zuniga has as many as six screen credits. What was this, the Has Been And Never Were Mutual Aid Society?)<br /><br />Granted, I saw this a long time ago on late night cable when I was bored and never anticipate being that bored in my life again, but I see no reason to hunt down everyone involved and toss them in the incinerator with Joanne.<br /><br />2/10.
One of a multitude of slashers that appeared in the early eighties, Pranks is notable only for an early performance by Daphne Zuniga (The Sure Thing, The Fly 2); her character dies fairly early on, and the rest of the film is totally forgettable.<br /><br />During their Christmas break, a group of students volunteer to clear a condemned college building of its furniture. A crazy killer, however, throws a spanner in the works by methodically bumping off the youngsters one by one in a variety of gruesome ways.<br /><br />Exploiting every stalk 'n' slash cliché in the book, director Jeffrey Obrow delivers a tedious and unexciting horror that had me praying for the characters to be killed, so that I could get on with watching something more worthwhile. The majority of the deaths (which, let's face it, is why we generally watch this kind of film) are brief and not that gory; the only truly grisly imagery comes right at the end when the bodies of the victims are discovered by the remaining survivor (there is one notably bloody dismembered corpse—the film could've done with more).<br /><br />At the last minute, the film saves itself from the disgrace of receiving the lowest possible score from me by having a nice unexpectedly downbeat ending, but this really is one for slasher completists only.
This one probably does not fit in the bottom of the barrel of mediocre Slasher movies but it's surely a damn bad movie.<br /><br />The Holiday premise made it kind of interesting but after the first scenes the movie demonstrates it's poor production values and stupid plot. I mean, the sub-genre was at the moment all about an unseen maniac slashing teens for no apparent reasons but this one took it too far. There is absolutely no coherence in the events or nothing else to add.<br /><br />The clichès are more than boring, the gore is minimal, and so does the mystery.<br /><br />This is a fairly mediocre slasher entry that shouldn't be hyped even if it has a video nastie label.<br /><br />I am truly disappointed by this overrated piece of trash.
If you've ever seen an eighties slasher, there isn't much reason to see this one. Originality often isn't one of slasher cinema's strongpoints, and it's something that this film is seriously lacking in. There really isn't much that can said about Pranks, so I'll make this quick. The film was one of the 74 films included on the DPP Video Nasty list, and that was my only reason for seeing it. The plot follows a bunch of kids that stay behind in a dorm at Christmas time. As they're in a slasher, someone decides to start picking them off and this leads to one of the dullest mysteries ever seen in a slasher movie. The fact that this movie was on the Video Nasty list is bizarre because, despite a few gory scenes, this film is hardly going to corrupt or deprave anyone, and gorier slashers than this (Friday the 13th, for example) didn't end up banned. But then again, there's banned films that are much less gory than this one (The Witch Who Came from the Sea, for example). Anyway, the conclusion of the movie is the best thing about it, as although the audience really couldn't care less who the assailant is by this point; it is rather well done. On the whole, this is a dreary and dismal slasher that even slasher fans will do well to miss.
What the ........... is this ? This must, without a doubt, be the biggest waste of film, settings and camera ever. I know you can't set your expectations for an 80's slasher high, but this is too stupid to be true. I baught this film for 0.89$ and I still feel the urge to go claim my money back. Can you imagine who hard it STINKS ?<br /><br />Who is the violent killer in this film and what are his motivations??? Well actually, you couldn't possible care less. And why should you? The makers of this piece of garbage sure didn't care. They didn't try to create a tiny bit of tension. The director ( Stephen Carpenter -- I guess it's much easier to find money with a name like that ) also made the Kindred (1986) wich was rather enjoyable and recently he did Soul Survivors. Complete crap as well, but at least that one had Eliza Dushku. This junk has the debut of Daphne Zuniga !!! ( Who ?? ) Yeah that's right, the Melrose Place chick. Her very memorable character dies about 15 min. after the opening credits. She's the second person to die. The first victim dies directly in the first minute, but nobody seems to mention or miss him afterwards so who cares ? The rest of the actors...they don't deserve the term actors actually, are completely uninteresting. You're hoping they die a quick and painful death...and not only their characters<br /><br />My humble opinion = 0 / 10
I've always liked Fred MacMurray, and—although her career was tragically cut short—I think Carole Lombard is fun to watch. Pair these two major and attractive stars together, add top supporting players like Jean Dixon, Anthony Quinn, Dorothy Lamour and Charles Butterworth, give them a romantic script, team them with noted director Mitchell Leisen and you get…a mediocre movie experience.<br /><br />Skid Johnson (Fred) and Maggie (Carole) "meet cute" during her visit to the Panama Canal, and spend the next few weeks falling in love. Skid's a great trumpeter, so he embarks on a musical career, which is predictably meteoric in both its rise and fall. During his climb to musical stardom, he neglects Maggie, who later inspires him to start over after he's hit rock bottom. Ah, yes…it's the true Hollywood happy ending, which comes none too soon.<br /><br />Stars and a director of this caliber should guarantee success, but this movie is so predictable and slow-paced that it's difficult to watch at times. The early scenes set in Panama are so draggy that they seem to go on forever, and later an alcoholic Skid just wanders endlessly in New York. Fred and Carole try their best, but the tired script and S-L-O-W direction just don't give them a chance. Even the final scene, in which Maggie encourages Skid to rise from the ashes of alcohol and disappointment, just doesn't ring true.<br /><br />This movie should be seen once to watch some early performances from stars MacMurray and Lombard. However, I guarantee that watching it will seem to take about 48 hours.
I am a big fan of Fred MacMurray and Carole Lombard. And, in addition to them, Charles Butterworth (a very enjoyable supporting actor) was in this film,...so why didn't I particularly enjoy it?! Well, despite a good cast, this is one of the poorest written and most clichéd "A pictures" I have ever seen. Given the talent and money spent to make this film, it is shocking how slip-shod the writing was. I knew the film would be tedious when time after time early in the film I found myself predicting EXACTLY what would happen next--and I was always right! And this isn't because I am some sort of "movie savant", but was because almost no imagination or effort went into it. In fact, it seemed almost as if the film was just a long string of clichés all strung together! Also, I found it a bit irritating that Fred mistreated Carole so bad throughout the film and yet, true to convention, she came running to him in the end. Uggh! There is MORE suspense in a Lassie film ("will he bring people to rescue Timmy or will the rope he is dangling from break?").<br /><br />Despite the very, very tired and clichéd script, there were a few positives about the film. It was pretty cool seeing Fred look like a broken lush at the end of the film--it was pretty believable and he looked like he hadn't eaten, shaved or slept in days. Also, Charles Butterworth's "prattle" did provide a few mildly humorous moments. But all this just wasn't enough to make this film look any different than a "B movie". It's a shame,...it could have been so much better.
In what would be his first screenplay, based on his own short story "Turn About," William Faulkner delivers a bizarre story of loyalty, sacrifice, and really strange relationships. The story originally was about only the Tone, Young, and Cooper characters, but MGM needed to put Joan Crawford in another picture to fulfill her contract, and Faulkner obliged by creating a female role. Crawford insisted that her lines be written in the same clipped style as her co-stars' Young and Tone, leading to much unintentional hilarity as these three communicate in a telegraph-like shorthand that sounds like a Monty Python sketch ("Wuthering Heights" performed in semaphore). Seriously, the almost entirely pronoun-less sentences make Ernest Hemingway read like Henry James.<br /><br />The film also reflects some familiar Faulkner themes, with an almost unnaturally close relationship between brother and sister (as may be found in his "Sanctuary," and elsewhere). When Young proposes to Crawford, in Tone's presence, in lieu of an engagement ring ALL THREE exchange their childhood engraved rings with one another. The closeness of Tone and Young is also noticeable, especially as they go off to their Thelma & Louise fate. Frankly, it's creepy.<br /><br />Not as creepy to this New Yorker, however, as the recurring theme of the massive cockroach, Wellington, which Crawford cheerfully catches (and which is shown gamboling over her hands--I had to turn away!) and Young turns into a gladiator. Blech.<br /><br />That being said, there are some nice performances. Young is particularly engaging in a scene where he's taken up in Cooper's fighter plane, and Roscoe Karns is delightful as Cooper's flying buddy. Tone, despite his inability to express himself through realistic dialogue, has a nice moment, dashing away his own furtive tears over his buddy Young's fate. Crawford, stripped of meaningful dialogue as well, mostly comes across as either wooden or melodramatic, which is quite a balancing act for one role.<br /><br />The battle scenes--not surprisingly, for a Howard Hawks film--are the most exciting part of the entire picture. But not enough. As far as I'm concerned, this is 75 minutes of my life I'm never going to get back.
My wife and I thought that with this cast and director, the movie would have to be at least worth watching. We were wrong. In fact, we gave up on it after 45 minutes. The idea that Crawford, Young and Tone are British but speak with American accents was, for me, impossible to get past -- hard to believe this is England when no one talks with a British accent. There is zero chemistry between Crawford and anyone, and to echo a previous comment, the idea that Cooper and Crawford suddenly declare their love for one another without any reason is ludicrous. There is no reason to care about any of the characters, which is why we threw in the towel halfway through. I found it hard to believe that Hawks directed this, as none of the actors spoke with the trademark Hawksian rat-a-tat delivery. So save your time, and skip this one.
Couldn't believe it! Clipped sentences? Good grief! Know what? All true! Real people ever talk like this? Don't think so. Good girl! Stout fellow! Stiffen upper lip! Only reason given movie 2 instead of 0 Gary Cooper such a dish. Movie as a whole ridiculous unless you like watching endless biplane dogfights. Seemed endless, anyway. Think all Franchot Tone's dialogue dubbed. When Crawford and Young make a special effort to sound British they come over as Irish. Handy tip - we Brits clip words, not sentences. And somehow we manage to draaaaaaaawl at the same time. But that's only if we've been to a really good public (that's private to you) school.
Lulu (Louise Brooks) works as a typist and is missing something in her life. She enters a Miss France contest against the wishes of her boyfriend Andre (Georges Charlia) and she wins. She sets off for the Miss Europe title leaving her boyfriend behind. She wins again but returns home to Andre because he has asked her to. Once back together, her life becomes mundane again so one night she writes a note to him and leaves to experience the fame that is waiting for her as Miss Europe. Andre follows her.....<br /><br />This film is a silent film with a piano music-track all the way through. It is also sped-up so everything seems fast. Limited dialogue has been added on afterwards and it is very phony. The cast are alright bearing in mind that it is a silent film. The best part of the film comes at the end but the story goes on a little too long. After watching this, I'm not really sure what the big deal was over the looks of Louise Brooks - she has a terrible haircut that makes her face look fat. I don't need to watch it again.
Please Note: I see from the various posts that there was an original silent version and also a sound version of this same film. I saw the sound version and it was esthetically yicky. Considering some indicate that the original version was LONGER and without crappy dubbing, my review must be read with this in mind.<br /><br />Although I know that Rene Clair has a lovely reputation as a film maker and Louise Brooks has a bit of a cult following as well, this is in many ways a technically poorly made film. While Hollywood had already pretty much switched to sound mode around 1929, up through the early to almost the mid-30s, a lot of famous French films were essentially silent films--with some dialog and sound effects very poorly slapped over top the film. The lip movements in many, and in particular this film, don't even come close to matching what is being said and this would explain why an American like Ms. Brooks could do a French film. This is just sloppy and I would have preferred they had just made a silent film--and as a silent film this is would have been an average film--with excellent camera work (at times) and some decent silent-style acting.<br /><br />The problem I also found with the film was the overly simplistic plot. For a silent morality play circa 1920, it would have been fine, but by 1930 standards the plot is a bit hoary (that means "old"--not "slutty"). A lady wins a beauty contest and her macho fiancé can't handle it. She gives it all up, temporarily, but is lured back to the fancy life and this spells her end! A tad melodramatic, huh? And also a bit simplistic and underdeveloped.<br /><br />Finally, the character of the fiancé's friend(?) I found very disturbing and unreal. He looked like Harold Lloyd and spent much of the movie being abused and picked on by the friend and everyone else. As he just took it throughout the movie and no resolution came about, his character seemed superfluous and the treatment he received mean-spirited. Were audiences supposed to laugh as he was abused? This seems to me that's what is implied and I don't like it at all.<br /><br />There are FAR better French films of the era (Le Million, La Femme du Boulanger, Fanny, Regain, and others) as well as better silent films. I just can't understand this film's high rating.
This review may contain some SPOILERS.<br /><br />Just when you thought they didn't make them so extremely bad anymore, along comes Rae Dawn Chong as a space vixen and Willie Nelson as a Native American witchdoctor! It's even worse when you factor in that these two are the BETTER aspects of `Starlight,' a film that should only be viewed for laughs.<br /><br />Chong is an alien sent to Earth to seek out the only remaining half-breed, part man and part alien. Apparently, the Earth is in dire straits. Something is wrong with the genetics of mankind, and in a few decades the world will be turned into a polluted wasteland. Only by duplicating the DNA of the half-breed can the kindly alien race save the planet. Don't ask me how that is, since the movie gives the impression that the world will be destroyed by pollution, which is caused by humans. You would think Earth could only be saved by getting rid of the polluting creatures, not saving them! Anyway, the half-breed turns out to be Billy Wirth, a man living in a small Southwestern town and is part Native American from his mother's line, despite the fact that his mother is a red-headed Caucasian and his grandfather is Willie Nelson. Wasn't this the sort of malarkey that made the bombastic Carmen Electra bomb `The Chosen One' such a howler? Chong arrives in her ship just as Wirth nearly drowns after driving his motorcycle into a lake in a fit of recklessness being the result of just breaking up with his girlfriend. Before you can say utter the word `hogwash,' Chong is revealing her secret to Wirth, who isn't surprised for a moment, and spreading the word to Wirth's family. Chong also makes pals with Wirth's mother, who seems to have lost a few of her marbles over the years. Well, this is because Wirth's father was an alien that abandoned her. Of course, he is the standard rogue alien that has conveniently picked this moment to come to Earth for Wirth so he can use Wirth's DNA to make the people of Earth his slaves. (Huh?) His laughable attempts to use his telepathic powers and capture Wirth suck up most of the screen time and are the worst scenes in the movie. Not only are they boring, but they are the scenes where you will be spotting the flubs the most.<br /><br />The ideas might be nice on paper, but they are handled here with the utmost of stupidity, particularly in the aforementioned scenes with the rogue alien. But the effects are the bane of the movie. The opening scene involves Chong on her spaceship, communicating with her superior, someone who we do not see but that Chong communicates with through a vat that emits pink light. They use no spoken words, but telepathy, so we are treated to subtitles. Trouble is, both Chong and her superior's subtitles both look alike, and the director gives you no indication as to which of the two are actually `speaking' at any given moment, which makes the whole conversation nothing but gibberish. The spaceship is the worst effect to come out of Hollywood this side of an Ed Wood film. Now, I am usually lenient on effects when dealing with a low budgeted film such as this, but these effects really got to me. The most offensive was the most simple one: a fake night sky. The stars in the sky are so phony they almost sound off a dial tone. Most notably are the moments where Chong tells someone she comes from Pleiades, and we get a shot of the seven stars. Thing is, the seven stars take up about half the night sky in the movie, but any stargazer knows that Pleiades is a star cluster between the constellations Perseus and Taurus, and the cluster doesn't take up much room in the sky at all. These effects just get so lousy that your jaw will hang lower and lower with every passing moment. Be careful, for it will go right through the floor during the finale when the effects have Willie Nelson turn into a human spotlight and . . . Oh, it has to be seen to be believed!<br /><br />Starlight, star bright; Last star I see tonight; I wish I might, I wish I may; not have to watch any more of this trash today.<br /><br />Zantara's score: 1 out of 10.
I finally caught up to "Starlight" last night on television and all I can say is. . . wow! It's hard to know where to begin -- the incredibly hokey special effects (check out the laser beams shooting out of Willie's eyes!), the atrocious acting, the ponderous dialogue, the mismatched use of stock footage, or the air of earnest pretentiousness that infuses the entire production. This truly is a one-of-a-kind experience, and we should all be thankful for that. I nominate Jonathon Kay as the true heir to Ed Wood!
This has an interesting, albeit somewhat fanciful sci-fi plot, but it's wasted with poor direction and shlocky special effects. Rae Dawn Chong is appealing, despite the lack of a believable story and direction consistent with her talent.
All I can really say is that I'm glad that I was knitting socks while watching the movie, or I would be very angry for having wasted 2 hours of my life. The acting was terrible, the plot was even worse. There were some scenes that were meant to be serious that had my husband and I laughing out loud. I highly recommend this movie to people who like to do their own version of MST3K.
I shudder to think what people must have thought of environmentalists after viewing this piece of overbearing, preachy cinematic trash. Larded with enough Indian-wannabe nuttery and space brother buffoonery to stock a new-age shop, Starlight makes anyone who gives a damn about the planet look like a feather-wearing crystal-fondling idiot.<br /><br />The plot? Alien Rae Dawn Chong arrives to guide a flute playing underwear model in a mystical quest to avert Earth's impending environmental collapse. But first they must defeat an evil alien who looks nothing so much like a refugee from a Castro street bar. Fortunately, they've got mystical grandpa Willie Nelson along to help (who looks faintly embarrassed by the proceedings, as well he ought to be) along with buckets of cheap F/X and reams of pointlessly swelling music.<br /><br />Sure, the clunky script helps to obscure the film's trite plot and staggering pace, but that's just the tip of this melting movie iceberg. Everyone concerned with this film should have their union cards revoked until they complete a real course in environmental science.
I wanted to see it because of two reasons. One, it was the remake of High Sierra with Bogart, two, the Bogart part was played by Jack Palance, whom can play dramatic roles with some subtility, as in The Big Knife.<br /><br />But now I wonder why they decided to shoot this remake. The film follows the same plot as Hig Sierra; only here, the actors don't care, the director is lost in his thoughts, and who knows what the producer was thinking. Jack Palance is getting bored looking at Shelley Winters and Shelley Winters is asking herself what she's doing in this film. I don't even want to compare her to Ida Lupino in the same role. And of course, they had to use the dog story again! They surely could have come up with some different ideas. Perhaps the color makes it nice to see the same location where they shot High Sierra, but that definitely doesn't add any quality to the film.<br /><br />It's a waste of time if you've seen High Sierra before. Otherwise, why not see a pseudo-film noir. As for me, I'd rather die than see it one more time...
City girl Meg Tilly receives a horrifying phone call from her mother and, understandably shaken, returns home to her family's rural digs, only to be faced with a mystery: why are all the homespun residents acting out in bizarre and unsettling ways? Radiation thriller, with barely a nod to ecology, has small town residents going berserk, which (laughably) includes two women gazing at each other with desire in a public place and Tim Matheson receiving oral attention from a girl on an office bench. The picture is too silly for words, wasting Tilly's wistfulness and quiet intensity on trash while forcing itself into a corner it can't possibly hope to get out of. Some of the cinematography by Thomas Del Ruth is good (particularly a fire sequence set inside a garage), though he is let down by the scrappy editing--and a fairly bathetic finale. Simplistic screenplay has nary a surprise nor a shred of originality up its sleeve. *1/2 from ****
I have been known to fall asleep during films, but this is usually due to a combination of things including, really tired, being warm and comfortable on the sette and having just eaten a lot. However on this occasion I fell asleep because the film was rubbish. The plot development was constant. Constantly slow and boring. Things seemed to happen, but with no explanation of what was causing them or why. I admit, I may have missed part of the film, but i watched the majority of it and everything just seemed to happen of its own accord without any real concern for anything else. I cant recommend this film at all.
...let me count the ways.<br /><br />1. A title-only 'remake' that pulls out every cliché in the slasher handbook.<br /><br />2. A plot so predictable that it becomes quite pathetic.<br /><br />3. A completely weak execution of all attempts at suspense or thrills.<br /><br />4. A PG-13 rating that insures no gore, violence, or sex.<br /><br />5. A villain that is not frightening or even mysterious.<br /><br />6. A cast of characters that are so thinly written and stereotyped that we couldn't possibly care about them.<br /><br />7. A lack of any effectively creepy atmosphere (much unlike the original Prom Night).<br /><br />8. A script of dialog that's beyond poor - it's mind numbing. <br /><br />9. A series of cardboard performances (not sure whether to blame the actors or the lousy aforementioned script for that).<br /><br />10. A completely inept teen-targeted slasher remake that's not brave enough to attempt to have an imagination - or even to show a puddle of blood.<br /><br />It's a no-brainer horror fans, save your money.<br /><br />BOMB out of ****
Prom Night is shot with the artistic eye someone gives while finely crafting a Lifetime original film. You know the one. This October, Lifetime takes a break from the courageous tale of a woman surviving (insert disease name here) to tell the somewhat creepy tale of a woman pursued by a stalker ex-boyfriend. It's dramatic … it's sappy … it's immensely dull. It does nothing to further a genre, tell an original story, or strive for ANY sort of newness. Prom Night shares this plight. Watching the killer poke holes in his victims, we sit silently as they slump to the floor with not a drop of blood spilled. It occurred to me that this was the cleanest killer in movie history.<br /><br />Our director is working with a fairly good-looking killer so he is forced to pour on the camera angles to make him appear creepier. Think about Matthew McConaughey coming at you with a knife. You'd probably go … "OH! Good lookin guy is going to kill me? Naaaa." Not scary even for a second, so the director throws Schaech into shadows and over the shoulder in the mirror. This mirror shot is repeated to the point of sickness as it practically becomes a fetish of the creator. You'll get 15 jump scares in this film, 2 of which made my date jump (I might mention she is afraid of EVERYTHING). I'd also mention she decided to take a nap halfway through the film and at one point threatened to leave me.<br /><br />As if this film were not disjointed enough, it appears to be cut to shreds. I'm not saying it looks like key points were left on the cutting room floor as the crew scrambled to salvage some semblance of a horror film; I'm saying as the film moves from scene to scene, you often get a jarring jump. This is the kind of thing you'd expect when a film catches fire and a projectionist is forced to splice ends together, cross his fingers, and hope for the best. The editor should be shot.<br /><br />With a plot you can pack into two sentences, one stray spray of blood, an emo killer, and the tension of a very special episode of "Silver Spoons", we're left with no reason to support horror this weekend … at least on the big screen. In fact, this is the sort of film that should be punished. Is it really that hard to make a scary movie? Was this crew even aware they were making a horror film??!! A complete waste of my time and yours. I bit the bullet to get you this review. Don't let my sacrifice be in vain. DON'T GO INTO THE MOVIE!!!
Poor acting, no script, no plot, no convincing killer, no suspense, no original setups, it uses the same closet/under the bed/person-behind-you-in-the-mirror tactics over and over again making it repetitive and boring, and NOT in a foreshadowing way either, and the fact that NOBODY ever "really" gets killed (at least not on screen) , which in turn zaps any suspense it may invoke right out of it and makes everyone feel eve MORE cheated for spending money on their admission ticket....its a horror film w/o any horror LMAO. The MOST you see is what looks like someone having taken a ketchup bottle and spraying it across a plastic sheet.<br /><br />You have to be a teen who was sitting there screaming in the theater and scaring yourself to have enjoyed this, or you were high/drunk at the time.<br /><br />Honestly, I have a life and don't bother writing reviews that often unless I really really hated something, or enjoyed it tremendously.<br /><br />But this film is AWFUL and I feel I have a duty of sorts to warn you NOT to give your money to Hollywood and encourage this kind of filmaking ever again! <br /><br />It is one thing to rent a "bad" movie at blockbuster from the Weinsteins, its another when you have to sit through it in a theater.<br /><br />Also, in case you want some remake nostalgia, forget it! This is NOT a remake, nor is it a re-imagining. It is not scary, nor engaging, nor is it satisfying enough to be "funny" like others on IMDb have claimed...it is just stale and booooring.<br /><br />Here is what you will take away from this film: remembering the scar on Brittany Snow's head that stands out more than the plot, the fact that Jonathan Schaech MUST be having some sexual affair with J.S. Cardone of "The Forsaken" to have gotten another role as a killer(because he is as frightening as my poodle, and too cute to kill just about anyone) and that for some reason (duh) everyone who goes back to the hotel suite never comes back. What kind of person would NOT get worried at the prom when they decide to announce the candidates for prom king and queen and the fiercely competitive girl just somehow doesn't show up? This is my warning to you. DO NOT waste you're money like I did. The "original" sucks too but is more of a guilty pleasure for Jamie Lee Curtis fans, though no way near as bad as this piece of crap (sorry to sound vulgar or rude, but once you see this, you will understand why I say what I say).
Prom Night is about a girl named Donna (Brittany Snow) who is being chased by a psycho killer trying to kill her at her prom night. And by doing so killing her family, friends, and her enemies. <br /><br />Now before I begin let me say have you been tired of PG-13 horror movies that haven't been scary lately. Are you tired of stupid girl dialog 'Oh my god' and talking about girlish things. And are you really tired of girls in relationships and then crying. And the last thing are you tired of the US remaking Asian, Japanese, and Chinese films. That pretty much sums up Prom night but I'm still not done with the review.<br /><br />The only reason to see 'Prom night' is to crack a laugh at the kills. If not, don't see Prom night. You never see the kills an only hear screaming and you see some blood on the wall. And by the way the deaths are repeating like 24/7. So not only aren't they scary but it's obnoxious. By the time I met the cast I think I was ready to hurl. Too much girl talk, too much guy talk, and lots of 'Oh my gosh. It's our prom'. I understand it's fun but seriously is it too much to ask not to concentrate. <br /><br />If I were to put Prom Night on the list of worst films of 2008 without seeing the other films I'd be the first one too. I'm not going to be surprised if it gets released on DVD for cheap and quick. Seriously don't spend your money or the time for dull acting, cheap scares, and a 'Night to die for' when watching the film.<br /><br />1 star out of 10. (P.S. If I could give the film zero stars I would).
I am the guy who usually keeps opinions to himself, but I just got back from this movie, and felt I had to express my opinions. Let me start by saying that I am a HUGE horror fan. But what makes a horror movie? I sure like to see even a tiny bit of a good script and character development. I know they often lack in horror movies, but Prom Night looked like it didn't even put forth ANY effort in that department. Next, we all love suspense. That on the edge of your seat suspense with unpredictable surprises. Yeah, Prom Night had none of that! Of course, we like a terrifying killer. Prom Night have that? Nope, it has a pretty boy with a cute lil' knife. And when all else fails...at least horror has its guilty pleasure to make it enjoyable like gore gore gore, and the occasional nude scene! Yeah, well when you have a horror movie rated PG-13 like Prom Night, they leave that stuff out too. So with all of these elements missing, I ask....does this still count as a horror movie? Nope. I'd call it more of a comedy. People in my theater were laughing more at this then they were when I saw "Semi-Pro" that was supposed to actually be a comedy (which also sucked, but thats another story!). I think I am just going to have to give up on new horror. All the good horror movies of the good ol' days have been remade into garbage so movie studios can make money. The people I went to see it with didn't even know this was a remake! Which made me mad! I wonder what will happen when there's no more movies to remake??? Where will horror go next???
So, Prom Night was supposed to be a horror and thriller movie. I'm a big wuss and was scared to see this movie at the beginning, but upon seeing it, it is neither horror or thriller.<br /><br />I was basically making fun of the movie in my seat because it was so predictable. You could predict what was going to happen next. The young actors were alright at playing their characters, but I'd have to say the killer was definitely at the top of the game - acting wise.<br /><br />Yes, I'll give props for the plot because it was good, but it's not thrilling or scary. There were almost zero "jump-in-your-seat" scenes. So, don't waste ten dollars seeing it in theatres, wait 'til it comes to DVD.
When I first saw the trailer for Prom Night, I have to admit, the trailer looked good and like this would be a fun horror movie. So my friend and I saw Prom Night last night and I have to say I must be growing up because this was such a ridicules film, not to mention I am so sick and tired of the typical horror slasher movies with the loud noises as an excuse to scare people. There was no tension, the characters, how was I supposed to care about them? They had no development what-so-ever, the killer?! Oh, my God, this was very possibly the most stupid serial killer that has ever existed, I know it's a film, but why would a man who never(or at least we know of) killed any one before, kill a girl's family and friends that he's just obsessed over? I mean, was he going to kidnap her or was he going to kill her? I have no idea, because this film made no sense and is too predictable and insulting to true fans of horror.<br /><br />Donna's family was just brutally murdered by her teacher, who has become very obsessed over her, he was captured and put in jail. It's been 3 years and she's just now getting some peace in her life, she's even going to her senior prom. But the killer has escaped and still has Donna on his mind, he follows her to her prom which means bad news for her friends, and the hotel maid, and the bell boy, because it is such a good idea to kill the maid and bell boy so no one become suspicious enough to check to see where these employee's are. Donna is in big trouble because also this killer who is clearly human can apparently get into houses un-noticed and can kill people so silently, just, wow.<br /><br />I'm sorry, I really did want to love this movie, we haven't had a good slasher flick in a long time, but this was just a stupid movie that I was not impressed with. Just the situations were unbelievable and the actors were obnoxious. I know that this was a PG-13 movie, but I just love how someone was brutally stabbed to death and they only have just a little blood on their clothes? Not to mention no stab holes? I wouldn't recommend this movie for anyone unless you're a teen, this movie was made for the teenagers, not adults, and not for those who know a real horror movie, no offense to those who did enjoy this film, but I don't understand how anyone could.<br /><br />2/10
I saw this trailer and thought to myself my god is this movie for real, who would want to see this movie and at the same time i thought that, my girl friend turned to me and said "we have to go see this movie"...enough said so i saw this about 5 minutes go and I tried to put on a brave face and enjoy the cheap scares but there weren't even any of those. It has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen the director has no influence no perspective the same shots were used again and again he did not build up suspense the cast probably were simply told scream cry run fall. I would love to see the script as the first 40 mins was mostly annoying girly giggles and bad music, there was absolutely no character development.<br /><br />The plot is just...well there was no plot it was basically I know we will terrorize a high school group on their prom night with a stalker serial killer, That's brilliant! hmmm The acting was what you expect in a Australian soap opera hopeless, that main character the Blondie god dam she annoyed me. her longest line must have been half a sentence, and every time she was on camera she was just pulling another rude facial expression.<br /><br />Please listen to me if you have any taste in movies don't go see this, and if your like me and don't have a choice well then I wish you good luck, maybe smuggle in an ipod or magazine. Can't believe this film got made!
In Bridgeport, the deranged high school teacher Richard Fenton (Johnathon Schaech) is obsessed by the teenager student Donna Keppel (Brittany Snow); she witnesses him murder her family to stay with her, but Richard is arrested and sent to prison for life. Three years later, the traumatized Donna is feeling better but is still under psychological treatment and taking pills. On her prom night, she goes with her boyfriend Bobby (Scott Porter) and two couples of friends to the Pacific Grad Hotel for the party. But the psychopath Richard has escaped from prison and is lodged in the same floor in the hotel chasing Donna, stabbing her friends and staff of the hotel that cross his path.<br /><br />The forgettable slash "Prom Night" is a collection of clichés with a total lack of originality. The stupid story is shallow and silly, with a bad acting of Johnathon Schaech in the role of an insane killer. The predictable screenplay is amazing since it is possible to foresee what is going to happen in the next scenes. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Morte Convida Para Dançar" ("The Death Invites to Dance")
I'm not particularly fond of remakes, or to steal the modern jargon "retellings", but this film truly peeved me off. The original Prom Night, while not in my humble estimation a masterpiece, still realized what it was... horror. There are some simple things to remember when making a horror film. Suspense is crucial to maintaining the interest of the audience. Sorry folks, but a white knuckle film this was not! The scares were cheap, and foreshadowed terribly. (A good example of scare which has been done to clichéd excess now, is the cat jumping out of the closet, followed soon there after but a now unexpected appearance by the villain of the film) This film couldn't successfully pull that off, so how could I expect it to fulfill any of the other conventions of horror film. There needs to be a likable hero or heroine. This film doesn't have one. The person I most identified with was the head detective. His calm demeanor, but level headed approach to the escape of a killer was what more films of this ilk should have. Common sense approach to events that occur. (If you're running from an Axe wielding psycho, you turn and sprint in the opposite direction. Not jog, whilst looking back ever three seconds, gaging the killer's progress, only to trip over every branch and inanimate object in your path.) If you friend disappears, you don't go looking for them alone. And if you suspect foul play you tell someone, not investigate yourself. These clichés are tired and well overplayed. In the horror genre in general, and in this film in particular.
Imagine the scenario - you are at the movie theater only because you are in Washington for the weekend and it's raining and you're finished with the Museums. You think you might go see the Sarah Marshall movie as the trailer look so so and you don't have to engage your brain. It's sold out. Options? - The Bank Job, In Bruges, The Leatherheads or Prom night. You've seen the Bank Job (suprisingly decent heist movie that) and In Bruges (again, pretty good) so you're down to two. You don't fancy watching Clooney or the nice one from the Office run around in 1930 football uniforms, so you go see Prom Night right? Wrong. You take the $8.50, walk up to a stranger in the street and ask him to punch you in the face for $8.50. It would be money better spent.<br /><br />It actually plays like more of a comedy than a horror/thriller or whatever it is supposed to be. If I was financing that movie and they showed me that as a final cut I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry. Probably both. An insult to anyone's intelligence... my roommate was laughing out loud most of the movie, as for the acting, they might as well have cast robots (or maybe dogs) in the roles, they would have been more realistic. The detective has to be possibly the worst actor I have ever seen (Ben Affleck and Hayden Christansan (I hate his acting so much I don't care how you spell his name) you are relieved on your title(s)) <br /><br />So in summary 'not good'
and rent a GOOD horror movie. It's like the writer had never seen a horror movie before and didn't realize every single thing he wrote was clichéd and hackneyed and has been parodied to perfection in movies like "Scream" and "Scary Movie".<br /><br />In between the scary bits is the most BANAL and BORING dialog ever written. Stupid "we're going to the prom" junk. I wanted to claw my ears off. Honestly, "The Hills" has better dialog.<br /><br />There really was no need to make this movie. Leading lady is uninteresting and I kept thinking "Her? Really? Guy is obsessed with her? Really?" <br /><br />All the characters act in stupid ways, including the police. (Cover the place in teams of 2! Front and back! Not one sleepy cop sitting in his car with the window rolled down just waiting for his throat to be slashed.) <br /><br />The serial killer just swans about murdering everyone he wants without the least bit of problem. No resistance from victims (or doors). Nobody has any protection or the least idea of fighting back (or flipping the security lock on the hotel room door). The people are like mentally disabled sheep.<br /><br />By the by, if you're a gore fan, you'll be disappointed too. All the killing is kept offscreen and is -- ahem -- tastefully done. (So boo hoo for you!) <br /><br />None of the killings is the least bit interesting. Most of the time they've already happened by the time we find out.<br /><br />The only cliché missing was the cat that always pops out in this kind of movies. "Oh kitty! You scared me! I thought you were the killer -- AIIEEEE!" <br /><br />And then at the end when it's time for the killer to die -- well, let's just say it's the easiest and most obvious choice. Snore.<br /><br />The audience was jeering and talking back to the screen throughout. It was too dumb to believe and not really scary enough. Don't encourage this kind of lazy film-making.<br /><br />(Oh, and by the way -- no crowning of a prom king or queen. No tiara. No bucket of blood.) <br /><br />So save your money and rent "Carrie" or "Friday the 13th" or "Halloween" or "Scream" or "Scary Movie" (any of them) to get a good scare with some original twists.
Okay. So I just got back. Before I start my review, let me tell you one thing: I wanted to like this movie. I know I've been negative in the past, but I was hoping to be surprised and actually come out liking the film. I didn't.<br /><br />It's not just the fact that every horror cliché imaginable is in this. And it's not just the fact that they make every little thing into a jump scare (walking into a baseball bat left on the floor? Are you kidding me?). It just wasn't scary. One thing I was surprised about: there was more blood than I thought there was going to be.. which isn't saying much.<br /><br />The film starts off with Donna being dropped off by Lisa's mom at her house. She comes in.. goes upstairs. Camera pans to her father dead on the couch. Spooky. She goes upstairs, where the aforementioned baseball bat scene happens. Finds her brother on his bed, apparently dead (how could she tell? He didn't have a spot of blood on him). Killer comes in, Donna hides under bed, mom dies. She runs outside screaming for help. Killer behind her: "I did it for us." Cut to therapy session. This confused a lot of people- everyone was asking whether or not her family actually died or if she imagined it- and she mentions how the nightmares have started coming back. Filler dialogue ensues.<br /><br />THey cut to the chase pretty quick. Few scenes at the salon, they go to the hotel. Of course the killer is already there (for some reason, he escaped 3 days ago but the police/family weren't informed until he's already there). More filler ensues.<br /><br />I'm not going to go on about what happens in the film, because I don't want to spoil it too much. If you want to know who dies, Horror_Fan made a post about it already. But on the subjects of deaths: they weren't that exciting. People in the theatre actually laughed out loud (an experience I've never had before in a horror movie, not even in When A Stranger Calls) during several of them. One in particular: the bus boy guy who gives the most hilarious 'scared' face I've ever seen. The only death involving any blood was Lisa's, and that was pretty scarce. Her throat is slashed, blood (if you can even call it that- it was practically black) splatters on the curtain-thing. The only other blood was on Claire when we see her body. Apparently, Fenton decided to stab her a few times after he choked her to death. Um, okay? The movie was one of the most clichéd I've ever seen. Let's see here.. obligatory close-mirror-curtain-BOOM! scene. Check. Twice, actually (you could tell they were struggling). Mandatory backing-up-into-killer. Check. There's also the backing-up-into-lamp scene, but you've all seen that. Oh, you say you want a birds-flying-away scare? Well, you got it! (Yes, they managed to incorporate one of those in here). And, of course, the we-have-security-on-all-exits-but-he-still-escaped scene. Shall I go on? I could.<br /><br />For anyone saying the characters weren't stupid, are you kidding me? "Oh, even though the massive alarm is ringing, literally saying PLEASE VACATE THE BUILDING, and 3 of my friends are missing, I'm going to go upstairs to get my wrap." These characters were some of the most flawed and stupid characters ever. The only likable character - Lisa - made one of the most stupid moves in the movie. "Oh, I just realized the psycho-teacher is here! I must leave my strong boyfriend behind to run off by myself to warn her! Oh, shoot, the elevator is being to slow? Guess I'll take the stairs and run off into the construction site!" Ugh. By the end of the film, they all deserved to die. The only death anyone felt any remorse for was Donna's boyfriend (I can't even remember his name- is that bad?), and by that time, the audience was completely drained out of this scareless, clichéd film.<br /><br />There were SOME positives- the acting was decent for the most part, and it was well-shot. But that's about it.<br /><br />I'd give it a 1/5, and that's being generous. Just for the laughs (and believe me, the audience had a few), and Brittany Snow.<br /><br />Oh, and the reaction was bad. Very bad. People were boo-ing after the movie ended and buzz afterwards was very negative. Expect bad legs for this one.
Good grief I can't even begin to describe how poor this film is. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting much to begin with. Let's face it, a PG-13 slasher flick is pre-destined to be missing the ummm... slashing, so no one should be surprised by the lack of gore. But it was the level of incompetence and cliché on display in all the other aspects of this movie is what really blew me away. <br /><br />We have a protagonist who is quite simply so completely useless that you find yourself rooting for the bad guy. And here's a turnup for the books... SHE NEVER CHANGES - hence breaking the cardinal rule of basic screen writing - character development. If you think by the end of this film the poor little girl is going to turn around and finally kick some arse then think again. <br /><br />On top of this, we're handed possibly the least intriguing (and definitely the least scary) killer ever to grace the genre. I'm not joking when I say that Dora the Explorer has scarier villains than this movie.<br /><br />Finally, because all the potential for tension or gratuity is removed by the inept (and apparently thirteen-year-old) director, what could possibly be left to fill up 2 hours of screen time? <br /><br />Closets, that's what. <br /><br />Lots and lots of closets: big closets, small closets, mirrored closets, closets to Narnia, so many damned closets you'll not want to dress yourself for another year. In fact this movie should have just been called "CLOSET", and had a picture of a big scary coathanger on the DVD case. On the back it could have had a photograph of the audience falling asleep and a quote by Roger and Ebert - something to the extent of: "what the f*@! did we just waste our time watching!"
This movie is a good example of the extreme lack of good writers and directors in Hollywood. The fact that people were paid to make this piece of junk shows that there is a lack of original ideas and talent in the entertainment business. The idea that audiences paid to see this movie (and like an idiot I rented the film) is discouraging also.<br /><br />Obsessed teacher (3 years prior) kills teenager's family because he wants her. For no reason he kills the mother, father and brother. From the first five minutes you see the bad acting and direction. Years later, obsessed teacher breaks out of prison. HMM--usual bad writing--no one in the town he terrorized knows until the last minute. Obsessed teacher somehow becomes like a Navy SEAL and can sneak around, sniff out people and with a knife is super killer. Sure!!! Now obsessed teacher kills hotel maid for no reason, knifes bellhop for the fun of it, and starts to hunt down the teenager's friends. Now there is the perfect way to get the girl to love you. Obsessed teacher sneaks out of hotel---again it is stupid, ever cop would know his face--but he walks right by them. Now he kills two cops outside teenager's house and somehow sneaks into her bedroom and kills her boyfriend.<br /><br />There is not one single positive thing about this piece of garbage. If any other profession put out work of this low quality, they would be fired. Yet these idiots are making hundreds of thousands of dollars for writing and directing this trash.
I wish I could give this movie a zero out of ten. Before going to this movie the day after it came out, I came on IMDb to check out the comments. A comment called the movie predictable and cheesy with terrible dialog. I never go by other people's opinions, so I wasted seven dollars for this crap movie. It had to be one of the WORST movies I've ever seen.<br /><br />The person who wrote the script should be pushed off a cliff. Since when do scary movies have sappy scenes? I swear, I'm amazed there weren't any GROUP HUG ^-^ moments.<br /><br />I think I jumped. Once. And that's because I zoned out, thinking about my research paper for English. The clichéd, birds/cat popping out of nowhere thing when you THOUGHT something was gonna happen.<br /><br />And the characters were STUPID. My friend and I almost DIED laughing when the alarm went off and the main character said, "I have to get my mom's shawl!!!" You. Idiot. Screw the shawl! Safety is just a few steps away, but NO, my mom's shawl (that didn't match the dress By the way) is WAYYYY more important than my health and safety. And to top it all off, they take her BACK to her house, knowing that the killer knew where she lived. God.<br /><br />My friend and I also predicted the ENTIRE movie. And not just the, I bet he's hiding under the bed, moments. It was the, "HE stole the bellhop's clothes and sneaked out of the hotel" and "It's the detective coming down the hallway, not the killer!" moments. Movies should NEVER be THIS predictable. Disney movies aren't even this predictable.<br /><br />I'm gonna complete my rant now by saying, this was a terrible movie. I'm glad I went to see it in theaters so I wouldn't buy it for $15.00 and then hate it. It was just bad. It would've been better if only one thing would've happened. If, after being shot by the detective, the killer would have fallen down in the same position he got shot in. Knife in hand, falling and stabbing the girl on his way down. Oh, how lovely that would've been.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money. Go see a GOOD movie.
PROM NIGHT (2008)<br /><br />directed by: Nelson McCormick<br /><br />starring: Brittany Snow, Scott Porter, Jessica Stroup, and Dana Davis<br /><br />plot: Three years ago, Donna (Brittany Snow) witnessed the death of her entire family at the hands of her teacher (Jonathan Schaech) who has a bit of a crush on her. Now, she is preparing for her senior prom with her stupid annoying friends. Once there, they start dying one by one because the killer escaped from prison and no one bothered to warn Donna because apparently her prom is too important to interrupt. <br /><br />pros: I got a few good laughs out of the film due to the terrible dialog and the dumb character moves.<br /><br />An example:<br /><br />Everyone decides not to tell Donna that the man who is oddly obsessed with her (she doesn't seem that great) has escaped from prison. Their reason: They don't want to embarrass her in front of all her friends. LOL<br /><br />cons: Let me start off by saying I'm a huge slasher fan. Usually I can have fun with even the bad ones. I even like some PG-13 horror films. TOURIST TRAP (1979), one of my favorites, was originally rated PG. I also enjoy POLTERGEIST (1982) and THE GRUDGE (2004). So the fact that this is a dumb slasher film that is rated PG-13 does not have anything to do with me not enjoying the movie.<br /><br />First of all, I had a big problem with the story. I like slasher films that don't even have stories. At least they can be entertaining. This is about a teacher who falls in love with his student, so he kills her entire family. A few years later, he tries to make it up to her by ruining her prom and killing all of her friends ...? Then there were subplots that I doubt anyone cared about. Claire (Jessica Stroup) is fighting with her boyfriend, she has cramps, and I couldn't care less. This should have been a Lifetime feature, not a remake of PROM NIGHT. <br /><br />And then ... this is a slasher film with terrible death scenes. I don't even care that it's not that gory, some of my favorite slashers (HALLOWEEN, CURTAINS, the original PROM NIGHT) were not that gory but they still had effective murders. Here, we have half the characters dying in the same hotel room off screen, a woman being stabbed several times with no stab wounds, and a closeup on a bad actor's face as he screams in agony. I'm sure that 10 year-old girls were terrified, but not me.<br /><br />I also hated the characters. There was Donna's unrealistically sensitive boyfriend Bobby (Scott Porter) and I can almost guarantee you will never meet a boyfriend that sensitive in your life, unless you are a gay male. Then we had Donna's annoying friends Claire (Stroup) and Lisa (Dana Davis), and the token mean girl Chrissy (Brianne Davis). If you thought the characters in DEATH PROOF were annoying, try watching this movie. And don't get me started on Ronnie (Collins Pennie) and the DJ (Jay Phillips) who gave me flashbacks to Usher's performance in SHE'S ALL THAT.<br /><br />Add to all that predictable plot turns, a terrible soundtrack and a big lack of respect to the original material, and you have quite a stinker.
Note: I couldn't force myself to actually write up a constructive review of Prom Night. It just can't be done. Instead, I went through what I thought about while watching the movie.<br /><br />Things that I thought about while watching Prom Night: <br /><br />-I'm so tired of those dreams where these elaborate deaths will take place, only for the main character to wake up right before she bites it. Of course, when I say "elaborate deaths", I mean off screen throat slashes or stabs in the stomach. Didn't the whole "it's just a dream" thing get ruined by Dallas? Speaking of which, I wonder if a couple stabs in the gut will cause immediate death.<br /><br />-The film is only ten minutes into and I can already count the horror clichés on two hands. Not a good sign.<br /><br />-Even after just meeting the protagonist's boyfriend, I'm convinced he will die. Anybody want to place bets? <br /><br />-The killer in this movie is a teacher that is obsessed with the main character, Donna. (By the way, does anybody think that "Donna" is a horrible name for a main character in a horror film?) He spends three years in a maximum security prison before breaking out and finds Donna celebrating her high school prom. While there is no accounting for taste, I seriously wonder who would take all that time to stalk somebody as dull as Donna.<br /><br />-High schools allow proms to take place at hotels and doesn't keep track of the students. Apparently students are perfectly able to buy a hotel room and go in and out as they please. I suppose if this plot point wasn't in place, the movie would be 90 minutes of people being bored out of their mind and randomly biting the dust whenever they go to the bathroom. I suppose the trade-off for their excitement is my utter boredom with everything. I've already played "count the pieces of chewed bubble gum under the seat" and "guess how much money I have in my wallet" and I'm only in the 20 minute mark. How else will I entertain myself? <br /><br />-Note to self: Don't forget milk and bread on the way home.<br /><br />-Dear screenwriter: You've used up enough false scares to get through this movie and every other horror remake this year.<br /><br />-The 1980 version of this film wasn't that good but compared to this remake it was like Citizen Kane, or at least The Godfather. It had Jamie Lee Curtis in one of her many post-Halloween horror flicks and it did have a little "twist" at the end. I miss Jamie Lee. I wish she'd act more.<br /><br />-Apparently at prom there isn't much dancing going on. Instead the girls get in fights with their boyfriends over where they plan to attend college. I hear all these colleges being brought up by name, and I can't help but wonder who these girls have to cheat off of on the entrance exam to get in.<br /><br />-The killer must carry a bag of really effective cleaning supplies and wipes up his mess between scenes. That's the only logical explanation for why he could stab somebody to death on the carpet or in the bathroom and by the time somebody goes up to the hotel room, there is no trace of a struggle. (On another side note: This is a very lazy killer. Michael Myers went hunting after his victims. Just saying.)<br /><br />-It's official: the entire audience in the theater is rooting on the killer. What triggered it? Was it whenever Donna went back up to her hotel room while sirens were going off ordering everybody to exit the building? Was it her constant dreams, and how even after going through something dramatic in said dream she insisted on reenacting her steps to a tee? Or was it Brittany Snow's unconvincing performance? I'll have to say it was all of the above.<br /><br />-Okay, who had "he dies off screen in the third act"? You win the pot.<br /><br />-Finally, the movie is over. My friend turns to me and says "Donna wasn't too smart." That's the understatement of the week. Kind of like saying that a tornado is a small gust of wind, or a week long power outage is a slight inconvenience.<br /><br />-I can't wait to get on Rotten Tomatoes and see if anybody gave this move a favoring review.<br /><br />-I can't recommend this. I refuse to recommend this. This is as lazy of a horror film as any, and the only way to enjoy its cheese smelling plot is if you are under the influence of at least ten beers. And unfortunately for theater patrons, alcohol isn't served.<br /><br />Rating: * out of ****
I went into this with my hopes up, by twenty minutes into the movie I couldn't have been more let down. Despite thinking that this would be another horribly bad remake, I kept my hopes high that maybe...just maybe someone would get it right this time around. Sadly, Prom Night is about on the same quality level as the recent April Fools Day remake, bad script, bad direction, cheesy overdone acting and generally bad horror.<br /><br />From beginning to end it's boring, repetitive and worthy of about a dozen eye rolls. We've seen it all before and we've seen it done a million times better then this. If you go to see Prom Night in the theater (I'd say wait for the DVD or PPV), get ready for the audience to laugh, because laugh they will. The laughs aren't at points in the movie that are supposed to be funny, they are in response to key "thrilling" moments in the film that are so poorly done you feel as if your watching the newest installment of Scary Movie. Seriously, was this supposed to be a remake or a spoof? The film makers missed the mark so badly here, that a large number of the audience in the theater I attended walked out about halfway through the movie. Which in retrospect, I wish I had done. Not me though, I had to torture myself and stick with it hoping it would get better. Needless to say It didn't. The "horror" scenes are a joke, not even so much because of the acting but because of the direction, the script, the "special effects" and the camera work. The movie manages to look as if they spent a fortune to produce it, but still came out of it with a micro budget movie. I halfway expected to see dollar store tags on some of the props and kept thinking I would spot a porn star in the cast somewhere. <br /><br />This movies scary alright, if this is the future of big budget horror then the horror genre is doomed.
"Prom Night" is a title-only remake of the 1980 slasher flick that starred Jamie Lee Curtis and Leslie Nielsen. This movie takes place in an Oregon town, where Donna (Brittany Snow) is about to go to her senior prom and let herself have some fun after going through some extremely traumatic events in the past few years. She and her friends arrive at the prom, which is taking place in a grand hotel, and try and enjoy what is supposed to be the most fun night of their lives. Little does anyone know, a man from Donna's past, who has haunted her for years, is also at the prom... and is willing to kill anyone in way of his pursuit of her.<br /><br />I'm a fan of the original "Prom Night", so I tried to maintain a little hope in this movie, but I have to admit I was quite disappointed. "Prom Night" suffers from the worst affliction a horror movie could have, and that is predictability. There are absolutely no surprises here, and I felt I had seen everything in this movie done dozens of times, often better, before. What does this equate to for the audience? Boredom. Unless of course you have never seen any horror movies, or are part of the pre-teen crowd, but the majority of the audience will most likely be able to guess nearly everything that is going to happen. The plot is simplistic, but the entire script is void of any type of surprise, twist, atmosphere, or anything, and this really, really hurts the movie because it never really gives the audience anything to sink their teeth into. It all just seemed very bland.<br /><br />A lot of people seem to complain with the fact that this is a PG-13 slasher movie as well, and I understand what they are saying, but I don't think it's impossible to make a good slasher movie with minimal gore. Take Carpenter's "Halloween" for example - little to no on screen violence, but still an extremely frightening and effective movie. You don't need gore to make a film scary, but even had "Prom Night" been gratuitously violent (which it is not, it is very tame), it still would have added little to the movie because there is not much in the script to build on to begin with. The tension and suspense here is mild at best, and I spent most of the movie predicting the outcome of situations, and was correct about 99% of the time. Our characters aren't well written enough either for the audience to make any connection to them, and their by-the-numbers demises are routine and careless.<br /><br />I will point out a few things I did like about this movie, though, because it wasn't completely useless - the cinematography is really nice, and everything was very well-filmed and fairly stylish. Among the "jump" scares (that are for the most part very predictable), there were a few that were kind of clever. The sets for the movie are nice too and the hotel is a neat place for the plot to unfold, however predictable the unfolding may be. As for the acting, it's mediocre at best. Brittany Snow plays the lead decently, but really the rest of the cast doesn't show off much talent. Johnathan Schaech plays the villain, and is probably the most experienced performer here, but even he isn't that impressive. However, I did like the character he played, which was a nice change from the typical 'masked-stalker' type killer we see a lot. As far as the ending goes, the last fifteen minutes of the film had me bored to my wit's end and it was very anti-climactic.<br /><br />Overall, "Prom Night" was a disappointment. Everything was very by-the-numbers, routine, and predictable, which is somewhat upsetting considering this had the potential to be a decent slasher movie. There were a few neat moments, but the movie lacked any suspense or atmosphere, and had little plot development, nor believable characters. I'd advise seasoned horror fans to save their money and wait till it's out on video, or rent the original instead, because there are absolutely no surprises here. Some may find a little entertainment in it, but it was far too predictable for my tastes. I expected better, and left the theater very disappointed. 3/10.
If I could give this film a real rating, it would likely be in the minus numbers. While I respect the fact that somebody has to keep making these terrible "horror" films, seriously, people, buying a ticket for this film is a waste of money you could be spending on something far more worth your time.<br /><br />Despite it being a horror film, there is nothing scary about it, unless the idea of seeing how many horror cliché's you can fit in one movie scares you. If the rating had been higher, it probably would have made for a better film in the long run.<br /><br />Whoever made this version of "Prom Night", you screwed up. The actors could probably have done a decent job if it weren't for the questionable scripting. This was a terrible waste of a cinema trip. I'd sooner go and see "One Missed Call" again, at least that had some plot.
I think it was an overrated PG-13 crap! At least BRITTANY SNOW's performance was good and some others like IDRIS ELBA were good too, but some others teens in the prom like the leads friends were not that convincing. The killer was so dumb and looked so stupid too. The deaths were stupid, boring and completely unoriginals. The movie was very boring too and very overrated. It wasn't suspenseful at all, i almost fall asleep. Its another bad PG-13 remake, its really a dreadful movie IMO. The ending was so stupid and the climax was very rushed and boring. The movie is pretty slow too. Overall the only good thing about this crap fest is maybe BRITTANY SNOW i think she gave a good performance and IDRIS ELBA too, but besides that it was a completely dreadful movie and horrible remake. Well thats just my opinion. i gave it a 2/10.
I saw this movie a few days ago and gamely jumped during the scary parts. I must admit, I found it pretty decent...until I started to THINK about what the characters were saying. Logical problems:<br /><br />1. Her boyfriend, who seems to be a pretty fit dude, makes no sound while being killed. Don't you think that he might have at least tried to take the killer? <br /><br />2. When the remark is made that the gym teacher is "SOOOO in love with Lisa," I almost screamed at the screen. When your best friend's family HAS BEEN KILLED BY A TEACHER WHO WAS IN LOVE WITH HER, you don't make comments like that if you have half of a heart.<br /><br />3. As soon as Nash asks the uncle how many exits they have in the house and the uncle catches on that there may be danger ahead, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to get Donna, boyfriend, aunt, and uncle into a car and drive far, far away, then bait the house with the HRT and police force so that the killer has no way to get out?<br /><br />I could go on. And on. And on. Basically, the plot was decent, the characters weren't profiled enough for you to actually feel any empathy when they were slaughtered and there were way too many errors.<br /><br />HOWEVER.<br /><br />This movie might be good for teenagers, or young couples just looking for a fun night out. If you don't consider all the goofs, it's a mediocre film.
Why Hollywood feels the need to remake movies that were so brilliant their prime (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes) but is it considerably worse why Hollywood feels the need to remake those horror films that weren't brilliant to start with (Prom Night, The Amityville Horror) Much like their originals these remakes fail in creating atmosphere, character or any genuine scares at all. Prom night is so flat and uninteresting its hard to watch, but for all the wrong reasons.<br /><br />It's a poorly acted, massively uninteresting and ultimately dull excursion that fails at everything its designed to do. It's clear Hollywood Horror is dead. Even The likes of The Hills Have Eyes and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre managed to ruin their franchises in style with buckets of blood and a decent plot. Prom night is virtually bloodless and I'm not even going to mention how bad the plot is. Its inability to seal the killers identify makes this the least suspenseful horror movie since erm... the original.<br /><br />One of the most notorious slasher films of the 1980s returns to terrorize filmgoers with this remake that proves just how horrifying high school dances can truly be. Donna Keppel (Brittany Snow) has survived a terrible tragedy, but now the time has come to leave the past behind and celebrate her senior prom in style.<br /><br />When the big night finally arrives, Donna and her best friends prepare to enjoy their last big high-school blowout by living it up and partying till dawn. But while Donna is willing to look past her nightmares and into a brighter future, the man she thought she had escaped forever has returned for one last dance. An obsessed killer is on the loose, and he'll slay anyone who attempts to prevent him from reaching his one and only Donna.<br /><br />Who will survive to see graduation day, and what will Donna do when she's forced to confront her greatest fear? Scott Porter, Jessica Stroup, and Dana Davis co-star in the slasher remake that will have tuxedo-clad teens everywhere nervously looking over their shoulders as they file out onto the dance floor. A plot that will probably put you off going to see this. Witch if you ask me is a good thing.<br /><br />Without much to work with, McCormick gamely tries to milk tension out of the most banal of situations. At one point, a girl backs into a floor lamp (a lamp!) and McCormick tries to pump it up into a jump-scare moment. Desperate times really do call for desperate measures. There haven't been this many shots of closets since the last IKEA catalogue.<br /><br />In the era of The Hills, My Super Sweet 16 and To Catch a Predator, there probably is a freaky, scary movie to be mined from the commoditisation of glamour and society's creepy obsession with youthful beauty. This is not that movie.<br /><br />My final verdict? Avoid at all cost. Nobody will like Prom Night, it's even a disappointment to thoses who usually enjoy hack-job remakes. Considering its absolute lack of blood or frights. A night you'll be in a hurry to forget.
OK this movie was made for one reason and one reason only TO MAKE MONEY!!The producers obviously didn't care about killing a classic horror movie. I knew this movie would suck as soon as it was going to be a pg-13 how many pg-13 slashers movies have turned out to be good? Thats like asking how many women have been on the moon? The answer is NONE!! Prom night 1980 was of cource no masterpiece but it certainly deserves to be recognised as a movie that stays true to its genre and deosnt try to be anything more than that.<br /><br />My problem with Prom night 2008 is the way that it handles the killer and i have 3 major problems with him.....................<br /><br />1)The way he escapes, he was locked up in a mental institute and he escapes through a air conditioning vent!! WHAT THE HELL? why would they have an air conditioning vent in the patients room? Do they want him to be comfortable during his stay or something? 2)His intentions are somewhat uncertain the killer want all of the main victims family and friends dead so he can have her all to his self, he says he loves her but the next minute he trys to kill her, so does he want to kill her, love her or just plain rape her?? 3) The killer is too good, how did he develop all of his skills? He used to be a teacher, so in this one scene where he kills the main victims boyfriend while hes basically on top of her asleep and she doesn't notice, it all silly 2 stars out of 10 terrible,silly,stupid attempt at a horror movie
The night of the prom: the most important night to any shallow girl composed almost entirely of plastic. And so the characters kept reminding us every ten minutes when some head-peckingly miniscule event occurred in their miniscule lives.<br /><br />There really is no excuse for Prom Night. There is less than nothing original about it and I truly would have given it zero or less stars were it possible on IMDb. The only part of my viewing that I enjoyed was when a group of teenagers sitting in front of us decided to play a game of 'ghosts'. It was a lot more exciting than whatever was going on on the screen in front of them.<br /><br />The plot was basically some guy going on a rampage. And the thing was, it wasn't even a slightly exciting rampage. Maybe if the guy had been remotely frightening rather than a tame Robbie Williams lookalike with a baseball cap, I might have sat there feeling slightly anxious. The fact that I cared less about the characters than I did about the colour of the cinema carpet didn't really add to the effect, either. And to make matters worse, the rest of the characters were equally one-dimensional and oblivious. The hotel staff didn't seem to notice or care that one of their maids had vanished and are further proof that a murderer is unrecognisable after he has had a shave. I was incredibly surprised that the bitchy, stereotypical girl in the blue dress was the only person to notice who he was. She realises this and then proceeds to fall down the stairs, entangle herself in a plastic sheet and then knock over a pile of paint buckets. Nice one.<br /><br />The worst thing was, I hold the belief that that the director was trying his absolute hardest. He really pushed all boundaries by not showing any killing actually happening. Shocking! And the music, don't even get me started. It was almost as appropriate as stripping at a funeral.<br /><br />I really wish that Prom Night was a joke. It was terrible and stupidly predictable. No one, in their right mind or otherwise, has any reason to see this film. Mainstream cinema seems to be going downhill and films like this worsen the situation. If you get the urge to see this absolutely awful film, hear my plea. Don't do it. There are better things to spend six pounds on. Like a sheet to play ghosts with.
The acting was horrendous as well as the screenplay. It was poorly put together and made you almost want to laugh at the several terribly acted out murder scenes. The ending was even worse. Everyone kept dying, but somehow the ending made it look like everything was perfectly OK! They did not give enough history about the obsession the teacher had, etc. The movie needed more time to perhaps develop a better storyline. The only reason I give this 3/10 is that I kind of feel bad for the young actors. They needed better coaching. They could have really made this an OK film, but the screenplay and acting failed miserably.
i saw this film by accident and this movie was an accident...well it must of been. blonde women being stalked,the villain appearing then disappearing getting from one place to another in minute's then disappearing and reappearing,hiding.he was'nt even a super hero so i don't know how he did it.he could'nt frighten a cat and that's not hard to do.<br /><br />the old "mirror in the bathroom"is just not scary anymore in fact it stopped being scary years ago. you had the cop on the trail of the villain,another cliché(played by idris elba with a very convincing American accent,he's from London) the director did'nt have a clue and has made a film full of cliché's and make's "scary move"which was a COMEDY look scary. pathetic!
When I first saw the preview for this movie, I really couldn't wait to see it. The plot seemed good and the setting was great. I mean, a slasher movie that takes place on prom night, great idea!! And the plot: A High School teacher that becomes sexually obsessed with one of his students, goes crazy, gets arrested, and escapes three years later on prom night! Prom night, a night that is supposed to be happy and memorable, turns into hell!! However, I saw it and was extremely disappointed. It was not only the worst "horror movie" I have ever seen, but it was one of the worst movie in general that I have ever seen!! First of all, it wasn't even scary. There was not one moment in that movie when I jumped out of my seat. Also, the murder scenes were so cheesy and dull. All the slasher did was either stab his victims in the stomach multiple times or cut their throats. Also there was absolutely no gore (its rated PG-13). The scene with the most blood was probably the one where the killer murders the black girl. He slits her throat and blood splatters on the sheets hanging around them (they don't actually show him cutting her throat).<br /><br />Next, you see the killers face the first time he is introduced in the movie. He isn't mysterious, creepy, or scary. He's just this guy who kills people.<br /><br />Also, everything in the movie was so cliché. An example is when, at the end, the killer is about to kill the main character and at the last moment, the detective shoots and kills him. Also, every single thing in this movie was so predictable. The victim, after seeing the guy with a knife, runs for her life, hides, thinks she gets away, and then the killer just pops out and kills her.<br /><br />Finally, the sequence of the movie was extremely bad. The guy goes into the hotel, kills a few people, the bodies are discovered, someone pulls the fire alarm, and everyone evacuates. The main character forgets something in her room, has an encounter with the killer, runs and escapes. Thats it! She and her boyfriend go home, the slasher kills the guards patrolling the house, finds the girl, then gets killed by the detective. The movie sequence was so stupid and cliché.<br /><br />If your thinking of seeing this movie all because the preview looked good, trust me, don't waste your time or money. No wonder this movie was being shown in the smallest theater in the movie theater. My friend and I, along with these two girls sitting in the back, were the only ones in the theater. That should have told me something about the movie beforehand.
We have all been asking ourselves "why don't they remake the slasher films that were only OK instead of remaking the ones that were great already, that way they can only make it better?" well with Prom Night they have remade the average but trashy fun 80s Jamie Lee Curtis film and made it even WORSE. Its a paint by numbers slasher film which is clearly trying to attract the young teens (hence no violence etc), the knife in this slasher flick is blunt.The director spends so much time focusing on trying to make the rather attractive killer look somewhat creepy that anything else goes out of the window.The cast who include Britney Snow (who was superb in Hairspray) try their hardest but the material gives them nothing to do but pout and look scared.More annoying is how the death scenes are handled (we will hear the attack but wont see it). It also looks like the only place the knife in this film worked was in the editing suite since the film looks like it has been butchered (im guessing anything remotely scary ended up on the cutting room floor so as not to scare the kids) Yet in pours the money from Americans sending this film to number 1 at the box office!!! Slasher movies are a lot of fun but in Prom Nights case it made me want to download the original.I've seen scarier OC and Dawsons Creek episodes
I'm a big fan of the TV series Largo Winch. This movie was pain for me. I had to use fast forward not to fell to sleep. It was boring! How can somebody ruin this title so much? The story was the only good thing. Actors were sh.t. They can't live the role. The main actor(Tom ... ) is a null. Watch the other roles of this actor. The fighting scenes were unbelievable boring and not to followable,somehow they were not to follow the situation. Like other reviewer said low budget film with bad actors.Maybe next time somebody else can do better thing out of this title. French can't do right thing with big films,like Alien 4. That was bit brrr, after Alien 1,2,3.
First of all, if you'r a fan of the comic, well, you'll be VERY disappointed I'm sure ! Low budget movie !!! Largo is supposed to be Serbian in the comic, now suddenly he becomes croatian, pfff! chicken producers, it gave some spice and guts to the comic ( By the way, in the film, his father speaks Serbian and he speaks croatian... Lol ). The striking N.Y. Winch building becomes a common average-small yacht in H.K. The good looking Largo becomes some unshaved Tzigan/Turkish looking guy. Freddy the cool 'scarface' pilot becomes some fat, out of shape, sad, average guy. Simon, Largo's good buddy, does not exist at all !? He gave some pepper ! Largo doesn't throw knifes at all, but just some snake stares... The whole story is confused and looks like a pretentious TV-film. French directors and producers, if you don't have the money, the ability or the technology to adapt correctly the comic, please stick to some romance shooted in Paris. Very very bad film, good thing I just rented it, don't count on me to watch the sequel ( If there is any ! ).
In my knowledge, Largo winch was a famous Belgium comics (never read) telling the adventures of a playboy, a sort of James Bond without the spy life! So, when I had to choose a movie for a 5 years-old kid, I picked it up because the kid was already a great fan of James Bond!<br /><br />But, just after the opening credits, I got heavy doubts: when American movies offer amazing start, here, no action and a torrid sex scene … Then, the story get very complicated with financial moves… I thought I lost the kid.<br /><br />But, strangely, he had been caught by Largo, and more than James Bond! <br /><br />Was it the excellent interpretation of Tomer Sisley? The difficult relationship Largo has with his father? The multiple box story in which the friends are the bad guys, the bad guys are the friends? The exotic locations of Honk-Kong, Yougoslavia? <br /><br />Dunno, but he really cares about Largo ("Will he get up?) and we enjoyed our moment.
Chilly, alienating adaptation of Rebecca West's book about an Army Captain returning from duty in WWII with his memory impaired (now there's an original idea!). It seems he remembers old flame Glenda Jackson but not current wife Julie Christie, which should be enough to set off some emotional sparks. This extremely well-cast soaper brings together leading man Alan Bates with director Alan Bridges and co-stars Jackson, Christie, Ann-Margret, and Ian Holm, but the burners are all on low. There are a handful of good scenes (particularly whenever Jackson is on-screen), but Bridges' pacing is unrelievedly sluggish and the film's dulled-out color is enervating. Long on the shelf, this "Soldier" is best left forgotten. *1/2 from ****
but "Cinderella" gets my vote, not only for the worst of Disney's princess movies, but for the worst movie the company made during Walt's lifetime. The music is genuinely pretty, and the story deserves to be called "classic." What fails in this movie are the characters, particularly the title character, who could only be called "the heroine" in the loosest sense of the term.<br /><br />After a brief prologue, the audience is introduced to Cinderella. She is waking up in the morning and singing "A Dream is A wish Your Heart Makes." This establishes her as an idealist (and thus deserving of our sympathy). Unfortunately, the script gives us no clue as to what she is dreaming about. Freedom from her servant role? The respect of her step-family? Someone to talk to besides mice and birds? In one song (cut from the movie but presented in the special features section of the latest DVD) Cinderella relates her wish that there could be many of her so she could do her work more efficiently. You go girlfriend! In short, Cinderella is a very bland character. She passively accepts her step-family's abuse, escaping into her unspoken dreams for relief. She only asserts herself once by reminding her stepmother that she is still a member of the family. For this, she is given permission to go the ball if she completes her housework and finds something to wear, a token gesture that is clearly absurd to everyone except, of course, Cinderella. Can anyone see Belle or Jasmine being such a doormat? If Cinderella is dull, her male counterpart is nothing short of lifeless. The Prince in Cinderella gets no dialog and almost no screen time. We are given no indication if he is a good man, if he respects Cinderella or anything. All we know is 1) he is a prince and 2) he dances well. Heck, even the prince from "Snow White" got to sing a romantic song at least. Not only does this lack of development make the romance less interesting, it makes Cinderella look like either a social climber or an idiot, weakening her already tenuous appeal.<br /><br />Perhaps realizing how dull the main characters were, the animators chose to give excessive screen time to the movie's comic relief, Cinderella's friends, the mice. Granted, these characters are amusing. Even so, when the comic relief steals the show from the principals, well, let's just say your story has some problems.<br /><br />Dinsey loves to proclaim all its animated features as "masterpieces." While many of them are, there are some that do not deserve this appellate in any way. Cinderella is a prime example of this fact.
Just saw it yesterday in the Sao Paulo Intl Film Festival. Just before going I came here to see how it was rated, and at that time it was 7.4, a pretty nice rate...<br /><br />After 15 minutes I was dying to get out (never did this), but felt embarrassed to do so as the producer of the movie was in the screening.<br /><br />I did not like at all, the dialogs are shallow and lead nowhere, the characters are shallower than the dialogs, nothing lead anywhere, and the worst and worst: plenty of Siemens and Organics advertising on the movie. Despite the fact that I already paid to go to the movie and entertain myself, I still have to be bombarded by the main character chatting on the internet and Siemens mobile popping-up all the time on her lap-top; or another character having a bath or cutting her hair just to have Organics shampoo displayed enormously on the screen! All of this would be bearable if the plot, characters, romances, anything was good, but was bad, really bad! A "don't know how to do" sex-in-the-city.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money.
When I bought this DVD I though: "It seems to be a nice light comedy about love and relationships made up in Portuguese standards… let's give it a chance…" I was TOTALLY WRONG! What a disappointing movie! First, it's not a comedy; it's a cheap drama which can be so melodramatic that it's even worse than many Portuguese soap operas! Second, the plot is so boring, and leads nowhere… It has no structure, it just flows, like the wind, in one or another direction… The production is also bad! The sound mixing is horrible, because sometimes the voices are disconnected. It made me remind some old Portuguese movies from the 80's… The acting should have been better too… Well, to sum up, it's not with films like this one that Portuguese cinema will improve! In fact, it was one of the worst Portuguese movies I have seen in the last years! Bad argument, bad acting, bad production… I had no high hopes for this movie, but it was much worse than I've ever imagined! Just forget about it!
(I'll indicate in this review the point where spoilers begin.) My dissatisfaction is split: 30% tone-deafness, 70% lackluster writing.<br /><br />The 30%: I agree with the first commenter's synopsis about the lack of diversity in the characters and scope of the stories. I was surprised how, this film, at best, woefully shortchanges the real NYC by presenting a collection of people and relationships so narrow as to come across as if it's inhabited only by the cast of Gossip Girl (this is coming from someone who likes Gossip Girl). A few minority characters are written into the stories, but they are included by obligation, while we can see the gears under the film so clearly, striving to "be diverse" but falling ever-so-short.<br /><br />The 70% is why everything falls short. All characters, white plus a few token minorities, are one-dimensional, cardboard cutouts of people concepts. Worse, their interactions with each other are scripted in such a way that for each vignette in the film the audience is treated to what I'd say is a "gag": we get a basic conceit, then some punchline intended to be a clever twist. But even if we suspended cynicism for a moment to say, "Okay, that was a surprise"...the stories are still not that interesting, because they, too, are shallow. When you fashion stories so that their existence hinges solely on the unexpectedness of the ending, you're writing jokes.<br /><br />Spoilers below...<br /><br />The movie primarily tries to tell romantic stories. That's fine. But romance is amazing, deep, sometimes complex. These "romantic" stories each feature a girl and a boy who at some point share the same location and get to look at each other. Words exchange, thoughts are projected through voice-over, but they too only manage to communicate to the audience merely that one person is attracted to another.<br /><br />Meaning, there is no seduction (in the broad sense), no tension, and neither confrontation nor communion between the wills of two different people trying to reconcile their existence to accommodate the Other. The only story involving a superficial "seduction" is told just so the audience ends up being surprised that the guy (Ethan Hawke) gets outwitted by the girl he's hitting on, who unexpectedly turns out to be a hooker. Sure, his words when trying to pick her up are interesting to hear and we are amused as we'd be if we were next to them, but there is nothing of substance to this story outside of "A then B". So it unfolds, if something like a postcard could "unfold", with all the other tales as well: A then B--That's It, the only point being that these happen to occur "on set" in Manhattan. By the way, the only Brooklyn we see is the Coney Island sketch; the only Queens is the flickering of a train ride taken by a character traveling to the West Village.<br /><br />It's easy to pick at movies that play into all the common stereotypes of race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. _New York, I Love You_, however, deserves to be held to stricter scrutiny because of its title. We expect to see the real New York, and real New Yorkers, but instead we have paraded before us the selected slice of a demographic, its characters flown in from The O.C., plus a few others to make it SEEM as if we are paying attention to diversity. But when we look closer at who those characters are, the whole sham becomes an affront to the very notion of diversity and the ethnicities and cultures the movie shamefully fails to represent.<br /><br />For example, the story with the Latino man with the little white girl in the park, who gets mistaken by two ladies as her manny (male nanny) when in fact he's the father. Notwithstanding the last scene of this part was unnecessary from a dramatic-construction point of view (it would have been far more interesting to end it when the mother and boyfriend/stepfather are strutting the girl away), it is frankly a bit disgusting that the scene where we learn for sure that the girl's father is Latino ALSO must inform us that he is a sexually desirable dancer. What, the dad can't be just some guy from South America? Now that he's obviously hot, is the audience better prepared to accept that he had a kid with a middle-to-upper-class white woman? Are we that naive as to require such? As if a Mexican construction worker would obviously be too unpalatable.<br /><br />It's not my place to dictate where the movie should have gone. But in every conceivable set-up and plot twist, the direction taken screams status quo, appeals to safety. All these stories could have been made more interesting, even if we were forced to keep the single-dimensionality of the characters inhabiting them, at the very least by not choosing from standard and obvious stereotypes. Asian girl living in Chinatown being leered at by a scraggly old white guy? How 'bout an Asian cougar pursuing a white college kid instead. Again, I'm not saying the entire conceit has to be changed. It's just that every. damn. story premise. is so hackneyed--and thus they fail to convey anything about why one might love New York, outside the trite. The real way to have improved the film would be to have written a script worth reading.<br /><br />I will concede the pleasantness of the soundtrack, the good pacing of the movie (even if what was being paced was, well, dredge), and the general feel of many of the scenes. The movie was just fine to sit through, and I wouldn't dissuade anyone from doing so. However, it is telling that the most significant homage paid to non-superficiality is when the old opera singer says (paraphrased) "That's what I love about New York: everyone's from a different place." Well, you wouldn't know it from watching this one.
Having loved 'Paris, Je T'aime', I highly anticipated this film and I admit I went in with high expectations, but was sorely disappointed for a number of reasons.<br /><br />Although, I was not expecting a re-make of 'Paris' in New York I was expecting the same structure. What I liked about 'Paris' was the breakup of the neighborhoods. You got a sense of each directors style and the story they wanted to tell. In 'NY', there is no clear separation of the stories, at different points in the film, characters from different stories run into each other which made me confused as to who I was watching and what exactly was going on. Also, the switch in directing was evident but confusing since there was no flow.<br /><br />Another thing I loved about the 'Paris' film was the different takes on love. It wasn't all romantic. There was love between parents and their children, unrequited love, a lonely, middle-aged woman yearning for love etc., it explored so many layers of the complexity of love between humans. 'NY' seemed to only go for an edgy, over-the-top sexuality. There were some redeemable shorts (the older couple having spent a lifetime together, Julie Christie's short), but overall the'NY' film didn't evoke any emotion for me. I didn't connect with any of the characters like I did with 'Paris'. I remember watching 'Paris' and feeling a deep sadness, loneliness, yearning, hopefulness, wonder... it just had so much soul. For me, there was no soul in the 'NY' film.<br /><br />Maybe if I had gone into it without having 'Paris' looming in the back of my brain as a comparison this film might have elicited a more favorable response, but as a self-titled re-take of 'Paris, Je T'aime' I was sorely disappointed.
I saw this regurgitated pile of vignettes tonight at a preview screening and I was straight up blown away by how bad it was. <br /><br />First off, the film practically flaunted its gaping blind spots. There are no black or gay New Yorkers in love? Or who, say, know the self-involved white people in love? I know it's not the love Crash of anvil-tastic inclusiveness but you can't pretend to have a cinematic New York with out these fairly prevalent members of society. Plus, you know the people who produced this ish thought Crash deserved that ham-handed Oscar, so where is everyone? <br /><br />Possibly worse than the bizarre and willful socioeconomic ignorance were the down right offensive chapters (remember when you were in high school and people were openly disgusted with pretty young women in wheelchairs? Me either). This movie ran the gamut of ways to be the worst. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing -- all spanning every possible genre ever to concern wealthy white people who smoke cigarettes outside fancy restaurants. <br /><br />But thank god they finally got powerhouses Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson back together for that Jumper reunion. And, side note, Uma dodged a bullet; Ethan Hawke looks ravaged. This, of course, is one thing in terms of his looks, but added an incredibly creepy extra vibe of horribleness to his terrifyingly scripted scene opposite poor, lovely Maggie Q.<br /><br />I had a terrible time choosing my least favorite scene for the end of film questionnaire, but it has to be the Anton Yelchin/ Olivia Thirlby bit for the sheer lack of taste, which saddens me because I really like those two actors. I don't consider myself easily offended, but all I could do was scoff and look around with disgust like someone's 50 year old aunt. <br /><br />A close second place in this incredibly tight contest of terrible things is Shia LaBeouf's tone deaf portrayal of what it means for a former Disney Channel star to act against Julie Christie. I don't mean opposite, I mean against. Against is the only explanation. I realize now that the early sequence with Orlando Bloom is a relative highlight. HIGHLIGHT. Please keep that in mind when your brain begins to leak out your ear soon after the opening credits, which seem to be a nod to the first New York Real World. This film is embarrassing, strangely dated, inarticulate, ineffective, pretentious and, in the end, completely divorced from any real idea of New York at all. <br /><br />(The extra star is for the Cloris Leachman/ Eli Wallach sequence, as it is actually quite sweet, but it is only one bright spot in what feels like hours of pointless, masturbatory torment.)
I've never been to Paris, but after seeing "Paris, Je t'aime" I'm crazy to visit this city! I've been to NY several times and I LOVE the city and its boroughs. I kinda expected to be touched by this film, to feel like jumping into a plane and fly there right away, but, lo and behold, I regret the time and money I spent with it. There are no love stories between people or a person and the city. There's a lot of dysfunctional meetings and relations or people who know each other and it just doesn't work out fine. Maybe this reflects a characteristic of the city, where it's said to have thousands of people living on their own. Can't you find love in New York?
This was a movie i could not wait to see! So i finally got it and I was pretty disappointed. For starters,the movie has so little said about New York,just a bunch of confusing shots of buildings,streets,bridges and cafes.It really doesn't stay focused on the New York magic.Another thing that changed my mind was the french movie set inside this movie.I know that it is a remake,but it is not a french style remake! Anyway,here you will notice elements that remind you of french movies,such as long and messy scenes,no or little talking and of course everyone is smoking french style ! The story follows many lives ( too many for my taste) and they somehow seem connected in the end. I feel like there was no dedication to the characters as much as there was on the stories. The movie was too short to cover every single destiny everyone's happy ending.So we can see about 30 people for about 5 minutes each.And there you have your 120 minutes ! if you like active scenes dialogues and stuff this is not the movie for you ! i give it 4 just because i love New York and i loved the cast !
Following the success of "Paris, Je T'Aime", a group of directors decided to get together and make a similar anthology style film based in New York. Unlike the original film, the stories in this film seem to sometimes come and go too quickly--by the time you think are getting into a story, it's over in too many cases. And, the often start up and stop and then begin again--with the stories woven together. As a result, there is no title to indicate that a story is complete and it is less formal in structure.<br /><br />Sadly, however, while "Paris, Je T'Aime" was hit or miss (mostly hit), most of "New York, I Love You" was miss. The stories tended to be much more sexual in nature but also far less sweet--and often quite terrible. It was an amazingly dull and uninteresting film with only a few exceptional stories--and perhaps the often depressing music made it seem more so. Now understand, it was good quality music but its somber tone really, really made me feel like cutting my wrists! Among the better ones was the story about the young man who took a girl in a wheelchair to prom, the couple talking about cheating outside a restaurant (though this was also in the first film) and the crotchety old couple. This is all so sad because I had loved the first film so much--and I really WANTED to love this film. I respected what they tried but simply didn't like it very much.<br /><br />By the way, and this is NOT really a complaint, but I was amazed how many people were smoking in the film. For a recent film, that was unusual in our more anti-smoking culture.<br /><br />Also, if you get the DVD, there are two segments included as extras that were not included in the film. One consists of Kevin Bacon (wearing a cool fedora) eating a hotdog....and absolutely NOTHING more for almost ten minutes. The other features a teen who spends the film videotaping the world--including a very unhappy couple.
A few years back the same persons who created Paris,J'TAIME., which was imperfect but very enjoyable ( my rating was a 7), created this piece of garbage about New York City.<br /><br />In Paris, I Love You (J'taime)created a feeling for Paris & it was made in many parts of beautiful Paris.<br /><br />In this current film, I did not recognize New York City, I did not feel that I was in the city of my birth.<br /><br />New York does have 5 boroughs,I saw no scenes in The Bronx, or Queens ,There is one scene in Brooklyn,(Brighton Beach), I saw no scenes in Times Square or Greenwich Village/ No scenes of the beautiful hotels or theatres. It does have a large cast,most of the performers were not even stereotypes, they were caricatures of the lowest sort.<br /><br />The very few humorous moments are all of a course sexual nature or quite insulting to the many fine New Yorkers that we all know & love.. <br /><br />A few of the films nominated for the 'razzie' awards were far better.<br /><br />Ratings: * (out of 4) 20 points (out of 100) IMDb 1 (Out of 10)<br /><br />In my way of thinking I think the title should have been<br /><br />NEW YORK, I HATE YOU.
An anthology is always risky business and I think this endeavor should be praised. There's a lot of talent involved here. A great many talented actors, directors and writers. Unfortunately, I couldn't really enjoy this movie based on three issues I had.<br /><br />First of all, the segments vary incredibly in tone and quality. And unfortunately some of them clash with the others. <br /><br />Secondly, several segments feel underdeveloped to me. Like seeds of good stories that never come to fruition. I'm not talking about happy endings here (or even an ending period) but rather, they lack even basic development or even solid setups that draw you in. <br /><br />Last but not least, I did not feel New-York and its inhabitants were properly portrayed.<br /><br />What you're left with is high-brow short films that may still be of interest to some but will leave the average viewer unsatisfied.
New York, I Love You, or rather should-be-titled Manhattan, I Love Looking At Your People In Sometimes Love, is a precise example of the difference between telling a story and telling a situation. Case in point, look at two of the segments in the film, one where Ethan Hawke lights a cigarette for a woman on a street and proceeds to chat her up with obnoxious sexy-talk, and another with Orlando Bloom trying to score a movie with an incredulous demand from his director to read two Dostoyevsky books. While the latter isn't a great story by any stretch, it's at least something that has a beginning, middle and end, as the composer tries to score, gets Dostoyevky dumped in his lap, and in the end gets some help (and maybe something more) from a girl he's been talking to as a liaison between him and the director. The Ethan Hawke scene, however, is like nothing, and feels like it, like a fluke added in or directed by a filmmaker phoning it in (or, for that matter, Hawke with a combo of Before Sunrise and Reality Bites).<br /><br />What's irksome about the film overall is seeing the few stories that do work really well go up against the one or two possible 'stories' and then the rest of the situations that unfold that are made to connect or overlap with one another (i.e. bits involving Bradley Cooper, Drea DeMatteo, Hayden Christensen, Andy Garcia, James Caan, Natalie Portman, etc). It's not even so much that the film- set practically always in *Manhattan* and not the New York of Queens or Staten Island or the Bronx (not even, say, Harlem or Washington Heights)- lacks a good deal of diversity, since there is some. It's the lack of imagination that one found in spades, for better or worse, in Paris J'taime. It's mostly got little to do with New York, except for passing references, and at its worst (the Julie Christie/Shia LaBeouf segment) it's incomprehensible on a level that is appalling.<br /><br />So, basically, wait for TV, and do your best to dip in and out of the film - in, that is, for three scenes: the aforementioned Bloom/Christina Ricci segment which is charming; the Brett Ratner directed segment (yes, X-Men 3 Brett Ratner) with a very funny story of a teen taking a girl in a wheelchair to the prom only to come upon a great big twist; and Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman as an adorable quite old couple walking along in Brooklyn on their 67th wedding anniversary. Everything else can be missed, even Natalie Portman's directorial debut, and the return of a Hughes brother (only one, Allan) to the screen. A mixed bag is putting it lightly: it's like having to search through a bag of mixed nuts full of crappy peanuts to find the few almonds left.
The problems with this film are many, but I will try to mention the most glaring and bothersome ones. First of all, while the theme suggests a number of vignettes about Manhattan life, the reality was that everything, as usual in movies and TV, was about something bizarre, usually of a sexual nature. The story lines were thin or nonexistent, and virtually every scene, camera shot, line of dialog, and expressed emotion was absolutely, and totally fake. It finally reached a point after an hour of so of mind numbing garbage that I walked out (something no uncommon for me in recent years.) I would have guessed the fi9lm was directed by some wannabe auteur drop outs from some 3rd rate film studies program, but I believe the (at one time, pre-Amelia, talented)director Mira Nair took part in this disgusting travesty, so perhaps the directorial talent in America has descended en masse into the cesspool.
There is a reason this went straight to video- the story is smarmy, Nick Cage plays Johnny in a sleazy way- sex in churches, and other scenes that border on tasteless(like the scene in the laundry room) taint this movie. Judge Reinhold as the cuckold is okay- but the movie itself with its themes of degradation and revenge are not well done. But it is a good film for trivia contests- because so few people saw it.
Thanks to some infamous home video distributor who brought in the so called German Independent Series, Four For Venice is not only awful, but really awful. So awful, that i have it dumped at the second hand goods store for extra cash.<br /><br />Nick and Charlotte is a married couple who reached an agreement of having sex only on Tuesday due to their hectic schedule of their profession. Eva and Luis is a pair of couple living from hand to mouth, where Eva works as a waitress and Luis, an artist. Nick indirectly causes Eva to lose her job as an waitress. Luis and Charlotte had an affair at the back of Eva and Nick. Luis cheated on Eva by lying to her that he would be flying off to London to do something related to his artwork, but the fact is, he is flying off to Venice with Charlotte for an adultery holiday. Eva kidnapped Nick and dragged her 2 kids along to Venice for confrontation. The trip to Venice ends up both Nick and Eva falling for one another.<br /><br />The presentation of the journey from Germany to Venice between Nick and Eva marks the failure of the comedy. It not only look senseless, but also draggy. In the film, Nick try to seek help for several ways, but it ends to no avail. It is either the strangers around him who acts like morons, or they are just simply dumb.<br /><br />The comedy also had the tendency to add in unnecessary scenes to lengthen the story. While some of the problems that can be solved with common sense, no one in the film are using common sense to solve the problem. They prefer to go through one big round to solve the problem.<br /><br />It fails so bad, that even the beautiful sceneries in Venice fails to pull up the reputation of the film.
Garson Kanin wrote and directed this look at "modern day" Las Vegas and the gap between generations, his first directorial effort since the 1940s! David Janssen is somewhat miscast as a big-shot casino owner who reunites with his son (Robert Drivas, who looks disconcertingly like an older Jason Bateman). Janssen approaches every scene the same way: defensively, with a chip on his shoulder. Playing this role cool and laid-back is asking too much from Janssen, who barks at everyone like a grouchy put-upon husband (he even chews out Don Rickles and makes him cry!). His son, a ne'er-do-well in search of his own identity, makes hip comments about how young people look down on Vegas (give them another ten years), and his disapproval of Dad's lifestyle causes friction. Brenda Vaccaro is cute as a self-conscious secretary and Edy Willaims has a fun bit as a showgirl at an audition. Unfortunately, "Where It's At" doesn't have much else going for it other than the now-dated ruminations on ethics between adults and their kids, some quick T&A shots and amusingly jaded satirical bits on the high-stakes world of gambling--most of which has been covered by now, ad nauseum. ** from ****
Casting bone to pick: David Jannsen was 38 playing the father of Robert Drivas, who was then, 31 (yeah, I realize he's supposed to be just out of college, but clues in the script have him being a loafer and so he's probably 24-25 in the script--- that still puts Jannsen in parenting classes in Junior High). I assume the AMA wrote medical miracle up in their 1938 Year in Medicine. This movie hasn't aged very well at all and now it's main appeal is just to see a snap shot of Sin City, circa 1969 and all the incessant smoking, the weird hair (Drivas has an atomic comb over that makes him resemble a well-groomed hip Cousin It) and trendy fashions that went along with it. If anyone remembers, LV wasn't exactly London... the city coddled the mob and codger gamblers in those days. Drivas comes off as sexually ambiguous; his dad thinks he might be gay (in a sad irony, Drivas himself died of AIDS at 47) and the soapy conflict is from the generation gap issue (ahem, as if one may call 7 years a gap). Sonny boy wants to be his own man and dad wants to pull him into the casino (Caesar's Palace!), and plies him with girls (including the horny-for-money Edy Williams). Interestingly enough, the son doesn't seem to mind being thought of as gay--- unusual for the time and a cute Brenda Vaccarro is nearby to swoon platonically over him. What nudity there is is awfully lame--- just what was needed to pull the audience in for an 'R' rating in the early days of the MPAA rating system (which then was G-M-R[16]- and X). The editing is HORRIBLE and there's stupid-silly overdubs by The Committee (a late 60's neo-avante-garde comedy troupe that mercifully faded off the map within a couple of years). Don Rickles is on board as a blackjack dealer... seemingly preparing him for a role as a floor manager in the much better CASINO two decades later. Not to give anything away, but they would've dealt with Mr. Rickles' character with power tools and a hole in the desert back then. A curiosity at best, far from Joshua Logan's usual caliber of work. Dos/Dias. Now go watch CASINO again...
I can only believe that Garson Kanin must have been two people. The one who wrote the brilliant "A Double Life" and the funny "Born Yesterday" and co-wrote such excellent screenplays as "Adam's Rib" and "Pat And Mike" with his wife Ruth Gordon and then the one who wrote and/or directed such tiresome, sad drivel as "Bachelor Mother", "Some Kind Of A Nut", and this. The cast tries, but the script is so tired and clichéd that even the efforts of the always wonderful Brenda Vaccaro are defeated. The script sinks to it's nadir in the truly offensive sequence in which Janssen's character tests Drivas's character to make sure he's not gay. An ugly sequence, but sadly one which could easily play in a film today. "Ethnic" jokes are now totally verboten, but "fag" jokes are still "good, clean, family fun".
I was thrilled to watch this movie expecting it to be the sequel to the cult classic "Private Lessons" which portrays the dream of any male teenager.<br /><br />"Private Lessons II" has NOTHING to do with the title I mention. It's just a regular soft-core Cinemax flick that won't make a change in your life. There's just one hot sex scene in a rooftop but that's it. I watched this a long time ago but believe me, this is just a regular boring soft core flick.<br /><br />The women are hot but that's not enough to rent or buy the movie. My advice is to watch this only if it airs on cable.
Up until the last 20 minutes, I was thinking that this is possibly Jackie Chan's worst movie (excluding his pre-1978 work, which I am not familiar with). The final fight sequence changed all that: it is long and good and intense - indeed, one of the highlights of Chan's career. But to get to it, you have to sit through a lot of "comedy" that might amuse five-year-olds (oh, look! someone threw a tomato at that guy's face) and endless "football" scenes. Not to mention the dubbing (which includes the line "How can I turn it off? It's not a tap" - watch to find out what it refers to). "Dragon Lord" is worth renting for the final fight alone, but the rest of the movie is only for Jackie collectors, and even then only for those who've already seen at least 15 of his other movies. (**)
When I sat down to watch this film I actually expected quite a bit, as the plot takes on quite complex issues. Using football as launching pad for the complication also was an interesting approach. Still unfortunately, despite its bravery of dealing with controversial issues as culture clashes between Muslim and western culture, adding generation conflicts and prejudice towards gays/lesbians, it lets you down towards the resolution with a rather simplistic relief to all the suspense built up throughout the film. This leads me to the impression that the makers took on a little too big a task for themselves to tackle, attempting to be more profound then they managed to deal with.<br /><br />However, this does not mean that the film is directly bad, as it's rendering of the conflicts where quite believable and also amusing. The film succeeds in being engaging and entertaining in this matter, but as mentioned above the writers seem to have spun themselves a little too deep. This has led to some quite unrealistic character behaviour towards the end to confront the surging conflicts. By this dropping the ball at a time where the makers could really have shown brilliance taking the film to another level of appreciation.<br /><br />Even if the film does at no point really attempt to be a profound piece of drama, the setting has so much potential in the plot it becomes a disappointment when "the ball drops". This way the film moves from being a good and reflected comedy to a standard cliché that becomes ridiculous in its happy-ending. Nothing is left out in the Hollywood like ending. So even if the story is engaging and one can stomach the large amount of montages, one can't help but roll eyes towards the resolution. Personally I was close to shouting "finish already!!" at the screen.<br /><br />There were some decent acting in the film, and the two young female central characters had some good moments. So did their parents and other bi-characters. However the handsome Irish coach was an embarrassing piece of acting, that lets the film down quite a bit in terms of realism. He didn't even appear very likable, but rather self involved despite his good deeds, which makes the impending conflict between the girls seem a little strained.<br /><br />I give the film a 4, as it was an engaging story and they sought out a nice perspective to approach the subject from. The script and cast had many good believable characters, giving the audience a chance to recognise either themselves or others. Had the let-downs not been this disappointing, I'd easily give the film a 7 or 8. If you enjoyed this film, I'd recommend the film "East is East", which I think is an as good, if not better rendering of cultural conflict, as well as being amusing and engaging.
Long, boring, blasphemous. Never have I been so glad to see ending credits roll.
An executive, very successful in his professional life but very unable in his familiar life, meets a boy with down syndrome, escaped from a residence . Both characters feel very alone, and the apparently less intelligent one will show to the executive the beauty of the small things in life... With this argument, the somehow Amelie-like atmosphere and the sentimental music, I didn't expect but a moralistic disgusting movie. Anyway, as there were some interesting scenes (the boy is sometimes quite a violent guy), and the interpretation of both actors, Daniel Auteil and Pasqal Duquenne, was very good, I decided to go on watching the movie. The French cinema, in general, has the ability of showing something that seems quite much to life, opposed to the more stereotyped American cinema. But, because of that, it is much more disappointing to see after the absurd ending, with the impossible death of the boy, the charming tone, the happiness of the executive's family, the cheap moral, the unbearable laughter of the daughters, the guy waving from heaven as Michael Landon... Really nasty, in my humble opinion.
First of all, I was expecting "Caged Heat" to be along the same lines as "Ilsa, The Wicked Warden". Boy, was I wrong! In no way is this film 70s exploitation, "chix in chains", or "women in prison". Sure, the plot consists of a bunch of women in prison, who wear street clothes btw (quite comical), but NOTHING happens.<br /><br />There aren't strong rivalries, no one tries to seduce the warden or doctor in order to try and escape, and no inmates make out. There are 2 shower scenes, that I suspect is just recycled footage, but no fights breaks out / no one is seduced here - or anywhere for that matter! Aside from the lack of plot, unconvincing, unsympathetic, and flat characters, a couple of inmates that do manage to escape actually return to the prison in order to "free" their fellow inmates??!!<br /><br />PUH-LEASE, the movie should have just ended off with the escapees riding off into the sunset...as opposed to letting this mess continue!<br /><br />I feel scammed.
Nicholas Walker is Paul, the local town Reverand who's married to Martha (Ally Sheedy), but also is a habitual womanizer and decides to fake his own death to run away with his current affair, Veronica (Dara Tomanovich). However in so doing, he gets a bout of amnesia (hence the name of the film). Sally Kirkland is also on hand as a crazy old coot who pines for the good Reverand in a shades of "Misery" type of way. It's sad to see a pretty good cast wasted like this. Not the least bit John Savage in a horridly forgettable role as a shoddy private investigator. In a film billed as a 'black comedy', one has to bring BOTH elements into said movie. While this does bring the former in spades, it sadly contains none of the latter. Furthermore you can't emphasize with any of the characters and as thus, have absolutely no vested interest in them. Technically not an all-together bad movie just an extremely forgettable one.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Dara Tomanovich gets topless; Sally Kirkland also shows some skin <br /><br />My Grade: C- <br /><br />Where I saw it: Showtime Showcase
Towards the end of this thriller Ally Sheedy's gaunt latter-day image is used creatively to make up more than one hauntingly evil image. She convinces one that, if a nasty Bette Davis-type role were to come her way, she could carry it off brilliantly. Unfortunately, I can't find many other reasons for seeing this. If you've wondered what Sheedy looks like in a pair of old-fashioned glasses (but why should anyone?) then here's your answer. For the rest, Sally Kirkland's sex-starved crazy woman is really tiresome, and even if you like this sort of thing more than I do you'll have to admit that the tension sags badly during these scenes. Savage's drunken brute of an insurance agent is equally distasteful but at least it's a small role. Of the leading actors, Nicholas Walker inspires no sympathy at all for Paul Keller's plight and his acting is wooden. Dara Tomanovich is better and during her scenes with Sheedy the level rises a little. Sheedy's meticulous, understated performance (though she often seems to be on automatic pilot) is admirable in itself but out of context with the rest. The sets are drab, the camera-work undistinguished.
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.
Instead, go to the zoo, buy some peanuts and feed 'em to the monkeys. Monkeys are funny. People with amnesia who don't say much, just sit there with vacant eyes are not all that funny.<br /><br />Black comedy? There isn't a black person in it, and there isn't one funny thing in it either.<br /><br />Walmart buys these things up somehow and puts them on their dollar rack. It's labeled Unrated. I think they took out the topless scene. They may have taken out other stuff too, who knows? All we know is that whatever they took out, isn't there any more.<br /><br />The acting seemed OK to me. There's a lot of unfathomables tho. It's supposed to be a city? It's supposed to be a big lake? If it's so hot in the church people are fanning themselves, why are they all wearing coats?
I had quite high hopes for this film, even though it got a bad review in the paper. I was extremely tolerant, and sat through the entire film. I felt quite sick by the end.<br /><br />Although I am not in the least prude or particularly sensitive to tasteless cinema--I thouroughly enjoyed both Woody Allen's 'Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex,...' and Michael Hanneke's 'Funny Games'--I found the directors' obsession with this ten-year-old wanting to drink women's milk totally sickening. And when the film climaxed in an "orgy" where the boy drinks both his mother's milk, as well as that of the woman he has been lusting after for the whole film, I almost vomited with disgust for the total perversion and sentimental pap that it is.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the vast majority of European cinema, as well as independently made films, so this flick should have pleased me enormously. Avoid this film at all costs, it should be relegated to the annals of History as a lesson in bad cinema.
"Plan B" is strictly by-the-numbers fare except for one thing. I surprisingly found it to be rather insulting.<br /><br />Jon Cryer is the "star" of this film and plays his usual, smarmy, egotistical, snotty character that was actually endearing in "Pretty In Pink" and has NOT been amusing ever since. Grating doesn't even begin to describe his performance. Ricky (Mark Matheisen) is a muscular, blonde, struggling actor who (gasp!) is only worried about his hair and getting laid. Talk about a stock character...ugh. At least the other three characters are somewhat engaging. Lisa Darr and Lance Guest play a grounded, optimistic, caring couple who are struggling to conceive. Since they are not whiny drama queens, however, their roles are apparently considered boring and they aren't given enough screen time. Sara Mornell rounds out the cast by playing Gina, your usual nice and good-looking young woman who just can't seem to find the right partner in love. I've seen this character a million times before but at least her performance overcomes some of the shortfalls caused by the predictability of her situation.<br /><br />What startled me about this film was its juvenile promotion of stereotypes. They introduced a Russian character for the sole purpose of mocking him and making fun of the way he talked. He was portrayed as being wild, ignorant and amazingly shallow. They were just getting warmed up though for the usual nonsense about gays. Gina decides to be gay for a while since she isn't having any luck with guys. Honestly. That wasn't that bad except they really went overboard when Gina brought a lesbian to a Christmas party her friends were throwing. Her lesbian date had very short hair (like I'm sure all lesbians do). She also got quite upset (like I'm sure all lesbians do) when Gina had the nerve to put on lipstick(!). Finally, her date goes around the party hitting on just about every woman there and mouths off when Gina expresses her disappointment. Of course, we all know how gay people can't stay faithful for so much as a couple of hours much less months or even years, right? (Please note the sarcasm in that statement. Thank you.)<br /><br />This film was based on a tired and predictable premise to begin with but Cryer's unlikable performance combined with the idiotic stereotyping sinks this movie to the lower depths of cinema. 2/10
I had the misfortune to sit through the full 102 minutes of what, in my opinion, is this shockingly bad film. It fails on pretty much all levels; the cast is awful, the acting - ham at best and the plot lacks any depth, leaving me feeling violently apathetic as to the outcome of any of the convoluted story lines.<br /><br />Plan B has none of the charm this genre has the scope to convey and I found myself physically cringing at the various points where the script makes its regular misjudged meanderings anywhere towards the region of comedy.<br /><br />A bona fide saccharine coated turd of a movie.
Even though there's a repertoire of over 180 films to choose from, this 'Succubus' is often named as THE best Jess Franco film. Heck, even the legendary filmmaker Fritz Lang counts 'Succubus' among his personal favorites. So, maybe it's me but I thought this was a dreadfully boring and overly confusing movie. The opening is great, though, and shows Janine Reynaud performing an SM act on stage. It's all downhill from here, unfortunately. Reynaud's character is a maneater who eventually kills her lovers in some sort of trance. Franco had a decent budget to work with and spends it well on nice locations, beautiful photography and a mesmerizing musical score. This COULD have been his greatest film indeed, if it wasn't for the lame and uninteresting story. It's supposed to be psychedelic but I'd say sophomoric is a better term to describe what's shown here. Half of the time, you don't have a clue what's going on or what exactly is said so even the short running time of 80 minutes seems to last ages. This most certainly isn't Franco's best film according to me. I wouldn't even recommend it to die-hard exploitation fans. If you're looking for more superior Jess Franco film, try to get your hands on 'Las Vampiras', 'The awful Dr. Orloff' or 'Female Vampire'.
I've come to realise from watching Euro horror, especially films made by cult luminary Jess Franco, that you can't expect a plot that makes much sense. However, Franco has gone overboard with this film; and despite a surreal atmosphere, and the film's reputation as one of the director's best - Succubus is unfortunately is a truly awful film. I've got to admit that I saw the American cut version, which runs at about 76 minutes; but unless it was just the logic that was cut, I'm sure the longer European version is just as boring. The plot has something to do with a woman marauding around; practicing S&M and talking rubbish, and it's all really boring. There's no gore and the sex is dull, and most of the runtime is taken up by boring dialogue and despite the fact that this is a short film; I had difficulty making it all the way to the end. I have to say that the locations look good and Franco has done a good job of using his surreal atmosphere; but the positive elements end there. Jess Franco is definitely a talented director that has made some classic trash films - but this looks like it was one he made for the money, and overall I recommend skipping it and seeing some of the director's more interesting works.
'Succubus', the edited version of 'Necronomicon Geträumte Sünden', is a struggle to sit through, even at a lean 76 minutes; any more of this dreadfully boring and pretentious Euro horror tripe and I may have slipped into a coma.<br /><br />Jess Franco once again delivers a truly awful piece of 60s trash that appears to have been made by a cast and crew out of of their heads on Class A hallucinogenics, since not one second of this mess made any sense whatsoever. Apparently, this is one of the better of his 180+ films – it's hard to believe that there are worse efforts out there.<br /><br />The unfathomable plot deals with Franco's usual themes of sex, violence and lesbianism and throws in a bit of S&M for good measure, and yet it still manages to remain mind numbingly tedious.<br /><br />I may leave it quite a while before entering the world of dodgy Euro Horror again – life is too short to be spent watching bilge like this.
A disappointing film.<br /><br />The story established our protagonist as Chrissy, a 'young', rather sullen individual drifting, not doing much. Actually she does very little to move the narrative along so it didn't surprise me to see the focus shifting on her relatives. It's a pity though, Chrissy seem like interesting character.<br /><br />Story was predictable and at times felt quite formulated. So the question now is, when are we going to see the Campions, Jacksons, and the Tamahori's breaking ground with compelling, cinematically-told stories that will inspire, rather than entertain for the toll of two hours?<br /><br />Technically, a disgusting shot film.
Kubrick meets King. It sounded so promising back in the spring of 1980, I remember. Then the movie came out, and the Kubrick cultists have been bickering with the King cultists ever since.<br /><br />The King cultists say Stanley Kubrick took a great horror tale and ruined it. The Kubrick cultists don't give a damn about King's story. They talk about Steadicams, tracking shots, camera angles.This is a film, they insist: It should be considered on its own. As it happens, both camps are correct. Unfortunately.<br /><br />If one views it purely as an adaptation of King's novel, "The Shining" is indeed a failure, a wasted opportunity, a series of botched narrative gambits. <br /><br />I used to blame that on Kubrick's screenwriter. The writer Diane Johnson (author of Le Marriage, L'Affaire, Le Divorce, etc.) has a reputation as an novelist of social manners. Maybe she was chosen for her subtle grasp of conjugal relations or family dynamics. But the little blue-collar town of Sidewinder, Colorado doesn't exist on any map in her Francophile universe. <br /><br />Kubrick the Anglophile probably found her congenial, however. He, of course, is the real auteur. And considered on its own merits, his screenplay for "The Shining" -- with its mishmash of abnormal psychology, rationalism, supernaturalism, and implied reincarnation -- just doesn't stand up to logical analysis.<br /><br />I'm willing to consider Kubrick's "Shining" on its own terms. I'm even willing to take it as something other than a conventional horror-genre movie. But it doesn't succeed as a naturalistic study of isolation, alienation, and madness either. Parsed either way, the film pretty much falls apart.<br /><br />Are the horrors of the Overlook Hotel real? Or do they exist only in the mind -- first as prescient nightmares suffered by little Danny Torrance, then as the hallucinations of his father? One notes how whenever Jack Torrance is seen talking to a "ghost" he is in fact looking into a mirror. One notes how the hotel's frozen topiary-hedge maze appears to symbolize Jack's stunted, convoluted psyche. Very deep stuff.<br /><br />But if indeed the Overlook's "ghosts" are purely manifestations of Jack Torrance's growing insanity, then who exactly lets the trapped Jack out of the hotel kitchen's dead-bolted walk- in closet, so that he can go on his climactic ax-wielding rampage?<br /><br />And can ANYONE explain, with a straight face, that black-and-white photograph (helpfully labelled "1921") of Nicholson as a tuxedoed party-goer that pops up out of left field and onto a hotel-ballroom wall during the film's closing seconds? Are we to seriously conclude that Jack Torrance's Bad Craziness stems from a some sort of "past life" experience? (And if you swallow that, since when are reincarnated people supposed to be exact physical replicas their past selves?)<br /><br />Maybe Kubrick didn't care about his storyline. Maybe only wanted to evoke a mood of horror. Whatever the case, the film tries to hedge its narrative bets -- to have it both ways, rational and supernatural. As a result, the story is a mess. This movie hasn't improved with age, and it certainly doesn't improve with repeated viewings.<br /><br />I don't deny that a few moments of fear, claustrophobia, and general creepiness are scattered throughout this long, long film. But those gushing Elevators o' Blood, seen repeatedly in little Danny's visions, are absurd and laughable. And Jack Torrance's infamous tag lines ("Wendy, I'm home!" and "Heeeeeere's JOHNNY!") merely puncture the movie's dramatic tension and dissipate its narrative energy. (I know: I sat in the theater and heard the audience laugh in comic relief: "Whew! Glad we don't have to take this stuff seriously!") Finally, Kubrick is completely at sea -- or else utterly cynical -- during those scenes in which Wendy wanders around the empty hotel while her husband tries to puree their son. A foyer full of mummified guests, all sitting there dead in their party hats? Yikes, now I really am afraid.<br /><br />Given Jack Nicholson's brilliance over the years, one can only assume that he gave just the sort of eyeball-rolling, eyebrow-wiggling, scenery-chomping performance that the director wanted. The performance of Shelley Duvall, as a sort of female version of Don Knotts in "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken," is best passed over in silence.<br /><br />This movie simply doesn't succeed -- not as an adaptation, not on its own terms. It probably merits a 3 out of 10, but I'm giving it a 1 because it has been so GROTESQUELY over-rated in this forum.
I caught this stink bomb of a movie recently on a cable channel, and was reminded of how terrible I thought it was in 1980 when first released. Many reviewers out there aren't old enough to remember the enormous hype that surrounded this movie and the struggle between Stanley Kubrick and Steven King. The enormously popular novel had legions of fans eager to see a supposed "master" director put this multi-layered supernatural story on the screen. "Salem's Lot" had already been ruined in the late 1970s as a TV mini-series, directed by Tobe Hooper (he of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" fame) and was badly handled, turning the major villain of the book into a "Chiller Theatre" vampire with no real menace at all thus destroying the entire premise. Fans hoped that a director of Kubrick's stature would succeed where Hooper had failed. It didn't happen.<br /><br />Sure, this movie looks great and has a terrific opening sequence but after those few accomplishments, it's all downhill. Jack Nicholson cannot be anything but Jack Nicholson. He's always crazy and didn't bring anything to his role here. I don't care that many reviewers here think he's all that in this clinker, the "Here's Johnny!" bit notwithstanding...he's just awful in this movie. So is everyone else, for that matter. Scatman Crothers' character, Dick Halloran, was essential to the plot of the book, yet Kubrick kills him off in one of the lamest "shock" sequences ever put on film. I remember the audience in the theater I saw this at booing repeatedly during the last 45 minutes of this wretched flick, those that stayed that is...many left. King's books really never translate well to film since so much of the narratives occur internally to his characters, and often metaphysically. Kubrick jettisoned the tension between the living and the dead in favor of style here and the resulting mess ends so far from the original material that we ultimately don't really care what happens to whom.<br /><br />This movie still stinks and why so many think it's a horror masterpiece is beyond me.
I hate this movie! It was NOTHING like the book, and just thinking about it makes me mad. If you watch the movie before reading the book, then yeah, it's a good movie. But King's book was AMAZING and this movie was nothing like it. I mean, the general meaning might be sort of similar but most aspects of the movie are completely different. The ending for example! So in the book it is extremely intense and Danny and Wendy escape seconds before the hotel explodes. but in this horrible movie version jack like takes them through a stupid maze... yeah, there is no maze in the book and there is no reason for it. Another part that made me angry was that jack just kills Mr. Halloran! what the heck, he is basically the hero of the book and they just kill him off like he wasn't important. Overall, it was just bad that the movie was so extremely off.
Many King fans hate this because it departed from the book, but film is a different medium and books should change when they make the jump. That notwithstanding, the movie does fail completely, but it fails entirely on film terms. I'd like to smack the people who tell me it's the scariest movie ever made. I always follow up with the question "Really... exactly what scene scared you?" Every fan I've asked, goes silent. Occasionally someone, at a loss for a decent scare (There are none...), names the "Grape-juice-shooting-out-of-elevators" shtick. If you're afraid of that, I don't know what to tell you, except maybe that you're easily scared. I just rolled my eyes watching these z-grade horror ideas play out in this schlocky, incoherent movie.<br /><br />One place it diverts from the book and really is insipid is the tedious work the movie does to get Mr Halloran up to the Overlook only to kill him; with the dumbest member of the audience knowing that Jack is waiting behind one of the columns in the corridor that it takes Halloran FOREVER to walk down. Really one of the stupidest sequences ever put on film. <br /><br />Oh, and nice choice for Mr. Halloran's artwork Stanley! Black light afro-nymphomaniacs really add to the mood and character development of a horror movie. Has there ever been a more "off," out-of-place shot in any movie ever made?<br /><br />I consider it a miracle that I was eventually able to bypass this turd, and agree that Kubricks 2001 is a truly important film, given the immense 'bad will' generated by both this stupid, stupid movie, and the cult of fawning but inarticulate Kubrick fan-boys, who couldn't describe an idea at work in it with every film resource in the Library of Congress in front of them. <br /><br />Toss in the grotesque overacting of Jack Nicholson, the introduction of dumb one-liners at tense moments, and the Razzie nominated performance of Shelly Duvall and you have a very crappy movie.
These writings write about the end of the plot so don't read it if you haven't seen this rubbish.<br /><br />I found this rubbish film in the horror section which made me think it would be a horror. If I owned a video store I'd put it in the BORING section. This film is so rubbish it will make you feel like you have lost your socks.<br /><br />This film contains endless shots of people driving as if that was scary. Well I drive to work and back (and sometimes to the store or to visit my cats) almost every day and trust me it's not scary. It even starts with 20 minutes of some people driving. Even the little kid does it too. Round and round he goes and he never stops. What's so scary about watching a little kid riding a bicycle for an hour? I think NOTHING and if you watch it you will not think so too.<br /><br />The family in the car arrive at a big castle and they are given a tour just walking around endlessly looking at kitchens. Then the man walks around a for an hour and tries to kill his family for no reason. That's all that happens and as you can see it's rubbish.
Not the best of the films to be watched nowadays. I read a lot of reviews about Shining and was expecting it to be very good. But this movie disappointed me. The sound and environment was good, but there was no story here. Not was there a single moment of fright. I expected it to a horror thriller movie, but there was no horror no thriller. The only scene where I got scared was during the chapter change scene showing "Wednesday". There are lots of fragments i the movie. Most of the things are left unexplained with nothing to link it to anything. The story does not tell us about the women or other scenes that is shown. Might be a good movie to watch in the 80's, but not for the 21st century.
Ladies and Gentlemen,please don't get fooled by "A Stanley Kubrick" film tag.This is a very bad film which unfortunately has been hailed as one of the deadliest horror films ever made.Horror films should create such a fear that during nights people should shiver their hearts out while thinking about a true horror film.In Shining,there is no real horror at all but what we find instead is just a naive,foolish attempt made to create chilling horror.Everyone knows as to how good the attempts are if they are different from reality.All that is good in the film is the view of the icy valley. The hotel where most of the actors were lodged appears good too.A word about the actors Jack Nicholson looks like a lost,lazy soul who is never really sure of what he is supposed to do.There is not much to be said of a bald,colored actor who for the most of times is busy pampering a kid actor.No need to blame the bad weather for the tragedy.It cannot be avoided as the film has been made and poor Kubrick is not alive to make any changes.
Ok, honestly I dont see why everybody thinks this is so great. Its really not. There were two good things that came out of this movie 1. Jack's performance, he was very good I can tip my hat for him. 2. Danny's performance, he was good. No other then that it got pretty stupid. And, what was Stanley Kubrick thinking drafting Shelly as the Wendy? She was so bad. She looked the same every time she got scared. The problem with this movie was the ending. I would have had more respect for it if Kubrick would have ended it differently. And, the over all movie was just stupid. The problem with the movie is that the book was so much better. So dont see the movie read the book and you will be much better off. 3/10.
I am going to keep this short.This "adaption" of the wonderful King book is a bad joke and nothing more.Of course there are many Kubrick and Nickolson fans in this site and,as a result,this movie has mysteriously find its way in the top-250.<br /><br />Jack Nicholson is laughable as Torrance and so is Shelley Duvall.The story,that has nothing to do with the book,is an incoherent mess and the characters of Jack and Wendy Torrance are complete jokes.<br /><br />My advice to anyone that hasn't read the book and wants to understand the characters of this story:stick to the TV series ....<br /><br />Oh ,and the people who are saying that Kubrick had every right to destroy the King story cause King is...not a good writer should stick to reviewing "masterpieces" like "eyes wide shut".
After just finishing the book the same day I watched the movie, I knew what was supposed to happen. I had high expectations of the movie, because of the rating. The only reason I give this movie a 2 out of 10 stars is that it was alright trying to be a movie. I have a couple main points for not liking this movie.<br /><br />********** SPOILERS **********<br /><br />1. The casting. Jack Nicholson barely fits into Jack Torrence's character. Also, I would have NEVER picked Shelly Duvall for Wendy. I pictured Wendy much differently. I can see why they picked Jack Nicholson though, the grin, the pointy eyebrows, but he's not supposed to really look 'evil'. He's supposed to look normal, and he turns evil. Also, they make one of the worst movie couples. Danny was alright, he needed more life though. He acted way to droney.<br /><br />2. The screenplay. They cut out so many things that were in the book, and added things. Some of the things that were in the book that I was looking forward to in the movie were either deleted, changed, or handled wrongly. Some of the things that were in the book that I was looking forward to seeing (the hedge animals, the roque mallet, the elevator) were not in the movie, and it was 2 and half hours!! I was extremely irritated.<br /><br />3. The Ending. The ending was changed completly, Halorann died, Jack froze to death, Wendy never got hurt...The Overlook didn't blow up. The Ending was so cool in the book, and the movie messed it up so horribly, I was apalled. Hallorann was never supposed to die, but Jack killed him with an ax. If they wanted to kill him, at least have Jack use a roque mallet. You never even saw a roque mallet during the whole movie.<br /><br />There are other things that I didn't like about the movie, but there are things that were all right. The camera angels were cool, the blood coming out of the elevator (didn't happen in the book) was cool, but maybe I was too irritated that the movie didn't go with the book, to try to be scared at all. I reccomend reading the book, before you see this movie. I applaud Stephen King for actually agreeing to sign a contract to not dis Stanley Kubrik any more. I would never have done that, I would have taken all the rights I could get to yell at him all day. I can't wait to see the 6 hour version, at least it has the hedge animals.<br /><br />Rating: 2/10
This has got to be the most stupid film I have ever seen (spoilers ahead)! First of all, the plot is stupid. The little kid is weird and they move to a hotel because his father is the caretaker of it. We find that the kid has a gift, the "Shining". This gift never ever has anything to do with anything except to make the kid seem cool. Then the movie gets more boring and boring until the man finally goes crazy. He goes on a rampage to kill the kid and his wife because... well, he feels like it. Why else would he do it? All of a sudden we see a naked woman in the tub. The man kisses her and realizes he is kissing a dead corpse, which is utterly disgusting. Somehow a black man enters the hotel and is whacked with an axe. Then the kid and the woman take the black man's vehicle and leave the father, who dies within minutes of hypothermia. Most movies aren't a complete waste of time, but this falls right into that category. The music is trashy, the characters are corny (except Jack Nicholson, who is a good actor), the plot is twisted and fits the description of vomit, the ending is very predictable, the storyline is slow, tedious, and boring. This movie is extremely overrated. AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS. I'm surprised it's gotten such a high rating on IMDb.
One Star. That's all this documentary deserves. I haven't felt this disappointed in watching a movie, let alone a documentary, in quite some time.<br /><br />I'm a BIG fan of the "Walking With..." series, including it's Nigel Marvin spin-offs, for all their gleeful fun yet informative information. And although the subject of prehistoric man has never interested me nearly as much as other prehistoric creatures, the subject is still interesting and unique to explore. Having seen all the other docs from the series, I figured I need to see this one as well, especially after seeing relatively good reviews in other places.<br /><br />Well for those of you who put up a good review of this doc... what were you thinking?! lol.<br /><br />Though the information that they were able to get through was interesting, the presentation failed in every other way possible. It had a terrible flow, was incredibly unfocused in what it was trying to say (with information scrambled and sometimes out of of place), horrible effects (that includes the few moments of CGI and especially the makeup effects), and overused MTV-style camera effects.<br /><br />Speaking of the makeup effects, one reviewer here mentioned how laughable the scene was when the cavemen come across this giant ape and how it looks a lot like a 70s man-in-suit horror movie. Well there are plenty of moments just like that were the people portraying the ape men looked ridiculous and acted ridiculous. None of this is helped by horrible camera positions and compositions.<br /><br />The worst part of all is none of it is shown in an interesting or dynamic way, or looks remotely real. It doesn't even look like it was taken seriously. It also lacked any emotional punch that the predecessors of the series had. Remember the episode in "Walking With Dinosaurs" of the fate of the Ornithochirus (sp?)? That episode still gets me on the verge of tears every time I watch it. It's this sort of engagement with the subject that lacks here most of all. When you are more engaged in the subject and it's own personal story, even one that is just speculation, you care more about the facts surrounding it.<br /><br />The only saving graces of this production are the fairly good narration (at least in the BBC version I saw) and the music. Otherwise, DO NOT bother even renting this one unless you want to have a good laugh (which I did frequently, but usually followed by rolling eyes). This does not belong on the shelf with the other "Walking With..." docs.<br /><br />And does it make sense to learn that this doc was NOT produced or directly involved with the same people who did the others in the series? Hmmm...
OK, If you're looking for another Bastketball Diaries, this is completely the wrong film.<br /><br />I revolves around two brothers. Max, the younger, has a major cocaine addiction. Adam, the eldest, is a doctor. This movie is suppose to show the plunge from reality to the extreme lows that drugs make possible. It however, does not. It shows that cocaine can be fun no matter what the situation happens to be present. Most of the movie focus is on Max and his parting ways. Eventually Adam, can no longer take the stress from his job and begins to use as well (perscription drugs).<br /><br />This movie has almost no climax. Doesn't descend into what cocaine really does to you, has boring and low-budget scenes, and the acting of the eldest brother, Adam, is horrific.<br /><br />I have no idea how this movie has managed to pass and receive awards, it is not a heart-wencher. If you want a clear and true story movie on the extreme world of drugs- rent, if not buy 'The Basketball Diaries'. And notice the difference.<br /><br />Try to avoid this movie but, if you think you will enjoy. Try and see for yourself...
The movie is about two brothers that are supposed to be alike - but are not in any way expect for being smart - one is a surgeon and they other is able to write a computer code. Geniuses as they like to call themselves which sounds very exaggerated if you compare it to personal characteristics can you perceive from the material of the title.<br /><br />I honestly didn't like the style of the movie. I believe that anxiety, confusion and deep blues it brings are there for a purpose, but what I don't get is why there is so much of it. The movie is cheap on scenes and tells the story basically with no human aspect in it at all. It gives the comic book like experience. However it's visually numbing the viewer, it somehow brings him inside the blues with brief dialogs, monotonic scenes, dynamic cut, music and abrupt noises.<br /><br />The movie's storyline is very simple, most of what's going on is being dramatically pictured for long minutes, mostly in confusing delirium simulating effects of drug use and dynamic cuts.<br /><br />I will say openly that this movie didn't meet my expetations a tiny bit.
This has to be, by far, the absolute worst movie I have seen in the last 20 years. When I saw that Michael Madsen was in it I figured it couldn't be too bad a movie since he has been in some pretty decent films, and he was a pretty fair actor. WRONG! No one should waste their time on this film. I fast forwarded through 80 percent of it and I don't feel that I missed a thing.
It is a pity that you cannot vote zero stars on IMDb, because I would not have hesitated! In fact I would go so far as to say that this film was in the negative stars. <br /><br />I, like many others, bought this film thinking that because it has Michael Madsen in it, it could be good... No chance! This film was shocking! Imagine a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful', well, Primal Instinct did not even come close to that good, and I had previously thought that there would be nothing worse than a movie length 'The Bold and the Beautiful'. <br /><br />Michael Madsen, how could you do this to us? The worst part is, I didn't fast forward a bit, I was hoping that at the end they would reveal that it was all some sort of sick joke, that they thought it would be funny to make us watch such a horribly bad film.<br /><br />Where do I start...? Directing - Zero Stars, Screenplay - Zero Stars, Acting - Zero Stars, Cinematography - Zero Stars, Digital Effects - Zero Stars, Production Design - Zero Stars, Make-up - Zero Stars, Casting - Zero Stars, Editing - Zero Stars, Trailer - Half a Star, Graphic Design - Half a Star, DVD Menu - Half a Star.<br /><br />However I think that it is very important to have seen bad films just so that you know what a really bad film is, so for that reason I am happy that I saw this film, just so that I have a bad film to put at the bottom of my list.
This has to be the worst movie I have seen. Madsen fans don't be drawn into this like I was. He is only in it for a maximum of five minutes. This movie is so bad that the only reason why you would watch it is if all the rest of the movies on earth as well as t.v. had been destroyed.
A BDSM "sub-culture" of Los Angeles serves as backdrop for this low budget and shabbily constructed mess, plainly a vanity piece for its top-billed player, Celia Xavier, who also produces and scripts while performing a dual role as twin sisters Vanessa and Celia. A question soon develops as to whether or not some rather immoderate camera, lighting and editing pyrotechnics can ever reach a point of connection to a weak and often incoherent narrative that will not be taken seriously by a sensate viewer. Celia is employed as a highly motivated probation officer for the County of Los Angeles, while her evil natured twin has become an iconic figure within her fetishistic world largely because of erotic performances upon CD-ROMS, but when disaster befalls "Mistress Vanessa", virtuous Celia, determined to unearth her sister's vicious attacker, begins a new job as a "sex slave" at the private Castle Club where the specialty of the house is a "dungeon party". Two FBI field agents (whose deployment to the Vanessa case is ostensibly required due to her involvement with internet BDSM sites), in addition to a Los Angeles Police Department homicide detective, are assigned to investigate the crime, while endeavouring to provide security for Celia whose enthusiastic performance in her new vocation is avidly enough regarded by her customers as to have created conditions of personal danger for her. Flaws in logic and continuity abound, such as a homicide being allocated to L.A.P.D.'s Operations-South Bureau, a region of the metropolis that is far removed from the setting of the film. Direction is unfocused and not aided by erratic post-production editing and sound reproduction. The mentioned photographic gymnastics culminate with a batty montage near the movie's end of prior footage that is but tangentially referent to the scenario. One solid acting turn appears among this slag: Stan Abe as a zealous FBI agent.
This is not Michael Madsen's fault, he was hardly in it. This movie was just awful. If you want to laugh and be bored, go ahead and watch this movie. Words cannot describe how idiotic it is. Sorry Michael. The cinematography was dark. All the other actors are unknowns. When watching it, it feels like a soft porn, but with no nudity or heated scenes. This movie had sexual overtones, since it is about a underground S & M killer. The acting was bad, except Michael Madsen's parts. He looked like he wanted to laugh. I hope he got paid well for this lousy movie. It is something I would not be proud of. It is not even a B movie for cable, it is more like a F and it should never be shown, ever.
I just watched this film 15 minutes ago, and I still have no idea what I just watched. Mainly I think it's a film about an internet S&M "star" of CD Roms that are about as realistic as flash cartoons online. She's murdered by someone, which causes her sister and a crack team of 2 FBI agents to investigate the death. The local homicide division of Big City, USA is also investigating, though most of his work comes by the way of oogling the CD ROMs which he claims are as realistic "as the real thing". I know. Wow.<br /><br />Michael Madsen is the only one in the film that has any kind of credits behind him. He's in the film for about 15 minutes, and half of that is him banging the main girl for seemingly no apparent reason. I won't even explain the ending, because quite frankly I can't make it out myself. But before the final scene, we're treated to a 3 or 4 minute montage of everything in the film. Honestly, they could have ran that then the final scene and it would have been the same effect with the cross eyed direction and all.<br /><br />All in all, stay away from this film. I got it because I love bad movies and I love Michael Madsen. I really could have used that 80 some minutes on something else and have been more satisfied. Like, playing that game with a knife where you jab at your hand repeatedly. That for 80 minutes would be much more entertaining.
I agree totally with the last commenter this could be the worst movie ever made .I too had to fast forward through most of this movie. Michael Madsen must have done this movie as a favor to someone.The picture quality is grainy all the way through .And what little plot there is,is just plain stupid .I give this movie a 1 out of 10 if I could give it a lower score I would .Don't waste your time on this movie or you'll regret it.
The only redeeming part of this movie was the price I paid. At least all I lost was $3.00 and the time elapsed sitting through this bomb. The crew member who was in charge of continuity missed the boat. When the female lead and the FBI guy went to the alleged killers location, Mr. FBI handed the female a revolver. When the alleged killer came out the door, the revolver has magically transformed into an automatic. One is left to ponder would an FBP agent hand a weapon to a civilian? I think not. Ms. Xavier appears to be a very attractive female. It is too bad the R rating did not allow much of her to be seen. It would seem that a film editor cut what might have been the best parts of the film out.
[CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!]<br /><br /> Timon and Pumbaa are watching The Lion King. Timon decides to go back BEFORE the beginning, to when the story really began. So they go back. Way back. Back even before Simba was born. Back to Timon's old home which was miles away from Pride Rock. A clan of meerkats burrowed underground to hide from hyenas. The worst digger in the clan was a pompous, self-centered meerkat named Timon. His mother took pity on him but Uncle Max just shook his head. Mother suggested putting Timon on sentry duty; Timon had dreams of a bigger and better place out there somewhere. Just then, hyenas Shenzi, Bonzai and Ed arrived and nearly killed poor Uncle Max. That did it. The other meerkats just wanted Timon to go away while Timon took it upon himself to leave. So he kissed his mom goodbye and started off. He didn't get very far before he started getting homesick. Just then he met Rafiki, who taught him to look beyond what he sees. Timon had no clue what that meant so he continued on and met a warthog named Pumbaa, who was all alone due to a flatulence problem. Timon and Pumbaa join up then, but Timon declared them acquaintances, rather than friends.<br /><br /> They soon arrive at Pride Rock where all the zebras, antelopes, wildebeests, rhinoceroses, giraffe's, elephants and many other plain animals had gathered. What was going on? Timon didn't care. They pressed on. Timon then saw Rafiki atop Pride Rock lifting into the air something he couldn't see. Just then all the animals took a bow. Was this to honor the birth of the new king? No, Pumbaa had passed gas and the animals were bowing to cover their noses; Timon and Pumbaa try an assortment of new homes, but each are discomforting due to incessant singing or hyenas or a large stampede of wildebeests! Pumbaa and Timon suddenly find themselves heading down stream. When they reach land, Timon decides to give up. But then they gaze around at their newfound paradise. It was beautiful: trees and water falls as far as the eye could see. Timon named the place after a strange phrase he learned from Rafiki: Hakuna Matata. Timon and Pumbaa go out bowling for buzzards one afternoon when they suddenly run into Simba. They take him under their wing and become father figures. They teach him the arts of bug eating and belching contests. Pretty soon, a teenage Simba takes on Timon in a snail slurping contest. Simba won, leaving Timon deathly ill.<br /><br /> Then one day, Simba's childhood friend Nala arrived. Timon and Pumbaa just knew she'd break up the friendship. Suddenly, Simba runs away. Nala and Pumbaa race after him, but not Timon. He chose to stay at "Hakuna Matata" by himself, until Rafiki "talked" some sense into him, so he joins his friends at Pride Rock. Timon's mother and Uncle Max arrive then. While Simba battles Scar, Mother and Max dig a large hole to trap hyenas Shenzi, Bonzai and Ed in. It worked. Scar is soon flung down the same hole where he is devoured by the hyenas. Then all is well. Mother, Uncle Max and the rest of the meerkats go live with Timon and Pumbaa in the paradise that is Hakuna Matata. Back to the present, Timon and Pumbaa finish the movie when suddenly Mother, Uncle Max, Simba and Rafiki want to watch it again. So do Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Goofy, Snow White, the Seven Dwarfs, Dumbo, Peter Pan, the Lost Boys, Mad Hatter, March Hare, Genie, Aladdin, and Jasmine.<br /><br /> Well, I must say that The Lion King 1 1/2 wasn't as good as I had hoped. It was too ridiculous and silly. The original Lion King was a masterpiece. It had a serious story with light comedy thrown in. This one was just silly and made a mockery of it. I swear, sometimes Timon and Pumbaa are just way too overplayed. They're overplayed to the point of no longer being funny, just annoying. The original voice cast is back: Nathan Lane as Timon, Ernie Sabella as Pumbaa, Matthew Broddrick as Adult Simba, Whoopi Goldberg as Shenzi, Cheech Marin as Bonzai, Jim Cummings as Ed, Robert Guillame as Rafiki. New to the cast are Julie Kavner of TV's (Too) long running series The Simpsons as Timon's mom and Jerry Stiller as Uncle Max. So anyway, this movie isn't The Lion King III, and it isn't II because there already is a II. It takes place right after Part I and Part II is a ways away. Hence, it's 1 1/2. In conclusion, I don't recommend this to die hard Lion King fans because it's far too ridiculous and frivilous. However the kids will love it so I recommend it to them. I hope this will also be the LAST Lion King movie. Two is enough. "The Lion King 1 1/2". What we've come to expect from Disney sequel makers.<br /><br />-
I saw and liked the first two a lot, really. Especially because the second is not just a try to make another one as good as the first. And it's a story standing alone. You don't have to know the first movie. I liked that in the "Free Willy" movies, too.<br /><br />But... the third, here is absolutely useless! I tried it with a friend of mine, because we both liked the first two. We decided to stop after a good half an hour. The movie is okay, there are funny parts in it alright. But what for? Timon and Pumba were funny creatures in the first two movies. What Lion King 1 1/2 is for me is: a hard attempt to get even more fun of the first movie than it had already, plus telling the story from their point of view. But what for? I'd really like to know. You know, the idea of the two of them sitting in the cinema watching the first one, is really nice. But what comes after is mostly unnecessary. I guess many people liked Timon and Pumba, and so do I really. Yet, for me many parts were very constructed with a try to be funny. No chance, most of it wasn't funny at all, at least for me. Btw. what was the movie about anyway? Was it a) about Timon and Pumba or b) an attempt to get more fun out of the first movie? I tend to choose option b and I'm very disappointed about it.<br /><br />If you like to see stories like: "the story behind xy", you should see "Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead" by Tom Stoppard with Tim Roth and Gary Oldman. That's really funny and no try to get more out of "Hamlet" then it has.
A dedicated fan to the TLK movies, with the first one being a milestone and the second probably the best sequel Disney has produced, along comes this film... Now I'm not arguing with animation, voice work, music, but this is no more than a Timon/Pumbaa screwloose in the TLK atmosphere. Although it isn't bad, it doesn't add anything. Basically this movie is one big joke... and that's about all that saves it. Make a real TLK3, Disney! The potential is there.<br /><br />4/10
Having watched both the Lion King and Lion King II and enjoyed both thoroughly. I thought Lion King 1.5 might be worth watching. What a disappointment ! Disney must be getting desperate for revenues.<br /><br />Especially now that they lost the deal with pixar.<br /><br />Basically, they just picked up some bits of footage that were left on the editor's floor (or garbage can) and glued them together to make a<br /><br />quick buck. Unlike LK I & II, both of which had strong story lines.<br /><br />This movie hardly has a story at all. While the characters and animation are always fun to look at, there is simply not enough material here for a movie. Some of the bits could have been good 2nd disk fillers on the original offerings.<br /><br />Disney - Shame on you for putting this trash out to make a quick buck!<br /><br />Next time take the time and effort and put our an enduring work.
I found this to be an utter waste of time, effort and money. I know Disney always displays lack of creativity when making "straight-to-video" films - but rehashing the plot of the original film with a "new perspective" is an all-time low...soon they'll just be re-releasing the original films with new animation and new songs and be calling it a "new version of the movie we all love." Nathan Lane surprisingly returns to his role of Timon yet again. Timon and Pumbaa the animated animals from the world of the original "Lion King" embark on a narrative journey to tell us the original story the way it REALLY happened...as they see it.<br /><br />Of course Timon is now the hero of the story, yadda yadda yadda, blah blah blah...<br /><br />The musical sequences are lame and the animation is crap. The vocal talents are impressive for a video feature, but then again, when was the last time you remember Matthew Broderick, Whoopi Goldberg or Nathan Lane being in anything of real commercial substance? Overall if you liked the original you'll hate this. It's insulting because it's unfair to children and adults alike. And that about sums it up.
There really wasn't much of a story in this film. It loosely based itself off the events in the first Lion King movie. It is supposed to be how Timon and Pumbaa met via their aloneness. But there isn't much more than that.<br /><br />It mixes some scenes from the original, then it ab-libs about how this movie changed them a little bit. But still, is that it? I was hoping for something a little more. Instead, all I have to show for it is an empty plot with little explanation.<br /><br />I guess if you wanted to see other meerkats in the Lion King universe, then this is it. But other than that, it does little justice for the animators. Disney really should stop these direct-to-video productions. It really was quite boring and could have used Jason Statham. "D-"
I give this film it's props that it is very well made and reasonably well acted. BUt I couldn't get past the implausibility of the whole thing.<br /><br />First and foremost, a game built around the notion of "Russian Roulette" that has to fill on hour. the big problem is that if you are doing a "live" show, you run the possibility that your first contestant will be the one unlucky enough to draw the "real" bullet. Then what do you do? You have 50 minutes of show to fill and nothing to show. The corollary is that Okay, you get to the end and the first five contestants survive, which means number six has the bullet and can't possibly get the payout. He isn't going to shoot himself at that point, so it's kind of anti-climatic. <br /><br />second problem, almost as big. Human nature. People are going to flinch, panic, soil their underwear and do things that would otherwise not make very good television. Too much randomness. That's why "real" Reality television is actually tightly scripted and even more tightly edited.<br /><br />(The only random thing is the "performance artist's" rant about female sacrifices, which were actually rare historically. Even that was predictable, since she went through with shooting herself to no effect.) <br /><br />We are led to believe the shows ratings would increase while it was going on at 1 AM in the morning (unlikely) with the token Asian girl announcing each boost in ratings.<br /><br />A point on race and sex. Big surprise the movies two minority (one gay) and two female contestants are the ones who survive. So we are left with the two white males, and of course, the slightly less likable of them is the one who buys it. The purpose of such a show would be it's randomness, but the guy you like the least is the guy who dies.<br /><br />the Climax is that after spending two hours fighting for televised suicide, the Eva Mendes character (Mendes produced and starred in this thing, so she has no one to blame but herself) actually grows a conscience when someone dies. What did she THINK was going to happen? She is promptly shot by a bystander angry about the whole thing (motives never explained) and the show went on to be a big hit. Really? <br /><br />the problem with media satire is that it has to either have some grounding in reality or it has to be so over the top to be ludicrous (like Network). This is neither.
Live! Yes, but not kicking.<br /><br />True story: Some time ago, a Dutch TV station made an announcement that they were going to air a new reality show. A contest rather. The main participant in this show would be a woman who was dying of something terrible and she would be donating her kidneys to one lucky person with progressive kidney failure. For real.<br /><br />The country and the international media were all over this story like flies on a turd, saying it was appalling, immoral, what-is-this-world-coming-to, and the like. In a way, I had to agree.<br /><br />As the months passed, the tension built up to a degree that the government was mostly occupied by the issue of whether they should let this show go ahead or not, instead of running the country.<br /><br />The show did air and right up to the last moment they were pushing ahead. And up to the last moment the country was up in arms, the Prime Minister making speeches, every newspaper writing about it, everyone in the country holding their breaths. And the network pushed on. Towards a new frontier in television. And they definitely succeeded in doing just that. They pushed the envelope.<br /><br />The show aired and we all watched a terminally ill woman selecting the right candidate to receive her kidneys so he or she would live, whilst she would die shortly after.<br /><br />And then, in the last moments of the show it was revealed that it was a partial hoax. The woman was not ill, but all the candidates were. There was no kidney auction. The whole show, that, with the publicity and the commercials and all the discussions, built up for months to a fantastic climax, was a publicity stunt to focus attention on the problem of major shortages in organ donors. The man who founded this particular network himself died of kidney disease.<br /><br />Now THIS is television. Leaving everybody far behind in amazement.<br /><br />Don't give me a poorly acted, poorly directed flick about some woman trying to get a Russian Roulette show on American TV.<br /><br />As if.<br /><br />*Spoiler* As if I'm going to believe they would get this through the FCC. As if I'm going to believe this would get through the US Supreme Court on the basis of free expression. As if I'm gonna believe the ridiculous ending where this woman pulled it off and has conscience issues because some guy shot himself on air.<br /><br />It's all been done before. Watch Running Man with Arnold instead. At least it had a semi good ending.<br /><br />*Spoiler* This is an appallingly bad piece of film, together with a ridiculous ending. So she gets shot in the end, is that supposed to make us movie going public feel better after we leave the theater because there was some kind of justice? Don't take my word for it, but I would say this: leave this one alone and watch a test pattern instead, you'll get more quality.
I really don't understand all these positive user reviews. This movie is the worst movie I've ever seen and I'm not trying to be pessimistic.<br /><br />Eva Mendez is hot but terrible in this film. But I don't think it is her own fault but the directors. He have somehow managed to make everything look artificial; their acting, the idea, the make-up, everything.<br /><br />The star I'm giving is only for the idea behind the movie, which was very bad executed.<br /><br />Don't watch this bullshit, go watch a Fellini, Woody Allen or some David Lynch.
I heard about this film and knew it wasn't real good. But I started watching the film (on my film-channel)and was interested. This could be a really great, darkly black satire on todays morals in media. The small featurettes on every contestent were good. It build up to something I wouldn't wanna miss. But when the so called show starts everything becomes implausible, cheap and rather silly. Here's where the writer should have added something that would make people think. But instead it's wrapped up and assuming people are this dumb.<br /><br />The ending is so bad I give it a 1. Even if the film starts of promising.
Let's see. In the "St. Elsewhere" finale we found out that there was no hospital and that every thing had been in the mind of an autistic child. "Newhart" ended by telling us that it had all been a dream. And "Roseanne" ended by telling us that it all had taken place in her mind. Very "creative". Annoying was more like it. Yes, it was just a TV show and wasn't at all reality. It's just that when you get caught up in a great movie or TV show you end up at least wanting to believe that it's all "real". At least as far as the reality it portrays on screen. This type of series finale had been done twice before and was old hat, frustrating and simply not fun to watch. Now "Newhart" being all a dream? At least done in a creative way that far exceeded the expectations of anyone who loved the show. The idea itself was not too engaging but it was so brilliantly done that its arguably the Best Series Finale Ever. Roseanne left me feeling cheated after being such a loyal fan.
Blazing saddles! It's a fight between two estranged brothers (Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard), both of whom can ignite fires mentally; they square off over childhood differences, with dippy love-interest Debra Winger caught in the middle. Director Glenn Gordon Caron (the TV whiz-kid behind "Moonlighting") smothers the darkly-textured comedy in Vince Gilligan's screenplay with a presentation so slick, the movie resembles an entry from an over-enthusiastic film student on a fifteen million-dollar grant. It has the prickly energy of a big commercial feature, but a shapeless style which brings out nothing from the characters except their kooky eccentricities. These aren't even characters, they're plot functions. Barely-released to theaters, the film is a disaster, although strictly as an example of style over substance it does look good. Winger is the only stand-out in a cast which looks truly perplexed. *1/2 from ****
I love these actors, but they were wasted in this flick.<br /><br />I can only wonder, what WERE they thinking agreeing to this crap???<br /><br />Debra Winger just phoned it in; Dennis Quaid and Arliss Howard were caricatures. Some people thought it was deep. Well, if you liked "Breaking the Waves", you'll probably like this too. I hated both. 3/10
I can't believe they got the actors and actresses of that caliber to do this movie. That's all I've got to say - the movie speaks for itself!!
Gene Hackman gets himself busted out of prison by a nameless government agency who want him for an assassination. It's a given of course that Hackman has the proficient skills for the job.<br /><br />Nobody tells him anything though, he's given as the audience is given bits and pieces of information. That's supposed to be suspenseful, instead it's annoying and boring. <br /><br />Hackman goes through with the mission, but the getaway is messed up and the guy at the top of this mysterious entity orders everybody dead to cover it up. So everyone in the cast dies and at the end you don't really care.<br /><br />One of the other reviewers pointed out that the film was originally twice as long, almost three hours and got chopped down quite a bit. Maybe something really was lost in the translation, but I tend to think it was a mercy act on the audience.<br /><br />A very talented cast that had people like Richard Widmark, Candice Bergen, Mickey Rooney, Eli Wallach, and Edward Albert is so thoroughly wasted here it's a crime. <br /><br />And we never do find out just what federal agency was doing all this, the FBI, the CIA, the DEA or even the IRS.
First, it takes a full half hour to get Hackman out of jail and to start doing the job. What a waste of time, we all know Hackman is getting out to do some job for his masters, why waste almost a third of the movie on these sequences. Then Hackman stays in a hotel and the story arc again goes nowhere, simply proving to us that Hackman is under close watch and anything he says or does is know by the masters. Again, another 20 minutes. Then more wasted time showing the reunion with his wife. All of this should have taken 10-15 minutes at most simply as a set-up for the real action, intrigue and plot twists. By the time the real action gets going, I was so bored that I just wanted the movie to end. Hackman is great as usual, and the other actors as well, but this is a dud of the first magnitude.
There are really two sections of this film. Firstly there's the laughable prologue to the film which is so hysterical and cornball that it would almost feel appropriate that the 'The Simpsons' Troy McClure should be doing the narration.<br /><br />Then the rest of the film begins (starting off with a title song which really doesn't fit in with the rest of the film) which, while technically OK, is killed by a vague, inconsistent and unconvincing plot and not just uninteresting characters, but characters that make no sense.<br /><br />This is especially so with Mickey Rooney's Spiventa, who was supposedly in on the plot and part of the 'organisation' the whole time yet what would have happened had Hackman made the seemingly arbitrary decision to take him along when breaking out? In that case he would've been a totally superfluous and unnecessary character, which in the end he still is.<br /><br />The overall problem of the film is that it's totally unwilling to put any detail on who or what is behind this conspiracy. It's as if the filmmakers didn't have the courage to imply that a particular section of society would be capable of creating such an organisation and instead settled on the hope that a lack of explanation would suffice and the audience would form their own conclusions.<br /><br />Put simply, the film fails on all levels.
Stanley Kramer directs an action thriller and leaves out two key things: action and thrills. THE DOMINO PRINCIPLE features Gene Hackman as a convict sprung from prison in order to perform some mysterious task. Richard Widmark, Edward Albert, and Eli Wallach are his operatives --- they presumably work for the government, but that, like most of the movie's plot line, is never made clear. Hackman asks a lot of questions that NEVER get answered so the film goes absolutely nowhere. While it strives to be like NIGHT MOVES and THE PARALLAX VIEW, THE DOMINO PRINCIPLE mixes up ambiguity and mystery with confusion and boredom. The film is extremely well photographed but even that works against it. Kramer's direction is devoid of any style. It's a very sunny movie!<br /><br />The acting is fine with Hackman proving he's pretty much incapable of being bad. Widmark and Wallach are suitably nasty and Albert is well cast as Widmark's cruel lackey. Even the usually obnoxious Mickey Rooney is pretty good as Hackman's sidekick. One oddity however is the casting of Candice Bergen as Hackman's wife. We're told she's done time in prison and she seems to be trying to put on some sort of southern twang. Kramer's idea of making her appear to be trailer trash is to have her wear an ugly brown wig. It's a role better suited for the likes of Valerie Perrine or Susan Tyrell.
What did producer/director Stanley Kramer see in Adam Kennedy's novel and Kennedy's very puzzling screenplay? Were there a few pieces left out on purpose? And what about Gene Hackman, Richard Widmark, Edward Albert, Eli Wallach and Mickey Rooney? What did they see in this very muddled story?<br /><br />And why did Candice Bergen, who gave a horrible performance, accept such a thankless role?<br /><br />The Domino Principle wants to be on the same footing as The Parallax View or The Manchurian Candidate and misses the mark by a very wide margin. A major misfire by Stanley Kramer.
"The Domino Principle" is, without question, one of the worst thrillers ever made. Hardly any sense can be made of the convoluted plot and by the halfway point you'll want to throw your arms up in frustration and scream "I give up!!!"<br /><br />How Gene Hackman and director Stanley Kramer ever got involved in this mess must only be summed up by their paychecks.<br /><br />I hope they spent their money well.
This film is notable for three reasons.<br /><br />First, apparently capitalizing on the success of the two 'Superman' serials, this low budget feature was made and released to theaters, marking George Reeves' and Phyllis Coates' initial appearances as Clark Kent / Superman and Lois Lane. Part of the opening is re-used in the series. Outside the town of Silby, a six-mile deep oil well penetrates the 'hollow Earth' allowing the 'Mole-Men' to come to the surface. Forget about the other holes (those in the plot).<br /><br />Second, unlike most SF invasion films of the fifties, the hero plays a dominant (and controlling) force in preaching and enforcing tolerance and acceptance of difference against a raging mob of segregationist vigilantes. No 'mild mannered reporter' here! Clark Kent, knowledgeable and self-assertive, grabs control of the situation throughout ("I'll handle this!"), even assisting in a hospital gown in the removal of a bullet from a Mole-Man! As Superman, he is gentler than Clark towards the feisty Lois, but is also the voice of reason and tolerance as he rails against the vigilantes as "Nazi storm troopers." <br /><br />Third, you will notice that the transition from the Fleisher-like cartoon animated flying of Superman in the two serials to the 'live action' flying in the 'Adventures of Superman' had not yet been made.
"You're not going to shoot those little creatures. In the first place, they haven't done you any harm. In the second place, they may be radioactive." Ah, the joys of no-budget 50s sci-fi… Yet despite the odd gem like that, Superman and the Mole-Men is pretty uninspiring going even with a lean 58-minute running time. It's beyond cheap (the one shot of Superman flying is an incredibly inept few frames of animation) and pretty dull with it, though it has a surprisingly altruistic message – the mute Mole-Men, diminutive actors with enlarged skulls and fur coats who look more like Mr Mxyzptlk without the hat than subterranean critters, released from their underground world by oil drilling are not malicious, merely misunderstood, and George Reeves' Man of Steel tries to prevent the local small-town mob led by Jeff Corey from killing them. An interesting counterpoint to the paranoia of the day, perhaps, but with little more than good intentions to recommend it.
Back in the 1970s, WPIX ran "The Adventures of Superman" every weekday afternoon for quite a few years. Every once in a while, we'd get a treat when they would preempt neighboring shows to air "Superman and the Mole Men." I always looked forward to those days. Watching it recently, I was surprised at just how bad it really was.<br /><br />It wasn't bad because of the special effects, or lack thereof. True, George Reeves' Superman costume was pretty bad, the edges of the foam padding used to make him look more imposing being plainly visible. And true, the Mole Men's costumes were even worse. What was supposed to be a furry covering wouldn't have fooled a ten year-old, since the zippers, sleeve hems and badly pilling fabric badly tailored into baggy costumes were all painfully obvious. But these were forgivable shortcomings.<br /><br />No, what made it bad were the contrived plot devices. Time and again, Superman failed to do anything to keep the situation from deteriorating. A lynch mob is searching for the creatures? Rather than round up the hysterical crowd or search for the creatures himself, he stands around explaining the dangers of the situation to Lois and the PR man. The creatures are cornered? Again, he stands around watching and talking but doesn't save them until they're shot. Luke Benson, the town's rabble-rouser, shoots at him? Attempted murder to any reasonable person, but Superman releases the man over and over to cause more problems. Superman had quite a few opportunities to nip the problem in the bud, but never once took advantage of them.<br /><br />That said, both George Reeves and Phyllis Coates played their characters well, seemingly instantly comfortable in the roles. If only they had been given a better script to work with.
I just got the UK 4-disc special edition of Superman 1 for about $5. The additional stuff includes the 1951 feature Superman and the Mole-Men. So I slapped it into the DVD player last night, and here are my findings.<br /><br />Some initial disappointment - I hadn't checked, and I think I had it mentally tagged as one of the Kirk Alyn serials. I'm not a huge fan of George Reeves as Superman, and I hadn't seen anything other than the odd clip of Kirk Alyn - but hey ho, never mind.<br /><br />This black and white production runs for less than an hour. It has the feel of a couple of episodes of one of Reeves' early TV series, a two-parter, put together for cinema release, although IMDb says it was filmed as a cinema release in advance of the first TV series. In any event, it's an odd choice for reasons I'll get to later. I'm of an age where I recall TV and movie productions which are limited to one or two locations and sets, so there were no major surprises here. Even so, for a low budget movie, this one is REALLY low budget.<br /><br />The story concerns the small town of Silsby - population 1,430 - which, puzzlingly, is also home to the world's deepest oil well (6 miles). The story opens with the well's foreman hurriedly taking steps to close the well down. This conflicts with the arrival of Metropolis reporters Kent and Lane to report on the well, at the behest of the oil company. As Clark is sniffing out the fact that the drill has emerged into a radioactive cavern 6 miles down, a couple of odd little guys (small in stature, big in head, black in jumpsuit, and bushy in eyebrow) emerge from the capped-off drillshaft, and start mooching round town with puzzled expressions on their faces.<br /><br />A deep breath now, here is the remaining plot of the picture. The little guys scare some kids, so Jeff Corey (playing the town's rampant xenophobe) incites some pals to kill these "creatures". Superman steps in (moderately ineffectually) and catches one of the little guys who has been shot and takes him to the local hospital. Corey's pals burn down the shack the other little fellow has hidden in and assume he is killed, but he escapes and legs it down the shaft. Corey incites a lynch mob (despite the sheriff arresting him) to hang the hospitalised Mole-Man. Superman stops them entering the hospital and takes the injured chappie to the shaft to return him to his fellows. A total of 4 Mole-Men emerge with a weapon of some sort which they fire at Jeff Corey (I call this an Aargh! gun because its sole effect seems to be to make Corey go "Aargh!") and Superman saves him. He immediately changes his ways because of amazement at Superman saving him after the way he has behaved, the Mole-men go back down the shaft. The end.<br /><br />Despite the film only being an hour long, there is an inordinate amount of creeping around, bewareing and pursuing - I have left out all the "Mole-Man 1 creeps from A to B, looking out to make sure no-one is following him" stuff. The Mole-Men are never engaged in any way whatsoever - they have no dialogue - they just turn up, get persecuted, and go back. They do look a little creepy, but they are hardly the bug-eyed monsters that the town's reaction implies.<br /><br />Reeves is quite a good Clark Kent - very much a hard-nosed reporter, much more so than Phyllis Coates' rather indifferent Lois Lane. But he is a terrible, terrible Superman. Not only does he not look the part (at least his hair is dyed black in this, which is an improvement from the rather light hair he sported in some of the TV episodes), the way he plays it is all wrong in my book. I'm sure he was told to "strike the pose" (which Superman does constantly), but someone should have told him that it should be fists on hips, not fists on ribs. And he plays Superman as a rather strict and touchy schoolteacher - he doesn't actually wag his finger in remonstration, but he may as well have done.<br /><br />And Superman does a huge amount of walking around (I say a huge amount - he isn't actually in it all that much), and a bit of running. He takes off and lands a couple of times, but isn't seen in flight at any point. Oh, some bullets bounce off him, and he uses telescopic vision as Clark, but with no accompanying visual effect. In fact, visual effects are conspicuous by their absence, and the few which are present aren't very good.<br /><br />I've tried to consider this effort by reference to the standards of the time: but even by those standards I think it's a pretty threadbare effort. Thankfully, production standards on the TV series were higher, and at least they took the trouble to come up with stories which had a bit more to them.<br /><br />Something of a disappointment - I shan't be watching it again.
This movie was just plain bad. Just about every cop movie cliché is present and accounted for. Bad guy gets away? check. Partner? check. Wacky personality clash with partner? check. Rookie with something to prove? check. Rookie shows up grizzled veteran. check. About the only ones it didn't touch on were idiot shoot themselves in the foot and retirony but I guess they're saving those old chestnuts for Dooley's next outing. Add in the battle of the sexes with Girl Power along with tired old sight gags and banal overdone material like Dooley's prize car getting trashed all the time and you have the recipe for one really bad movie. Avoid this one at all costs.
The Biggest one that bugs the hell out of me is that they say Zues takes DUTCH commands. But she is speaking German to him. The 2 languishes are completely different, its like saying "well he takes French commands" and start talking Spanish.<br /><br />James Belushi gives more the feeling of being a comedy actor not a detective in the slightest. The role just doesn't fit him, even if its mend to be a comedy.<br /><br />To many stereotype/predicable stuff. Typical comment or comebacks.<br /><br />If you don't look at those things i think it could be a nice movie to watch if its ever on TV. But i wouldn't suggesting renting it.
I am very disappointed with "K-911." The original "good" quality of "K-9" doesn't exist any more. This is more like a sitcom! Some of casts from original movie returned and got some of my memory back. The captain of Dooley now loves to hit him like a scene from old comedy show. That was crazy. What's the deal with the change of Police? It seems like they are now LAPD! Not San Diego PD. It is a completely different movie from "
The original was a good movie. I bought it on tape and have watched it several times. And though I know that sequels are not usually as good as the original I certainly wasn't expecting such a bomb. The romance was flat, the sight gags old, the spoken humor just wasn't. This may not have been the worst movie I've ever seen but it comes close.
If you are one of the people who finds "According to Jim" great television comedy, this is going to rock your world. And might I add, kudos for proving that good talent, good writing and a charismatic star are all you really need on any network other than ABC, which prefers to air crap like Jim Belushi's show year after year.<br /><br />"K-911" is a big, steaming, brown, German shepherd-sized "thank you" for all of the geniuses who loved the first movie. It's exactly what fans of that film and the lesser Belushi deserve. Jim's comedic chops and choice in projects are never far behind his ability to butcher a blues standard. Look for him to try to showcase all of his diverse lacks of talent into every project he hurls at the public like a surly zoo chimpanzee.<br /><br />If you enjoy Jim's work, this movie is your reward.
I was expecting a little something from "K-911", I mean it did look like a cute movie that I could get into. I always did love the dog comedy movies. But it looked like it was supposed to be Jame's movie, not Jerry Lee's. The plot was pretty lame and the two love interests really didn't have chemistry to begin with. Not to mention that James seemed to have a total sexist view in the movie despite the fact the writer wasn't going in that direction. James just really ticked me off for more than half the film. The dogs were the true stars and that's pretty sad that they out shined the actors.<br /><br />So, I'm glad it's not just me on IMDb who agrees that this was a pretty stupid movie. But hopefully, James will realize it was his brother Jim who was the talented one, no offense, but not everyone can be their star sibling. Don't you wish Ashlee Simpson would take that same advice? :D <br /><br />3/10
Extremely disappointing film based on the James Michener novel.<br /><br />What was even worse was Marlon Brando's performance. His southern drawl was ridiculous. I found myself laughing when he spoke as he sounded like an elderly southern lady coming home to roost. Brando, so great in previous films, was reduced here to a laughing stock. Tyrone Power, in "Witness for the Prosecution," should have been nominated for best actor instead of Brando here.<br /><br />The film, dealing with racism, dealt with the U.S. government's attempt to avoid marriages between U.S. soldiers and Japanese women.<br /><br />Brando was stone-faced throughout the movie. His moving from anti-these relationships to a pro one occurs when he finds love with an Asian woman. His emotions and talk made it difficult to see how he could espouse such new views.<br /><br />Only the lord knows why Red Buttons and Miyoshi Umeki received supporting Oscars for their performances. Nothing about either performance was equally impressive. Umeki's appearance on the screen was short and without much of anything being depicted on her part. A better performance in this film was done by Miiko Taka, who did nicely as Brando's love interest. She showed great emotion as the anti-American who found love with the Brando character. Her face was etched with the unhappiness she had for losing her father and brother in World War 11. She realized that her dancing was not her way out of this existence that she was living.<br /><br />Martha Scott went from the Hebrew mother Yochobel in "The Ten Commandments" to the bigoted mother of Brando's love interest at first. Her performance together with the one of Ricardo Montalban was wasted. Patricia Owens, as Brando's first love, showed depth and conviction in her performance.
I didn't expect much from this TV movie. You have to set the bar lower than you would for midget limbo for any TBS movie starring Antonio Sabato Jr. Still, it managed to disappoint, failing even to be a good-bad film.<br /><br />Every scene was by rote, as if someone had cut and pasted scenes from a dozen movies and tv shows dealing with big business conspiracies into the script, leaned back and said, "My work is done". It's all cliche, all predictable, and, even worse, the actors are forced to look like they're taking it seriously, (even when the plot developments are laughable).<br /><br />Do yourself a favor. Watch "The X-Files" if you're in the mood for paranoia. They handle it better. Also, let anyone know that sitting through "Fatal Error" is just that.
This has the logical consistency of marshmallows filled with ketchup, and the overall aftertaste is just as disgusting. <br /><br />Will be used in the 9th circle of Hell at recreation time. Just plain torture.<br /><br />I would rather choose to watch 90 minutes of my computer going through 5400 blue screens of death than watch this appalling drivel again - ever. Horrible. Horrible. Horrible.<br /><br />You know, the good thing about Swiss Cheese is that along with the holes you get some cheese: here it's ONLY holes - and the excitement factor? Well that turns watching paint dry into an adrenalin rush and an Olympic speed sport.<br /><br />My brain hurts from trying to work out who OK'd this drivel, did they think about the premise? (I sincerely hope not, otherwise there is no redemption) the only consolation is they had the pleasure of sitting through the rushes. Made for TV should not be a synonym for: "Sure, let the horses bowels run loose across the living rooms! Our audience are idiots!"<br /><br />I was hooked just to know how it could get any worse. This is not a good sign, folks. <br /><br />Hallmark should be ashamed for releasing it.<br /><br />I should be ashamed for watching it.<br /><br />I am ashamed. I'm off for a long shower.
Robert Wagner is the evil boss of Digicron, a telecommunications company with a virus that kills people.<br /><br />'so you're saying that the software virus has become a real virus that can kill people - that may be medically possible but not possible from my system' <br /><br />'i'm having to write some new virus software of my own to trap it - it may take some time'<br /><br />'but it's not going after software, it's killing people'<br /><br />watch out for the 'i'm into virology' love moment and perhaps first ever film plot to feature death by braille keyboard
I rated this movie a 1 since the plot is so unbelievable unbelievable. Judge for yourself. Be warned, the following will not only give away the plot, but will also spoil your appetite for watching the movie.<br /><br />A computer virus, designed by a frustrated nerd, sends out a code through television screens and computer monitors. When the code - in the form of light - enters the eye it can access the 'electrical system' of your body. What it does is forcing the body cells into excretion of calcium. Within seconds after infection the patient reaches for his neck, develops tunnel vision, his skin will turn white of the calcium, after which he falls and his hand and scull will crack in a cloud of chalk. <br /><br />This virus is very intelligent. When it finds out that a blind computer expert is trying to disassemble the code with a braille output device - operated by hands - the device is set on a very high voltage, which causes severe burning wounds on the skin of the expert's head. The virus also senses aggression against remote controls and the keyboard of an ATM. Fortunately it could be stopped by throwing over outdated desktop pc's in a rack and electrocuting the nerd with his back on a broken computer and his feet in some spilled water.<br /><br />Oh dear...
I have read the novel Reaper of Ben Mezrich a fews years ago and last night I accidentally came to see this adaption.<br /><br />Although it's been years since I read the story the first time, the differences between the novel and the movie are humongous. Very important elements, which made the whole thing plausible are just written out or changed to bad.<br /><br />If the plot sounds interesting to you: go and get the novel. Its much, much, much better.<br /><br />Still 4 out of 10 since it was hard to stop watching because of the great basic plot by Ben Mezrich.
Like so many media experiments, this amateurish effort contains seeds of a very interesting social commentary. In the 5+ years since it was released, the premise has been made less outrageous by real world events in software development, and I found it less boring than the previous commentator for that reason, I imagine... The director clearly is a fan of Hitchcock, and it's too bad that the film was not better executed, but in fact, it is nearly a parody of pulp fiction, including the soundtrack screeching at us when we are supposed to pay attention. One can almost see the exclamation points and capital letters on a yellowing page.<br /><br />I have to admit I found it rather entertaining for all these reasons and more. Sometimes the slick has less to offer us, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in deconstructing it for education purposes. Oh yes--and even though the seams showed and it creaked a lot, my heart rate went up, and I was reluctant to get up and take a break.
Despite its stereotypes, virtually 'no-name' cast and an obviously low budget I thought this film was alright; much better than I expected it to be. I was skeptical at first - the idea of a computer virus that can also infect people seemed a little ludicrous to me. But in the end, I thought the film handled the concept well (even if some scenes were a little clichéd).<br /><br />The cast was quite good, and the two leads seemed to take their roles very seriously. I couldn't help thinking, though, that Janine Turner is a bit of a Geena Davis look-a-like. Maybe it's just her face or the make-up, hair and clothes she had in this movie but it just kept nagging at the back of my mind the whole time.<br /><br />While it's not a 'must see' or a great film by any standard, 'Fatal Error' is an entertaining flick that will keep you watching until the end.
Actually, this flick, made in 1999, has pretty good production values. The actors are attractive, and reasonably talented. There aren't a bunch of clowns running around blasting away, expending hundreds of rounds, but never hitting flesh. Nor are there wild car chases/crashes where thousands of dollars worth of beautiful machines are uselessly trashed.<br /><br />The interiors look respectably modern, architecturally, and the equipment looks up to snuff. Well, there is that high tech computer room furnished with what look like leftovers from a '50s electronics lab. And the pancake make-up on the corpses cracked me up. Not pancake make-up in the conventional sense, but what looks like dried pancake batter slathered over their exposed skin. This is supposed to support the idea that the bodies have calcified -- though how the virus would accomplish this transmutation is an exercise left for the student (viewer).<br /><br />Ah yes, the virus. I would like to tell you that this is not the absolute worst premise for a sci-fi, horror flick I know of, but I can't. A computer virus that is transmitted via a television (or computer monitor) screen and becomes a lethal biological pathogen? Gimme a break. Warp drives a la "Star Trek" are one thing, but photons becoming viruses? This is so silly the desired "fright factor" just isn't realizable. The flick could have used one of those awful dream sequences where the dead come alive, or have a cat jump out of the closet, or something, because the viral thingamajig isn't doing it. <br /><br />One presumes Robert Wagner has the same excuse for playing in this inanity that Lord Oliver gave for some of his later, trashy venues. He needed the money. No other comparison between the two should be construed,however.
In some ways, the concept behind the storyline was a rather interesting blend of several typical movie types in an interesting combination. However, no point in this movie was so obvious that it did not deserve lingering close-up shots. I felt as though I had been beat over the head with the so-called mysterious explanation for the disease killing people.<br /><br />The writer appears to have simply lifted clichés from other movies as a substitute for writing lines adapted to actual characters. The actors did not help matters. No chemistry. I guess they were supposed to develop some kind of attraction if only for the reason that such is an essential element of these stories. However, the writers didn't work very hard to develop the chemistry. Sure, they're both attractive, but whether they're attractive to each other seemed to be an open question.<br /><br />The confidence Turner's character shows in Sabato's developed far too quickly and for no particular reason. Sabato's character is supposed to be a discredited doctor who just can't seem to play by the rules. Think of the Jeff Goldblum character in "Independence Day." Usually, that kind of character is supposed to demonstrate some kind of talent or brilliance. Sabato's character does not. He's Cassandra with just the crazy and all the prophetic skills of a magic eight ball. He appears to be right by random chance.<br /><br />The death scenes are comical. Every actor was really trying more than a little to hard to demonstrate the agony inflicted on them. The symptoms looked like bad claymation, sort of like that video from the 80s, Peter Gabriel, I think.
OK, the movie is good but I give it a 1 because the idea of a computer virus becoming an organic virus is pure fairy tale. This kind of crap just adds to those uncomputer savvy moron's paranoid delusions that a computer virus is exactly like an organic virus. First of all, strings of code and dozens of 1s and 0s add up to computer virus. An organic virus is much more complex, even though it's way tinier. Though, it's considered one of the simplest forms in the universe, organic virus's attach burrow into your cells and attach themselves to the RNA, then change your own RNA code. Explain to me how something like that could be processed from a monitor? Maybe the radiation has some effect on the user's cornea that turns your eyeballs into these viruses? I could see that, but obviously, the writer didn't think of that.
I've just lost 2 hours of my life watching this mindless plot. I could make a better movie with my cellphone camera. How do they manage to get actors to play in those movies?? Porn movies have better scenarios and effects... I wish I had those 2 hours back...<br /><br />The only good thing about this movie is the cast. Even though, their acting skills in this one could not lift this movie to passable, the rest was just WAY too bad! <br /><br />It's the type of movie that I'd recommend using to torture prisoners into scaring them straight.<br /><br />Even worse, I saw a translated version of this flick...Imagine, a bad movie...with an even worst translation...Yikes!
A somewhat dull made for tv movie which premiered on the TBS cable station. Antonio and Janine run around chasing a killer computer virus and...that's about it. For trivia buffs this will be noted as debuting the same weekend that the real life 'Melissa' virus also made it's debut in e-mail inboxes across the world.
When you see Boris Karloff and Bela Lugosi as co-stars, you expect to find a well done horror movie, but this was actually quite different, representing as it did what I would describe as an early effort at science fiction. Karloff and Lugosi both play scientists (Rukh and Benet respectively) - competitors to an extent, until Rukh wins Benet over with a demonstration that proves his great theory. The science here was - to say the least - a bit rough around the edges (thus science fiction, with the emphasis on the fiction) but somehow Rukh harnesses some sort of ray from Andromeda that allows him to look at the earth "several thousand million years ago." In that pre historic time, a huge meteorite slammed into Africa, leaving deposits of a substance the scientists call "Radium X" - which can heal and destroy. A large portion of the movie is set rather tediously in Africa, on a search for the meteorite deposits, which Rukh eventually finds and harnesses to create a great weapon, unfortunately infecting himself with some sort of disease that makes him a great weapon as well.<br /><br />Karloff and Lugosi were both pretty good here. Lugosi pulls off a role in which he's the good guy pretty well, although I frankly found him a bit unconvincing - especially during the scenes set in Africa. The story also plodded along a bit, and while it held my attention it didn't captivate me. Given that this is really a sci-fi rather than a horror flick, and that sci-fi was in its very early stages, I suppose the movie needs to be cut a bit of slack. It was OK - nothing more, but also nothing less than that. 4/10
Unless you are already familiar with the pop stars who star in this film, save yourself the time and stop reading this review after you've reached the end of the next sentence.<br /><br />FORGET YOU EVER STUMBLED UPON THIS FILM AND GO WATCH SOMETHING ELSE.<br /><br />But if you insist on reading, consider: <br /><br />Lame vehicle for Japanese teen idol pretty-boys featuring nonsensical, convoluted "plot" that drags out for an insufferable amount of time until you're ready to scream.<br /><br />Nothing in this film makes sense. It's an endless series of people expressing various emotions, from joy to anger, from happiness to tragedy, FOR NO GOOD REASON. We can obviously see something incredibly "dramatic" is happening, but we just don't GIVE A CRAP WHY 'cause there's no backstory.<br /><br />By the time this film is over, you will be sick and tired of these stupid, lanky, girly stars' faces. You'll be revolted at having spent all this time watching them smile, sneer, cry, look mysterious, be "serious," and any other pointless expression they slap on their faces.<br /><br />That some moron would ever go so far as to refer to this piece of insipid trash as being the "soul" of any of its "actors" should prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt what the trailer and countless adoring comments on this site will not tell you: <br /><br />Only the "converted," mindless minions will like this film, the majority of them teenage girls with a pathological adoration for anything androgynous. Freud would have a field day.<br /><br />Unless you're one of these mindless "fans," stay the hell away from this abomination.
I wasn't sure how to rate this movie, since it was so bad it was actually very funny. I'm not a Gackt fan by any means, though he is talented, despite the weird pseudonym that sounds like a cat coughing up a hairball. I always thought Hyde was talented though, Faith is an interesting album.<br /><br />But on topic here folks. This movie is ridiculous. It's so over the top and nonsensical it's almost like a parody of supernatural action films.<br /><br />The movie has almost no plot here, except it's just about vampires with gangster friends. In a way, this film almost reminded me of Spider-Man 3, with how there were too many ideas, which resulted in not enough time to pay attention on one of them.<br /><br />The action scenes were laughable. Quickly edited, almost hard to understand, with choreography that's so laughably bad. Though Hyde looked very stylish during the action scenes, but that's this film's only such redemption. I'm a sucker for good action movies, but the action was horribly done. Though the final shootout was OK and the highlight of this otherwise depressing movie.<br /><br />It keeps jumping between genres, not a good thing. It wants to be a drama, or an action flick, or a horror, or a romance... what the hell.<br /><br />If this review is making you mad, why? Is it because Gackt and Hyde are your love? Don't fool yourself, this MOVIE IS BAD.
Thanks to the BBC for this show. I used to suffer from an inferiority complex, I hated leaving the house, talking to new people and I had an overwhelming sense that people hated me. However after watching one episode of 4 Non Blondes my fortunes started to change. After episode 2 I started applying for new jobs, wearing fashionable clothes and I actually felt talented. When the series had finished I was running the sales department at work, banging a plethora of women and frequently won the karaoke competition down my local. If you ever have a confidence crisis and don't know where to turn then take a trip down to Poundland and pick up the DVD it's only 99p.
Picture the scene where a bunch of scriptwriters sit around a table and one says "lets have a black woman approach an unsuspecting member of the public (also black) in the street and ask him if he is black, then walk away". The other writers fall about laughing hysterically until one suggests they repeat it in every episode. More laughter. Now if you think the premise is funny, and the show contains many such types of situation, you will enjoy this show. For the rest, use your zapper and find something more entertaining like watching paint dry. Those that have written glowing reports of this show should either get out more or be forced to watch television comedies that are really funny. Another example of the humor in the show, a girl tries to get out of paying at a supermarket checkout by trying to hypnotise the cashier. Marginally funny the first time but why repeat it over and over in different shows with different cashiers? I could give other examples but these just might be treated as spoilers, divulging why this comedy just is not funny at all.
Here is what happened:<br /><br />1) Head of BBC3 needs to make programmes aimed at different audience to BBC1 and BBC2 to keep licence and job.<br /><br />2) Lenny Henry offers his unfunny friends up.<br /><br />3) Head of BBC3 snaps them up, completely ignoring the fact that they are not funny.<br /><br />Worst of all, it is arguably racist, as all the characters play up to bad stereotypes. If a white person did this kind of thing, there'd be uproar!<br /><br />Trash.
five minutes after watching this i logged on to IMDb to warn all of you out there not to bother with this movie... genre:horror? it had moments of mild suspense and throughout the whole movie i was thinking to myself "somethings gotta happen soon" it did not...when the movie ended i felt so embarrassed for the writer/director i've never been the biggest fan of patrick rea this guy just does not know how to make movies and after watching this sorry excuse of a horror flick i've gone from not been the biggest fan to will not watch another of his works..<br /><br />i was taken in by the plot summary please don't make the same mistake.<br /><br />i gave this movie a 2 for the actors..they were not bad and it wasn't there fault they got such bad direction...
A film with very little positive to say for it.<br /><br />Firstly it has zero pace and is positively lacking in any drama.<br /><br />Besides being remarkably slow The Empty Acre seems dedicated to using the same stock footage again and again. I lost count of how many times I had seen "that" field at night or that bit of cracked earth.<br /><br />It also has the fundamental flaw of thinking that if the audience don't know about things they will be gripped rather than just confused. So with no signs that there are any issues we suddenly find the marriage is not what it seems to be despite being given the impression that it's fine. We find Jacob is possibly the worst farmer in the universe as he seems to spend no time on the farm and also seems to have bought land with a wholly useless acre. Beth has a key to a warehouse of books? There are innumerable other questions some of which are resolved later in the movie, much later, in fact too late.<br /><br />And on the point of the acre. Horror filmmakers note that large inanimate objects are inherently not scary – and also if they're meant to be an acre big then make them so.<br /><br />There is also a frightening lack of reasonability as Beth (the best performer in the piece, followed by Jefferson – the cop) suddenly appears to be accused of everything under the sun just because she is on "medication".<br /><br />With the full ten minutes plus of running round the fields looking for the missing child (did he crawl out of the window? He's six months old) the film descends into badly written scene after badly written scene. Bad plinky plonk "horror" music fails to add atmosphere.<br /><br />Often bad films can be amusing but not The Empty Acre, which is just bad.
as an inspiring director myself, this movie was exciting to watch with criticism in mind. Shot with low end digital camera probably with 35mm adapter for DOF. The editing is good acting decent, sound effects aren't too over the top. I would have give it a 7 for an indie film, but the story aren't that interesting. It's more on the drama side, character developments than a horror flick.<br /><br />It's not for those who wants to get spooked startled frightened grossed out, or sit down with popcorn to just enjoy.<br /><br />honestly this movie would be good if we were still in the 50's<br /><br />This movie is about a family who has a dry field, and that is just that.
I saw this film on its release, and have watched it 3 or 4 more times, including last week. I regret I have to be a voice of dissension with regard to Mr. Branagh's performance.<br /><br />This is really a glorious, sumptuous film, to say nothing of ambitious at over 4 hours long - beautifully shot and designed. Derek Jacobi, Julie Christie, Kate Winslet, Richard Briers, and many others do fine jobs. Then there's Kenneth Branagh. If ever there was a vanity project for an actor, this is it, and Mr. Branagh spares nothing in putting the "ham" in Hamlet. From the stunt casting (which gives us the worst performance ever by the woefully miscast Jack Lemmon), to the bits of distracting business thrown in to infuse a sense of "naturalness," to his own performance which runs the gamut from throwing away the single most famous soliloquy in all of literature to screaming every line of others. His performance confirms that, while he may come across better on stage where bigger is necessary, he has never been a great film actor. The scenery budget could be charged to catering, Mr. Branagh eats so much of it. His performance is a perfect example of why people don't go to see Shakespeare - "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." And if there is fault to his direction, it is that he keeps the camera firmly glued on his overblown performance.<br /><br />No matter what theories people may posit on the Bard, he was, after all is said and done, a playwright. The brilliance of his plays rest in the fact that his themes are universal and timeless. Although there is no "right" way to play his plays, there is most certainly great acting, good acting and bad acting. Shakespeare himself gives instructions to the players in the text of "Hamlet" itself. It amazes me how Mr. Branagh "mouthed" it, but did not hear it. It was an example of spending too much time working out how he's going to say something, and too little figuring out WHAT he's saying.<br /><br />While Mr. Branagh has certainly done a wonderful job in mounting some entertaining productions, he would be wise to stay behind the camera and allow those who know the art of acting to practice it. His direction has always been better than his acting. I still give him immense credit for resurrecting interest in filming Shakespeare. He set a great template for other productions. And, it would be interesting to see him onstage, from about 20 rows back. But, I do hope he chooses to direct more and act less.<br /><br />Is it worth seeing? Certainly. There are many little joys to be found in the film. But, it's a long, long movie and, by the end, one may feel less that they enjoyed than survived it.
This ludicrous and inept film is certainly the most misguided version of "Hamlet" to ever reach the screen. Branagh's approach to the material can only be described as vulgar; going to such lengths as depicting Ophelia in a straight jacket, having Fortinbras' army appear suddenly on the horizon (looking very much like the climax of "Monty Python and the Holy Grail") when the palace is apparently guarded only by Francisco (who shouts the very un-Shakespearean cry of "ataaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack" before being gunned down), and multitudes of star cameos that harken back to the days of Jimmy Cagney's Bottom and Mary Pickford's Kate.<br /><br />Branagh chose to set his film in an Edwardian setting but at the same time decided to employ an almost uncut text, so that frequently the dialogue that is firmly rooted in Elizabethan mentality makes no sense in the context that it is being performed. And Branagh does not concern himself with such textural subtleties as the ambiguous nature of Hamlet and Olphelia's relationship, treating the audience to a vulgar nude sex scene between the couple that tosses any ambiguity right out the stained glass window.<br /><br />The uncut text does allow Branagh to indulge in his favorite cinematic pastime: more footage of Kenneth Branagh. This is never so apparent as in the "How All Occasions Inform Against Me" speech that ends the first half of the nineteen hour film (at least that's how it feels), which attempts to play to a dramatic crescendo along the lines of Gone With The Wind's "I'll never be hungry again." This may serve Branagh's ego, but it does not serve Shakespeare or the speech: when I saw the film in the theater, I leaned over to my companion and snickered "Great Moments With Mr. Hamlet." Branagh saves the funniest and most tasteless moment for last, when he attempts to out-do the Olivier film and its justly celebrated death of Claudius by having Hamlet jump from off a high tower onto the monarch, impaling him with a sword. Branagh's Dane does in the king by heroically throwing an apparently magic rapier from across the palace to run through Claudius' heart with a super hero's bulls eye. The only thing that saved the moment from being unbearably maddening was that it was so off-the-wall funny.<br /><br />While this film has been praised in some quarters as a serious depiction of the tragedy, it is in fact nothing but a star-studded display of a once-talented filmmaker being overtaken by his own narcissism. The Emperor has no clothes, and this Hamlet has nothing to offer but a few unintended laughs and the appalling sight of one man's ego out of control.
Despite positive reviews and screenings at the international festivals, this movie is not for everyone.<br /><br />The story is very similar to other movies, in which a teenage girl from the family of immigrants needs to overcome many common personal problems of her age, and also to struggle against the pressure of ethnic traditions in her family. She does that by choosing some kind of sport, and with the help of a local boy, that for some reason falls in love with her, she confronts her problems and wins.<br /><br />In Girlfight it's boxing, in Bend it like Beckham it's soccer, and now it's Kung Fu.<br /><br />But Fighter is much inferior product than these two, it was simply embarrassing to watch it. Semra Turan, the "actress" that playing the role of a teenage girl, maybe can do a lot of things, but one thing she can't do is to act. Her presence on the screen is anemic and clumsy, the dramatic situations, in which she tries to show some emotions, are dreadful, her body and facial language are of amateur actress, badly instructed by the director. The rest of the cast is a little better, but they just cannot save this cliché movie with stereotypical characters and shallow plot. Besides a few relatively good moments this movie has nothing new or interesting to offer.<br /><br />Even the kung fu fighting is not a reason to watch this, it's just so boring. The slow motion was really unnecessary, the choreography was basic and lacked the inspiration, and most of the kung fu scenes are just training or standing in all kind of kung fu positions, not actually fighting. Not to mention how ridiculous it looks when a small and skinny girl fights big and muscular boys, and knocks them off their feet. <br /><br />The only reason this movie has been noticed at all is because it's European. It's very easy to publicize this movie - A first martial arts film from Denmark, but don't be fooled, it's not. It's just a drama about stupid teenage girl and her problems, which are, by the way, not really convincing.<br /><br />Bad movie with embarrassing lines, acting and story.
I watched this show and i simply didn't find it funny at all. It might have been the first episode. Lately i realize ABC is playing a lot of stupid shows nowadays and is going down as a station. All the characters on this show are pretty bad actors, but even if they were good the jokes and script are pretty horrible and would still bring the show down. I would say that I believe this show will be cancelled, but seeing as how ABC is doing pretty horrible for quality of shows they are playing, they might just keep this one simply because it's average compared to them.
Outside of the fact that George Lopez is a pretentious jerk, his show is terrible.<br /><br />Nothing about Lopez has ever been funny. I have watched his stand-up and have never uttered any resemblance to a laugh.<br /><br />His stuff comes across as vindictive and his animosity towards white people oozes out of every single pore of his body.<br /><br />I have laughed at white people jokes from many a comedian and love many of them.<br /><br />This guy has a grudge that won't end.<br /><br />I feel bad for Hispanics who have only this show to represent themselves.<br /><br />The shows plots are always cookie cutter with an Hispanic accent.<br /><br />Canned laugh at the dumbest comments and scenes.<br /><br />Might be why this show is always on at 2AM in replay.
This show was absolutely terrible. For one George isn't funny, and his kids are snobby little brats. He also treats his mother with no respect. As a Hispanic, I am highly offended by this show and the way the characters are portrayed.<br /><br />Plus the dysfunctional family thing's been done to death. For once, I want to see something original. What makes this show funny when other shows have done it millions of times? I thought ABC would come to its senses and pull this piece of garbage off the air, but sadly, we're going to have to stomach this until they "jump the shark".<br /><br />In my opinion, they already did.
This show is awful. How is George wanting the death of his mother funny? This show is terrible. The parents are obviously horrible and the children should be taken to child services. The daughter is a witch with a b and the son is just a complete brat. George isn't funny, especially when he speaks his loud and obnoxious brand of Spanglish. Ernie is a loser, but at least I've chuckled at him a few times, but mainly at how pathetic he is. George's mother, Benny, in an awful, despicable character. Sure, her husband left her, but how anyone can laugh at the way she treated George as a baby is beyond me.<br /><br />Can someone explain to me how George's head being big is funny? It's not even that big! I've moved on from characters because they're too awful and it would take hours for me to write and I, frankly, don't care enough. I do care enough to tell anyone looking at this and wondering whether or not they want to watch this show, that this show is an abysmal excuse for a sitcom, and is not worth your time.<br /><br />I give it 2 starts, because the wife is extremely attractive.
Seriously, I mean very seriously, when I first started watching the show I thought it was good. But the plots just got worse. The storyline were either too boring or predictable. George isn't always funny, he sometimes acts stupid. His jokes are overdone. His mom is the silliest character of the show. How can a mother treat her own son that way, okay if it was the daughter in law, but this was her own son. I give this show a 4/10 just because the first few shows were a little funny. The actors Constance Marie and Masiela Lusha do a great job. Don't know how these shows get to play for so long. <br /><br />If you're really bored like I was and have nothing else to watch, I'd suggest you watch this.
What has Ireland ever done to film distributers that they seek to represent the country in such a pejorative way? This movie begins like a primer for film students on Irish cinematic cliches: unctuous priests, spitting before handshakes, town square cattle marts, cycling by country meadows to the backdrop of anodyne folk music. Quickly, however, it becomes apparent that the main theme of the film is the big Daddy-O of Irish Cliches - religous strife. It concerns a protestant woman who wants to decide where her Catholic-fathered child is educated, which would seem like a reasonable enough wish, though not to the '50's County Wexford villagers she has to live with. Rather than send them to a Catholic school, she decides to up and leave for Belfast, then Scotland, where a few more cliches are reguritated. While she's there, her father (who looks eerily like George Lucas) and family back home are subjected to a boycott, which turns very nasty. I'm not going to give away the ending, not because I think people should go see this movie, but because it's not very interesting. One of the problems with the film is the central character: we're supposed to sympathise with her but end up instead urging her to get a life. The villagers are presented as bigots whose prejudices should be stood up to, but traumatising your kids seems an innappropriate way to go about it. In addition, it takes on burdens which it staggers igniminiously under when it tries to draw analogies with the current Northern Ireland peace process: the woman is told by her lawyer that she "must lay down preconditions" for her return. The film is allegedly based on a true story but it's themes have been dealt with much more imaginatively, and with less recourse to hackneyed cliches, in the past.
I can not believe such slanted, jingoistic material is getting passed off to Americans as art house material. Early on, from such telling lines like "we want to make sure they are playing for the right team" and manipulative framing and lighting, A Love Divided shows it's true face. The crass manner in which the Irish Catholics are shown as hegemonic, the Protestants as peaceful and downtrodden, is as poor a representation of history as early US westerns that depict the struggle between cowboys and American Indians. The truth of the story is distorted with the stereotypes and outright vilification of the Irish Catholics in the story; a corruption admitted by the filmmakers themselves! It is sad that people today still think that they can win moral sway by making a film so easily recognized for it's obvious intent, so far from attempting art. This film has no business being anywhere in any legitimate cinema or library.
I remember I saw this cartoon when I was 6 or 7. My grandfather picked up the video of it for free at the mall. I remember that it really sucked. The plot had no sense. I hated the fox that became Casper's friend. He was so stupid! Casper cried his head off if he couldn't find a friend. So what? Get over it! The only good part and I don't want to sound mean-spirited was when the fox got shot and died at the end. I laughed my head off in payback because this cartoon sucked so much. The bad news is the fox resurrects and becomes a ghost. I wish he had stayed dead. I think I even gave the video of this to somebody because I hated it. No wonder they were offering it for free at the mall. If you have a child don't let them watch this. They will probably agree with me that it sucks.
John Candy. Need we say more? He is the main reason you should see this film. Most people don't realize how gifted he was as an actor. Witness him changing from poor slob to horny jerk. Just a simple(subtle) facial change and off we go. There are many great bits in this movie and many really dumb bits. The best moments for me are the KUNG FU U scenes as well as the great moment when John(in a trance) goes up on stage and talks about how much he loves his girlfriend-that is how much he and his genitals love his girlfriend. I'm sure reading this you might think this sequence sounds really crude. It is, but it is also very funny mainly because it is John Candy doing this bit. The story in general is pretty lame and Eugene Levy and Joe Flaherty(both SCTV alumni with Candy) are not given enough to do in the film. Levy has his moments, especially filming the wedding at the end(think Rod Serling) and the great scene when he is talking to his mother on the phone. Overall a good movie if you have had a tough day and need to put your brain on stupid. I give this one 4 out of 10.
This movie appears to have been made by someone with some good ideas but who also never had made a movie before nor had they considered that a script should be edited or even funny. When I saw this film, I saw it for John Candy and assumed, incorrectly, that it would be hilarious. Instead, there was a stupid plot about mind control and so many flat, unfunny moments. And, to top it off, Candy delivered some of the crudest lines I had ever heard up to that time. So, despite a potentially funny cast and story idea, we are left with an amateurish and crude movie that will probably be too stupid for the average adult, though teens will probably find a few laughs. It's really a shame--it could have been so much better. I mean, with Eugene Levy, Joe Flaherty and John Candy it SHOULD have been wonderful.
No, not the administration of GWB, the Decider/Strutter/Smirker--but the mini-series "Monarch Cove." Lifetime must have realized what a dog this was because the series was burned off two episodes at a time, most of them broadcast between 11 p.m. Friday nights and 1 a.m. Saturday mornings. As to why I watched the whole thing, I can only plead to weekly sudden convulsive attacks of masochism.<br /><br />Most of the cast are unknowns who are likely to remain unknown. The only two recognizable names are Shirley Jones and Rachel Ward, who turn in the only decent performances (Jones doesn't make it through the entire series--lucky woman). Ward, by the way, is aging quite well since her "Thorn Birds" days.<br /><br />The one main thread to the plot--who murdered the father of the heroine who is wrongly convicted of Dad's murder but is freed after six years in the slammer--is stretched out for so long and concluded so hastily that you won't especially care who dun it. There is a great deal of "steamy" sex, several murders, and all sorts of rude behavior--virtually none of which is either interesting or credible. Most of the cast is not particularly attractive and definitely not talented. The writing and direction is on a par with the cast.<br /><br />If you stick around to the end, the post card is a (very minor)hoot.<br /><br />CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED!
This movie is not as good as all the movies of Christ I've ever seen. And I'm quite amazed that in this story Pilate wants to finish Jesus, when the Scriptures (as well the other movies) state differently. It lacks also a very important issue: The Resurrection.. None of the other movies skip this very important part: the faith of all of us Christians lies in this very event. As Paul says in one of his letters "If Christ did not rise from the dead, our faith is vain". A very impressive scene for me in this movie was seeing on the streets the remains of the palms that were used when Jesus entered Jerusalem. <br /><br />Finally, and in opposition to my Jewish co-commentator, Jesus WAS NOT a myth. And as a matter of fact, he was also a JEW. There are plenty of documents (relgious and secular) that prove the existence of this extraordinary man(or should I said, God become a man) that indeed changed mankind. I strongly advise him(given he is a historian) to read about Flavius Josephus, the most brilliant Jewish commentator of the 1st. Century.
Although the director tried(the filming was made in Tynisia and Morocco),this attempt to transport the New Testament in the screen failed.The script has serious inaccuracies and fantasies,while the duration is very long.But the most tragic is the protagonist Chris Sarandon,who doesn't seem to understand the demands of his role.
The stranger Jack (Matthew Lillard) arrives in the studio of the crook collector of antiques Max (Vincent D'Onofrio) and tells his ambitious companion and specialist in poisons Jamie (Valeria Golino) that he is Jack's brother. Jamie does not buy his story, dominates Jack and ties him up to a chair. When Max arrives, Jack proposes US$ 100,000.00 for each one to protect him in a negotiation of the antiques "Spanish Judges" with a wealthy and dangerous collector. Max invites his stupid acquaintance Piece (Mark Boone Junior), who comes with his retarded girlfriend that believes she is from Mars, to compose the backup team. However, Jack double-crosses the collector and then he intrigues Jack, Jamie and Piece.<br /><br />The low budget "Spanish Judges" is a movie with a reasonable screenplay with an awful conclusion that wastes a good cast. Valeria Golino is astonishingly beautiful but together with the good actor Vincent D'Onofrio, they are not able to save the stupid story. Further, the scenes that are supposed to be funny unfortunately do not work, and actually they are silly and not funny. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Tudo Por Dinheiro" ("All For Money")
The major fault in this film is that it is impossible to believe any of these people would ever be cast in a professional production of Macbeth. Hearing David Lansbury's soft voice struggling laboriously with the famous "Tomorrow, Tomorrow, and Tomorrow" speech made it impossible to believe anyone would ever consider him for the role. I kept believing therefore that he didn't get the part because he was a lousy actor; not because a bigger name was available. Then when we see portions of the play in rehearsal it is difficult to believe the director is not parodying things with a hopelessly miscast, misdirected travesty of actors who are unable to articulate or even understand the verse and directors who see the play through their own screwball interpretations. Sometimes directors are so anxious to have their films done (and writers think they have the ability to direct their own works)that they settle for less. This appears to be such an example.
I agree with most of the Columbo fans that this movie was an unnecessary change of format. Columbo is a unique cop with unorthodox police methods. This movie looks like a remake of any other ordinary detective dramas from the past. And that is the disturbing point, because Columbo is no ordinary detective.<br /><br />There are two parts in this film that left me intriguing. First, I can't figure out the title of this movie. It is misleading. Maybe a better title would've been "The Vanishing Bride" or something similar. Second, Columbo hides a piece of evidence without offering the reason (to the viewers at least) why he does it.<br /><br />I don't feel betrayed, just disappointed. I'm glad Peter Falk went back to the usual Columbo.<br /><br />
LL Cool J performed much better in this movie that I expected! He did a fabulous job acting as a "renegade" cop within a "renegade" department. From the very beginning, he does a great job of building viewer empathy for his character and the predicament he's in. He acts as a sort of "gentle giant" -- a person whose rough exterior can scare anybody, yet whose heart is clearly in the right place from the very start -- and he does an amazing job. He was quite clearly the best character in the movie.<br /><br />This was certainly a performance that will not win Morgan Freeman any awards. After starring in powerhouse films like the Shawshank Redemption this film was certainly a step down. His role in Edison simply did not allow him to show his true talents as an actor -- and in terms of the conglomeration of characters placed him sadly on a back burner. There are so many ways his character (Moses Ashford) could have taken a more pivotal role. That he didn't was disappointing and a true let-down. I was hoping to see more from him in this film.<br /><br />Timberlake ought to have stayed in the music industry. His portrayal of a young journalist was poorly acted and unpersuasive. This movie is a typical action movie that (at least initially) bears some resemblance to corrupt police affairs LA has experienced in the past. Being an action movie, it has its share of shoot-em-up scenes, blood, and guts. These scenes are typically unrealistic and painfully predictable. Watching the beginning of the movie there is very little suspense as to what will happen at the end -- think of what you would typically expect in a good-cops/bad-cops conflict -- and it bears little resemblance to a REAL police shoot-out.<br /><br />What irked me most was the way Timberlake's character behaved during shoot-out scenes. He starts out having guns and not using them. Then when he finally gets around to using one he fires it as if he's been firing a gun his whole life. Then he runs out of bullets and doesn't have a gun -- and 30 seconds later, without moving or anything -- suddenly has 2 more fully loaded guns AND extra ammo?! Little plot errors like this really ruined the movie for me.<br /><br />If what you are looking for is a blatantly fictional plot in a fantasy world where everything turns out okay, then you'll probably love this movie. Personally, it doesn't matter to me what KIND of movie it is as long as it is realistic. Make me believe that the story is true. This story was so obviously fictional in so many aspects that I came away feeling unsatisfied.
Beginning with the poster (featuring only Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey), the entire movie was a fraud. One stereotype after another, this movie was about nothing - or nothing new, at least. After 10-15 minutes, you realize that you've just paid to see Justin Timberlake and LL Cool J recite their way through another cop-flick.<br /><br />Basically, the story is about the corrupt system in some city, all secretly supported by the backbone business and in town, under the watchful eye of some hot-shot politician. The almighty and above-the-law organization is called FRAT and guess what? they've got a kick-ass loony cop shooting and beating at will - suspects, girlfriends, you name it. FRAT cops are corrupt and greedy, so they end up making mistakes that get discovered by a young and talented (!!!) journalist. One hour later, after a series of unbelievably bad-made shooting scenes and more stereotype lines, everything ends happily and we get served the final line : you can't beat the system. Bah! Don't see this waste of film roll. Freeman and Spacey barely have 10 min altogether!
The movie started off strong, LL Cool J (Deed) as an undercover police officer, with partner Sgt. Lazerov (Dylan McDermott from the Practice, possibly miscast as a bad guy?) committing robbery and murder. Deed refuses to kill the drug dealer, which sets up the conflict of a dirty cop with a conscience. The other big names (Freeman, Spacey et al) are well cast and the movie shows promise.<br /><br />The movie begins to fall short as soon as Justin Timberlake (Pollack) is introduced. Given the opportunity to make a good movie that people will possibly see repeatedly, or one that teenage girls will go and see the once because of Timberlake, I would choose the former. Even talented actors have to work hard at their craft; Timberlake is NOT talented and no amount of hard work can save him. I would have thought he would put on a better show, given the fact that he has been acting talented for years. Everything he did in this film was unconvincing.<br /><br />Just because a singer sells millions of records and sells out stadiums, it does not automatically translate that they can act successfully in feature films. Even hardcore N'Sync fans will not be able to ignore the obvious lack of acting talent.<br /><br />That aside there are a few plot holes, such as Pollack's sudden sniper ability and deadly operation of warehouse machinery. This movie had so much promise. Thoroughly disappointing.
Lets enter the world of this movie for a second, so you can better understand the type of movie we are dealing with here.<br /><br />Edison is one of those really stupid movies where the bad guy and his goons have been letting loose 50,000 bullets shooting at the good guy behind walls and pillars, shouting at them, and then finally get to the good guy face to face and instead of killing him......instead of wasting this guy that has caused you SO MUCH grief....instead of just walking up and POP!.....What do you do? The bad guy.....he talks to him. He grabs the good guy and talks to him while holding his gun. THEY HAVE NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT! SHOOT HIM! SHOOT HIM NOW! But he talks to him anyway. Oh another thing. At the end, a newspaper says "PULITZER PRIZE WINNER STORY RIGHT HERE" or something right above on a front page of a paper, when its like the first time the story is printed. So how in the heezy did someone win a Pulitzer for it that fast? Yea, you know those types of stupid movies? Yea well that's Edison in a nutshell.<br /><br />You get Mr cool Morgan Freeman and shifty eyed tough Kevin Spacey who both phone in their roles completely, LL Cool J who scowls literally every single moment of the movie,while proposing to his girlfriend in a damn night club of all places,and who's last line "Duck" was something from like a lethal weapon movie that was never made... and Justin Timberlake whining and spewing nonsense every time he talks, little cocky bastard.The only bright spot was a crazy Dylan McDermott doing his best "Denzel from Training Day" impression, which was pretty entertaining.<br /><br />Oh yea so whats the movie about? Eh, something about scandals involving the city Edison's fictional special unit police force called "F.R.A.T. (I swear I'm not making this stuff up) which was supposed to be a obvious play off of S.W.A.T. Anyway little journalistic super singer boy Justin Timberflake smells something foul afoot after a murder involving 2 undercover cops from FRAT, and he goes scurrying off looking for a story, gaining his boss' (Freeman) trust along the way while they both unravel something even bigger and sinister than what they both thought. blah blah blah. Its like a bootleg pelican brief meets a halfassed training day.The pacing was slow and off, the script was horrible, and the acting was extremely uninspired. It jumped everywhere without going anywhere. People get put in comas and you forget about them. Everyone in this movie just didn't THINK. Damn what a stupid movie. Its becoming harder to write any sort of review for it because the movie left my brain the second it ended...No lie Basically, do NOT waste your time!
Honestly before I watched this movie, I had heard many people said this movie was a disgrace. I did not believe that since Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey have taken roles in this movie, and watched it by my own. Apparently they were right. I was really disappointed and wondering all the time during the movie - why the hell did I watch this movie.<br /><br />Of course I was not expecting much from Justin as he really does not belong in the movie/theater business. But Morgan and Kevin? I could not stop asking myself why the heck they agreed to take part in Edison. To be honest, their roles are rather stupid.<br /><br />Well you might think if the players suck, then I should pay more attention to the story. It is indeed story is the core of a movie, but guys... trust me... this is not a movie you want to give a credit for its story. Imagine this, a smart-ass journalist (Justin Timberlake) wrote a story against the system and at the same time learning how to become a 'real' journalist from his boss (Morgan Freeman). This all was supported by one agent who still has heart for justice (LL Cool J) and an brilliant investigator (Kevin Spacey). At the end, they beat the system with a happy ending story.<br /><br />Jeez, I could not even carry on with this. Just recalling the movie is making me sick already. My advise guys, don't watch this! Please save your money and time for another movie.
There is an excellent reason Edison went straight to video: it would have landed in theaters with a crumbling thud. The movie lasted entirely too long and was perilously boring. Just a notch above lowbrow (thanks to Freeman and Spacey, who obviously had a spare two weeks before their next films), the bad guys are as laughable and action as near non-existent as Justin Timberlake's acting. I hate to knock the guy, but the sooner he realizes that pop is his forte, the better.<br /><br />The movie isn't all bad...just mostly. I like the fact that LL Cool J was given what appears to be a shot at being leading man. He deserves it. And, unlike his fellow musician and co-star, he can act. Kevin Spacey is almost always enjoyable as well (you can see him gulp several times as he chews the scenery), and Freeman has the ability to elevate this flick to three stars (out of ten...he's not THAT good).<br /><br />When all is said and done, the ultimate error with this movie is that it is a mundane and tiresome piece of pseudo-action poppycock that fails to keep anyone awake. It also fails to make anyone give a good crap about any of the characters. All in all, t's just plain boring. That being said, rent this when you are suffering from insomnia.
Oh dear god. This was horrible. There is bad, then there was this. This movie makes no sense at all. It runs all over the map and isn't clear about what its saying at all. The music seemed like it was trying to be like Batman. The fact that 'Edison' isn't a real city, takes away. Since I live in Vancouver, watching this movie and recognizing all these places made it unbearable. Why didn't they make it a real city? The only writing that was decent was'Tilman' in which John Heard did a fantastic job. He was the only actor who played his role realistically and not over the top and campy. It was actually a shame to see John Heard play such a great bad guy with a lot of screen time, and the movie be a washout. Too bad. Hopefully someone important will see it, and at least give John Heard credit where credit is due, and hire him as lead bad guy again, which is where he should be. on the A List.
The movie itself is not too bad; many comments have pointed out the obvious flaws of the script, but it is watchable. What really gives me the creeps though is that people like Justin Timberlake even get cast for movies, and on top of that for movies like this one. I have to admit I had never heard the man's name before watching this, but the very instant he appeared I was just plain annoyed. The voice is crap, the face is a bad rip-off of Legolas, the posture is horrible, and he cannot even properly coordinate all three of them. Said to say, I was delighted when he got jumped after leaving the disco, because I was hoping from then on it would be Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey only. Too bad I was wrong. These two and also LL Cool J give a very decent performance, and they are the main reason I give this a 4. <br /><br />I see many upcoming movies with the little Timberlake cast... and cannot believe it.
Pathetic... worse than a bad made-for-TV movie. I can't believe that Spacey and Freeman were in this flick. For some reason Morgan Freeman's character is constantly talking about and saying "pussy" when referring to NSync boy's girlfriend. Morgan Freeman calling women "pussy" is just awkward... What the hell were the people behind this film thinking? Too many plot holes to imagine combined with the horrid acting, confusing camera angles, a lame script and cheap background music made this movie absolutely unbearable.<br /><br />I rented this flop with low expectations.... but... well... it really sucked.
Timberlake's performance almost made attack the screen. It wasn't all bad, I just think the reporters role was wrong for him.<br /><br />LL Cool J played the typical rapper role, toughest,baddest guy around. I don't think the cracked a smile in the whole movie, not even when proposed to his girlfriend.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman pretty much carried the whole movie. He was has some funny scenes which are the high point of the movie.<br /><br />Kevin Spacey wasn't good or bad he was just "there".<br /><br />Overall it's a Dull movie. bad plot. a lot of bad acting or wrong roles for actors.
If you watched this movie you know why I said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus". Hehehe!!! Every time they said "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus"... I laughed thinking "Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, why did I rent this movie"? I cannot believe how Oscar winners like Freeman and Spacey appeared here in the background while Timberlake and LL Cool J grabbed the screen. WTF is Timberlake? Dreaful acting! I think someone like Joshua Jackson could have done a much better job! This job was perfect for Joshua Jackson and believe me I am not a big fun of him... but I really prefer an actor, not this android called Timberlake. And his girlfriend was shallow, hollow and annoying as hell. I was happy when they both were popped in the street.<br /><br />The story was OK and I think Dylan Mc Dermott did his bad guy role very well. The movie was entertaining but I think Timberlake ruined it all. It would have been much enjoyable without him.<br /><br />By the way, the music was OK, but suddenly every time the music appeared the movie turned into a MTV video clip with flashes, low motion and things like that. Something misplaced for this cops movie I thought. Maybe they wanted to make a MTV video clip for Timberlake.
How can there be that many corrupt cops without any one of them slipping up? With enough cops to run a mini-war that include such weapons as flamethrowers, you would think they would have been caught before someone writing for a weekly coupon newspaper overheard someone saying 'thanks' to a corrupt cop.<br /><br />You will never get your 90ish minutes back. Life is too precious to rent this movie.<br /><br />I feel bad for the big named actors that made the mistake of making this movie.<br /><br />If you like Justin Timberlake, feel free to rent this movie. He does have a very major part in it, so fans might enjoy seeing him. <br /><br />However, I believe most of his fans are young girls, who may be turned off by the violence in this movie.
LL Cool J. Morgan Freeman. Dylan McDermott. Kevin Spacey. John Heard. Cary Elwes. Roslyn Sanchez. Justin Timberlake -- wait a minute. Justin Timberlake? And he's the star? I should have known better than to rent EDISON FORCE. In fact, I did know better. But in a moment of absolute weakness, I rented this STV. When you have big names like Freeman and Spacey in an STV, you know it's one of two things: an indie or a dog. As in sat-on-a-shelf. Which this did. And with good reason. The plot as such involves a squad of corrupt killer cops a la MAGNUM FORCE, and "journalist" Timberlake is the only one brave enough to uncover them. He is targeted for his efforts -- or maybe I should say for his horrible acting. I turned it off after one of the bad guys was shot through the forehead and still had the forethought to turn to his shooter and smile before collapsing. Just awful. The real tipoff to how bad this flick is to see Freeman on the cover and throughout the movie sporting an unruly beard, looking like nothing so much as a hobo. You just know the director was not in control. Freeman is clearly slumming.
I rented this movie last week. I saw Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman were on it, so it seemed promising. And it was, until Justin Timberlake came on scene. He is a really bad actor and shouldn't be allowed to make a movie ever again. I mean, he is one of the most boring, uninspired actors I've ever seen. He puts absolutely no emotion to any of his lines whatsoever. Why the hell was he cast for the role of Josh Pollack? I think Matt Damon would have been a better choice.<br /><br />Kevin Spacey was another big disappointment. His character is so dull, it seems like a bad mix of his character in American Beauty and John Doe in Se7en. It might sound cool, but believe me, it's not.<br /><br />Now, Dylan McDermott's acting is very good. It's about one of the very few good things about this movie. He is just inspired.<br /><br />Morgan Freeman is good but nothing special. He has some really cool lines though.<br /><br />About the story, although it was a bit obvious and exaggerated at times it was good. I was expecting a big twist when Lazerov (Dylan McDermott) was killed, but nothing really happened.
*** REVIEW MAY CONTAIN SOME SPOILERS *** I'll make this review short and sweet. I bought this movie from Best Buy because it sounded interested and had some top actors in it like Kevin Spacey and Morgan Freeman. How bad could it be, right? Well, it's pretty bad. Justin Timberlake plays Pollack, a wannabe journalist who stumbles across a case that may lead to corrupt cops at Edison's Police Force. LL Cool J is Deed, a cop within the force on a special force team called F.R.A.T. (First Response Assault Tactics). He's teamed with an "on-the-edge" bad cop named Lazerov (Dylan McDermott). In the opening scene we see Lazerov & Deed taking on some bank robbers, but at night they are busting a couple of guys doing drugs. I don't want to give to much away, but things turn bad for the guys doing the drugs. Pollack, who works for Ashford (Morgan Freeman) goes to a trial involving Deeds & Lazerov. He suspect foul play and with the help of Ashford, does some investigate that turns ugly. Wallace (Kevin Spacey) who is all within the F.R.A.T. team joins with Ashford to try to bring the corrupt cops to justice.<br /><br />You can tell from the beginning that Freeman and Spacey's performance are pretty lackluster. The only person that give a all out performance is Dylan McDermott. He is a complete nut case in this movie and made a believer out of me. LL Cool J is terrible in this film. He says every line the same way and shows pretty much the same emotion. He was much better in movies like Deep Blue Sea & Any Given Sunday. The film starts off with some nice action but then drags it feet through the rest of the film. The ending is far from satisfying.<br /><br />Don't waste your time with this film. I'm putting it on Ebay this weekend.
The plot of 'Edison' was decent, but one actor in particular ruined the entire film. Justin Timberlake ruined the film with every line he uttered during the movie. He is by far one of the worst actors I have ever seen, and should face the same fate as the entire F.R.A.T. squad. <br /><br />Whether it was an emotional scene, an action scene, or even a silent scene, Justin Timberlake managed to ruin it. <br /><br />Do not waste your time watching this film. Don't even bother downloading it, midget porn would be a much better choice.<br /><br />And Justin, if you're reading this, stick to music. Even though you're no good at that, you've done a wonderful job tricking people into thinking you can actually sing.
I found it very very difficulty to watch this after the initial 5 minutes of the film. I managed to stomach 45-50 minutes before switching it off in disgust and watching Monster House instead (which, by the way, is great fun).<br /><br />The story has massive holes in it. The plot line is hugely over stated and dull, the acting is awful, especially from Justin TImberlake who should really stick to what he is good at (looking daft and singing like a castrato). Morgan Freeman looked incredibly uncomfortable, especially when made to dance around to rock music for no apparent reason half way through the film after him and Timberlake meet. Freeman and Timberlake's characters seem to be supposed to have some sort of father/son relationship of sorts or something, which simply isn't evident at all apart from the fact that; though Freeman's character seems to have nothing but contempt for the ignorant and rather stupid character of Timberlake, he never the less pulls out all the stops to help him uncover a completely ridiculous cover up.<br /><br />It would take some incredible suspension of disbelief to give any credit to the story line, which is simply absurd and blown out of all proportion.<br /><br />Don't watch this film, it is a pure waste of time.
OK so I hear about this new Justin Timberlake movie coming out which features some pretty big names. I mean great actors like, The Freeman aka Morgan Freeman, an asset to Hollywood, however completely wasted in this film. Then we got Kevin Spacey, who I've been a great fan of ever since I watched American Beauty and The Usual Suspects. Both of these great actors probably signed on to the movie thinking it was going to be a great movie as I did when I heard the story. Then enter a fresh faced Justin Timberlake. I say fresh faced because this is his first movie and those rotten tomatoes haven't hit him yet. Well the reason for that , I might add, is because no one will ever see this movie or even bother reading this review. The movie is so terrible that when i got into the first 15 minutes of it. The characters were so one dimensional that it makes some Bible characters look like the Don Corleone. They got the one liners and sound-bite worthy stuff. The token troubled black guy (LL COOL J) who is with a gorgeous woman who he otherwise would not even belong with in real life. The captain is this short whiny guy who speaks in such a high tone. And what crappy movie would be complete without the hero becoming richer because of an experience. Oh and lots of gun fire, i mean a whole lot. SPOILER(NOT!!!) THe kind of gun fire that leaves everyone in the police force who's crooked dead and the hero prevails. They got flame throwers and rocket launchers, REally no kidding.<br /><br />Bottom line if you want to see Edison its because you are a great fan of one of the actors, or a great fan of Justin Timberlake, to all the 13 year old girls out there, enjoy!! I wish i had more hands, because then I would have more thumbs, because this movie is so terrible because then i could give it so many thumbs down that thumbs down would no longer mean anything because this movie is so terrible because it sucks so badly that it made me laugh out of frustration about the story line because it just would not end because the firing and yelling just kept happening.<br /><br />MAY G*D HAVE MERCY ON US ALL and save us from these terrible movies. Well it could be worst, another RNB terrible actor turned singer turned terrible actor is usher, hehe check out IN THE MIX lol, or even Get rich or die trying'. Now the special thing about that movie is that its got 30+ year old men, playing 16 or even younger teens. I could go on with these.
When you go at an open air cinema under the Greek summer night you usually don't care what the movie is! Edison started really good with some good effort from the singers-who-want-to-be actors and a once again great Morgan Freeman but... (In a movie there is usually a good start to catch audience,done, a bit boring yet story filling middle of the movie that is more about characters and less about action ,done, and the third part is something really good so that you can remember the movie...) when you see 30 elite police officers (packed with weapons that can demolish a building) shoot at a guy behind a car, fail to hit him even once while he kills all (but 3) and then the guy takes out a flame thrower (to kill the rest 3) ,you realise that the Greek summer sky filled with stars is way too good to be distracted by a movie like this!
Jewish newspaper reporter Justin Timberlake (as Joshua "Josh" Pollack) is puzzled when a courtroom defendant whispers "Thank you" to testifying officer LL Cool J (as Rafe Deed) as he leaves the witness stand. In the opening sequences of this film, you are given the explanation. You will see Mr. Cool J's devilish detective partner Dylan McDermott (as Frances "Laz" Lazerov) decide NOT to murder Damien Dante Wayans (as Isaiah Charles). The cops in the city of "Edison" are so corrupt they shoot their suspects, steal their money, and snort their dope. Whether he's out to impress his girlfriend (herein, called "Pussy") or win a Pulitzer, the city's corruption does NOT sit well with the noble Mr. Timberlake.<br /><br />Timberlake decides to investigate the corruption, which reaches both unexpected scope and life-threatening levels of danger. Writer/director David J. Burke keeps the film above water, but just barely. LL Cool J beats Timberlake in the "pop star to movie star" sweepstakes (aka the "rapper to actor" progression). Mr. McDermott has fun with his role. Lending gravitas to the proceedings are sagely supporting actors Morgan Freeman (as Moses Ashford) and Kevin Spacey (as Levon Wallace). F.R.A.T. means First Response Assault and Tactical, but it's more important to know that "Edison (Force)" stars Justin Timberlake and LL Cool J, not Morgan Freeman and Kevin Spacey (who seems lost).<br /><br />**** Edison (9/17/05) David J. Burke ~ Justin Timberlake, LL Cool J, Morgan Freeman, Dylan McDermott
OK, I am not Japanese. I do know a little about Japanese culture, and a little less about Japanese pop culture. Other than that, I am Spanish, I eat paella and I like black humor.<br /><br />Good, with that point set, I can comment on the movie: I have no idea on how it is enjoyable to the Japanese audiences, Mamoru Oshii is quite a good director- despite the overly pedantic postmodern stuff in the style of Talking Head, and even that was curious and somehow interesting- and I am surprised he came up with this. It may just be one of those lost-in-translation cases, I am afraid it is, but as a European viewer watching the film with subtext overloaded English subtitles I just thought it was horrible. The jokes seemed bad, the script was overcooked- I mean, give the audience a break, and shut up a little you damn narrator- to the point of almost making my head explode over an overkill of fast-paced speaking and absurd action.<br /><br />However, I thought the animation was really cool. The idea is great, and it is well exploited in those animated scenes. However, the eye-candy finishes as soon as the characters are left aside to start with an endless not funny at all mumbo-jumbo speech over still pictures. It just makes you want to fast forward to the next cut-out hysterical characters scene.<br /><br />I read Mamoru Oshii is actually planning on a sequel for this. The idea was good but horribly exploited. Maybe the second part will bring up the good parts of this first one and actually make an interesting movie, or maybe it will be more and more over-narrated scenes. But hell, if you thought Talking Head was dense, Amazing Lifes of Fast Food Gifters will give cause you a stroke.<br /><br />Of course, all this comment is based on the experiences of someone who is European. Probably this is totally useless to Japanese people, maybe it was a really funny film lost in cultural frontiers and translation. Maybe.
I don't want to go too far into detail, because I can't really justify wasting much time on reviewing this film, but I had to give an alternate opinion to hopefully help people avoid the movie. The animation is crud and the story alternates between boring/pointless to extremely irritating. The humor was completely lost on the audience, and yes - Ghost in the Shell fans, this is NOT an action sci-fi or anything like that - its an attempt at slapstick comedy, and the humor just did not work after being translated. It was a total chore to watch this movie, and horrible way for me to kick off the film fest, especially considering how excited I was and how open I was for anything - I wasn't expecting a Ghost in the Shell sequel, but I was expecting something entertaining, and it simply didn't achieve this. Yaaawwnnn... Rent Kino's Journey instead.
I rented this on DVD and I kind of feel bad since Dawson and Lugacy are so earnest about it in the DVD comments. It's not a bad movie exactly, but it's one of those films that desperately wants to be a deep comment on human nature while not realizing that its story is practically a genre. Plus, it is a little simplistic about the issue in a lot of ways, and the characters' behavior often strains belief. I'd say its a film that you would get something out of if you don't have a lot of film/TV/literature/life behind you (to be honest, I've seen almost exactly the same story in horror comics even). Otherwise, its point has been made before and more artfully. And that gets to the big problem, which is that it really doesn't have much of cinematic interest to it besides the point. It ends up being a fairly bland movie overall that invests everything in the idea that the basic story will be shocking and compelling, and it doesn't really pay off.
The plot for Descent, if it actually can be called a plot, has two noteworthy events. One near the beginning - one at the end. Together these events make up maybe 5% of the total movie time. Everything (and I mean _everything_) in between is basically the director's desperate effort to fill in the minutes. I like disturbing movies, I like dark movies and I don't get troubled by gritty scenes - but if you expect me to sit through 60 minutes of hazy/dark (literally) scenes with NO storyline you have another thing coming. Rosario Dawson, one of my favorite actresses is completely wasted here. And no, she doesn't get naked, not even in the NC-17 version, which I saw.<br /><br />If you have a couple of hours to throw away and want to watch "Descent", take a nap instead - you'll probably have more interesting dreams.
I saw 'Descent' last night at the Stockholm Film Festival and it was one huge disappointment. Disappointment because the storyline was potentially powerful, the prospect of seeing Rosario Dawson in a smaller intimate movie was exciting and, being a fan (sounds pervy, I'm not!) of 'rape/revenge' flicks of the 70's, I was needless to say very curious to check this movie out. My conclusion: let's stick to the classics! Yes, the storyline has potential but the dialogs are flat, the actors unconvincing. Even Dawson is empty. Some would say that it's a right depiction of the college world in the US, that the emptiness of the characters serve a purpose and all that jazz but it just makes the whole movie unsubstantial. Just like the scene where Dawson gets raped: it seriously lacks intensity! I wasn't expecting anything 'Irreversible'-style but still, aren't we suppose to feel compassion for her? I didn't. Not for a minute, she was so lame all the way ;-) And I read that the photography was impressive. Well, it is good indeed but nothing ground-breaking either. I must admit that the screening at the festival wasn't so good so maybe I missed out something here but at the end of the movie, I couldn't help thinking 'I feel like watching Argento's 'Inferno' again. lol. More seriously, the first scene in the club is beautifully shot and all but I had the bitter sensation of watching a longer and more boring version of the scene in the filthy bar near the American-Canadian border in Lynch's 'Twin Peaks - Fire Walk with Me'... the crude red and blue lighting, the heavy bass music, the general lascivious/decadent atmosphere... No, I just couldn't get into this movie. Too bad.
It's pretty bad when the generic movie synopsis has more information than the film itself. The paragraph-long "plot summary" written on the movie page has details I could not glean from watching the actual movie. I found myself constantly backing it up to see what details I had just missed which could tell me what the (bleep) was going on. Alas, to no avail--this movie leaves out monstrous pieces of the story, if you could call it a story. It's like they were trying to fool us into thinking that there was some kind of movie here, filming just enough so that there was the resemblance of a story and leaving the rest to our imaginations. Newsflash to the the creators: I paid to watch you MAKE a movie. I can sit home and imagine plots and story lines for free. And Rosario Dawson? This is somebody I've never paid enough attention to to be able to put the name to the face, and I can see why. She had one of the most artificial performances I have ever seen for a leading character in any movie, A or B. I figured okay, maybe she didn't really want the role, just got a hefty offer for a movie she wasn't into? Wrong. She was listed as one of the producers. Next time you produce something, don't book yourself as the lead if you can't act. If you really can, then create a decent character for you to become. Also, somebody here mentioned the white/latino issue--yes, I hate to say it, but this movie does come across as an act of vengeance against white college-age males who wear baseball hats. That's what happens when there is nothing in the movie to endear the watcher to latino characters. The Adrian character seems like a cocky jerk who is no better than the story's antagonist. As for the Maya character, she didn't seem like a real person. Anyway I'm ashamed for Hollywood that this movie was even made.
Having just recently re-viewed "Lipstick" for the first time in a few decades, I backed it with "Descent" even though I have heard more negative comments than good from other film friends with tastes as varied as mine.<br /><br />It's interesting to contrast how the unique niche of the Rape Revenge movie has evolved in the past 32 years, from the full-on gore of "I Spit On Your Grave," to the tawdry sensationalism of "Lipstick," to the tasteful handling of the issue in "The Accused." But "Descent," though making some important points, never really offers us anything truly new in terms of revelatory meaning. No, "Descent" is so poorly made in terms of picture and sound quality that it detracts from any significant message it could hope to make --- a message that, when examined closely, isn't that groundbreaking.<br /><br />I pretty much knew the plot going in. What I wanted to see *was* the "descent" or degeneration of Dawson's character. Being a big fan of Rosario's, I was anxious to see the layers being stripped away and her psyche being slowly twisted...you know, the kind of portrayal DeNiro brings to "Taxi Driver." Unfortunately, the script and the director/writer's choices don't provide any sort of believable transition.<br /><br />The biggest point of failure is the second act. It became obvious what the filmmaker's intentions were for this segment of club-hopping, drug use, and obsession with big black stallion Adrian (every white boy's nightmare, natch) from a Q&A on the DVD, but this excursion into Dawson's character is never believably rendered. We don't know exactly what the hell she's doing half the time, what she's after, or why she's doing it. The poor quality of the audio/video again don't help, but the sequence is just too damn long and pointless. It destroys any momentum and investment in the lead character set up during the otherwise exceptionally well-done first act. By the time we get to the finale, our interest has already waned.<br /><br />One point of success that Dawson does point out in the Q&A is that by the end "revenge" scene we are pumped for retribution, then realize just how drawn-out and ugly the reality is. While that's certainly valid, it doesn't make the scene any more intriguing.<br /><br />If you have the DVD, check out the deleted "classroom" scene. This is an excellent 8 minute plus outtake that crackles with energy and provocation (though all verbal) and really DOES show Dawson's slow crack-up materializing as she delightfully vivisects poor Francie Swift's prissy, condescending dorm counselor. If more expository scenes like this had been added and more of the middle third cut down, we might have an interesting psychological study of the impact of senseless acts of violence.<br /><br />As the film stands in the final cut, though, all we get is what we've seen before, only in a more graphic rendering. So what?
Revenge is one of my favorite themes in film. Moreso, "the futility of revenge" is one of my favorite themes in film. Having seen Gaspar Noe's Irreversible (2002), I was expecting an even more relevant expression of this theme. Instead, this film is a weak half-hearted attempt which expressed nothing but the film's lack of conviction and focus.<br /><br />*SPOILERS* The end scene, a gratuitous male-on-male rape/torture scene, came across as nothing less than a female revenge rape fantasy. However, the film doesn't even follow through with this. Instead, the drawn out scene (which FAR exceeds the brutality of the initial rape both in the degree to which it was graphic and to which it was ritualized) is crowned with a shot of Dawson's face in an expression of either regret or "This didn't fix anything" while the rape of her rapist is heard continuing in the background.<br /><br />My problem with the scene wasn't one of shock, but one of confusion as to what such a graphic scene was trying to get across to the audience. I mean, do we feel bad for the rapist? Do we rejoice in Dawson's revenge? Are we disgusted by the brutality of it all? Do we feel Dawson's moment of regretful clarity? Aside from this failing, the film is really sort of awkwardly paced with more style than substance. Character's are thin, dialog is monotonous, etc.<br /><br />Normally I try to take films on their own terms but Descent didn't really seem to know what those were. Thumbs down.
Rosario Dawson stars as a girl who is date raped and then begins a decent into darkness until given a chance at revenge. While its clear why Dawson took the role, its a chance to show her acting chops and to make a small independent, decidedly un-Hollywood film, its also clear that aside from stunning good looks, Dawson seems out of place in the role. Forgive me I simply couldn't find her. Thats not a mistake, thats how I felt, I had no idea where she was. Yes I know she's on the screen but even though I spent the better part of two hours looking at her she left no impression on me whats so ever. I blame the script for this since other than the ending, not a whole heck of a lot that happened on screen seemed to make any real sense. The people seemed to be more posture than real and what happens didn't seem to fit together. Forgive me for being vague but nothing in this film, other than the end (which I would love to talk about but can't cause it would spoil it), and the image of Rosario Dawson as nothing more than an image, stayed with me.What can I say, this may click with you, it may not, for me it's time I can't get back. For Rosario Dawson fans only, though be warned there's several real reasons why this is NC17. (And Rosario- please, you're a better actress, pick better scripts)
This movie sucked plain and simple. Okay so it's basically about a girl that gets raped, and to get revenge she gets another guy to rape the rapist. The rapist is a douche, but the girl victim is partly to blame. I mean they both get in the mood and start kissing and stuff, but when the rapist tries to have sex with her, she doesn't allow it so the rapist rapes her. And the thing is the rape scene for the girl is very short and it doesn't really expose or show anything, but when it comes to the rapist getting raped, it's a pretty long rape scene. There is basically nothing in the story that is worth watching.<br /><br />3.2/10
I'm going to write about this movie and about "Irreversible" (the (in)famous scene in it). So you are warned, if you haven't seen the movie yet. This are just my thoughts, why I think the movie fails (in the end - pun intended).<br /><br />Acting wise, Rosario Dawson is really good and almost conveys portraying someone almost a decade younger (a teenager in other words). The villain guy is good, but loses his "evil" touch right before the end. If he really never changes, then why would he let a woman tie him up? He wouldn't, period. Then we also have the bartender/2nd rape Dude. Actually I don't think you would need him. At least not for the 2nd rape, but more about that later on.<br /><br />Let's reprise the story. Rosarios character is sexually insecure, might even have lesbian tendencies (see her scene with a female friend). This wasn't intentional, as Rosario states herself, but there is sexual tension between them. Rosario's character meets a guy, who is a sexual Predator, in all the bad senses. But he makes an impression on her.<br /><br />Rosario commented that her character had a boyfriend before. I beg to differ. Because she acts, as if it is her first boyfriend, which also underlines her phone conversation with her mother. Talking about her mother, here's another problem. After the first rape takes place, Rosarios character doesn't tell anyone what happened. Seiing that her relationship with her mother is a very close one, nothing of that gets explored after that. If Rosarios character wouldn't call her mother anymore or would behave strangely, the mother would be worried like crazy. There was so much potential here. Also her female friend: We see her at the party, it's obvious there is something going on and "boom" she is gone.<br /><br />The first rape is almost unbearable to watch. But feels like a pinch, when you compare it to the ending (rape), which feels like you're getting hit with a sledge hammer! After rape no. 1 we get too stretched out scenes. Threads are opened (such as her construction work is an indication that she might be lesbian, as one guy states who tried to hit on her ...), but left in the open. No real social contact is established, if you leave the bartender guy out, who is involved in the 2nd and last rape scene. It's apparent that he isn't a "nice" guy and his character get's fleshed out a bit. But when Rosarios character meets her rapist in class again, his being in the movie seems pointless. We get the point that Rosarios character isn't the same anymore, that she went "bad" and is able to hurt people. (Too) Many scenes show exactly that, her being without emotion just doing drugs and other stuff. Back to Rapist #1 who cheats on a test, gets caught by Rosarios character and they decide to hang out together again (really?). As absurd as that sounds, the guy meets up with her, not without us having seen him beforehand, with another girl (very likely that he raped her too, although we never see anything of that, fortunately) and his football career. Well career is a stretch and he is bullied. This is an attempt to give his character some depth and it almost works, but then again is too cliché to stay with you. So Rapist #1 submits to Rosarios character ... why exactly? Because he promised her, it was her day? Again, really? A guy like that never loses control, especially with a woman he raped before ... I guess this is supposed to show us how stupid he is. The bartender guy would have worked as someone who could have hit him over the head or something, but letting him submit like that, just feels wrong. Another possibility would have a drug in his drink.<br /><br />So rapist #1 undresses and get's blindfolded and let's Rosarios character tie him on a bed .... seriously, that's just crazy! But what comes next, is even crazier. First she talks to him, then she "shuts" him up and forces an object into him. This is as difficult to watch as rape scene number one. This isn't about what this guy deserves or not, it's just intense. And of course that was what they were aiming for. Now after she is "done" the bartender guy comes in and rapes ... rapist #1. If this really should work as a revenge movie, it would have been better if Rosarios character herself would have been doing all the "revenge". Having a henchman doing the job, takes away everything that was built up.<br /><br />This isn't supposed to be entertaining/enjoyable, it's a hard watch & it is Art-house. But the 10 minute (I didn't count ) rape scene at the end, just smashes everything. Rosarios character is more or less, only watching what happens. Which brings me to the biggest disappointment.<br /><br />Irreversible comparison: "Irreversible" had the rape scene, but the movie went on (even if it was back into time). Rosario is looking into the camera in the end and says something about having to get over this. First, that comes a bit too late, that should see her say that after the initial rape. And secondly and most importantly, this is where the Art-house movie should've come in. It is more interesting seeing were Rosarios character would go after the second rape scene and how she would cope, with what she had done. But then again, she didn't actually physically do that much (see above) ... a broken character that the movie cuts off ...<br /><br />Good intentions (Talia and Rosario had worked before), but failing to convey most of the things, they set out to do (even if you can see what they meant, it has to be convincing, otherwise it doesn't work) ... not to mention the overlong rape scenes as they are ...
This movie was disgusting. Their should be a warning that some sadistic nasty writer is attempting to make a name for herself before being held hostage for an hour and a half watching garbage. What is garbage? The misuse of peoples time, the misuse of energy, and the waste of whatever type of educational system that taught her how to read and write. Talia you are a sick demented loser. Your psychiatrist needs to prescribe stronger medications for your problem. <br /><br />The acting and plot gave me no choice but to fast forward through the middle of the garbage. I ended up at a scene that was uncalled for. If you want to learn how to shock people watch a Larry Clark movie. I lost all respect for the entire cast of this movie "no more support from me." How could actors or actresses sit on a set while such gross depictions of human behavior is manifested from the mind of a psycho? I feel sorry for all actors that took part in that scene. I think the devil now knows who the writer of this movie is; congratulations you won his attention.
If you want to watch a good film about how women can fight back against sexual assault, then this film is not the film that you want to watch. It was a social commentary about a woman who was victimized and fights back. Spoiler: Rosario Dawson turns the tables on her assailant. Instead of using the criminal justice system, the victim resorts to using vigilantism. She in essence nullifies the judicial system. The film "The Accused" was a much better film because the victim uses the judicial system and wins. What the "Descent" does is telling victims of assault that they should resort to violence? Is victim any better that the accuser? No!!!
Do not waste your time or your money on this movie. My roommate rented it because she thought it was the other movie called Descent (the flick about some travelers who get trapped in a cave). so, we decided to watch it anyways thinking it couldn't be that bad. It was. I can't believe this movie was actually produced and put out to the public. It was so horrible it was almost like an accident scene where you want to look away but you just can't make yourself. I honestly feel emotionally scarred. It went from being a semi-low budget movie in which a college girl gets assaulted by a boy she's dating to an all out porno flick. And really not a good one. I went from hating the woman's rapist to almost feeling bad for him. Almost. All in all, an awful movie that was definitely rated NC-17 for a reason. Don't waste your money. And don't let your kids watch it.
Okay so i found out about this movie and I watched the preview read almost all the reviews and was having a hard time debating whether I should watch it or not. Before i even watched the movie i was emotionally weird on it. i was so unsure if i was going to watch this and be disturbed for like a long time. So i choose to risk it and watched it and heres what i thought: The beginning started off fine for me. It seemed to be heading in a decent direction. Got past the rape scene and i couldn't figure why people were so disturbed or bored by the movie. Don't get me wrong the rape scene was just as sad and scary but it didn't really bother me to a dramatic point. Then as the middle came in i understood the boring stuff that was going on. There was like 5 minutes shots of nothing but people walking around saying or showing nothing! its one thing to have a shot where a person is showing some kind of emotion but this movie didn't have that. It had about 3 of these pointless scenes, where you see the main character Maya kind of get out of control but it didn't show it right making me want to fast forward. Then when she engaged in the hardcore partying it wasn't so boring but still a little dull. Oh and as a note Rosario Dawson still did a great job. Okay moving on so finally after an hour of pointlessness to the middle the revenge comes to Maya's attention. Thats where it got disturbing. I didn't feel bad for him or nothing he got what he deserved but the whole scene was really disturbing and i just felt all eck after it. I cant really tell you whether or not to watch this movie because its so...i don't know i cant find a word to sum it up. But if you choose to watch it just don't be unsuprised.
This movie offers NOTHING to anyone. It doesn't succeed on ANY level. The acting is horrible, dull long-winded dribble. They obviously by the length of the end sex scene were trying to be shocking but just ended up being pretty much a parody of what the film was aiming for. Complete garbage, I can't believe what a laughable movie this was. <br /><br />And I'm very sure Rosario Dawson ended up in this film cause she though this would be her jarring break away indi hit, a wowing NC-17 movie. The problem is no adult is going to stick with this film as the film plays out like a uninteresting episode of the OC or something aimed at teens. Pathetic.
You know all those letters to "Father Christmas" and "Jesus" that are sent every year? Well, it turns out that they are not actually delivered but dropped off in a half-forgotten corner of the post office to rot unless some bright spark figures out a way of posting them. As bizarre settings go, it's a winner and one which perfectly fits the strange movie that is "Dead Letter Office". Having said that, this is obviously an Australian film as opposed to a British one. If it was Royal Mail, most letters get this sort of treatment anyway. I haven't been in this flat for two years and we're still getting letters for a Mr Wang, some female priest of the Church of Latter Day I've-Never-Heard-Of-You and various catalogues for industrial equipment addressed to a plumbing company.<br /><br />"Dead Letter Office" (the name given to the place where undeliverable mail ends up) follows the story of Alice (Miranda Otto) who grows up in a seriously divided home. Writing to her absent father, she only learns in adulthood that her letters haven't been delivered for one reason or another. So, logically, she gets a job at the D.L.O. and finds herself working alongside other social rejects including the brooding Chilean immigrant Frank Lopez (George Del Hoyo). Slowly, she finds herself drawn to him but can she find out where her dad is without bringing the self-contained world of the Dead Letters Office to its knees?<br /><br />Nothing against this film but I was reminded of the god-awful Heather Graham film "Committed" while watching this. However, this is so much better than that pile of horse crap but then again, that ain't difficult. For a start, this film is much more logical. True, the metaphors are somewhat blatant and the underflowing symbolism quickly becomes a flood. But at least this is cohesive and quirky without being complete drivel. It is also well acted. Both Otto and Del Hoyo are very good as the lovers looking for something they know they'll never find while other characters are peripheral at best. Part of the trouble is that it seems to wrap up far too quickly, leaving this viewer somewhat disappointed. The other part is that when you consider Australia's draconian immigration policy (i.e. if you don't speak English, rack off!), such a story is unlikely to take place in reality. The other characters, sadly, also help to destabilise the realism by proving to be little more than odd-ball stereotypes.<br /><br />Despite that, "Dead Letter Office" is certainly something a little different. It might not be to everyone's taste but I liked it. Yes, it was hackneyed and predictable but sometimes, it's nice to watch a film without guns or violence or heavy-duty swearing and nudity (no chance of that in an Australian film). There ain't any major laughs, there's no Bullet Time and the characters are usually one-dimensional. But it's the story that counts here and while it's not earth-shattering in its magnificence, it's a pleasant enough way of passing the time. It's the movie equivalent of a Sheryl Crow CD - nice to listen to now and again but you wouldn't really miss it if it wasn't there.
This movie had a IMDB rating of 8.1 so I expected much more from it. It starts out funny and endearing with an energy that feels spontaneous. But before the movie is half-way through, it begins to drag and everything becomes sickingly predictable. The characters in the office were delightful in the first third of the movie, but we get to know them a little too well; they become caricatures, not real people at all. This is the same story I've seen hundreds of times, only told here with slightly different circumstances. The thing is, I could stomach another predictable love story if only the dialog weren't so stale!<br /><br />The only thing that could be worse is if the characters had inconsistent and unbelievable motivations, and unfortunately that was also the case with Dead Letter Office. Hopefully this movie will end up in the Dead Movie Office soon.
'Dead Letter Office' is a low-budget film about a couple of employees of the Australian postal service, struggling to rebuild their damaged lives. Unfortunately, the acting is poor and the links between the characters' past misfortunes and present mindsets are clumsily and over-schematically represented. What's most disappointing of all, however, is the portrayal is life in the office of the film's title: there's no mechanisation whatsoever, and it's quite impossible to ascertain what any of the staff really do for a living. Granted, part of the plot is that the office is threatened with closure, but this sort of office surely closed in the 1930s, if it ever truly existed. It's a shame, as the film's overall tone is poignant and wry, and there's some promise in the scenario: but few of the details convince. Overall, it feels the work of someone who hasn't actually experienced much of real life; a student film, with a concept and an outline, but sadly little else.
This picture seemed way to slanted, it's almost as bad as the drum beating of the right wing kooks who say everything is rosy in Iraq. It paints a picture so unredeemable that I can't help but wonder about it's legitimacy and bias. Also it seemed to meander from being about the murderous carnage of our troops to the lack of health care in the states for PTSD. To me the subject matter seemed confused, it only cared about portraying the military in a bad light, as A) an organzation that uses mind control to turn ordinary peace loving civilians into baby killers and B) an organization that once having used and spent the bodies of it's soldiers then discards them to the despotic bureacracy of the V.A. This is a legitimate argument, but felt off topic for me, almost like a movie in and of itself. I felt that "The War Tapes" and "Blood of my Brother" were much more fair and let the viewer draw some conclusions of their own rather than be beaten over the head with the film makers viewpoint. F-
When Marlene Dietrich was labeled box office poison in 1938 one of a handful of actresses so named by the trades papers, it was films like The Garden Of Allah. How a film could be so breathtakingly beautiful to behold and be so insipidly dull is beyond me. Also how Marlene if she was trying to expand her range and not play a sexpot got stuck with such an old fashioned story is beyond me.<br /><br />The Garden Of Allah, one of the very first films in modern technicolor was a novel set at the turn of the last century by Robert Hitchens who then collaborated on a play adaption with Mary Anderson that ran for 241 performances in 1911-12. It then got two silent screen adaptions. The story is about a monk who runs away from the monastery out in French Tunisia to see some of what he's missed in the world. He runs into a similarly sheltered woman who was unmarried and spent her prime years caring for a sick parent. She's traveling now in the desert and the two meet on a train.<br /><br />The woman is of course Marlene and the runaway monk is Charles Boyer. I'm not sure what was in David O. Selznick's mind in filming this story. Someone like Ingrid Bergman might have made it palatable for the audience. But you can bet that the movie-going public of 1936 when they plunked their money down for a ticket they expected to see Marlene as a modern day Salome rather than a saint with that title. The public still remembered Rudolph Valentino and you can bet that it was some desert romance and seduction that they were expecting.<br /><br />As for the monks you have to remember that they are self supporting in their monasteries and this particular one bottles a special wine of which Boyer happens to be the one with the secret. The monastery will have to rethink it's economics if Boyer leaves. The monks are a sincerely pious group, but from the head man Charles Waldron on down they've a right to be a little concerned with some self interest.<br /><br />Anyway a whole lot of religious platitudes get said here by a pair of leads that really are not suited for the parts. Most especially Marlene Dietrich. I would watch this film with an eye for the special color desert cinematography and forget the plot.
The real star of this ridiculous story is glorious technicolor. A visual treat to the eye, the film fails to stimulate the mind and heart. I was intrigued, at first, by the idea of Dietrich and Boyer leaving religion in order to "find" their capacity for love. What follows is a huge disappointment. Boyer is the only real actor in the production and one feels his torment. Dietrich's amazing wardrobe outshines her performance -- at times her face is frightening to look at -- a unfeeling mask. As a monk, Boyer held the formula for the monastery's liquer (which reminds me of the true story of Chartreuse) -- when he leaves his "marriage to god" the reaction by his fellow monks holds the shock and fear that perpetuate organized religion. The viewer feels Boyer was well rid of his past. However, the journey that follows is all too predictable.
As a great admirer of Marlene Dietrich, I had to (finally) watch this very, very dull picture. It is Miss Dietrich's first color film, and the world's most beautiful blond is a redhead! Bad start. The story is a tremendous bore, involving a subject which itself bores bores me stiff: religious guilt. (Who needs it???) Suffice it to say, perhaps, that of all Dietrich's films (and I have seen most, including "Pittsburgh") this is the only one where even her performance is barely worth watching. The color photography is OK (this is a very early Technicolor release), but to no purpose. Ridiculous casting: C. Aubrey Smith, Basil Rathbone (enough said?). The only thing of any interest at all is John Carradine's outlandish caricature of a performance as "The Sand Diviner," who foretells all that will happen. The supposed "happy ending" is one of the most depressing ever conceived. Yet another example of David O. Selznick's highly inflated reputation (did he ever make a really good film? -- other than That One?) And, for one final annoyance, the soundtrack of the MGM DVD is a mess, with volume levels seemingly randomized. Highly unrecommended.
My first full Heston movie. The movie that everyone already knows the ending to. A "Sci Fi Thriller". The campy factor. Everything that goes with this movie was injected in my head when I rented it, and on the morning that I watched it, it was the perfect movie to watch in the mood that I was in (Not wanting to move. Put in player, hide in blankets). And though I tried to understand what was happening to lead to the ending that will be eternally ruined by pop culture, it just really didn't make it. Everything was all over the place, relationships had no backbone, the ending had no lead in. Everything was just kind of there in some freakish way and the watcher has no choice but to leave partially dumbfounded at the ending that it gets to, because even though we all know that it's people, it's quick answers as to WHY it's people makes any serious attempt at enjoying the movie for anything other than the silliness thrown out the window.
Anyone who has a remote interest in science fiction should start at the basics. Everyone says STAR WARS and STAR TREK are the best science fiction films to begin at, which is fine but the truth is THE TERMINATOR and this movie, SOYLENT GREEN, are far better choices than those series. SOYLENT is probably science fiction 's best kept secret. It remains one of the biggest, yet most forgotten films but the impact of its setting is becoming more a reality with each passing day. Charlton Heston overdramatizes his role, yet it works. Edward G. Robinson, in his final role, makes the most out of it in SOYLENT GREEN more than anyone else and his final scenes are touching.<br /><br />It is Manhattan in 2022, the world is overcrowded and food is an unbelievable fortune (a small jar of strawberry jam costs $150). A big executive for the Soylent company is murdered and police detective Thorn is on the case.<br /><br />The secret of soylent green is not a mystery if you do research on the movie. SOYLENT is enjoyable to watch, but the whole screenplay is a joke. It is just as cheap as the entire production. The screenplay and the over dramatics of the actors made the movie, yet were completely hilarious. Everyone seems to be a moron and no one knows the rules, specifically cop Thorn who likes to just waltz into people 's apartments, peruse around shamelessly and steal anything he wants. The character 's interactions keeps your attention on the movie, but still you realize that SOYLENT GREEN sucks. An enjoyable piece if you have the time, but do not expect anything more.
I watched this movie recently together with my sister who likes the performances of Sophia Loren. I'm a person who they call a Cultural Barbarian. I hate art in any kind of shape or form. Rambo is more my kind of movie, action, kills, blood, horror. If you recognize yourself in this avoid this movie like the plague. No one dies, no action, no nudity, nothing of the kind. Let me give you a résumé in a few sentences. It starts out with 5 minutes in black and white Nazi propaganda. Every Italian in a housing block attends a parade in honor of Hitler, except for a housewife, an anti fascist and a caretaker. The housewife who is cheated by her husband, meets the anti fascist. She falls in love with him, wants to make love to him, but the anti fascist is gay. Despite of this they make love with each other. At the end of the day, the housewife reads a book from her gay lover, and the guy himself is deported by agents. The end. You want an even shorter résumé? BORING... That short enough? The guy should have used his gun in the beginning of this movie and shoot himself, to save the audience from this atrocity. On a side note my sister loved this movie. Like I said, I'm a Cultural Barbarian...
"Fever Pitch" isn't a bad film; it's a terrible film.<br /><br />Is it possible American movie audiences and critics are so numbed and lobotomized by the excrement that Hollywood churns out that they'll praise to the skies even a mediocre film with barely any laughs? That's the only reason I can think of why this horrible romantic comedy (and I use that term loosely because there's nothing funny in this film) is getting good reviews.<br /><br />I sat through this film stunned that screenwriters Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel would even for an instant think their script was funny.<br /><br />The brilliant Nick Hornby usually translates well to film. He adapted "Fever Pitch" for a British film starring Colin Firth and Ruth Gemmell in 1997; Peter Hedges found Hornby's voice for "About a Boy" (2002) and when "High Fidelity" was Americanized for a movie in 2000, writers D.V. DeVincentis, Steve Pink, John Cusack and Scott Rosenberg didn't go wrong because they kept the essence of Hornby's wit and humor. They made one of the best films of that year.<br /><br />So why does the American version of "Fever Pitch" go so painfully awry? The British version wasn't a masterpiece, but it was charming, funny, unexpected and gave us two characters we could like, respect and understand.<br /><br />But Ganz and Mandel have excised everything funny in Hornby's work. In Americanizing the story, they've butchered it, removing all that was good and unique about Hornby's work and replacing it with conventional drivel.<br /><br />They've transformed a funny story into a formulaic romantic comedy, never once veering from the wretched formula. Lindsey (Drew Barrymore) has three girlfriends, each of whom has a distinct function. One's overweight, the second's cynical and ambitious, and the third's a romantic. Want to guess how many male friends Ben (Jimmy Fallon) has?<br /><br />What made "High Fidelity" such fun was not only a good leading man and lady, but engaging supporting characters. In this "Fever Pitch," the six supporting friends do or say nothing especially funny. They're so insignificant, they're not even decorative. The only reason they're in the film is because the formula demands it. Poor Ione Skye winds up as one Lindsey's pals in a thankless role. The lovely Skye must have been wishing Lloyd Dobler would swoop in and take her away. Come to think of it, Cusack would've made an excellent Ben. Of course, Cusack is too smart to attach himself to such an utterly tedious script.<br /><br />There isn't a single, solitary moment in this film that seems original or unforced. Every plot turn is predictable, every lame joke telegraphed. Ganz and Mandel labor for laughs. The first 45 minutes are so excruciatingly slow, you wonder if these chaps realized they were writing a comedy. You can mark the plot turns in this film by your watch. It's almost as if Ganz and Mandel penned this with some screen writing guru's formula pasted on the wall. When they got to a certain page, they looked up at the formula and said, "OK, the guru says this has to happen now." And, presto!<br /><br />Directors Bobby and Peter Farrelly don't help the film any. They have no concept how to introduce their story and characters (they hand over the V.O. narration not to the protagonist, but to another guy who sits behind Ben at Fenway Park). Thanks to some extremely clunky writing, we have to watch Barrymore and Fallon stumble through their unfunny initial meetings.<br /><br />Barrymore does cute and adorable better than most. She's as good at it as Goldie Hawn in her heyday. But even her cuteness can't save this extraordinarily awful film. She tries hard to wring some energy and humor out of this story. About 30 minutes into the film, Lindsey tells Ben, "You're funny." The only explanation for her remark is that it was in the script. For Fallon's Ben never says anything even remotely funny. Fallon is neither witty nor funny; when he does comedy, he overacts.<br /><br />Fallon was never any good on "Saturday Night Live." He was quite possibly the least funny person on that show. Remember that lame sketch about a radio DJ who did all the voices? The only reason "Weekend Update" worked occasionally was because Fallon's cohort, Tina Fey, knows a thing or two about comedy.<br /><br />Actors who think they're funny and behave that way rarely, if ever, are actually funny. That's true of Fallon. He thinks he's hysterically funny when he barely raises a chuckle. His stuttering, unsure-of-himself shtick didn't work on the small screen; it's lousier on the big screen.<br /><br />Unfortunately for Fallon, his role in this picture also requires a few dramatic moments. If you thought his comedy was bad, wait till you get a load of his dramatic stuff. Two scenes in particular - the first in a park, the second in front of Ben's school - are painful to watch. The scenes require an actor with a smidgen of dramatic ability, but Fallon has neither the knowledge nor the ability to make them work. His range of emotions doesn't even run the gamut from A to B.<br /><br />Ben has no personality or depth. Often, he comes across as an oaf. And not a lovable one at that. It boggles the mind what Lindsey would find attractive about him. Compare Fallon's performance to Firth's in the British version, and you'll understand how terribly flat, unfunny and forced Fallon's Ben is and how wrong he is for this role. Watching Fallon in "Fever Pitch" makes one long for the dramatic depth and comedic nuance of Ashton Kutcher!<br /><br />Just as "High Fidelity" did, an Americanized "Fever Pitch" could've worked brilliantly. It just needed better writers, more competent directors and, most definitely, a stronger, funnier, smarter leading man. Do yourself a huge favor: Avoid this rotten film; rent the 1997 British version and read Hornby's book, instead.
I am generally more willing to be open minded about rom coms than many, but this was simply not a very good attempt. Its got nothing to do with comparisons with the British original -- have not seen, and doubt I will. It has a whole lot to do with a meandering plot, lack of chemistry between the leads and a godawful performance/character from its supposed male lead (Jimmy Fallon).<br /><br />Fallon walks onto the screen wearing the clothes and hairdo of a 15 year old and acting a decade younger than that. He's supposed to be a teacher you see, and of course its well known that school districts the world over love to hire individuals less mature than the children they purport to teach. The character is so extremely disturbed and irrational that I have my doubts whether any actor could have made him likable, but old reliables like John Cusack or Adam Sandler might have been able to give it a shot. Not Fallon, who is neither funny, nor an actor, but appears to think he is both. Not once in the entire course of the movie do you either believe Fallon in his role, or believe that there is any way these two people should, or would be together. Near the end of the movie there is a scene where Barrymore (who was cute as usual but could not carry this one alone -- its hard to have a one person romance) tells Fallon that its over, too much has happened, and she's moving on. And rather than feeling bad about the scene, or sorry for Fallon, you are actively cheering her on -- finally she does what she should have done months ago. But of course the plot mechanics won't allow that to be the end of it (an end which actually might have made a statement out of this mess), and instead we get to see the rational career girl throwing it all away to chase after this childish idiot and encourage his delusions. Its of course meant to be gooey and satisfying, but it actually made me more disgusted than anything else.
I saw this director's "Woman On The Beach" and could not understand the good to great reviews. This film is much like that one, two people who are caught in a relationship with very little dynamic and even less interest to anyone else. Like his other films, you have to want to listen to vacuous dialog, wade through very little and become enchanted with underwritten, pretty uninteresting characters. If you feel you can like this film, don't let my review stop you. I do like minimalism in films, but I feel Tsai Ming-Liang's films are far superior. He has a fairly terrific actor in Lee Kang-Sheng in his films. There is nothing here. I wish IU liked it, but I don't. Oh, well.
This movie sounded like it might be entertaining and interesting from its description. But to me it was a bit of a let down. Very slow and hard to follow and see what was happening. It was as if the filmmaker took individual pieces of film and threw them in the air and had them spliced together whichever way they landed (definitely not in sequential order). Also, nothing of any consequence was being filmed. I have viewed quite a few different Korean films and have noticed that a good portion are well made and require some thinking on the viewer's part, which is different from the typical Hollywood film. But this one befuddled me to no end. I viewed the film a second and third time and it still didn't do anything for me. I still don't really understand what the filmmaker was trying to convey. If it was to just show a typical mundane portion of a person's life, I guess he succeeded. But I was looking for more. Needless to say, I can't recommend this movie to anyone.
This typically melodramatic Bollywood film has inexplicably become a favorite of Western critics. The script is ludicrous, the acting is over-the-top, and it looks cheesy. The only reasons for watching this soap opera are the wonderful songs sung by Mangeshkar and the curtain call of the legendary Meena Kumari. Watching the actress, who was ill during the filming and would drink herself to death at age 40 shortly after the film was released, has the same fascination as watching a train wreck. Her ex-husband, Amrohi, wrote and directed, but lacks the competency to execute either task well. Bollywood has produced far better films.
This was a disappointing horror film about a snotty young girl and her nightmares. For a horror or "thriller" film and hype, it's way too tame. There are only a few tense moments in here, not anywhere as near as many as should have been for a film of this genre. Even those "tense" scenes weren't much. The music made them more dramatic that they actually were.<br /><br />There is a lot of symbolism in here, so the elitist critics label this "a thinking person's horror film." Well, if they think about it, I'm sure they will come to the same conclusion I did - a waste of money at the video rental store.<br /><br />Summary: a yawner that offers an unlikeable lead character and generally poor acting. Vastly overrated and certainly not what it is advertised.
After reading some very good reviews about this film I thought I would give it a watch and after being very disappointed with the film I thought I would give it my own review. This is my first ever so bare with me.<br /><br />First of all I would scratch horror from the genre as in no way is it horrific or scary in the slightest (with the exception of a few feeble attempts to make you jump unfortunately one of which worked on me.) I would say that calling this film a thriller is pushing it as I wasn't particularly thrilled either! The film is about a spoiled mischievous girl who faints a few times. During these times she visits a house which she has been drawing, after each visit she decides to add something else to the house to make it a bit more lively one of the features being a sad little boy who is also ill in reality. As she befriends the boy she realises that her imaginary world that she created is actually better than the real world that she is in. Until she adds her constantly away father to the house, due to a misdrawing her dad turns out to be evil and her and the boy must escape from his clutches.<br /><br />Think its an attempt to be a slightly more mellow version of A Nightmare On Elm Street but is more like a trip to the beach.<br /><br />In conclusion my generous 3/10 will hopefully stop at least one of you from watching this drab!
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!!!!!
I was rooting for this film as it's a remake of a 1970s children's TV series "Escape into Night" which, though chaotic and stilted at times was definitely odd, fascinating and disturbing. The acting in "Paperhouse" is wooden, unintentionally a joke. The overdubs didn't add tension they only reinforced that I was sat watching a botch. Casting exasperated the dreary dialogue which resulted in relationships lacking warmth, chemistry or conviction. As in most lacklustre films there are a few good supporting acts these people should be comforted, consoled and reassured that they will not be held responsible. Out of all the possible endings the most unexpected was chosen ... lamer than I could have dreamt.<br /><br />"Escape into Night" deserves a proper remake, written by someone with life experience and directed with a subtle mind.
An intriguing premise of hand-drawn fantasy come to life in a child's fever dreams. However, I imagine the average nonfictional child is far more adept at scaring themselves than Bernard Rose is at riveting the viewer. The duel between Anna's two realities drags on far too long to sustain interest, especially considering that the little girl playing her is the most abrasive child actor I've ever seen.<br /><br />Use only for kindling.
In 1988, Paperhouse was hailed as a "thinking man's horror film." Wow, you might say, sign me up. This thing is a mess. It features a one time young actress who has a range of like 1 to 2. G. Headley with a bad British (dubbed) accent, and a story with no chills, thrills or spills.<br /><br />It isn't even interesting psycho-babble. One will only laugh at its cheap effects and long for a showing of Leprechaun 5.<br /><br />The story involves a girl with glandular fever who escapes in her dreams. WHat you get isn't good horror, art house or even a decent after-school special. I found myself after the two hour point saying..where did my two hours go.<br /><br />The direction is uninspired and I wished it could even be pretentious...something interesting..it seems like the producers were on lithium.<br /><br />Even in the dream world things are boring.<br /><br />A short no on this one.
Films starring child actors put themselves on the back foot from the very beginning. While there are some exceptions, the majority of kids just cant act and even the ones that can normally become annoying after a few minutes. The kids in Paperhouse have managed to capture the worst of both worlds, as they're both very annoying and they don't have an ounce of acting ability between them. In short; they're rubbish. This isn't good considering that they're the leads, and it especially isn't good when you consider the fact that it is virtually impossible to take this film seriously because of the rubbish actors. It's a shame that this film is such a dead loss as the plot isn't (not completely). It follows a young girl who, after drawing a picture of a house in her notebook, wakes up in the fantasy world that she has created. It soon becomes apparent to her that she can manipulate this world through her drawings, and so sets about making various changes, until her dream eventually becomes a nightmare. Oh dear.<br /><br />As you can see, this plot line gives a nice base for a good fantasy horror movie. However, it is squandered through a number of fatal faults. First and foremost, in spite of the premise being an excellent premise for lots of inventiveness; the movie is extremely stale. The central plot is hardly played with at all, and the result is an entirely boring experience. The lack of tension is another huge gaping flaw in the movie, as it sees fit to drag every sequence out to a point that you just don't care any more (which is due to a lack of ideas). Thanks in part to it's lead characters, the film feels like a kids movie throughout. This is to be expected as it stars kids, but Bernard Rose should have decided the slant that he wanted to put on the story; as the horror in the movie is laughable at best. The film is also very cheesy, and the 'romance' between the two leads is extremely cringe-worthy, and makes for very painful viewing. In fact, if I had to sum this travesty up in one word, I would choose 'painful'. Paperhouse is poorly acted, laughably plotted, very corny and dull on the whole. Save yourself the pain, see something else.
First I liked that movie. It seemed to me a nice comedy with some silly moments. The costume designer Albert Wolsky did his best!!! The same as wonderful set decorator Robert R. Benton - this man really had a very good taste!!! But the script writers disappointed me extremely. The best ending would be the scene on the ladder, but instead of it, they decided that the father and his daughter should be together. Don't like the ending. The father becomes boyfriend of his own daughter and his ex-wife knows about it and finds it alright. It would be OK, if the scriptwriters would for example say that now there is a different soul in the body, but they did not, they only deprived him of memories. The actors were good, they were really funny. Cybill Shepherd was charming, Robert Downey Jr. was very funny in the dancing scene : )))... But some of the moments spoil even the impression of good acting. For example, Corinne Jeffries, played by Cybill Shepherd after the death of her husband was waiting for him 23 years (it's a long time!), she was true to him, she loved nobody but him, and when she met him and was just about making love to him, after a scene with her friend Philip Train (Ryan O'Neal), she very easily betrayed the man she was longing for so many years!!! It would be a good movie, if not the ending and some missed human psychology.
Predictable plot. Simple dialogue. Shockingly unemotional performances. But Robert Downey, Jr. is so cute, I gave this "poor man's afternoon special" a 3 instead of the 1 or 2 it so richly deserved.
'Chances Are' a big mistake to see. You could know director Emile Ardolino from 'Dirty Dancing' and 'Sister Act' and should expect something amusing from him. But I guess I have to disillusion you. He made a really, really bad movie.<br /><br />According to the story Christopher McDonald dies to reburn as a baby. The baby grows up Robert Downey Jr, and Jr returns his former home town where she meets his former daughter, Mary Stuart Masterson (complicated, huh?).<br /><br />They fall in love with each other. Then appears Jr former wife, Cybill Shepherd, and Jr falls in love with her too. I guess I don't even have to mention that she loves Ryan O'Neil.<br /><br />In one of his first roles Robert Downey Jr's on his worst. He copies Michael J Fox.<br /><br />After the 'Moonlighting' Shepherd proves that she's not suitable for acting in movies.<br /><br />Anyway, there's one thing this unfunny comedy can be used: as antidote to insomnia.
Chances are if I watched this again I might get physically sick, the film is so annoying.....unless you believe in psychics, re-incarnation and the other hocus- pocus which this promotes big-time. The "re-cycling of souls," they call it here. Puh-leeze.<br /><br />This story has been done several times before with such films as "Heaven Can Wait." It's also been done a lot better. Too bad they had to waste the talents of Robert Downey Jr., Cybill Shepherd, Ryan O'Neal and Mary Stuart Masterson.<br /><br />At least it's a pretty tame film, language-wise. That's about the only redeeming quality of this movie.
Silly, simplistic, and short, GUN CRAZY (VOLUME 1: A WOMAN FROM NOWHERE) goes nowhere.<br /><br />This brief (just over sixty minutes) tale isn't so much inspired by the classic spaghetti Westerns as it is a rip-off of Sam Raimi's THE QUICK & THE DEAD (his admitted homage to the spaghetti Westerns) brought into a contemporary setting. In QUICK & DEAD, Sharon Stone's character seeks revenge against the dastardly sheriff (played by Gene Hackman) who, when she was but an urchin, placed the fate of her father (a brief cameo by Gary Sinise) in her hands; she accidentally shot him through the head. In GUN CRAZY, Saki (played by the nimble Ryoko Yonekura) seeks revenge against the dastardly Mr. Tojo (played with minimalist appeal by Shingo Tsurumi), who, when she was but an urchin, placed the fate of her father in her hands; she let her foot slip off the clutch, and dear ole dad was drawn and quartered by a semi truck. The only significant difference, despite the settings, is the fact that Tojo sadistically cripples Saki with … well, I won't spoil that for you in case you decide to watch it.<br /><br />In short, Saki – a pale imitation of the Clint Eastwood's 'Man With No Name' – rides into the town – basically, there's a auto shop and a tavern alongside an American military base, so I guess that suffices for a town – corrupted by Tojo, the local crimelord with a ridiculously high price on his head for reasons never explained or explored. Confessing her true self as a bounty hunter, Saki takes on the local gunmen in shootouts whose choreography bares more than a passing similarity to the works of Johnny To and John Woo. Of course, by the end of the film Saki has endured her fair amount of torture at the hands of the bad guys, but she rises to the occasion – on her knees, in a laughable attempt at a surprise ending – and vanquishes all of her enemies with a rocket launcher.<br /><br />Don't ask where she gets the rocket launcher. Just watch it for yourself. Try not to laugh.<br /><br />The image quality is average for the DVD release. There is a grainy quality to several sequences, but, all in all, this isn't a bad transfer. The sound quality leaves a bit to the imagination at times, but, again, it isn't a bad transfer.<br /><br />Rather, it's a bad film.
Oh dear. I was so disappointed that this movie was just a rip-off of Japan's Ringu. Well, I guess the U.S. made their version of it as well, but at least it was an outright remake. So, so sad. I very much enjoy watching Filipino movies and know some great things can come out of such a little country, so I can't believe this had to happen. Claudine and Kris are such big names there, surprised they would be affiliated with plagiarism. To any aspiring movie makers out there in the Philippines: You do not have to stoop this low to make money. There are many movie buffs that are watching the movies Filipinos put out and enjoying them!
i would have given this movie a 1 out of 10 if it weren't for ms. Claudine Barretto's performance. and i will take this time to overlook that Kris Aquino's here. and... end.<br /><br />i really AVOID watching Pinoy horror movies because stories lack originality and i really think that (some) writers don't give enough attention to the characters (and their progression) in their stories (redundant??). it was as if they 'pushed' the movie onwards when their storytelling stank. and my goodness, creative exhaustion led them to rip-off other movies. why?? why did this movie get a good review?? i wouldn't give it that much merit. the movie was KIND OF scary, but the movie seemed more freaky as it deals with Filipino folklore... it goes into my list of 'most likely to happen' category. i just wished they spent more time improving the story lines and fix those flash back sequences, never mind if the lighting sucked, it wouldn't matter much if the content would blow you away.. SAYANG.
How did this become a blockbuster? Dear God I don't know where to start why this movie sucked too much. The movie was predictable & there was no originality. The only thing I can admire is the acting of some characters. The movie was too bright, they should have done something with the lighting, eg. making the environment more darker. The make up on certain dead characters made this movie look like a 1970 horror flick. This is 2006! People don't get scared by other people wearing heavy make up. Most of the horror scenes we're taken from other Hollywood or Asian horror movies. Total rip off! This is why I don't watch tagalog movies. The only reason why so many people "screamed" while watching this movie is because of conformity. How many times do we have to copy scenes from The Ring and improvise it that instead of the girl coming out of the TV, its now coming from the window next door? No matter how you put it, ITS STILL A RIP OFF. If you want a good horror movie, go watch the 50 best horror movie listed on this website.
So, I got a hold of this as an assignment for Trent Harris, who teaches occasionally in the film dept at the U of U. I guess this is his only real way to get anyone to see his film...<br /><br />The documentary section at the beginning dragged on. Yes, the kid is a nut-job from no where, but that's not good enough to keep it interesting.<br /><br />Seeing Sean Penn dressed as a ONJ is the only highlight... and after about thirty seconds it loses all humor.<br /><br />When Crispin Glover takes on Larry, the story-telling was better, but I just couldn't take anymore...
It's amazing that this movie turns out to be in one of my hitlists after all. It is by far the number 1 worst movie I have ever seen.<br /><br />Not only have I ever been this bored before (luckily not for more then 1,5 hours), the pre-adolescent attempts at humor that feature it are not even close to getting but one of the corners of my mouth slightly tilted. After the first very awkward part, you tend to hope that the other parts will be at least slightly better. You hope in vain, it only goes downhill from there.<br /><br />The movie has no story worth telling whatsoever and repeats this non-story three times. One can only hope that by some miracle all remaining copies of this movie are lost forever and Trent Harris never lays his hands on a camera again...
I don't think any player in Hollywood history lasted as long as David Niven did given most of the weak films he had to carry by dint of his incredible charm. He could act, got an Oscar for it, but most of the material he did was as light as one ply of two ply tissue paper.<br /><br />Happy Go Lovely is a case in point. It's a musical and for the most part you'll remember Vera-Ellen's dancing. You'll remember that they are in Scot's costume as the film is set in Edinburgh during their festival. But if you can recall a single song from it you must have a photographic memory.<br /><br />The plot is light. Vera-Ellen is the American lead in a musical that apparently is getting its out of town tryout in Edinburgh. She starts in the chorus and runs late one day. She gets a lift from the chauffeur of a millionaire greeting card king. Everybody now assumes she's the main squeeze of the millionaire. Doors open up as they've never opened before.<br /><br />The millionaire is David Niven and he goes along with it and the various situations that are engendered by the mistake. Cesar Romero has some good moments here as the frantic producer of this musical.<br /><br />In the end though Happy Go Lovely is light and harmless fluff which David Niven did so much of and got so tired of.
The oddly-named Vera-Ellen was to movie dancing what Sonja Henie was to movie ice-skating: blonde, girlish, always delightful to watch, but not an especially good actress and usually lumbered with weak material. When I watch Vera-Ellen's sexy apache dance with Gene Kelly in 'Words and Music', I can't help noticing that her blouse (yellow with narrow red horizontal stripes) seems to be made out of the South Vietnam flag. For some reason, the very American Vera-Ellen starred in *two* musicals (made several years apart) set in Edinburgh, a city not noted for its tap-dancers: 'Let's Be Happy' and 'Happy Go Lovely'.<br /><br />In the latter, Cesar Romero plays an American impresario who for some reason is staging a musical in Edinburgh. There's a vague attempt to link this show to the Edinburgh Festival, which is nonsense: the Festival is not a showcase for splashy leg-shows. We also see a couple of stock shots of the Royal Mile: apart from a few Highland accents, there's absolutely no attempt to convey Scottish atmosphere in this movie. The funniest gag occurs at the very beginning, when we learn that the title of Romero's show is 'Frolics to You': this is a cheeky pun that Britons will get and Yanks won't.<br /><br />Vera-Ellen is, as usual, cute and appealing and an impressive dancer, but the very few musical numbers in this movie are boring and bad. The plot -- mistaken identity between magnate David Niven and reporter Gordon Jackson -- is brainless, though no more so than the plots of several dozen Hollywood musicals. Romero is less annoying than usual here, probably because (for once) he isn't required to convince us that he's interested in bedding the heroine.<br /><br />The single biggest offence of this movie is its misuse of Bobby Howes. The father of Sally Ann Howes was a major star of West End stage musicals; his wistful rendition of "She's My Lovely" was a big hit in Britain in 1937. Here, he shows up in several scenes as Romero's dogsbody but never has a chance to participate in a musical number, nor even any real comedy. It's absolutely criminal that this movie -- with a title containing the word 'Lovely', sure to evoke Howes's greatest hit -- would cast a major British musical star but give him nothing to do!<br /><br />The delightful character actress Ambrosine Phillpotts (whom I worked with once) shines in one restaurant sequence, and there's a glimpse of the doomed beauty Kay Kendall. As Vera-Ellen's confidante, somebody named Diane Hart speaks in one of the most annoying voices I've ever heard: it sounds like an attempt to imitate Joan Greenwood and Glynis Johns both at the same go, but doesn't match either. Val Guest has a story credit, but this movie doesn't come up to the quality of his brilliant comedies. The colour photography is wretched, though I realise that postwar Britain could not afford Hollywood's process work. 'Happy Go Lovely' is at utmost best a pleasant time-waster, with 'waster' being the operative word. I'll rate this movie just 4 out of 10.
"Happy Go Lovely" has only two things going for it. And those two things are Vera-Ellen's legs. This is a British (Excelsior Films) version of an M-G-M musical complete with second tier stars. I would imagine that Vera-Ellen took this role thinking that it might finally propel her to the status of a major musical star. But, I'm sorry to say, Ms. Ellen's chance did not pay off.<br /><br />Opening with a horrible Scottish number and stumbling thru awful dialog to the next dull tune, this movie seems very heavy handed and sloppy. The predictable mistaken identity plot is very thin, and with the exception of David Niven, Cesar Romero (who is way over the top in his role of a Producer) and Bobby Howes (who is totally wasted in a nothing role) the rest of the cast is totally forgettable.<br /><br />The choreography is boring, but Ms. Ellen gives it her all. She was never as famous as most of the other musical stars(and she shouldn't be since she couldn't sing and even had a "dancing stand in" in several of her pictures". But when she did dance, it was just entrancing.<br /><br />It's too bad that this film that could have made her a star did not give her the tools she needed to shine.<br /><br />4 out of 10
Happy Go Lovely is a waste of everybody's time and talent including the audience. The lightness of the old-hat mistaken identity and faux scandal plot lines is eminently forgivable. Very few people watched these movies for their plots. But, they usually had some interesting minor characters involved in subplots -- not here. They usually had interesting choreography and breathtaking dancing and catchy songs. Not Happy Go Lovely. And Vera-Ellen as the female lead played the whole movie as a second banana looking desperately for a star to play off it -- and instead she was called upon to carry the movie, and couldn't do it. The Scottish locale was wasted. Usually automatically ubiquitous droll Scottish whimsy is absent. The photography was pedestrian. The musical numbers were pedestrian. Cesar Romero gives his usual professional performance, chewing up the scenery since no one else was doing his part, in the type of producer role essayed frequently by Walter Abel and Adolph Menjou. David Niven is just fine, and no one could do David Niven like David Niven. At the end of the day, if you adore Niven as I do, it's reason enough to waste 90 minutes on Happy Go Lovely. If not, skip it.
*** May contain spoilers. *** <br /><br />If LIVING ON TOKYO TIME were some bold experiment where real-life wanna-be actors were given film parts on the condition that they would be required to take a combination of powerful prescription anti-anxiety, anti-depression, and anti-psychotic medications (this is the classic psych ward combo that renders patients into drooling zombies) all during filming, then this movie would hold far more interest. Or, if the film production was another type of experiment where all of the actors were sleep deprived before and during filming, then TOKYO TIME could be more easily explained.<br /><br />As it is, this film is filled with lifeless, low-energy actors. In the scene where the new husband was sitting on the stairs talking with his sister, it appeared that he was having trouble keeping his eyes open. In almost every scene he speaks his lines sitting down with every part of his body motionless. From beginning to end, his facial expression is best described as "near sleep."<br /><br />Fret not about the actors speaking over each other's lines because these actors can barely finish droning out any lines of dialog. Everyone speaks with a depressing, monotone voice. No laughing. No yelling. No vigor. No one has energy enough to crack a smile. The result: complete and total boredom.<br /><br />And it does not help matters that the direction is simple and amateurish.<br /><br />Avoid this lifeless film at all costs. Better to watch GREENCARD which has a similar plot and has charm and energy. Or, for an unconventional Japanese romance story, check out THE LONG VACATION which has an ample amount of everything LIVING ON TOKYO TIME does not.
I caught this film on AZN on cable. It sounded like it would be a good film, a Japanese "Green Card". I can't say I've ever disliked an Asian film, quite the contrary. Some of the most incredible horror films of all time are Japanese and Korean, and I am a HUGE fan of John Woo's Hong Kong films. I an not adverse to a light hearted films, like Tampopo or Chung King Express (two of my favourites), so I thought I would like this. Well, I would rather slit my wrists and drink my own blood than watch this laborious, badly acted film ever again.<br /><br />I think the director Steven Okazaki must have spiked the water with Quaalude, because no one in this film had a personality. And when any of the characters DID try to act, as opposed to mumbling a line or two, their performance came across as forced and incredibly fake. I honestly did not think that anyone had ever acted before...the ONLY person who sounded genuine was Brenda Aoki.. I find it amazing that this is promoted as a comedy, because I didn't laugh once. Even MORE surprising is that CBS morning news called this "a refreshing breath of comedy". It was neither refreshing, nor a breath of comedy. And the ending was very predictable, the previous reviewer must be an idiot to think such things.<br /><br />AVOID this film unless you want to see a boring predictable plot line and wooden acting. I actually think that "Spike of Bensonhurst" is a better acted film than this...and I walked out half way through that film!
I have never understood the appeal of this show. The acting is poor (Debra Jo Rupp being a notable exception), the plots of most episodes are trite and uninspiring, the dialogue is weak, the jokes unfunny and it is painful to try and sit through even half an episode. Furthermore the link between this show and the '70s' is extremely tenuous beyond the style of dress and the scenery and background used for the show -it seems to be nothing more than a modern sitcom with the same old unfunny, clichéd scripts that modern sitcoms have dressed up as depicting a show from twenty years ago in the hope that it will gain some nostalgic viewers or something like that. Both "Happy Days" and "The Wonder Years" employ the same technique much more effectively and are actually a pleasure to watch in contrast to this horrible, pathetic excuse for a show
I've tried to watch this show several times, but for a show called "That '70s Show," I don't find much apart from a few haircuts and the occasional reference to disco that actually evokes the '70s -- the decade in which I grew up. Of the episodes I have seen, most of the plots and jokes could be set in any time period. Take away the novelty of (supposedly) being set in the '70s, and the show is neither interesting nor funny.<br /><br />If you're looking for a show that more successfully represents the experience of youth in America in the '70s, in my humble opinion you can do no better than "The Wonder Years."
As someone who lived through,and still remembers that decade vividly,if the actual '70s had been half this funny and (semi)normal,they would have been so much more enjoyable.Actual kids in that era did not act or behave anything close to as bright-eyed and normal as these kids did.The country's youth was still under the influence of the hippies and the drug culture all that '60s rebellion that it spawned,especially in the behavior department;the petulance,the smugness,the self-righteousness,the childishness,the unreasonableness of them - none of the characters exhibit any of that.<br /><br />Someone compared to "Happy Days",and I can see why:They were both sitcoms that take place 20 years before the current time they were broadcast,and they both offer only surface ,cliched depictions of the actual eras,not even close to the full scope of it,just showing the obvious things - the fashions,toys,music,contraptions,etc,and that's it.For those too young to remember,or weren't born then,trust me,the '70s weren't like that,any more than "Happy Days" were like the actual '50s,as "M*A*S*H*" didn't accurately portray life at a US Army medical base during the Korean War,etc.
Why is this show so popular? It's beyond me why people like it. I think it's one of the worst sitcoms out there. <br /><br />Because it's so popular, I've tried more than once to watch it and I can't make it through an entire episode.<br /><br />For one thing, the acting is horrible. Everybody is overacting to the point where it's annoying to watch. They talk in unnatural voices, use unnatural tones, and have unnatural body language. I've seen better acting in a kindergarten school play.<br /><br />For another thing, it's NOT FUNNY. The plots are dull. They're not creative, intelligent, or FUNNY. Shouldn't a sitcom be funny?? Why am I not laughing?<br /><br />Lastly, what is seventies about this? It's about as authentic to the seventies as "Happy Days" was to the fifties.<br /><br />OH and what is up with Ashton Kutcher? Who cast this untalented dweeb? And now he's making movies?? Oh, save us all!<br /><br />If people think this is quality television, it worries me.
The Invisible Maniac starts as a young Kevin Dornwinkle (Kris Russell) is caught by his strict mother (Marilyn Adams) watching a girl (Tracy Walker) strip through his telescope... Cut to 'Twenty Years Later' & Kevin Dornwinkle (Noel Peters) is now a physics professor who claims to have discovered a way to turn things invisible using a 'mollecular reconstruction' serum. However during a demonstration in front of his fellow scientists it fails & they all laugh at him, Dornwinkle goes mad kills a few of them & is locked away in a mental institute from which he escapes. Jump forward 'Two Weeks Later' & a group of summer college students discuss the tragic death of their physics teacher when the headmistress Mrs. Cello (Stephanie Blake as Stella Blalack) says that she has hired a replacement, yes you've guessed it it's Dornwinkle. The student don't take to him & treat him like dirt, however Dornwinkle has perfected his invisibility serum & uses it to satisfy his perverted sexual urges & his desire for revenge...<br /><br />Co-written & directed by Adam Rifkin wisely hiding under the pseudonym Rif Coogan (I wouldn't want my name to be associated with this turd of a film either) The Invisible Maniac is real bottom of the barrel stuff. The script by Rifkin, sorry Coogan & Tony Markes is awful. It tries to be a teenage sex/comedy/horror hybrid that just fails in every department. For a start the sex is nothing more than a few female shower scenes & a few boob shots, not much else I'm afraid & the birds in The Invisible Maniac aren't even that good looking. The comedy is lame & every joke misses by the proverbial mile, this is the kind of film that thinks someone fighting an invisible man or having Henry (Jason Logan) a mute man trying to make a phone call is funny. The Invisible Maniac makes the Police Academy (1984 - 1994) series of films look like the pinnacle of sophistication! As for the horror aspect that too is lame. It's also an incredibly slow (it takes over half an hour before Dornwinkles even becomes invisible), dull, predictable, boring & has highly annoying & unlikable teenage character's.<br /><br />Director Rifkin or Coogan or whatever does absolutely nothing to try & make The Invisible Maniac an even slightly enjoyable experience. There's no scares, tension or atmosphere & as a whole the film is a real chore to sit through. He does nothing with the invisibility angle, just a few doors opening on their own is as adventurous as it gets. There is very little gore or violence, a bit of splashing blood, a few strangulations & the only decent bit in the whole film when someone has their head blown off with a shotgun, unfortunately he was invisible at the time & we only get to see the headless torso afterwards.<br /><br />The budget must have been low, & I mean really low because this is one seriously cheap looking film. Dornwinkles laboratory is basically two jars on his bedside cabinet! When he escapes from the mental institution he has all of one dog sent after him & the entire school has about a dozen pupils & two teachers. The Invisible Maniac is a poorly made film throughout it's 85 minute duration, I spotted the boom mike on at least one occasion... Lets just say the acting is of a low standard & leave it at that.<br /><br />The Invisible Maniac is crap, plain & simple. I found no redeeming features in it at all, there are so many more better films out there you can watch so there is no reason whatsoever to waste your time on this rubbish. Definitely one to avoid.
Take one look at the cover of this movie, and you know right away that you are not about to watch a landmark film. This is cheese filmmaking in every respect, but it does have its moments. Despite the look of utter trash that the movie gives, the story is actually interesting at some points, although it is undeniably pulled along mainly by the cheerleading squads' shower scenes and sex scenes with numerous personality-free boyfriends. The acting is awful and the director did little more than point and shoot, which is why the extensive amount of nudity was needed to keep the audience's attention.<br /><br />In The Nutty Professor, a hopelessly geeky professor discovers a potion that can turn him into a cool and stylish womanizer, whereas in The Invisible Maniac, a mentally damaged professor discovers a potion that can make him invisible, allowing him to spy on (and kill, for some reason) his students. Boring fodder. Don't expect any kind of mental stimulation from this, and prepare yourself for shrill and enormously overdone maniacal laughter which gets real annoying real quick...
Here's an interesting little movie that strictly gives the phrase "low budget" a horrible name. Our physics teacher who has about nine kids creates a strange serum that causes "molecular reorganization". Students are hopelessly killed from fake coincidences of submarine sandwiches and flying school supplies. Sounds like a resurrection of classic B-movies from the 50s, right? Nope! It's not an example of high camp fun, which is way, WAY off the mark. A glamorous showcase of breasts and butts ensues our desire for pleasure, opposing the horror that should have had 99.44% more in the first place. Bottom-of-the-barrel entertainment at its best, aided by pints of red blood and dead student bodies. Atrocious movies like this would make the ultimately catastrophic GURU THE MAD MONK (1970) the work of an intelligent genius who has a Master's degree in film production! It's an automatic "F", so rest easy!
Saw this late one night on cable. At the time I didn't know that the girl billed as "Shannon Wilsey" was actually porn star Savannah, but she was so beautiful (and got naked so often, thank God) that I actually sat through this brain-rotting drivel. I like cheesy flicks as much as the next guy--more than the next guy, actually--but this was way beyond cheesy and more into rancid. The truly annoying overacting by the mad scientist and the director's, writers' and special effects people's virtually total incompetence detracts from the gratuitous nudity that is the movie's only saving grace. Savannah, before she turned into the plasticized Barbie Doll she became as a porn queen, is really interesting to watch--she's drop-dead gorgeous, bursts into uncontrollable giggling at times, glances off-camera and laughs and just generally seems to be having a really good time, which is more than can be said for the audience. For even though Savannah and her colleagues spend a fair amount of this picture naked, it still can't hide the fact that this is an incredibly stupid, badly made and annoying movie. If you know someone who has it on video, or if it comes on cable some night, check it out, but don't waste your money on a rental.
This movie is just plain bad. It isn't even worth watching to make fun of it. The lunatic professor is just plain annoying. Even suspending disbelief to allow for invisibility (which I glady do for the sake of good bad movies) and allowing for exceedingly stupid victims in a horror movie, this movie asks for even more than that. If you are looking for women's locker room shower scenes, and random sexual encounters, get a porn, if you are looking for a good-bad movie, get something else. If you want to simply waste your time on an annoying bad movie, rent this.
Okay guys, we know why we watch film like "The Invisible Maniac" (just look at the cover, man!). T and A all over the place (with a lot more T than A). But...shouldn't there be a story to go with it?<br /><br />"C'mon," I can hear you say - "this is just girls gettin' naked! Who needs a story??!"<br /><br />Well, if this were called "The NAKED Maniacs", I wouldn't have a problem. But since these guys are cribbing from "The Invisible Man", they need to have a bit of story hereabouts, you know, to keep your mind busy.<br /><br />However, all they can muster up is how this crazy doctor creates an invisibility serum and, when he cracks, uses it to spy on naked women and ends up killing a lot of teenagers. And when you see the smarmy-looking teenagers he goes after, you'll be grateful.<br /><br />One star, for the T and A, but there's a little too much gore for you skin fans, so proceed with caution.<br /><br />TIDBIT - yes, it's THAT Savannah.
I loved the Batman tv series and was really looking forward to this. But they tried to do too much.<br /><br />Why they had the story of Adam West and Burt Ward trying to recover the batmobile was beyond me. I don't want to knock Burt or Adam for the way they look now.....It's been 35 years since they appeared at Batman and Robin, but to see them dressed in dress suits and fighting 'badguys' was kinda sad. I would rather of just seen the ex-stars do commentary. The batmobile side story was stupid.<br /><br />As for the flashback movie, I think it was too short and left out way too much. It was really just a quick overview in my opinion. I'd like more background. They showed the Penguin and Joker for about a minute each just to tell the same stuff I already knew. The Joker had a mustache under his makeup and the penguin had to smoke even though he hated it and was an ex-smoker. That was it on those 2.<br /><br />I'd love to read the book. I am sure it has more in it that this showed. Like why was there 2 Riddlers or why 3 Catwoman's or 3 Mister Freezes. Where was Commishioner Gordon, Cheif OHara, Alfred, Mister Freeze, King Tut, etc. the List goes on. Like I said even the ones that were in this one were barely in it.<br /><br />Very disappointing. And really corny.
I may not be the one to review this movie because after 45 minutes of pure boredom and stupidity I turned the channel. The original series only lasted 2 years which can be said about the careers for Adam West and Burt Ward. Put these two "actors" in a stupid movie and the result is twice as bad.
How sheep-like the movie going public so often proves to be. As soon as a few critics say something new is good (ie - "Shake-Cam"), everyone jumps on the bandwagon, as if they are devoid of independent thought. This was not a good movie, it was a dreadful movie. 1) Plot? - What plot? Bourne was chased from here to there, from beginning to end. That's the plot. Don't look for anything deeper than this. 2) Cinematography? - Do me a favor! Any 7 year old armed with an old and battered 8mm movie camera would do a far better job (I am not exaggerating here). This film is a tour-de-force of astonishingly amateurish camera-work. The ridiculous shaking of EVERY (I really do mean every) scene will cause dizziness and nausea. 3) Believable? - Oh yes definitely. This is a masterpiece of credibility. I loved scenes about Bourne being chased by (local) police through the winding market streets of Tangier. - I've BEEN to Tangier. Even the guides can't navigate their way through those streets but Bourne shook off 100 police with speed and finesse. Greengrass must be laughing his head off at the gullibility of his film disciples. 4) Editing? - I don't know what the editor was on when he did this film but I want some! - Every scene is between 0.5 and 2 seconds. I felt nauseous at the end of the film from the strobe effect of the "scenes" flashing by. 5) Directing? - Hmmm. This is an interesting aspect. The film appears to have actually NOT had any directing. More a case of Greengrass throwing a copy of the script (all two pages) at the cameramen and told to "shoot a few scenes whilst drunk". - "Don't worry boys, we'll tie the scenes together in the editing room". The editor should be tarred, feathered and put in the stocks for allowing this monstrosity to hit the silver screen 6) Not one but TWO senior CIA operatives giving the tender feminine treatment to the mistreated and misunderstood Jason Bourne. - Putting their lives on the line for someone they couldn't even be sure wasn't a traitor. Talk about stupid nincompoops. (Whilst the evil male CIA members plot to terminate any operative who so much as drops a paper-clip on the floor). (well, all men are evil, aren't they? - Except for SNAGS of course). Yes, this really is a modern and politically correct film that shows the females to be the heroes of the day and the oppressive males as the real threat to humanity. 7) When the you-know-what finally hits the fan, good triumphs over evil (just like it always does, eh?) and the would-be assassin gets the drop on Jason Bourne - he suddenly undergoes a guilt trip and refrains from pulling the trigger (Yeah - right...) - at that very moment, the evil deputy director just happens to turn up - gun in hand and he does pull the trigger. - How did this 60 year old man run so fast and not even be out of breath? Wonders will never cease 8) Don't worry, there's a senate hearing and the baddies get pulled up before the courts. Well, we can't have nasty, politically incorrect, CIA operatives going round shooting people, can we? How lovely to see a true to life P.C. film of the Noughties. -------------The Bourne Ultimatum is utter rubbish.
I don't understand people. Why is it that this movie is getting an 8.3!!!!!!???? I had high hopes for this movie, but once i was about a half hour into it I just wanted to leave the theater. In the vast majority of the reviews on this site people are saying that this is one of the best action movies they've seen (or of the summer, year, etc.) They say it's an excellent conclusion. WTF!!!!!!!!!?????? What has been concluded (besides the fact that Bourne can ride motorcycles, shoot, and fight better than anyone else he comes across)? What do you learn about Bourne's character in this movie?????????Absolutely f****** nothing!!!!!!! Okay, there's a lot of action, but what's so great about the action in this movie?? I don't like the cinematography and film editing. The shaky camera effect and fast changing shots were used TOO much and they get old fast (I didn't mind them in Supremacy because it was still easy to follow and was not used in excess) and made me quite dizzy. I was quickly wishing I had saved my $$$ for something else.<br /><br />This movie has no plot. All this movie is is a 115 minute chase seen. Bourne, who you learn absolutely nothing about in the entire 115 minutes of the movie, is a perfectionist at everything he attempts. There is absolutely no character development in this movie, you know nothing about anyone, and there is a wide array of new characters that are introduced in this installment. Some people said that this movie has incredible writing and suspense. ???????????!!!!!!!! What writing???? What suspense??? There's no suspense. Bourne is so perfect at doing everything he does, I don't think he has anything to worry about. If this is the best movie of the year 2007 I may just quit watching movies entirely!!!! <br /><br />Many people have also said that Matt Damon's performance in this movie is one of the best (if not the best) of his career. What performance?? How many lines did he have in this movie??? I have some respect for Damon because he has been in movies that I liked and has played different kinds of characters, but a good actor is someone that you can barely recognize from one movie to the next, someone who chooses different types of roles. Not someone who plays the same roles over and over again (which Damon doesn't do, but an example of someone who does is Vin Diesel).<br /><br />Anyways, this movie was a BIG disappointment to me. I do not recommend this movie but I do recommend the first two (Bourne Identity and Bourne Supremacy) and I most definitely recommend reading the three books (which are much different then the movies).
Users who have rated this movie so highly simply can't have seen enough good films to compare it with. Have they all been brainwashed?? I have rarely felt so disappointed by a film and some of that must be attributable to the ridiculous hype surrounding this movie.<br /><br />From the first, BU is just a chase film. We pick it up at the end of one chase and go straight into another. And another. And another. And another. Do you see a pattern emerging? There is virtually no time 'wasted' on plot, character development, or boring old reality.<br /><br />If you haven't see the other two Bourne films, you're pretty lost. If you have - you only WISH you were lost - somewhere a long way from a cinema.<br /><br />Paul Greengrass's dispassionate style worked exceptionally well on United 93 which was a sentiment overload desperate to happen, but on Bourne and his interminable woes it just has the effect of removing the audience from involvement with the character. He runs. He jumps. He punches. He gets blown up. He clears tall buildings. Yada yada yada. Above all - he SURVIVES. He survives like a plastic Action Man survives, which only makes the ridiculous stunts he pulls all the more slack and lacking in any kind of tension. So he drives off a building? So what? He'll survive. Yawn.<br /><br />There's a girl thrown into the mix because Bourne's love interest died in a previous incarnation, but she's just decor. I've seen more character depth and snappy dialogue in episodes of Captain Scarlet.<br /><br />Bourne's own journey of literal self-discovery is dull and formless and tells us nothing we didn't know from the first movie. He was turned into a killing machine. Big deal. He finds out his true identity. So what? It doesn't have any emotional resonance when it comes.<br /><br />The 'twist' ending is telegraphed and weak. Oh, dear, the more I think about this film the more I hate it! I've already reduced my score to 4 during the writing of this comment! I'd better end now before the slide continues.<br /><br />I love a good action flick and I love a good thriller. The Bourne Ultimatum is neither. It's a loud, tedious series of flashy edits, ridiculous sound effects and cartoon violence. <br /><br />The idea that it 'shows the way' to the Bond franchise is utter crap. Casino Royale blows it out of the water.
Macy, Ullman and Sutherland were as great as usual. Ritter wasn't bad either. What's her name was as pretty as usual. It could have been a good movie. To bad the plot was atrocious. It was completely predictable, trite and boring.<br /><br />From the first 15 minutes, the rest of the movie was laid out like a child's paint by numbers routine. The characters were stock pieces of cut out cardboard. There was nothing new or interesting to say and that completely outweighed the acting, which was a pity.<br /><br />Finally, too bad the script writer wasn't the victim. Especially with the "precocious" lines from the child, which were completely unbelievable.<br /><br />Again, it's only the acting that prevented a much lower score.
Undeveloped/unbelievable story line,(by the time I sort of figured out where it was going, I no longer cared) bad casting.(come on... William Macy as a hit man???) bad directing,(have you ever seen Tracey Ullman perform SO badly?)(Was I supposed to care what happened to the unethical incompetent, uncaring John Ritter character?) bad script...( Really, I'm not looking for a formula script but this was really awful) the only Really good thing in it was the kid. Ten lines? It's not OK if your comment is less than ten lines? COme on-- whose rules are those? Why can't I say what I have to say in less than 10 lines??? Isn't that kind of arbitrary? Why isn't it OK to have less than 10 lines of comment?
I watched this movie, and hoped for something to get better the entire time. What is so great about a guy with no emotion? *yawn*<br /><br />You never see Alex show emotion for anyone other than his son. Yeah, I know that this is why his son is the only one to cause him to lose his temper (if you can call it that), I get it.<br /><br />Characters are undeveloped, relationships aren't given enough time to be understood. In one scene Sarah says they won't fall in love, and the next time we see her she's talking about how his death really shook her up because they were so close? Logic synapses abound in this film.<br /><br />It's like someone watched Boogie Nights and wrote this part to mimic Little Bill. Even the scene where he "loses his temper" is the same as when Little Bill shoots his wife, down to the facial expression (or lack thereof). Yes, William H. Macy is good at portraying a man without emotion - been there, done that - can you say Magnolia?<br /><br />This movie didn't only lack emotion, it lacked substance, a good script, developed characters, and a plot. And it certainly lacks my recommendation. :)<br /><br />~A~
I cannot believe this woodenly written and directed piece of cliche film got made. There are about four good looking shots (the director should think about switching to still photography) and that's it. A strong cast is utterly wasted, scenes repeatedly end at the least interesting moments and the script says nothing new. Please spare yourself this movie.
Some kids are hiking in the mountains, and one of them goes into a large tunnel and discovers some old mummified gladiator. He puts on the gladiator's helmet and spends the rest of the movie killing all the other hikers.<br /><br />This thing is just so utterly senseless it's maddening. Here's a short list of things that don't make any sense:<br /><br />1) A guy and a girl are in their tent and they think they hear something outside. The guy goes out to investigate and finds another hiker outside. Then he hears his girlfriend scream so they head back to the tent - arriving the next morning?!? He was only 50 feet away!<br /><br />2) These two dunderheads then hear another girl scream (What, 100 feet away?), but don't investigate because they're afraid they'll get lost.<br /><br />3) Another guy and a girl are walking around, and in about their 10th scene together the girl informs the guy that due to the circumstances, protocol no longer requires him to address her as professor. I mean, what the...? First off, that's just a really stupid thing to say, secondly he never called her professor in the first nine scenes they were in together.<br /><br />4) A wounded girl attacks Demonicus and he stops her, telling her that part of his gladiator training taught him how to wound without killing. Um, yeah, we kinda noticed she's wounded and not dead because she's up and walking around. But, thanks for that tidbit of information.<br /><br />5) One girl is tied up in Demonicus' lair, and when someone attempts to free her, she instead instructs this person to go and get help. Um, look, idiot, if she set you free, which would take about 5 seconds, there would be no need to get help.<br /><br />And it just goes on and on. The whole middle part of the movie is spent with the two idiots getting lost in the woods, then they fight, then they pitch a tent and ignore the screams of their friends, then they wander around some more. It's just so damned boring and pointless that I turned the DVD off halfway through. <br /><br />None of these characters are sympathetic, especially the ones that get the majority of the screen time. Demonicus himself made me laugh out loud every time I saw him - he looks like a kid in a Halloween costume, scrunching his face up to look evil. He runs, or should I say scampers around like he's gay. The special effects are comedic, the acting is for the most part awful, and nothing makes any sense.<br /><br />Overall, maybe this concept could have produced an enjoyably campy film if they put some more time and effort into it, getting rid of the ludicrous dialogue, creating characters with actual likable personalities, having some sort of logical flow to the action, and maybe even making Demonicus a female character in a sexy gladiator outfit. But no, instead we get this senseless pile of nonsense that will bore you to death.
My wife and I like to rent really stupid horror/sci-fi movies and watch them with our friends for a laugh. We saw this one on fullmoondirect.com and decided to add it to our netflix list. Now, when I say this movie is awful, I mean it in a good way. Everything about it, the acting, camera-work, story, costumes, is just so cheezy and low budget but thats what makes it so good. I think in one scene the actors looked like they were actually walking in place. I really hope that whoever made this film wasn't serious when they made it because if they were, then that would just be sad. If you like to watch really stupid horror movies just to make fun of them then I recommend this one.
This movie is so awful, it is hard to find the right words to describe it!<br /><br />At first the story is so ridiculous.A narrow-minded human can write a better plot! The actors are boring and untalented, perhaps they were compelled to play in this cheesy Film.<br /><br />The camera receptions of the National Forest are the only good in this whole movie. I should feel ashame, because I paid for this lousy Picture.<br /><br />Hopefully nobody makes a sequel or make a similar film with such a worse storyline :-)
I mean really, how could Charles Band the head of Full Moon let a total stink-ball like DEMONICUS out. I mean it should never got the green light to begin with. The story is repetitive, the characters are weak at best, there is no real story on Tyranus other then he's a bad dude. Then they writer or director goes out his way for a bad ending. That's right a bad ending, Demonicus rises. The last survivor escapes a deadly cave in, then a picture of Chimera comes to life, cheaply I might add and chases her out. Then as she is walking home ala FUNHOUSE. A statue that has been destroyed centuries ago reappears for no reason just to collapse on top of her. I mean, that makes no sense. What the hell was Charles thinking allowing this pile of puke to be made, with four different movie companies they were that desperate for movies. They could have asked me, I had better ideas then DEMONICUS. THANKSGIVING TURKEY.
This movie is about Tyrannus, a gladiator who is brought back from the dead to summon Tyrannus, a gladiator who must be brought back from the dead. Tyrannus, we learn after about an hour, is also called Demonicus. This adds much needed depth to the screenplay and calls into question our assumptions about identity, psychology and ourselves. <br /><br />The spirit of Tyrannus accomplishes his little to-do list (killing some people and saying repetitive phrases in Latin) by possessing the body of a college guy. He uses a magic mind-control helmet to do this, which the college boy willingly puts on his head, and then at several points in the movie, takes off and puts back on.<br /><br />Maria performs oral sex on a poor man's Sean Willian Scott, and Tyrannus wears the Rollerball glove. Tyrannus has his own green backlighting for no reason, and has apparently been sitting next to CG fire in an ancient concrete tunnel for centuries like this. Utter misfortune.<br /><br />This movie is empty and will hurt you. See it.
okay, this movie f*ck in' rules. it is without question one of the most technically inept pieces of cinema ever made. absolutely terrible, but you GOTTA see it. rent this with your buddies and come up with a drinking game or just have fun, it's hilarious. and the behind-the-scenes featurette proves it, you can do anything with paper plates and finger paint. awesome. okay, rent it just for this one scene: two characters are actually WALKING IN PLACE for about 3 minutes in a shot. the director (on the commentary) says "yeah, the tracking was so smooth it looks like they're...". yeah, right man, they are totally walking in place. it's so funny.
WARNING SPOILERS***** A really stupid movie about a group of young excursionists in Italy that find an armor of mythical warrior with a demonic souls. One of them wears it and becomes possessed by the spirit of a demon. It's killing time and several of his friends die under his blade to revive the demon corpse.<br /><br />A waste of time for the viewers, as the fine young ladies in the movie leave their clothes on, the gore is ludicrous at best, and the acting is terrible, perfect pairing for such a bad script<br /><br />
For some reason, various young couples hiking through the Italian Alps split up to see who can reach their campsite designation first. James (Gregory Lee Kenyon) enters a cave, finds a skeleton of an ancient demonic gladiator and becomes possessed by the spirit of "Tyranus" when he puts on a helmet belonging to the corpse. He then spends the rest of the film running around in the woods hunting down his friends and hacking off their limbs to add to some stew to bring the undead "Demonicus" back to life. This shot-on-digital Full Moon release is stupid, senseless, has terrible acting and sound and the (Los) Angeles National Forest is a poor substitute for Italy. However, it's pretty high on the unintentional laugh scale thanks mainly to the overwrought lead performance. Whether bug-eyed running around in cheap-looking armor brandishing a sword or spouting neurotic Latin gibberish about demons and resurrection, Kenyon's ridiculous facial expressions and awkward line delivery must be seen to be believed. Oh well, at least he's not boring like most of the rest of the cast.
This film is exactly what you get when you really over stretch your abilities, it's like someone who has just passed there driving test and then pitting them in a formula 1 Grand Prix (not I might add, the US Grand Prix as everyone might pull out due to dodgy tyres and you might just win), that is how far short this film falls. Now don't take this the wrong way, I love B-Movies, around half my collection is made of B-Movies but I don't think there are enough letters in the alphabet to describe how bad this film is.<br /><br />First of the story (for a B-Movie) isn't that bad, it has potential there to make a B-Movie brand, were not talking Friday 13th potential, but potential none the less. But what really lets this film down is the acting, at not one second do I believe anything, it's like watching QVC except the presenters on QVC tend to have a heavier tan.<br /><br />In summary I'd like to say I've seen worse films, but I can't.
I rented this one to see Vanesa Talor one more time. She can act, but doesn't get a chance in this clunker. The opening sequence is an elaborate crane shot of mountain landscapes. Must have come from a stock archive, because the movie is shot direct to videotape. The production values make _Blair Witch_ look professional. There's a really cheesy animated statue, but no other effects worth noting. This movie is bad, but not amusingly so. The players would do well not to mention it on their resumes.
Seriously. I just wrapped up my first viewing of Demonicus and words have failed me.<br /><br />I remember a time when I would see Charles Band's name on a film and my heart would race. He was never a Wes Craven or a John Carpenter. He was a bastion of hope for the little man. The guy whose movies arrived at the video store instead of the multiplex, but they still rocked harder than most of the trendy junk we otherwise had to endure.<br /><br />And now... this.<br /><br />A painfully-obvious Californian walking trail doubles for "the Alps" and an abandoned train tunnel is actually supposed to be "an ancient cave". I mean, they didn't even try to dress the thing up with moss or film it in a way that might suggest it was anything other than an old train tunnel! Ugh! Instead of a creepy demon gladiator, as the cover implies, we're treated to a dude wearing the latest in Wal-Mart Halloween apparel. There's a pretty cool looking corpse, who occasionally comes to life to belch and wiggle his fingers, but he doesn't even learn to stand until the final five minutes. Why couldn't he be the villain? Instead, we've got frat boy Joe with a plastic sword. Ouch.<br /><br />Charles Band... you should be ashamed that your name is attached to such tripe. I love movies that are so bad, they're good. Hell, I occasionally enjoy a flick thats so bad, its just bad. This one, however, is just unwatchable. A perfect example of making a buck, rather than making a quality film.