Datasets:

generalization

/

sst2_Full-p_1

like 0

Follow

Generalization Experiments 1

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.

full_train

Firstly, this is a very dated film, non-focused in its exposition of the left wing political revolution. Honestly, when someone says that the only way to be truly revolutionary is to cease to be intellectual ( which in itself is quite nonsensical, since the answer was arrived at by precisely being intellectual) it reduces me to despair; as if we all should return to being apes in the name of equality - it is simply ridiculous. Our intellectuality is only one of many human qualities, but this does not mean we should not educate ourselves to the highest possible degree. But no doubt this non-educational message ties in with Godard's use of rock music; hence The Rolling Stones.<br /><br />The song 'Sympathy for the Devil', whose creation we witness, and from which the film takes its name, is in fact nothing special. The chord sequence, which is not especially original, was used to much better effect in Led Zeppelin's 'Thankyou'(Led Zeppelin II). Apart form that, 'Sir' Mick Jagger declaims in his usually nebulous manner (rather like Bob Dylan)- notice how the first melodic phrase is unimaginatively repeated over again to form the verse.<br /><br />Besides the fact that the Black Panthers depicted in this film, don't seem to know what they are fighting for, the most interesting scenes involve the equation of fascism with pornography; a message that in fact undermines the sexual 'liberation' of the 1960s and today ( indeed, a message that would belie the behaviour of The Rolling Stones around the time the film was made).<br /><br />No wonder, the DVD came free with The Sunday Times! For a truly profound historical exposition of left-wing sympathy, listen to Luigi Nono's masterpiece, 'Al Gran Sole carico'd'amore'.

full_train

The late 80's saw an inexplicable rash of supernatural horror films set in gloomy penitentiary settings. Renny Harlin's superbly gritty and moody "Prison" got the whole haunted hoosegow ball rolling; it was immediately followed by the markedly inferior "The Chair," John Saxon's enjoyably trashy "Death House," the passable psycho picture "Destroyer," and this hideously limp'n'lethargic exercise in hopelessly comatose tedium. <br /><br />Your usual annoying collection of horribly unsympathetic college student chowderheads lead by insufferably spineless tormented twerp Alex (the hugely unappealing Nicholas Celozzi) go to Alcatraz Island to investigate the bizarre circumstances surrounding the sudden gruesome death of up-and-coming rock star Sammy Mitchell (blandly played by Toni Basil of "Hey Micky" fame). Alex's brother becomes possessed by the evil demonic spirit of a vicious cannibalistic US Civil War cavalry commandant and goes on the expected killing spree, thus forcing wimpy Alex to overcome his passivity and make a stand against this ghoulish specter.<br /><br />Although slickly photographed by Nicholas Von Sternberg, with a few decent gore set pieces and a fair amount of spooky atmosphere (the film was shot on location in the dismal, rusty, rundown ruins of Alcatraz Island), "Slaughterhouse rock" nonetheless just doesn't cut it as a solid, effective fright feature. This is largely due to the uniformly obnoxious and unlikeable collegiate smartaleck characters, a tiresomely smirky bunch whose inane comic antics prove to be grating rather than amusing. The flat acting from a noticeably disinterested cast hurts matters all the more, with onetime "Playboy" playmate and undeniable blonde cutie pie hottie supreme Hope Marie Carlton doing an especially irritating Linnea Quigley impersonation as the token oversexed nympho bimbo. Dimitri Logothetis' direction displays a modicum of flashy visual style, but the tone is unevenly pitched between grim seriousness and goofy, horrendously sophomoric silliness, and, most damagingly, Ted Landon's sloppy, inconsistent, overly complicated and finally quite confusing script miserably fails to develop the necessary internal logic to make the far-fetched story even remotely plausible. In other words, this stinker sadly succeeds in making a scant 90 minutes seem like an excruciatingly drawn-out cinematic jail sentence.

full_train

be warned: this movie tells lots of love stories without any coherence.<br /><br />The only intention of this movie seems to be showing love in many different ways.<br /><br />Each story has only a few minutes, so there is no development of characters and nearly no plot. Just an sketchy idea of a plot. The writer tried to build in turning points that aimed to surprise the viewer. However, that just didn't work out because you didn't get to know the characters in before or these "jokes" were just silly.<br /><br />This is a movie about love that fails to reach your heart. A dozen times. Or even more, I don't know and I don't care.

full_train

Stefan is an x-con that five years ago got married to Marie. Their marriage has been stable until Stefan past catch up with them and he's offered to do a courier job. Stefan's job is a heroin delivery from Germany to Sweden which should go easily.<br /><br />In Germany Stefan meet Elli, a girl from Bosnia that has been sold to a stripclub owner. Stefan dislikes what he sees and decide to help Elli out of her misery. Due to the fact that Elli's father during the war fleed to Sweden Elli now goes with Stefan to Sweden. To make up with the past Stefan promises Elli to help her find her father, no matter what it takes. Finally back in Sweden the whole situation seems to be more complicated than Stefan ever thought of..<br /><br />This movie doesn't seem to fit in the ordinary class of swedish movies due to the fact that it's been americanized alot. Regina Lund and Cecilia Bergqvist makes it all average, the effects makes the movie a little too much though. See it and jugde for yourself.<br /><br />

full_train

***One Out of Ten Stars*** <br /><br />Because if it was, it gets an F. Holy Mother Mary of God was this bad. I mean, I gave it every reasonable accommodation considering it was a straight to video film, but it let me down at every turn. Like so many other B movies, the basic storyline was decent and the filmmakers seemed to have a reasonable level of resources, but the execution was ridiculous. It's a shame they attached the good name of Halloween to this fiasco.<br /><br />The basic premise surrounds some frat douche bags hosting their annual Halloween haunted house fund raiser, when a satanic spell book shows up out of nowhere and hurls the frat boys into a living hell. Well that's the idea anyway, but instead most of the film is devoted to displaying these frat boy's relationship escapades, abound with an outrageous lesbian subplot. Very little of the actual story is devoted to Halloween or the mysterious spell book. It actually makes me mad that the film makers thought they could get away with making such dribble. <br /><br />The film is essentially about frat boy relationships. This IS NOT what the movie is billed as. I'm tempted to track down the producers and at the very least threaten them with bodily harm. The acting is about as bad as it gets, it's atrocious! The script is unintentionally funny. The cinematography is just plain lazy. The whole film is amateur night. This movie actually makes the SyFy channel movie productions look like masterpieces.<br /><br />The last half hour of the film felt like the film makers realized they weren't producing a soap opera and had to throw in some sort of horror sequences. The evil spell book finally comes into play and turns everyone in the haunted house into the character their dressed up as. I almost feel like crying as I write this review. Wow! I mean wow! This thing was an undecipherable chopped up disaster.

full_train

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.

full_train

I can hardly believe I watched this again last night after more than 25 years...<br /><br />Some time back, I watched 6 Fu films in a row... Boris Karloff, and all 5 Chris Lees. The last 2 Lees, both directed (and I use that word loosely) by Jess Franco, were abominable. At the time, I skipped this one, remembering that, in some ways, it was EVEN WORSE.<br /><br />Well, I watched it. NEVER again. You know what's worse that an abominable film? A really WELL-MADE piece of S***. And that's what FIENDISH PLOT is. It is a VERY good-looking movie. GREAT production design, sets, costumes, music, photography, editing, mostly good cast, some decent acting...<br /><br />...and absolutely, positively, one of the WORST SCRIPTS in movie history!!!!! AAAUGH!!!!! The first minute of the film is so deceptive... one might mistake this for a decent movie. And then they start singing "Happy birthday to Fu"... and it goes downhill. Having Burt Kwouk (of whom his master says, "Your face-- is familiar.") accidentally pour out Fu's elixir vitae to put out a fire, resulting in his being condemned to torture, burial and having one of his ears cut off, was the closest thing to funny they had. It was like someone decided they wanted to do a "campy" film-- so ridiculous it would be funny. RIDICULOUS, it is... FUNNY... it AIN'T. At all.<br /><br />It's sad, because it's clear in the first few minutes that someone did a LOT of research into the Fu Manchu series in order to get so much of it "right". With a different script-- either a really FUNNY one, or a dead SERIOUS one, they might have-- could have-- SHOULD have-- had a classic on their hands. A film that could have made one forget the horror of those Jess Franco atrocities... instead of making one want to dig them out as masterpieces, by comparison.<br /><br />There was a period in the late 70's when a whole slew of classic 30's characters were revived in movies that were universally awful. Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Tarzan, The Lone Ranger, Charlie Chan, even Doc Savage. I'm not sure, this one may be the worst of the lot. It took great self-control not to fast-forward over whole sections of it, especially any scenes containing Sid Caesar (FBI chief who was also Al Capone's cousin-- you see what I mean?). It isn't just that the ideas in the film aren't funny... they often make NO SENSE whatsoever. Like when they "audition" police officers to impersonate the King and Queen, and we wind up seeing people "audition" dance-hall routines like singing, dancing, and riding a unicycle. How many drugs did the writers of this thing have to take for any of this to make sense to them? <br /><br />As I said, a shame... and a real waste of all that talent, including that of Peter Sellers (who played both Fu and Nayland Smith), Burt Kwouk (who'd been in a Chris Lee Fu film in his time), Helen Mirren (the police woman who shockingly falls in love with the villain and damn near steals the last half-hour of the film!). I begin to wonder if anyone will EVER make a "proper" Fu Manchu film, or if fans will have to settle for Karloff's being almost the ONLY one?

full_train

This is the worst adaption of a classic story I have ever seen. They needlessly modernize it and some points are actually just sick.<br /><br />The songs rarely move along the story. They seem to be thrown in at random. The flying scene with Marley is pointless and ludicrous.<br /><br />It's not only one of the worst movies I've seen, but it is definitely the worst musical I've ever seen.<br /><br />It's probably only considered a classic because "A Christmas Carol" is such a classic story. Just because the original story was a classic doesn't mean that some cheap adaption is.

full_train

The Wicker Man Has Done The Impossible! It replaced Cat Woman as the worst recent movie in my steel trap cinema mind. YES it's really that bad. So bad that when sitting down to write this review I thought to myself "If I had a choice to either see this movie again or to have red hot needles shoved in my eyes" I might actually go for the red hot needles.<br /><br />Neil LaBute created a rare movie where Joel Schumacher could sit back and say with comfort and a guilt free mind "Yeah that's some bad direction right there".<br /><br />I think the first clue for myself should have been the tag line: "Some Sacrifices Must Be Made". Sure it might sound sort of cheeky ominous line to intrigue you but the sacrifice will be all on the audience side of the screen. Trust me on this the people responsible for this movie should be charged with a hate crime..or at least fraud for trying to pass this off as anything resembling entertainment. Seriously! The movie is about an island where men are just there for breeding and I would still rather with be stuck on Gilligans Island with only pictures of Condoleezza Rice then find myself stranded there.<br /><br />The most entertaining part about this movie was the guy who ripped the loudest fart I've ever heard in a movie theater. That's not a joke nor is it fictional. I've never been to a "thriller" and heard so much laughter through out the entire film. I can't tell you with an certainty if the laughs were intentional in some effort to lighten the cinematic tension or if they just really thought this crud would actual fly. I honestly found myself routing for a power outage or a perhaps a fight to break out in the movie theater, anything to make this more interesting which is pretty sad since Deez, Powder and I pounded 2 beers each before the film just for a little mental anesthesia (soon to be a law before all Nic Cage films, write to your congressman today, don't delay). At one point I actually thought perhaps this movie is really a spoof and Anna Ferris is going to show up…oh how I wish.<br /><br />Nic Cage throws out so much ham per frame I'm thinking of having a cholesterol test done today. To think that I ever thought Sean Penn was a d*ck for slamming Nic's acting, oh he's still a d*ck just lesser of one…yes Sean Penn's d*ck was lessened because of this film. Do us all a favor Nic play your strengths and stick to being pathetic losers and drunks. You cannot play superman you do not get to play strong hunky roles go straight to jail do not pass go do not collect 200 dollars. His best moments in this film are when he finally comes unhinged and actually punches out a burly woman to steal her bear suit (like the fart, not a joke or a functional moment during this review) then proceeds to run amok like Conan O'Brian's masturbating bear, but with half the hilarity of a bear knocking his junk around. Thankfully he meets his end shortly after when it turns out he's to be a sacrifice to the crowd at the new tour hybrid show of Burning Man and Lilith Fair. Yes!!!! I just spoiled the ending for you…and if you knew any better you'd build statues of me in worship and sing songs of my legend. I sat through this crap-fest so you don't have to.<br /><br />About half way through this little misadventure I kept thinking to myself Jack Bauer would have wrapped this case up in 20 minutes of real time..OK 35 minutes if Kim gets attacked by a mountain lion first. Even Steve Martin as Inspector Clouseau could have figured this out in under an hour…and you Sir are no Inspector Clouseau.<br /><br />If for some reason you are taken captive and you have a choice to see this film or take a bullet, take the bullet.<br /><br />Somewhere Uwe Boll is laughing at us all.

full_train

You can give JMS and the boys a pass on this one because they were at the beginning of their series and on a small budget, but the movie is still sub-par. Dont get me wrong, B5 the series is by far the best TV series ever, but if i was an exec seeing this movie, i wouldnt have ordered the series. I dont like O'Hare as an actor, the costumes are silly, and there are tons of cliches. The same can be said for most of the first season (with the exception of Babylon Squared and Survivors); Bruce immediately put a fire into the series and it went on to be an amazing spectacle. If you are a B5 fan and havent seen this movie, see it. If you arent a B5 fan, dont...you wont want to watch the series.

full_train

This is not really a zombie film, if we're defining zombies as the dead walking around. Here the protagonist, Armand Louque (played by an unbelievably young Dean Jagger), gains control of a method to create zombies, though in fact, his 'method' is to mentally project his thoughts and control other living people's minds turning them into hypnotized slaves. This is an interesting concept for a movie, and was done much more effectively by Fritz Lang in his series of 'Dr. Mabuse' films, including 'Dr. Mabuse the Gambler' (1922) and 'The Testament of Dr. Mabuse' (1933). Here it is unfortunately subordinated to his quest to regain the love of his former fiancée, Claire Duvall (played by the Anne Heche look alike with a bad hairdo, Dorothy Stone) which is really the major theme.<br /><br />The movie has an intriguing beginning, as Louque is sent on a military archaeological expedition to Cambodia to end the cult of zombies that came from there. At some type of compound (where we get great 30s sets and clothes) he announces his engagement to Claire, and then barely five minutes later, she gives him back his ring declaring her love for his pal, Clifford Greyson (Robert Noland). It's unintentionally funny the way they talk to each other without making eye contact. This would have been a great movie for 'Mystery Science Theater 3000', if they hadn't already roasted it.<br /><br />It's never shown how Louque actually learns the 'zombification' secret, but he then uses it to kill his enemies, create a giant army of rifle carrying soldiers and body guards. We won't see such sheer force of will until John Agar in 'The Brain From Planet Arous' (1957).<br /><br />Finally Claire consents to marry him if he will let Greyson live and return to America. Louque agrees, but actually turns him into one of his hypnotized slaves. On their wedding night he realizes that Claire will only begin to love him if he gives up his 'powers.' To gain her love, he does so, causing the 'revolt' of the title, in which all his slaves awaken and attack his compound and kill him. Greyson embraces Claire, and we seem to be at the end of a parable: "Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad." <br /><br />So really then, it's not that bad of a film, despite the low IMDb rating it currently has. On repeated viewings (?) one can see the artistry in the well formed script! Dean Jagger had yet to develop into a good actor, and is almost unrecognizable in his youngness -- is that really his own hair? We remember him more for his bald, old man roles in 'White Christmas' (1954), 'X The Unknown' (1956) and 'King Creole' (1958). The story borrows a lot of its basic themes from the Halperin brothers better, earlier film 'White Zombie' (1932) in which hapless Robert Frazier (as Charles Beaumont) uses 'zombification' to win the love of Madge Bellamy (as Madeline Parker).<br /><br />If you want real zombie movies (of which there are hundreds!) I'd start with 'White Zombie' (1932), 'King of the Zombies' (1941), 'I Walked with a Zombie' (1943), 'Night of the Living Dead' (1968), 'The Last Man on Earth' (1964) and its two remakes. In the modern era of classy films, there are 'Horror Express' (1972), 'The Serpent and the Rainbow' (1988), '28 Days Later' (2002) and its sequel, as well as many, many, others too numerous to mention.<br /><br />This one is not really a zombie film. Judging this movie on its own terms, it's more of a semi-Gothic romance. As such it ranks a little below some of Universal's bottom billed B horror movies of the late 30s and early 40s. So I'll give it a 5.

full_train

This was not enjoyable to watch. Frank puts all his dreams on the back burner and gets a normal (boring!) job just so his stepson can go to film school, but his stepson decides that he'll make a humiliating documentary about the man instead. A documentary filmmaker should point the camera and simply shoot, not manipulate and comment with snide captions. The bitterness and resentment of the filmmaker towards his stepfather is obvious. And sad. The goal seems to be to make Frank appear dumb and pathetic, instead he comes across as the most human of the 3 people featured.<br /><br />Essentially a smear campaign all dressed up as something much smarter and edgier than it really is. It left me with an intense dislike for the filmmaker.

full_train

I'm into bad movies but this has NOTHING going for it. Despite what the morons above have said, it is NOT funny. I know comedy AND underground movies but this is so boring that the Director / Writer should be prohibited from EVER directing anything but local cable access EVER again! To love movies and comedy is to despise this film. I may never get over how unfunny and boring this work was. If you like this movie you ARE a pothead as sober there is NOTHING here. ZERO! If you need to compare underground movies, see "Kentucky Fried Movie" or early John Waters. The movie starts by defining satire and I defy anyone to show me the satire. The rule for comedy is THIS ... If it's FUNNY you can say or do ANYTHING but if it's NOT funny you are not satirical, you are not edgy, you are merely pathetic and this movie is simply not funny. ZERO!

full_train

"Extreme Makeover: Home Edition" is yet another 'feel-goody', so-called 'heart warming', and out-for-ratings show that ABC has had the time to put together.<br /><br />I understand the troubles that these families go through. For that, I am sorry. But wouldn't you think that putting four wide-screen plasma televisions, three flat-screen desktop computers, an inground pool taking up half of a backyard, and closets full of expensive designer clothing is a BIT too excessive for ANY family? Sure, these families have been through a lot. Sure, they deserve nicer things that what they had previously had.<br /><br />But honestly, the things that Ty Pennington and his crew put into these houses are enough to suit an entire neighborhood.<br /><br />Another thing that really irks me about this show is how Ty and his crew always have something good to say about every little thing that relates to the family, or the family's condition. Telling a wheelchair-bound person that he or she is 'so strong', or 'very brave' really does get old after a while. That may sound rude, but believe me; watch this show, and you'll see what I mean.<br /><br />All in all, this show is overrated. If you want to watch it, go ahead. This comment is just a heads-up for what you'd be watching.

full_train

Most book adaptations are bad but this film left out key parts of the storyline and changed the description and some characters. They rewired the storyline and combined scenes and changed the order. They added ridiculous things into it that never happened in the book and would never happen.<br /><br />If i hadn't read the book beforehand it would have been an incredibly dull film, it didn't make you care about the characters, like them or dislike them. It turns the characters into jokes.<br /><br />Awful.<br /><br />Ridiculous.<br /><br />Waste of two hours of my life.

full_train

This film is a pure failure. I am a Steve Martin fan, but even he can't save the tired idea and swiss cheese script. Think "Police Academy 7" and apply it to a military parody. Yuck.<br /><br />I DO NOT feel the other user comments reflected the poor rating this film received (and rightfully deserved!). It is extremely misleading. I have often seen this film marked down to $3.00 in the grocery store and now I certainly know why.<br /><br />If only I could get my 90 minutes back...

full_train

For my first taste of Shakespeare on stage, I cannot believe what these people did to a perfectly good play. <br /><br />-Let's start off with the good bit, shall we?-<br /><br />Alan Rickman is alright, although some of his dialog could have been delivered with more feeling. The rest of the actors needed to pull it together. <br /><br />Romeo, Romeo, whyfore art thou not dead yet, Romeo? The actor, while not only completely wooden and deadpan, could not read his lines with any gusto at all. He was completely out of focus, had difficulty even looking Juliet in the face, and absolutely NO grace with the lines that he was given. Whoever cast him deserves to be punished. Juliet is almost passable, but she gives no depth to her character,and seems to be completely out of touch with the play. Mercutio was incredibly creepy and completely out of character for the entirety of his dialog. Benvolio was unfeeling and mercilessly choppy with his lines. <br /><br />I was forced to endure this half-baked production of Romeo and Juliet. The acting was stilted and the costumes were nothing short of distracting. I have seen kindergarten puppet shows with more effort put into them. I only wish that i could give this movie a rating of zero.

full_train

I absolutely adore the book written by Robin Klein, so I was very excited when I heard that a movie based on the book was in the making.<br /><br />But I was severely disappointed with the movie when I did see it because it didn't capture what I loved about the book - the absolutely ridiculously funny Erica and the interesting way in which she views the world.<br /><br />From the start of the movie, I realised that things weren't the same as I had imagined in the book. So, I just went along for the ride. It wasn't all that bad, I guess. Miss Belmont was totally different to what I had imagined her to be! I didn't think she would be one to smoke and drink - Jean Kittson, who plays her, is hilarious!<br /><br />On it's own, I thought the movie and it's actors/actresses in it did a good job, but alas, I'm such a fan of the book (one of my all time favourite books) that I couldn't help but feel disappointed =P

full_train

Creepshow 2 had a lot of potential, they just didn't put enough time in perfecting it. The stories were pretty cool and creepy enough, but it was lacking. It's a good movie, but after you've seen it once, you might want to see it again. This movie could of been better.

full_train

Oh, brother. The only reason this very irritating film avoids getting the total "bomb" from me is because it's at least historically noteworthy as the first Three Stooges film (when they weren't yet on their own and were still saddled with that painfully unfunny Ted Healy). But even as a longtime Stooges fan I'd have to say that young Moe, Larry and Curly are badly used here as three zany assistant janitors to Mr. Healy's taller boss janitor. They're not featured steadily through the movie and their silly on-and-off-again stints paint them more like zany overactive cartoon characters trying too hard to be amusing.<br /><br />Most of this toothache deals with Jack Pearl seeking in vain to get some chuckles from the audience himself as a man who impersonates Baron Munchausen (here's a good example of the level of humor: "I object!" "On what grounds?" "Coffee grounds!"). His sidekick is none other than a young Jimmy Durante, but even the schnoz himself is a bore.

full_train

The people who are praising this film are the real disappointments -- I am hoping at least that Leonard will see some good $$ out of this, as his life savings were embezzled away by a manager a couple of years ago and he's over 70 now. But this film is simply terrible. At the beginning Leonard himself says he is not sentimental about his past, and then for the next hour and a half the film emphasizes all the worst sentimental elements of Leonard's songs. It is so bloody PRECIOUS with its endless close-ups of over emoting singers. Cohen's interview is all done in lo-fi video closeups and I so wanted to see a medium or a long shot of his whole body! I couldn't care less about the comments of the performers, especially those overblown ego boys Edge and Bono. None of the performers in this film have done even one song as good as Leonard's own music and if you are thinking about seeing this and you have any doubts at all, heed them. This would be an acceptable PBS special, maybe, for a one time showing. But I will even hesitate at getting a DVD of this. When the film finally shows Leonard semi-performing "Tower of Song" it's ruined by Bono taking a verse. Even the occasional good performances (Antony, Rufus' first number, Martha's The Traitor) are spoiled by the context of the rest of this turgid blabla. Forget this one, and go buy Leonard's most recent album if you want to pay tribute to him.

full_train

Most movies I can sit through easily, even if I do not particularly like the movie. I am the type of person who recognizes great films even if I do not like the genre. This is the first movie I could not stand to watch. Cat in the Hat is the worst movie I have ever seen--and I've seen a lot of movies. The acting is okay (Myers is good as the cat, it's just that he is REALLY annoying). The silly songs the cat sings were boring and monotonous, even for the children in the audience. The plot drags on and on, and viewers must suffer through poor dialogue. The "witty" parental remarks are disgusting, not funny (I remember some awful comment about a garden hoe being compared to, well, a type of person people call a "ho"). Even though the movie is really short, it seemed to last FOREVER. Do not waste your time. I know small kids who hated this movie. If children can't stand it, I do not know how any adults can. I would like to fume more about this film but I do not even feel like wasting anymore time writing this review about it. I HATED IT! So, in summary, do not spend 90 minutes of your life watching this! See a GOOD movie!<br /><br />1/10 stars--the lowest review I have ever given a movie.

full_train

I think this piece of garbage is the best proof that good ideas can be destroyed, why all the American animators thinks that the kids this days wants stupid GI JOE versions of good stories??? the Looney Tunes are some of the most beloved characters in history, but they weren't created to be Xtreme, i mean come on!!! Tiny Toons was a great example of how an old idea can be updated without loosing it's original charm, but this piece of garbage is just an example of stupid corporate decisions that only wants to create a cheap idiotic show that kids will love because hey!!! kids loves superheroes right??? the whole show is only a waste of time in which we see the new versions of the Looney Tunes but this time in superhero form, this doesn't sound too bad but the problem is that this show tries too hard to copy series like batman the animated series, or the new justice league, the result??? bad copies of flash (the road runner) or superman (who else??? bugs bunny) the problem is that Looney Tunes weren't meant to be dramatic, the were supposed to be funny!!!! as i said before this series sucks, and many people wonders why anime is taking all over the world??? this show tries to be dramatic and action packed, but that's something that few series and anime are able to do, if you want to see a good upgrade of an old show watch Tiny Toons, that's an example that it's possible to bring back to life old characters, but with a good story and respecting the original roots. too bad that show is already dead, another corporate wise decision i suppose.

full_train

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.

full_train

OK, so, Chuck Norris somehow found a way to get this sequel produced. I have one question-why? Who read this script and said, "Sound's great! Original!" This movie is regurgitated crap that I wouldn't tarnish my toilet bowel with. Of course it is another story, following in the tradition of MIA, Invasion USA, Walker, Texas Ranger, Delta Force and so on in which Chuck Norris, of course, is the one man who can same America from some bad guys. He doesn't even need a gun most times. It's stupid patriotic jargon that stales the mind. Big surprise that the only one who will direct these Norris film's is Chuck's son Eric. Eric Norris has primarily worked on all his father's films and TV shows. Doesn't this strike anyone as a sign that he has no directing talent? Afterall, he's directing the same people as before in the same stories as before...only difference is the characters' names. If this is supposed to make me patriotic and cheer for the USA, than our country is in much worse shape than I ever imagined. Hopefully, this will be the nail in Chuck Norris's acting coffin.

full_train

I think this is probably one of the worst movies I've watched in a long time.<br /><br />Trying to get the 'same characters' with different people is *such* a bad idea. If they couldn't get Sara Michelle G. and Ryan P. in this one, they should have just cut their losses and said to heck with it. Instead they get NEW actors that are horrible at what they did. I seriously felt like I was at a High School or (bad) College play with the lever of acting these people put forth.<br /><br />Where do they get some of these people? Was this their first movie? It sure seemed like it.<br /><br />This movie also parallels the original in a few lines of speech. I had just got done watching the first one and popped #2 in. I was all excited to get to watch the second one and it ended up being the worst show I've seen in a while. I don't hardly EVER *EVER* turn off a movie, but this one definitely went off after about 30 - 40 min.

full_train

A worn-out plot of a man who takes the rap for a woman in a murder case + the equally worn-out plot of an outsider on the inside who eventually is shut out.<br /><br />With such an outstanding case, one would think the film would rise above its hackneyed origins. But scene after scene drones by with no change in intensity, no character arcs, and inexplicable behavior.<br /><br />The homosexuality theme was completely unnecessary -- or on the other hand, completely unexplored. It seemed to be included only to titillate the viewers. When will Hollywood learn that having gay characters does not automatically make a more compelling picture?<br /><br />A regrettably dreadful movie. When will Lauren Bacall pick a good one? I expected better of her and Kristin Scott Thomas. This one is definitely one to miss.

full_train

Can only be described as awful. It is bad to start with and then gets even more bad. When you start you really have to watch it through because it is impossible to believe that it can get worse - but fear not because it does. Another poorly written script for a donkey director for no-talent offspring of past movie stars. It's hard to decide if the script is worse than the acting or whether the directing is worse than both. As for the hero - well he belts up everyone including one scene where he beats the living daylights out of the tough by swinging open the wardrobe door and smashing him against the window with it. And in another scene he gets thrown through a window and crashes 20ft onto concrete - doesn't even blink - then gets up immediately and gets stuck into the baddies. This is a really ridiculous movie. Lucky it only cost me $1 to hire.

full_train

A thematic staple of cinema since its inception is that genre involving seductive women whose wiles and means entice susceptible men not only into their arms but also into dire circumstances that typically will only result in jeopardy for the male victims, along with incertitude as to whether or not temptresses will be forced to take their medicine, and here Susan Lucci performs as a siren, although her acting chops from a primarily soap opera pedigree are inadequate to make her performance a credible one. Isabelle (Lucci), inconstant wife of venture capitalist Stewart Collins (John O'Hurley), begins a love affair merely for fun with yacht salesman Richard Davis (Philip Casnoff), simply a bagatelle for her but an earnest matter of the heart for Richard, apparently mesmerized by his lover while she takes advantage of his ardour by engaging him in a risky plot that will graduate into a scheme of murderous intent. When Davis becomes convinced that guileful Isabelle is a victim of physical abuse administered by her husband, he desperately attempts to free her from what he feels is a marital trap in order that he may wed her himself, coming to believe that the only clear solution to his plight will be found in a rudimentary essay at hiring a professional assassin who will dispose of the allegedly violent Stewart. In the wake of the hit-man's assault upon Collins, a pair of police detectives, performed by Joe Grifasi and Dean McDermott, become increasingly curious concerning Isabelle's possible involvement in the crime, while at the same time reality dawns upon enraptured Richard who might have to pay a dear price in return for his inamorata's maneuvering. Lucci and Kasnoff are properly cast as a viable pair of conspirators, each giving a reading that makes for a boring rather than charming set of lovebirds, but O'Hurley and McDermott offer strong turns in a film that suffers from a hackneyed scenario as well as uninventive direction and design elements. Released upon a Fremantle DVD, this largely lustreless affair depicting a man 'neath the spell of a seductress does benefit from top-flight visual and sound quality, and although no extra features are provided, the above-average production quality enhances able efforts from cinematographer Robert Primes and composer Stephen Edwards.

full_train

I had a recent spectator experience with The Perfect Witness (2007) because the NetFlix computer recommendation engine suggested I watch this film. Apparently, at some point, I told it how much I liked Michael Haneke's, Benny's Video. I don't know about you, but this parallel being drawn provoked in me a maelstrom of emotion and excitement over Thomas C. Dunn's film and made the allocation of my time toward it virtually impossible to refuse. Just this kind of recommendation from the NetFlix computer intelligence, for me, had the aesthetic/moral movie bar set to level so high that, upon reflection, it represented something pretty much unaccomplished in every film produced in the year 2007.<br /><br />Having prefaced my response to the film that way, I'm going to proceed in knocking this picture down as poorly executed and banal; and I really hate to do that because I think our boy, Wes Bentley, happens to be not only one of the most interesting young faces in contemporary cinema, but also one its most overlooked and underrated screenacting talents in the US. I'm more than moderately concerned that the poor guy's going to miss the fame ship if he keeps fiddling around with first time movie directors like this.<br /><br />The Perfect Witness is about Micky (Wes Bentley), who, about thirty, still lives with Mom ("You're not drinkin' again area ya's?"), but he's a "filmmaker" or at the very least some kind of street-level voyeur with a pension for shooting would-be Johns in the seedy back alleys of Philadelphia with his DVX 100B. Out there, doing his private investigator-like drills, Micky "inadvertently" video-tapes a brutal murder on a hapless early-twenty-ish coed with his hand held camcorder. Baring the notion in mind that snuff and movies as cultural currency can be his equated with his ticket out of the white urban ghetto (and not to the debts of his unwitting friends and relatives who put up the money for his atrocious films), Micky approaches the assailant, James LeMac (Mark Borkowski: also takes a writing credit) or "Mac the Knife" –whichever- and blackmails the killer into making a documentary about his murder impulses, holding this found footage over the attacker with threats of the police.<br /><br />The problem with this movie is not that no interesting ideas exist because they do. While both the writing and direction are amateurish, that alone doesn't make a film bad. It's that these guys commit a rather poor assumption that what they are presenting is shocking in the context of a culture in which just about any person in the free world with access to a private computer can log-on to the web and catch the veracity of the action of a beheading on their little Mac or PC. No film relies on shock value alone any more (unless of course, ironically, it's a film about torture on animals) and therefore cinematic images of violence (real or fake) have less and less cultural capital with each year that passes. Also, we've got this astounding actor-talent in the lead all styled-up, real hip guy: his two inch beard and skull cap with the little bill on it, backwards, just like the dork from high school who craved after the potential services of my primary love interest –same guy who just now calls himself a "poet."<br /><br />Spare me. "I'm an artist," "I'm a filmmaker." Okay. Please do, carry on with that shtick, Cronnie. Seems to have bought you a lot of expensive 35mm stock. And go ahead, you can wear all the accrutements of a "creative" but don't expect us top respond to you, to follow your below average character through your two hour movie while you take down Wes Bentley's career. Why don't we just let history speak to the merits of what you do, filmmaker guy. My guess is history will eventually have say something about that –like, probably that's in not is good as you think it is. And yeah, odds are you'll be laying the blame on your dear ole ma, end up like our man Micky here in The Perfect Witness; hooked on smack and covered in your buddy's blood with a video camera in your hand. Great.

full_train

We laughed our heads off. This script is so incredible you either zap to CNN or go to sleep.<br /><br />My dad was a sea captain for 30 years, he could not believe his eyes when he saw the movie.<br /><br />During his experience as an officer he once claimed command over the ship, the captain drunk 3 bottles of whiskey/daily and (sorry) s**t on his desk. Of course this was not on a nuclear mission.<br /><br />For instance, the fire in the kitchen, fire is the most important thing on any ship, nuclear or not. To give a drill at that time is just Hollywood script. When a captain is put under arrest, he IS under arrest, you take all his keys and open the safe where the guns are kept. This is stored within minutes in a well guarded room. He CANNOT escape, it's just like in prison.<br /><br />Funny thing is, my dad also had a dog on board, however, we see how Hackman let him pee in the control room. This is not done, ever. My dad cleaned all the mess the dog made wherever he was.<br /><br />Hackman and Washington make the three stars this movie is credited for, all the rest is bulls**t.<br /><br />When we do know that 23 people were still alive on the Koersk, this film gets an extra dimension.<br /><br />If you want to see a real thriller about a submarine rent: Thas Boat.<br /><br />

full_train

Why was this film made? Even keeping in mind the generous tax concessions that Australian film investors were given, there can be no reasonable explanation for this film being given the go-ahead. For goodness sakes, the actors cast in this film are Aussie b-grade celebs (not actors, people like John Michael 'Hollywood' Howson, the original drummer from the band in Hey Hey Its Saturday, and the voice-over guy in Countdown. But in saying that, this is still very watchable as long as you give it the brain attention it deserves : none. The script is bad (even for a self-confessed b-grade horror) and the acting and film quality is worse. It often looks as though it is a home movie, but even a home movie has 'realism'. Anyone interested in Australian cinema, please, for the love of God, pretend this film was NEVER made.

full_train

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.

full_train

No spoilers here but I have been a fan since Waking the Dead started but the last series, of which only 3 have been on so far is awful. The stories bear no resemblance to the original idea of the series. I found these 3 in the last series jaw droppingly ludicrous. As a BBC licence payer, after the show I rang BBC complaints to pass on my disappointment. I'm amazed that actors of the calibre of Trevor Eve and Sue Johnstone didn't object to the story lines. These actors have been with these characters for 8 seasons, surly they can see it's lost all direction. It's a good job it is the last series or the next series may start with the team investigating the death of Father Christmas!<br /><br />Paul Bentley, West Yorkshire, England.

full_train

If I had realized John Wayne was in this movie, I would not have watched it. It's demeaning to the Japanese, unfortunate for Hollywood and embarrassing to any thinking person. But then, most John Wayne movies are like that. Hollywood in the fifties still believed that everybody in the world loved Americans when the truth was (and still is) somewhat different. The movie deals with the nineteenth century isolationism of Japan. Maybe it's Hollywood that should be isolated.To put it as succinctly as possible, this film is appalling jingoistic claptrap.(Sort of a Madama Butterfly with bad music.)

full_train

Hollywood always had trouble coming to terms with a "religious picture." Strange Cargo proves to be no exception. Although utilizing the talents of a superb cast, and produced on a top budget, with suitably moody photography by Robert Planck, the movie fails dismally on the credibility score. Perhaps the reason is that the film seems so realistic that the sudden intrusion of fantasy elements upsets the viewer's involvement in the action and with the fate of the characters. I found it difficult to sit still through all the contrived metaphors, parallels and biblical references, and impossible to accept bathed-in-light Ian Hunter's smug know-it-all as a Christ figure. And the censors in Boston, Detroit and Providence at least agreed with me. The movie was banned. Few Boston/Detroit/Providence moviegoers, if any, complained or journeyed to other cities because it was obvious from the trailer that Gable and Crawford had somehow become involved in a "message picture." It flopped everywhere.<br /><br />Oddly enough, the movie has enjoyed something of a revival on TV. A home atmosphere appears to make the movie's allegory more receptive to viewers. However, despite its growing reputation as a strange or unusual film, the plot of this Strange Cargo flows along predictable, heavily moralistic lines that will have no-one guessing how the principal characters will eventually come to terms with destiny.

full_train

Anyone that has see Tammuz's Child Eaters knows that this is a director that can do better. Let's hope it was not a case of too many hands in the pot (Telefilm anyone?)and that is was a case of second feature jitters. The characters are one dimensional and over used. The scenery is terrific however and showcases the Pacific Northwest beautifully.<br /><br />The cinematography is great. Shot almost entirely outside, the images are crisp and beautiful. You can almost smell the wind blowing through the leaves.<br /><br />Technically this movie is as sound as they come - it just lacks a heart.

full_train

I must tell you right up front, I am certainly NOT an authority on Bollywood films and have only seen a handful. However, if you've never seen one, DON'T start with this one! I have greatly enjoyed the ones I've seen up until this one, but I just couldn't stand this one. I also must tell you up front that I could not finish this film--it was that annoying. So why was it so annoying? <br /><br />1. There is a character named 'Rambha' in the film. He is even more annoying than Jar-Jar Binks--which I never would have believed would have been possible. He is so #@^!# annoying!! He spoke in a falsetto voice and I think was meant to be comic relief. Instead, he just grated on my nerves and wanted him to die...slowly! His voice, his mannerisms and his obnoxiousness--he just didn't seem to shut up and dominated every scene he was in--and he needed to die! <br /><br />2. The heroes had the amazing ability to dodge AK-47 bullets with ease. I kid you not--there was a scene where several unarmed guys took on a small army of guys with these assault rifles!! And, again and again, they avoided taking a single bullet AND beat up the ruffians!!! This made Stallone's actions in "Rambo II" look mundane!! <br /><br />3. The film was so gosh-darn loud, in your face and intense--it practically made my brain bleed!! It was as if the film were made by people under the influence of meth!! Crazy camera angles, INTENSE music and action, action, action...this movie is clearly designed for someone who can't take a movie with plot and wants nearly 100% action.<br /><br />4. The two main characters and their actions and motivations made zero sense...none whatsoever! <br /><br />Perhaps if you are the most ardent action and Bollywood fan you can stand this film, but as for me I can see why it's on IMDb's infamous Bottom 100 list. Wow...this film is bad AND intensely bad!!

full_train

Poor Robert Englund makes another flop and to the expense of Tobe Hooper who usually makes pretty good horror movies but he failed pretty bad at this one. Englund plays the well known Marque De Sade who in the 17th century was enprisoned for his obsession of pain and the pleasure of bringing pain upon himself as well as watching others also be in pain. The story is so confusing with the flip flop from one century to another and I became confused as to what was going on and what was the purpose of this movie. All I saw was a young lady that became entrapped by a strange lesbian who desides to keep her to herself and the young lady became fascinated by this Arabian with alot of money and finds out that he's out to have her killed and then Englund steps in from one century to another claiming to be a descendent of the de Sade and tries to kill her because she reminded him of the Madam Momoselle(spelled that wrong) or whoever it was in the picture above De Sades wall. The movie was terrible, I am surprised at Hooper for hireing Englund in this film and the special effects were so fake and laughable, especially the part about the eyes. Englund tries to make a comeback from his once hit move "Nightmare on Elm St." by using these pull in and out needles to put out peoples eyes. Terrible, absolutely terrible.

full_train

Allow me to start this review by saying this: I love vampire movies. They can suck (har har pun intended), and I'll still love them because vampires are just cool in movies. Van Helsing, considered by many to be a steaming pile of crap, was enjoyable to me because of the fact that there were vampires. You may ask: "What does that have to do with this movie?" The answer is that I intend to inform you of how horrible this movie truly is, that even a sucker (harharhar) for vampire movies like me can despise a movie like this so much.<br /><br />The movie stars Van Helsing, a college professor guy who isn't at all convincing. He's a terrible actor, like everyone else in this movie, and he wrote it, to add salt to the wound. I honestly to not mean to offend him, and I'm sure everyone had fun making this movie, but watching it was actually painful. I'm not sure why I watched the whole thing; perhaps it was a morbid fascination, like watching an impending train crash: it's horrible, but you can't manage to force yourself to look away. Its main fault is that it's just so ****ing boring, and its plot is so damn ridiculous, even for a science fiction horror movie.<br /><br />But, I digress. By the way, Van Helsing has sex with his mom. Of course, he doesn't know it's her at the time; he just thinks it's one of his students (which is still illegal and all, but not as disgusting and creepy).<br /><br />If I were Van Helsing, I would at least pull an Oedipus myself when I found out I had done something so gross. It would've made for one entertaining thing if he just made some comment on it, but no. The point isn't even brought up at all, by any of the characters. It's as if the writer didn't even think of it. I would've at least had another character laugh at him and say "Ha ha, you had sex with your mom," which would be mildly humorous (although blatantly immature). I'm probably running out of room, so a few more words to dissuade you from ever seeing this film: there's a vampire ninja fight with an old man. It would be funny, but the filmmakers expect us to take it seriously. It's not even worth watching the movie to see how bad it is. Stay far, far away from it if you value your time at all.<br /><br />I will say one thing positive about the movie: the guy who plays Van Helsing is pretty slick with that knife of his. There's like, a minute long segment where he swings around his knife and actually does some pretty nifty tricks. It would be boring in any other movie, but here, sadly, it was the highlight.

full_train

I wanted so much to enjoy this movie. It moved very slowly and was just boring. If it had been on TV, it would have lasted 15 to 20 minutes, maybe. What happened to the story? A great cast and photographer were working on a faulty foundation. If this is loosely based on the life of the director, why didn't he get someone to see that the writing itself was "loose". Then he directed it at a snail's pace which may have been the source of a few people nodding off during the movie. The music soars, but for a different film, not this one....for soap opera saga possibly. There were times when the dialogue was not understandable when Armin Meuller Stahl was speaking. I was not alone, because I heard a few rumblings about who said what to whom. Why can't Hollywood make better movies? This one had the nugget of a great story, but was just poorly executed.

full_train

The soul of an ancient mummy is transferred to one of his followers so that he might punish everyone involved in the desecration of his tomb. The soul transference makes the young man age at a tremendous pace until he himself resembles a mummy. One by one, the blood is drained from those involved in the dig.<br /><br />To be as brief as possible, Pharaoh's Curse is quite the lackluster affair. While the movie does present a few good, original ideas (blood sucking mummy's, soul transference, interesting make-up effects, the arm ripping scene, etc.) and a few atmospheric moments, the direction and pace are the very definition of plodding. To make matters even worse, the first 15 of the film's relatively short 66 minute runtime consist of nothing much more than padding. I usually go for these slow moving mummy movies, but Pharaoh's Curse tests even my patients. The cast helps very little. With only one exception (Ziva Rodann is the lone bright spot – wish the movie could have focused more on her mysterious character), the cast is as dull as the screenplay. Finally, I don't know whose idea it was to put the mummy-looking servant in what appears to be pajamas, but it's a laughable, ridiculous look for a creature that supposed to instill fear in the audience.<br /><br />Despite my mostly negative comments on the Pharaoh's Curse, I'm going to rate it a 4/10. Not a good rating to be sure, but generous given all the problems I have with the movie.

full_train

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

full_train

We bought this film from a shop called Poundland. We were looking for more inspiration as we have previously bought the film No Big Deal an remade it.<br /><br />We expected this film to be badly inspirational so that we might remake it and put it on the tube. HOWEVER, this was shocking. BORING is the main word that comes to mind. The bad effects and script aren't enough to make you watch it. The main woman's body seems to be whipped out at opportune moments in a pathetic attempt to keep the viewer interested. However, it just makes you wonder, did they blow the budget getting her to take her clothes off? If so, I'd have asked for a refund! It looks like a homemade film, the shots don't even correspond with each other and the camera work is so amateur it makes our remakes of bad movies look professional. I CANNOT believe that this is being sold as a marketable product.<br /><br />IT IS JUST BORING and UGLY to watch. The actors are bad and there is no degree of professionalism about it. There are no words to describe how terrible it is.

full_train

Some nice scenery, but the story itself--in which a self-proclaimed Egyptologist (Lesley-Anne Down) visits Egypt and, in the course of doing Egyptologist things in the most un-Egyptologistic of ways (e.g., flash photography in the tombs, the handling of old parchment, etc.), uncovers a black market turf war and somehow (in the span of two days, no less!) becomes that war's jumpsuit-wearing epicenter--is more puzzling than any riddle the Sphinx ever posed. Down is simply awful as the visiting British scholar (that she seems to know absolutely nothing about the culture of Egypt and even less about antiquities is the fault of the writers, certainly; but that she's annoying as all get out is her own fault entirely), and the rest of the cast, including Sir John Gielgud and Frank Langella, seem as downright confused by the proceedings as I was. In short, not what you'd expect from Schaffner (Planet of the Apes, Patton) and co.<br /><br />Worth watching for a laughably dated scene in which Down rails against all male scholars, blaming them for her failure as an academic, while bathed under the softest light Hollywood could muster. To top it off, she spends the next hour of the film shrieking and harried and running into the arms of any dude she can find. Wow, talk about your performative irony!<br /><br />*Note to would-be Egyptologists: take a year or two of Arabic in grad school. It'll really help out in the long run...

full_train

I remember watching this on prime time when I was about 7 years old. I was a huge comic book reader at the time, and anything relating to superheroes was anticipated heavily. The end result, however, was underwhelming.<br /><br />I was aware of the "Emma Peel" Diana Prince stories, as they had only recently come to an end and Diana was returned to her Amazonian form. However, there was so little action that I was bored throughout most of the movie. The final costume was an interesting idea, but looked more like a cheerleader than a superhero.<br /><br />I saw the movie again in my late teen years. It hadn't improved much. Cathy Lee Crosby was more familiar, thanks to That's Incredible, but her acting was no better. The script had a few good ideas, like the rogue Amazon, and a decent villain in Ricardo Montalban, but it just didn't come together and was still boring.<br /><br />I think they should have built the back story better, and built the show into a more epic climax. It was too much like a bland spy film, crossed with a superhero story written by someone who had never seen a comic book. The Amazon elements were intriguing, but needed to be expanded.<br /><br />The film did succeed in forcing producers to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more faithful, if a bit too camp and low budget. The budget was also pretty low here, and superheroes don't come cheap.<br /><br />It would be nice to have the movie available on DVD, if only as a comparison and historical document. Even Superman 4 is available, and it has nothing over this film (except Chris Reeve and Gene Hackman). It's worth seeing for curiosity sake and for a bit of inspiration and caution for future versions.

full_train

One of the worst movies I've seen shoddy camera work, crappy filter usage, film was grainy, script was terrible, i mean come on, how predictable was the big battle at the end.....<br /><br />some of the fight scenes were okay i guess....<br /><br />some scenes were so bad it was comical ...like Sorbo getting the horse and riding at the end...LOL i mean really ..a horse? Oh cant forget how the bad assassins roll around in the same vehicle throughout the entire movie..one would think that after killling key witness and federal agents, they woulda been tracked down..ETC, ETC really don't bother watching it...

full_train

I won't add to the plot reviews, it's not very good.<br /><br />Very improbable orphanage on Bala.<br /><br />Cushing and Lee at their height.<br /><br />Some nice scenery.<br /><br />Good for face spotting, and I quote, "look at the mouth, that is Cassie from Fools and Horses".<br /><br />Otherwise, a poor example of the British film industry.<br /><br />Fulton MacKay was far better in Fraggle Rock, Keith Barron was better in anything else and Diana Dors did what she did best.<br /><br />Redeeming feature? It was free to watch on the Horror channel prior to its going over to subscription. I won't be subscribing on this effort.

full_train

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.

full_train

With a Bo Derek movie, the audience get just what they expect. A paper thin plot and a few shots of Mrs. Derek in no clothes. 'Ghosts can't do it' is just that. The first fifteen minutes is ordinary TV drama, as long as Scott [Anthony Quinn] is still alive. He is a very good actor with long experience in a lot of different roles, but it seems as even a famous actor need to work just for money sometimes. Bo Derek is the opposite, always playing a strikingly handsome young woman with or without clothes. The movie is a complete waste of time. If you want to see Quinn, rent Lawrence of Arabia or La Strada. If you want to see nude women or bad acting, rent any porno movie.

full_train

The good news is a movie was made, drawing on a supposed Aztec myth and featuring an unusually Aztec-American (is such a word exists) cast. The bad news is, it was dead at birth.<br /><br />If Ed Wood had come out of retirement and coached George Romaro through his classic 'Night of the Living Dead,' this is what we might have come up with. 'The Legend of Diablo' is clearly fodder for any future resurrections of 'Mystery Science Theatre 3000!'<br /><br />I don't think one can even call this a 'B' movie. The production values are so abysmal that I kept getting the feeling I was watching either a lengthy skit from a variety show or a backyard 8-mm film shot by a group of school kids. <br /><br />SOME SPOILERS<br /><br />The basic plot line sounded interesting enough to lure me into renting it. A rural California sheriff finds a box containing an Aztec demon and accidentally unleashes it on the unsuspecting community. His daughters, one hot and one homely, team with a gringo FBI man and a priest, to try to re-cage the demon. <br /><br />Meanwhile, every zombie scene one has ever seen in previous undead movies is re-enacted-poorly. These zombies walk more like an army of Nutty Professors than the undead! The supposed infrared scenes from the demon's viewpoint are nothing special … and he/she/it sure seems to back up a lot (as opposed to turning around the moving forward). And the scene where the priest lures the demon out of the cave in fast-motion is ludicrous! It really, really appears to be done for comic effect-although I know it wasn't! I kept expecting the Benny Hill theme music to start playing & for the whole gang of zombies to start chasing the priest all over the beach!<br /><br />Of course the Darth Vader/Field of Dreams voice, calling the FBI agent becomes downright comical. Then again, so was most of this cheese ball! Robert Napton, director and writer of the screenplay, should win SOMEthing for this effort! (How about a lifetime blackballing, like the 'Hollywood 10?') This one, I now see, is rated 1.5 on a 10-scale. I fear this might be a tad generous! <br /><br />Is there anything good about this movie? Well, Lindsey Lofaso looks pretty hot as the younger daughter of the dead sheriff. This is probably why her homely older sister (Calvi Pabon) really ran away from home! Fred Estrado is reasonably decent as the FBI agent. I wonder if Mario Soto, who played Father Rodriguez, is the same Mario Soto who pitched for the Cincinnati Reds? If so, he should have stuck to baseball. In fact, they couldn't have done any worse if they had gone with a baseball theme and called it 'Demons in the Outfield!'<br /><br />If I find out this was actually a project for a community college cinema class, I will issue apologies. It might be good enough for a B or even B+ as long as the gang got the college's camcorder back to campus in one piece! 'The Blair Witch Project' proved that a cool, campy movie could be made on a shoestring. 'The Legend of Diablo,' though, didn't appear to have a shoestring OR shoes to work from! It was low-budget, low-talent, low-everything. The very final scene-and I mean about the final 10 seconds of the film-is the ONLY mildly creative or interesting moment.<br /><br />I paid $3.45 to rent this. I could have better spent it on a hamburger!

full_train

The concept of the legal gray area in Love Crimes contributes to about 10% of the movie's appeal; the other 90% can be attributed to it's flagrant bad-ness. To say that Sean Young's performance as a so-called district attorney is wooden is a gross understatement. With her bland suits and superfluous hair gel, Young does a decent job at convincing the audience of her devout hatred for men. Why else would she ask her only friend to pose as a prostitute just so she can arrest cops who try to pick up on them? This hatred is also the only reason why she relentlessly pursues a perverted photographer who gives women a consensual thrill and the driving force behind this crappy movie. Watching Young go from frigid to full-frontal nudity does little to raise interest, but the temper tantrum she throws standing next to a fire by a lake does. Watching her rant and rave about her self-loathing and sexual frustration makes Love Crimes worth the rental fee, but it's all downhill to and from there. Despite her urge to bring Patrick Bergin's character to justice, her policing skills completely escape her in the throes of her own tired lust and passion. Patrick Bergin does a decent enough job as a slimy sociopath; if it worked in Sleeping With the Enemy it sure as hell can work in this. But I can't help but wonder if the noticeable lack of energy Young brings to the film conflicts with his sliminess. I'm guessing it does and the result is a "thriller" with thrills that are thoroughly bad and yet comedic.

full_train

I saw this film at SXSW with the director in attendance. Quite a few people walked out, and the audience could barely muster even polite applause at the end. Of the 60 or 70 films I've seen at this festival, Frownland is among the worst.<br /><br />At 106 minutes, it is at least 95 minutes too long. You get to watch the main character's failed and drawn out attempts to communicate, in extended real time. The same grimaces, hand over mouth motions, kinetic and frantically repeated words and syllables over and over and over again - WE GET THE POINT.<br /><br />One site actually compares this work to early Mike Leigh. What drugs would you have to be on to make that statement? Given that Frownland is a Captain Beefheart song, maybe you'd have to be able to enjoy Trout Mask Replica on heavy rotation to appreciate this film. Unbelievably, this won a jury award at the festival. You can bet it did not win an audience award.

full_train

Beginning with its long opening shot of seemingly endless rows of assembly line workers in a Chinese factory, Manufactured Landscapes attempts to show the devastating impact of industrialization on the natural environment and traditional societies. Its droning narrative assumes that industrial development in China and elsewhere is entirely unprecedented, as if there had never been an industrial revolution in Europe and America and Karl Marx had never visited the British Museum. That there might be a connection between the present-day Asian drive for industrialization and wealth and earlier experiences of starvation and terror is never mentioned.<br /><br />At the same time, there's an effort to present Edward Burtynsky's photographs of industrial waste as somehow "beautiful". Much of the film is a slide show of these images. They are well produced, of museum size, and have apparently appeared in several exhibitions. To me, however, they only demonstrate that almost any photograph can be made to appear beautiful if well presented. Industrial waste is still industrial waste. The relationship, if any, between the photographs and the film's spoken message remains unclear.<br /><br />I don't mean to imply that there aren't real and sometimes desperate problems when countries rush to industrialize. Manufactured Landscapes, however, offers only strange and bitter hopelessness. It's like a two-hour lecture by Noam Chomsky. Maybe it has some value as a demonstration of what's wrong with the American (and Canadian) Left.

full_train

I question the motive of the creators of this fictional account of the BTK killer's motives. Are they attempting to portray animal rights activists as sick monsters? Who is responsible for this? Don't they think the people involved with this monster are hurting enough? What a blatant disrespect and exploitation of the victims! It was like a personality experiment: What disturbs you more, the slaughterhouse or the human murders? They used actual names of some of the victims....this movie was hideous, disrespectful and insulting! The creators of this movie used this tragedy for their own agenda! People need to awaken and redraw the line!

full_train

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.

full_train

A very tired looking Burt Reynolds plays a mercenary battling his former employers for some gizmo these non-heroes plan to sell to "the Iranians." Low-rent video nonsense by the producers of "Silk Stalkings" offers some decent action footage and a lot of ineptly staged "drama"...a lack of logic and truly dreadful dialogue are the defining aspects, although the final twists and allegiance shifts could've been a nifty end to a better movie. Burt still has presence, although it also means you notice more when he mouths insultingly half-baked "one-liners".

full_train

Unbelievably bad acting, a no good, unclear story and flashy images and slow-motions where they are needed the least: Adrenaline is everything a movie should not be.<br /><br />Georgina Verbaan (a so-and-so dutch soap actress who hasn't attended her English classes) plays rich girl Freya, who has the habit of 'thrill-seeking'. Which basicly is doing dangerous stunts, break stuff and annoy people. And not in a fun Jackass way. Then there's Dracko (Rivas). He kinda leads the bunch but has other illegal activities on the side. Then there's Freya's dad (Lockyer), who plays a dubious role as well. And, in the end, we got Jason (debutant Fyall), the boyfriend of Freya.<br /><br />One day, Freya gets disappeared and everybody seems involved but we, the viewer really don't care as nobody of the cast is either likable or believable, and the story doesn't make any sense.<br /><br />Why was this even made? 2/10.

full_train

I have been learning about the Zodiac for four years now. And I'm not saying I know much more than anyone else...in fact out of most of the people who know and read and learn about Z, I am prolly the one with the least knowledge...But I do know or at least I think I know that most of the stuff in this wouldn't happen...From how he signed his name...to how he killed people...I thought that Godfather was the worst film ever...<br /><br />The cinematography was that of a five year old...not saying that my films are any better but I am not someone who is making movies for the mass population...<br /><br />The acting I thought for the most part was pretty good really I did...the lead didn't talk that much on camera or at all I forget and don't know because I stopped watching...his voice overs where good...<br /><br />But really spend the four dollars and 70 cents on something else...like a large pizza or something...<br /><br />Until I learn how to write a review, Psycho Phil

full_train

First off I'd like to say that if I had to honestly rate this movie from a 1 to a 10, then I'd give it a -4. It's not that I'm a tough critic, it's just that this movie is THAT bad. Everything from the story, to the directing, to the editing is awful. The story is not even halfway decent to begin with (you can't expect much since it is based on a video game, something I was not aware of going into the movie) but the directing and editing made it even worse. The movie cuts at awkward points and goes to scenes that are completely unrelated to the previous ones; some, like a quick sex scene in the middle, don't even make sense being put into the story seeing as how the characters don't show any feelings toward each other. You could go into this movie expecting to see a pile of crap on the screen for an hour and a half and you'd still be disappointed. Honestly, if you pay to watch this movie then you are wasting your money, and if you don't pay anything then you are still wasting an hour and a half of your life. So do yourself a favor and don't watch it.

full_train

I have just seen this movie and have not read the book. The good thing of the movie is that at some parts it gets you thinking for a little while on the spiritual subject, evolution, sincronicity and your part in the world.<br /><br />However, the movie's immersion is easily broken and there is very little rapport between the viewer and the characters. It is very clear that the book looses a lot in this movie version. The events that were suppose to show sincronicity taking place are almost unrecognizable. A lot of reasoning has to be done for the viewer to see that the scene indicates a coincidence, and even more to imagine that it has something to do with a greater purpose. <br /><br />Enlightenment scenes are visually poor and do not create the better feeling that it was supposed to. Do you recall the enlightenment with Keanu Reeves (in Little Buddha) ? Well, this is nothing like that.<br /><br />Most scenes are poorly executed. There are a lot of scenes that really don't develop the story and also do not help in creating an atmosphere.<br /><br />The better actors in this movie, namely Hector Elizondo, Joaquim de Almeida and Jürgen Prochnow cannot save it. The first 2 seem to have gotten more scenes than their characters should in an attempt to save the movie, and because they were paid more, but this does not work. Most of the scenes are not really necessary and do not help the story at all.<br /><br />Jürgen does good in his scenes and sells as an evil guy (as always), but the script does not help him at all. The scene where he first tries to convince John (Matthew Settle) to join him is just bad script. The execution of the scene when he dies in an explosion is absurdly bad executed. The flashbacks throughout the movie cannot even be commented.<br /><br />Overall this movie is a big waist of time, read the book! I have not read it, but it is probably a billion times better than this, it has to be.<br /><br />It is so bad that I had to write my first comment in IMDb.

full_train

National Lampoon was once a funny magazine. Whether you liked the stoner hippie days of the late sixties or the smug and sassy coke-head days of the seventies (when the comedy was fortified with plenty of naked babes) depends very much on your date of birth, but everyone agrees that by the early eighties, middle age had killed off whichever remaining sparks of anarchic humour that the drugs hadn't, and offerings like this film and the increasingly terrible spin-off records shot further holes in the hull. Outside of a nicely illustrated title sequence, there's absolutely nothing to recommend this singularly depressing stinkbug. If you make it through the baffling opening segment, 'Growing Myself', hoping things will get better, tough luck - they don't. Whoever thought the idea of a woman being brutally raped with a stick of butter was comedy gold deserved to have his head handed back to him on a platter of dog mess. If there's ever a global shortage of guitar picks, the negatives of this rambling, incoherent ragbag of crummy ideas and dire performances may well serve some purpose.

full_train

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 !!

full_train

It's amazing to see how Nikhil Advani manages to attract people to the theater till the very day of the release. I mean..... look at the cast here , the promotion is superb, good enough songs and the trailers are fine. This makes it a house full on the first day, but it's only when people go and see the film they realize that there is no way their money is refundable. House full the first day , the movie is out the next week. <br /><br />This film, inspired by 'Love Actually' is what they say, didn't manage to handle the whole cast well. They tried to put in big stars but ended up by not even managing to bring out even an average performance by any one. The stories are hollow and cheesy, so the audience can't connect with any single one of them. It's a big disappointment to all those who like big stars or for that matter Nikhil Advani after his big success of 'Kal Ho Na Ho'.

full_train

I see quite a few positive reviews on this board, trying to revive this film from its lackluster status and starting a cult following. I see the usual ranting--"I guess this movie is just not for the easily offended," "This movie is not Shakespeare," etc. Guess what? Neither was "Road Trip"! And I laughed my a** off during that movie! There's a way to make a crude, tasteless comedy and deliver laughs; and there's a way to...just make it crude and tasteless. "Whipped" tries to be "Swingers" without the wit or intelligence. It seems to have been written through the puerile eyes of a 14-year-old boy. For God's sake, the characters in this movie are supposed to be white-collar, upright citizens--and they talk like some of the idiots I knew in freshman year of high school! The dialogue is laced--more like drowned--with four-letter words. You would think that people of their status would have SOME degree of intelligence--and a more extensive vocabulary. Just watch a Whit Stillman film and you'll see the difference. Not to mention the fact that the dialogue sounds totally unrealistic and downright cartoonish. If you know any successful, white-collar businessmen who speak like the characters in this movie--please let me know and introduce me to them. Their annoying sexual banter is equivalent to that of standard locker room chat among teens just arriving at puberty. There is absolutely NO insight into relationships, sex or...anything!!! It's just a poor excuse to showcase an array of extremely--and don't take the word "extremely" for granted, because I mean it with all my heart--crude gags. These are gags with no substance. Gags that are meant more for groans than laughs. The scene at the end between Amanda Peet and her girlfriends was totally un-called for and totally unconvincing. There are some movies that involve interaction among females that were written by (straight) men and play out wonderfully. This scene involves a barrage of sexual metaphors and gestures. It involves the kind of dialogue you can never imagine leaving a woman's mouth. It was one of those noticeably-written-by-a-guy scenes. I wasn't believing it for a second. <br /><br />"Whipped" is purely a sick male fantasy that's as flat as it is annoying. I got (very) few laughs out of this utterly forgettable comedy, and those were probably a result of desperation. When you're not laughing for a long period of time, you desperately look for humor in the most trivial things. So I wouldn't mark that down as a positive.

full_train

This film was bad. Bad acting, bad directing, bad writing. But it wasn't bad in a funny way. It was bad in a boring way. I watched "Surface to Air" because I thought it might be a laugh. It wasn't. Don't make the mistake I did. There are plenty of more enjoyable ways to spend an hour and a half such as watching paint dry or reading the dictionary. Seriously.

full_train

There are some really terrific ideas in this violent movie that, if executed clearly, could have elevated it from Spaghetti-western blandness into something special. Unfortunately, A TOWN CALLED HELL is one of the worst edited movies imaginable! Scenes start and end abruptly, characters leave for long stretches, the performances (and accents) of the actors are pretty inconsistent, etc.<br /><br />Robert Shaw is a Mexican(!) revolutionary who, after taking part in wiping out a village, stays on to become a priest(!)...ten years later the village is being run by "mayor" Telly Salavas. Stella Stevens arrives looking for revenge on the man who killed her husband. Colonel Martin Landau arrives looking for Shaw. They all yell at each other A LOT and they all shoot each other A LOT. Fernando Rey is in it too (as a blind man). The performances aren't bad, but they are mightily uneven. Savalas has an accent sometimes as does Landau (who is really grating here). Shaw and Rey prove that they are incapable of really embarrassing themselves and Stevens looks pretty foxy (if a bit out of place amongst the sweaty filth).

full_train

For starters and for the record, the term "Necromancy" describes the black magic art of bringing the dead back to life and it does NOT, in any way, relate to having sex with cadavers. That is called necrophilia and, yes, I know it's an obvious difference but I'm already getting a lot of remarks from acquaintances and relatives that I sport a perverted taste in movies! This movie is quite the opposite of perverted or sleazy, in fact, and merely just qualifies as boring, inept and terribly bad. "Necromancy" makes at least one top five ranking, namely in the list of most incoherent movies ever made! Now, director Bert I. Gordon is not exactly famous for delivering masterpieces (on his repertoire there are titles like "Earth vs. the Spider", "King Dinosaur" and "Food of the Gods") but he really surpassed himself here with a totally senseless, redundant and utterly nonsensical tale about witchcraft and secretive little towns. Shortly after the tragic experience of seeing their baby being born dead, Lori and her husband Frank move to the quiet little town of Lillith, where Frank suddenly got offered a prominent job in a toy factory. Lori is suspicious and senses an atmosphere of morbidity, especially with the town's patriarch and "owner" Mr. Cato behaving very obtrusive and mysterious. That's another thing. How can anybody "own" a town and everybody in it? Either way, Lori gradually discovers that everybody in Lillith is a witch and Mr. Cato exclusively lured her to the town because of her supernatural ability to resurrect the dead. Since many years already, Cato has been trying to bring his deceased son back to life and he's prepared to make any human sacrifice it takes. I honestly don't see the point of the whole movie. It's a blatant rip-off of "Rosemary's Baby" – one of the alternate titles even is "Rosemary's Disciples" – but the script is muddled and imbecilic beyond belief. Why isn't anyone allowed to have children for as long as Cato's son remains dead? That's just really selfish! When, where and how did Lori suddenly learn to resurrect the dead? "Necromancy" definitely contains a few genuinely uncanny and atmospheric moments, but these are unwarily accomplished either by complete coincidence or through a total lack of budget. The grainy photography provides the film with an eerie ambiance and the set pieces look cheap enough to be creepy. Orson Welles' performance – undoubtedly the low point of his career – is pitiable, and still it's the best aspect about the entire movie.

full_train

how can a director that makes such great films as poltergeist and the texas chainsaw massacre make such rubbish as this? i got this film off a friend and he didnt want it back its so bad. how this can be classed as horror i will never know.<br /><br />2/10

full_train

To confess having fantasies about Brad Pitt is a pretty tough admission for an heterosexual to make. But what can I tell you? Maybe is that famous extra something that everybody talks about and makes a star a star. It crosses that barrier. It pulls you into unknown sensual and emotional territory. Brando had it in spades, Montgomery Clift, Gary Cooper, James Dean of course and in more recent times, Tom Cruise, Jude Law, Johnny Depp, Ewan McGregor and Billy Crudup. Women fell in love with Garbo, Dietrich, Katharine and Audrey Hepburn, Grace Kelly, Marilyn Monroe, Julie Christie, Charlotte Rampling, Meryl Streep, Vanessa Redgrave, Julia Roberts and very very recently Natalie Portman. But Brad Pitt has, singlehandedly, redefined the concept. He is the only reason to go out, get in the car, find parking, buy a ticket, popcorn and get into a theatre to see "Troy" If you liked epics in the "Jupiter's Darling" style you may enjoy this. But if you don't, go all the same, we want to keep Brad Pitt in business.

full_train

This film really disappointed me. The acting is atrocious. Unbelievable. And it's about actors. The story is incredibly obvious: A group of independent actors stage a Passion Play and, in turn, they start to live out the lives of the characters they play. I've been watching a lot of movies lately, thanks to Netflix, and this is the first one I haven't watched all the way through in a long time. I felt I didn't need to see the end; we all know the end of this story.<br /><br />For some, it seems, this "modernization" of the Gospels is either sacrilegious or enlightening. I cannot speak to any of this as I wasn't raised in the Christian church. That being said, I was raised in the US and I live in an increasingly Christian culture. I'm curious enough about Jesus and about the modernization of the religion, for better or worse. I haven't seen Mel Gibson's version, but I'm guessing that those who liked that one will like this, except for the most conservative. I just wish this was a better film.<br /><br />Lots of these reviews praise Arcand's direction and especially the cinematography. I liked neither. The film itself is rather prudish and preachy. I didn't believe the characters' personae and I was never involved with their on screen lives. The play within the play is very much dated and would not, I think, carry it's own weight in a real time production. But that's beside the point. What I really needed for this to work would have been stronger development of the characters and the plot to support the philosophical and theological questions the film would like to be about. And the musical choices are obvious and unoriginal.<br /><br />There were two examples of this that come easily to mind. Firstly, there is a reenactment of the parable of Jesus driving the money lenders from the temple: the lead actor, who has fallen for the woman who will play Magdalene and who is also a model and dancer, becomes enraged that she must debase herself by auditioning for a commercial (with a wicked producer and plenty of panting men in the audience) with her pants off. He trashes the place and chases them all out. I guess this is the level that the film wishes to reach. The romance between these two is entirely arbitrary and not at all emotionally realized and the scene is played out like a high-school rendering of Death of a Salesman, i.e., not well. Please stop hitting me over the head with this high-handed "significance." The other is the relationship between the other female lead and the priest who has asked them to do the play and who, eventually, turns against them and betrays them to the nowadays-corrupt Church. Why. Why does she sleep with this guy. "It brings him so much pleasure and me so little pain." Ah, the saintly whore and the lovable old coot. It seems to be just enough for Arcand to signify but not worth the trouble to enrich and enliven these characters. They are going through the motions and I'm reaching for the eject button.<br /><br />Feel free to write me off as bored, jaded or just not interested. Feel free to watch this movie and see the Passion, in all its beauty, sadness and inspiration, delivered as an amateurish and gimmicky charade. Feel free to have all your preconceived ideas affirmed and see any shred of artistic integrity forsaken for monotonous drivel. But don't say I didn't warn you.

full_train

I really wanted to like this movie, but ended up bored and incredulous. The first shot is a camera feed from a robot traveling towards a bomb and is, naturally, shaky. But then the rest of the movie stays in shakycam mode, even during quiet conversational moments, to the point of ridiculousness. Have the rental houses run out of tripods and Steadicams? The fact that it was shot on 16mm doesn't help, as the entire movie is grainy as well as shaky. <br /><br />For all the effort Bigelow put into accurate vehicles and equipment, there are enough glaring errors and inconsistencies that they undermine the movie's credibility. <br /><br />- A car would not erupt in flames after a single shot, and once engulfed would not be extinguished by a small hand-held extinguisher. <br /><br />- A single Humvee would not be driving around Baghdad in 2004, but would be backed up by other vehicles in case of breakdown or attack. - It would be exceptionally unlikely to be able to hit a running insurgent at long range, where the bullet is clearly taking over a second to reach the target. <br /><br />- I believe bombs were brought to designated disposal areas on or near a base, not some random spot in the middle of the desert. <br /><br />- The oil tanker attack is stated to have occurred in the Green Zone, a highly secure area that experienced very few attacks from within. The zone is mostly offices and palaces with few residences, yet it is portrayed as a dangerous warren of dark alleys and lurking insurgents. Oddly, James never gets in trouble for the ridiculous tactic of ordering his two companions to each take an alley by themselves, thus setting up the attempted kidnapping. <br /><br />- Speaking of which, the 3-man team is always depicted clearing buildings, chasing insurgents etc. on their own, even when there are clearly dozens of soldiers right there. <br /><br />- How many hours does the team have to stare at a dead insurgent hanging out a window to figure out he's not faking it?<br /><br />There were no establishing shots to show the viewer what the size and layout of the base was or where Baghdad was in relation. I had no idea who the EOD team reported to, nor were any other characters fleshed out. These are things the characters would know, so we should too.<br /><br />Many of the "surprises" and scenes are perfectly predictable. Yes, it's obvious that the psychiatrist colonel will get into trouble with the Iraqis he's trying to move along, that the choice of cereals back home will be overwhelming, and that a driver you kidnapped will not wait for you when you leave the vehicle.<br /><br />Finally, there was an almost complete lack of character development. Renner's character from the beginning has a troubled relationship at home, is reckless and addicted to adrenalin. He's exactly the same at the end of the movie. What's the point?<br /><br />If this is indeed the best so far of the Iraqi war movies, it's a sorry bunch. Just based on the half hour I saw of it, I'd recommend Generation Kill on HBO instead.

full_train

This 1973 remake of the classic 1944 Billy Wilder film, "Double Indemnity," is a textbook example of how to destroy a great script. This grade-B TV fodder also illustrates the folly of remakes in general. While Hollywood has gone after greedy executives that colorize black-and-white films and sought disclaimers on wide-screen movies that are shown in pan-and-scan versions, the industry has ignored the hacks that insist on taking a classic film and diminishing it with a shoddy remake.<br /><br />The first step in producing a bowdlerized version of a classic is to edit the script. The Billy-Wilder-Raymond-Chandler work was cut by a half hour to fit the finished film into a specified time-slot with room for commercials. Then update the production with bland, color photography, smart, upscale sets, and TV-familiar actors. Thus, the brand-new "Double Indemnity" eliminates the atmospheric black-and-white film-noir cinematography that enhanced the mood and characterizations of the original. Gone are the dusty, shadowy, claustrophobic sets that explained the protagonists' desires to escape their situations at whatever cost. Gone are the close bond between Keyes and Neff and the erotic attraction between Neff and Phyllis.<br /><br />The look of Jack Smight's take on "Double Indemnity" is more "Dynasty" than film noir. Phyllis Dietrickson has a designer home to die for, and Neff's comfy pad would be hard to afford on an insurance salesman's salary, not to mention the sporty Mercedes convertible that he drives. Neither character has any apparent motive to murder for a paltry $200,000. If not money, then perhaps murder for love or lust? Not in this version. Richard Crenna shows little interest in Samantha Eggar, and their kisses are about as lusty as those between a brother and a sister. Crenna fails to capture the cynicism of Neff, and his attempts at double-entendre and sexual suggestiveness fall horribly flat. Eggar is little better and lacks sensuality and the depth to suggest the inner workings of a supposedly devious and manipulative mind. Only Lee J. Cobb manages a creditable performance as Keyes. Director Jack Smight and his three principals have all done much better work.<br /><br />There was no conceivable reason to produce this wretched remake except to fill time in a broadcast schedule. There was no conceivable reason to resurrect this dud on DVD and package it with the original film except to fill out a double-disc package. The only lesson that can be learned from this misfire is that even a great script and great dialog can be ruined with poor casting, lackluster direction, and TV grade production values. The 1973 "Double Indemnity" should be titled "10% Indemnity," because viewing it only underscores the 100% perfection of the original movie.

full_train

Recap: Full moon. A creature, a huge werewolf, is on the hunt. Not for flesh, not for blood (not that it seem to mind to take a bite on the way though), but for a mate. He is on the hunt for a girl. Not any girl though. The Girl. The girl that is pure (and also a werewolf, although she doesn't know it yet). Three, well check that, two cops (after the first scene) and an old bag lady is all that can stop it, or even knows that the thing killing and eating a lot of folks around full moon is a werewolf. This particular powerful werewolf, Darkwolf, is closing in on the girl. If he gets her, mankind is doomed. Now the cops has to find the girl, convince her not only that there is someone, a werewolf nonetheless, that wants to rape her, and perhaps kill her, but that she is a werewolf herself. And then they got to stop him...<br /><br />Comments: This is one for the boys, the teenage boys. A lot of scenes with semi-nude girls more or less important for the plot. Mostly less. Well I guess you need something to fill some time because the plot is (expectedly) thin. And unfortunately there is little besides the girls to help the plot from breaking. One usually turns to two main themes. Nudity. Check. And then special effects. Hmm... Well there are some things that you might call effects. They're not very special though. In fact, to be blunt, they are very bad. The movie seems to be suffering of a lack of funds. They couldn't afford clothes for some of the girls ;), and the effects are cheap. Some of the transformations between werewolf and human form, obviously done by computer, are really bad. You might overlook such things. But the Darkwolf in itself is very crude too, and you never get to see any killings. Just some mutilated corpses afterwards. And there is surprisingly little blood about, in a movie that honestly should be drenched in blood.<br /><br />I'm not sure what to say about actors and characters. Most of the times they do well, but unfortunately there are lapses were the characters (or actors) just looses it. A few of these lapses could be connected with the problems mentioned above. Like the poor effects, or the poor budget(?). That could explain why there is precious little shooting, even if the characters are armed like a small army and the target is in plain sight (and not moving). But hey, when you're in real danger, there nothing that will save your life like a good one-liner...<br /><br />Unfortunately that can't explain moments when the Cop, Steve, the only one who knows how to maybe deal with the problem, the werewolf that is, runs away, when the only things he can be sure of, is that the werewolf is coming for the girl, who is just beside him now, and that he cannot let it have her. But sure, it let the makers stretch the ending a little more...<br /><br />But I wouldn't mind seeing none of the lead actors/actresses get another try in another movie.<br /><br />Well. To give a small conclusion: Not a movie that I recommend.<br /><br />3/10

full_train

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT: <br /><br />The Gettaway is mostly an action movie. And what action there is to!! Shootouts, chases, dumpsters and much much more. It stars Kim Bassenger and Alec Baldwin as the Mc Coy's.<br /><br />This is a remake and I have not seen the original but really didn't care for this one at all although Bassenger and Baldwin have some nice screen chemistry. But the movie itself didn't do it for me.<br /><br />The Gettaway became really tiresome really quickly. The plot is overshadowed by one fight/chase after another and as the violence keeps piling up, Bassenger and Baldwin retain their great looks no matter what perils they maybe in. In fact, by the end of the movie they almost look BETTER then in the beginning. I don't think Bassenger's eye makeup moves once during the whole picture.<br /><br />This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen, certainly not, but it isn't very good and unless one is an action movie purist I can't see really enjoying this movie because there's just not a lot here. The Gettaway isn't terribly original either, and goes every way from unnecessarily brutal to rather dull. It really could have been better I think.<br /><br />Bassenger and Baldwin give OK performances but they don't have a lot to do except get chased and run for their lives. Sometimes less is more, after seeing the same thing over and over again it gets stale. Didn't enjoy this one to much.

full_train

This is one of the most boring horror films I have ever seen, as it's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time. All the characters are boring, and the story is terrible, plus I could see the two twists at the end coming miles away!. The great setting and the creepy house definitely would have helped if it wasn't so damn boring, and there isn't one character to root for either, plus I hope it makes it's way to the bottom 100, because it deserves to be there in my opinion. When John Carradine finally shows up at the end, it's a pretty good scene but it's already way too late, and the only other screen time he had was in flashbacks, plus the only really gory scene in the movie is when a character gets his face messed up by Bee's, as it was rather gory. I got this in a DVD Horror set called Back From The Grave and everyone really overacts in my opinion, plus it's lucky this was included in a set I bought otherwise I would have chucked this out the window!. This is one of the most boring Horror films I have ever seen, as It's absolutely god awful, John Carradine has very limited screen time, and I say avoid it like the plague!, you don't want to go through the torture. The Direction is absolutely terrible!. Carl Monson does an absolutely terrible! job here, making every thing look cheap, wasting his potential on making creepy atmosphere and just keeping the film at an incredibly dull pace. The Acting is just as bad. John Carradine is good in his scene, but other then that he's hardly in the film other then flashback scenes. (Carradine Ruled!!). Merry Anders overacts here terribly as Laura, as she didn't convince me at all. Ivy Bethune is OK, and somewhat creepy, but also overacted, she did have a creepy smile at the end though. Rest of the cast, I didn't pay enough attention too, as I had a lot of trouble getting through it, but they were all really bad. Overall please avoid this,It's not worth the agony!. BOMB out of 5

full_train

Chris Rock deserves better than he gives himself in "Down To Earth." As directed by brothers Chris & Paul Weitz of "American Pie" fame, this uninspired remake of Warren Beatty's 1978 fantasy "Heaven Can Wait," itself a rehash of 1941's "Here Comes Mr. Jordan," lacks the abrasively profane humor that won Chris Rock an Emmy for his first HBO special. Predictably, he spouts swear words from A to Z, but he consciously avoids the F-word. Anybody who saw this gifted African-American comic in "Lethal Weapon 4," "Dogma," or "Nurse Betty" knows he can elicit more laughter with the F-word than Martin Lawrence and Eddie Murphy put together. Sadly, despite a few witty one-liners, "Down To Earth" hits Rock bottom both as a contrived comedy and an improbable interracial romance.<br /><br />"Down to Earth" utterly destroys any good will that the Weitz Brothers generated with their landmark gross-out face "American Pie." This disposable drivel qualifies as a contrived as well as confusing comedy with a thoroughly improbable color-blind interracial romance. Unfortunately, a more than competent cast—among them "The Full Monty's" Mark Addy, Chazz Palminteri of "Analyze This," "SCTV's" Eugene Levy, and newcomer Brian Rhodes as Charles Wellington, Jr.—are wasted in flat-footed, sketchy roles. Hardcore Rock fans will undoubtedly accuse their favorite comedian with trying to fix something that was never broken. Abysmally written by Lance Crouther, Ali Le Roi, Louis CK, and Rock, "Down To Earth" casts Chris as a messenger who rides a bike by day in the Big Apple and gets booed off the stage at night in Harlem's celebrated Apollo Theatre. Poor Lance Barton (Chris Rock) suffers from severe stage fright. Nevertheless, his charitable manager Whitney Daniels (Frankie Faison of "Hannibal") sticks with him through thick and thin. After Lance learns the Apollo Theatre will hold one final amateur night extravaganza, he implores Whitney to get him in the line-up. Excuse me, but if Lance is such a deadbeat stand-up comic, why does the Apollo keep inviting him back? Meanwhile, fate has something else in store for Lance. While pedaling home on his bike, our protagonist spots a pretty lady, Sontee (Regina King of "Jerry Maguire"), crossing the street, but he doesn't see the bus that collides with him and kills him. Wham! Lance Barton levitates skyward with a halo wreathed around his head. In Heaven, which resembles a cruise ship nightclub, Lance learns that an overzealous angel, Mr. Keyes (Eugene Levy of "Stay Tuned"), timed his death 40 years ahead of schedule.<br /><br />Heavenly honcho Mr. King (Chazz Palminteri of "Analyze This"), God's right-hand guy, apologizes and escorts Lance back to earth. The snag is Lance cannot reclaim his corpse, so he must inhabit another body. The best that Mr. Keyes can come up with is ruthless, white, 60-year old tycoon Charles Wellington. Wellington's adulterous wife Amber (Jennifer Coolidge of "American Pie") and his unscrupulous personal aide Winston (Greg Germann of "Sweet November") have just tried to poison him. Reluctantly, before Wellington's body vanishes, Lance accepts it conditionally as a loaner until Keyes can locate a more appropriate body. Meanwhile, Lance-as-Wellington encounters Sontee again. She is a nurse activist protesting his decision to privatize a Brooklyn community hospital that serves the poor. While Regina King brings a surfeit of charisma to her role as a crusading health care worker, she plays a character who bypasses credible motivation in her affairs with Wellington. Although he is no longer black, Lance not only tries to woo Sontee but also win a gig at the Apollo.<br /><br />"Down To Earth" features Rock in his most unfunny role. The comedian's reason for making this movie seems questionable. Reportedly, he ate lunch with Warren Beatty and told Beatty that he loved the original script that scenarist Elaine May had penned for Beatty. Initially, Beatty tried the race-reversal gimmick himself in his own version by trying to cast Muhammad Ali in the title role of "Heaven Can Wait." The deal fell through, and Beatty headlined the movie himself. According to Rock, his longtime co-writers and he thought that they could 'annihilate' this classic. Moreover, he justified his choice of "Heaven Can Wait" based on his philosophy to "Do Something you can only do when you're hot." Earlier, Rock rejected a script about a busload of touring rappers, because he saw little opportunity to stretch his image in such an outing. As a lifeless comedian in "Down to Earth," Rock doesn't so much stretch his image as he inverts it for the worst! This half-baked concert film with an annoying plot does as much to cremate his comic reputation as it does the Weitz Brothers! You know a film about a comedian is in dire straits when a scene at the nightclub is played so you cannot hear the jokes, only the laughter. Similarly, the casting of Mark Addy as Wellington's butler who speaks the Queen's English but is in reality a commoner from Michigan defies logic, too. Addy is an actual Englishman, and he doesn't have to fake an accent; his accent is genuine. The major overriding quandary with "Down to Earth" is the on-again-off-again, look-a-like switcheroo that the characters make so Chris Rock doesn't disappear completely from the sight for more than a few seconds. Although Chris spends half the movie as white guy Wellington, audiences see him largely as Lance, undercutting the comic irony of watching his stocky, bald-headed, Caucasian white, alter-ego perform ghetto humor and chant derogatory hip-hop lyrics. Incredibly, Rock served double-duty as the film's executive producer and one of its four scribes. The mystery is how such a wealth of talent could grind out such an awkward, misguided muddle of a comedy. About the only redeeming feature of "Down to Earth" is Jamshied Sharifi's superb orchestral film score.

full_train

I remember this film, exhibit in Barcelona (Spain) in 1970, for the time of a week. Although it could seems incredible, and I can't offer any explanation for it, this movie was exhibit in a theater dedicated to... movies of art and big quality (that, is, Bergman, Resnais, Malle, Buñuel, and... The Projected Man). Few people saw it (luckly people, no doubt) and no reference about this very boring SF movie can be found in the Peter Nichols Science Fiction Encyclopidie, or about the author of the original novel. Very indicative. I remember of it, after all this years, a no-story, a lot of special effects that seems ridiculous effects in fact, and no more. It seems that in some countries the running time is 90 mm. and in anothers 77 min. Well, it means only a little more of pain.

full_train

The final film for Ernst Lubitsch, completed by Otto Preminger after Lubitsch's untimely death during production, is a juggling act of sophistication and silliness, romance and music, fantasy and costume dramatics. In a 19th century castle in Southeastern Europe, a Countess falls for her sworn enemy, the leader of the Hungarian revolt; she's aided by her ancestor, whose painted image magically comes to life. Betty Grable, in a long blonde wig adorned with flowers, has never been more beautiful, and her songs are very pleasant. Unfortunately, this script (by Samson Raphaelson, taken from an operetta by Rudolf Schanzer and E. Welisch) is awash with different ideas that fail to mesh--or entertain. The results are good-looking, but unabsorbing. *1/2 from ****

full_train

I really didn't like this movie because it didn't really bring across the messages and ideas L'Engle brought out in her novel. We had read the novel in our English class and i absolutely loved it, i'm afraid i can't say the same for the film. There were some serious differences between the novel and the adapted version and it just didn't do any credit to the imaginative genius that is Madeleine L'Engle! This is the reason i gave it such a poor rating. Don't see this movie if you are a big fan of L'Engle's texts because you will be sorely disappointed. However, if you are watching the movie for entertainment purposes (or educational as was my case) then it is an alright movie!

full_train

That might be a bit harsh for me saying that, but sadly so far in his directing career its true. Just have a look at what he as done so far. They barely make it past the 3 star mark.<br /><br />Why did I watch this movie? 2 reasons. Lucy Lawless and Heroes star Greg Grunberg. Lucy was outstanding in this movie, her performance carries the whole movie. I do hope she gets a "blockbuster" and breaks into the bigger league of actors, she clearly has the skills. Greg was not so impressive, typical TV acting style.<br /><br />The movie is oddly categorized as a horror. The only "horror" is short flashbacks, and they last a max of 2-5 seconds with a little blood in them. I personally would call this more a "drama/thriller".<br /><br />But no matter how interesting the story actually is, bad directing, editing and acting (appart from Lucy) destroys it. You get no real connection to the actors, something which is very important in a story like this one. You just sit there watching feeling nothing. Its like watching a bad TV soap....actually I think the TV soap would be more interesting.<br /><br />My advice: Stay away from this movie...or better yet just stay away from anything Michael Hurst is involved with.

full_train

Having not read the novel, I can't tell how faithful this film is. The story is typical mystery material: killer targets newlyweds; woman investigator falls in love with her partner and is diagnosed with a fatal disease. Yes, it sounds like a soap opera and that's exactly how it plays. The first 2/3 are dull, save for the murders and the last 1/3 makes a partial comeback as it picks up speed toward its twisty conclusion.<br /><br />Acting is strictly sub par, though it's hard to blame the actors alone: the screenplay is atrocious. During the last 1/3 you stop noticing because the film actually becomes interesting, but that's only the last 1/3. Director Russell Mulcahy is very much in his element, but there's only so much he can do with a TV budget and the network censors on his back. He's pretty much limited to quick cutting and distorted lenses, though he managed to squeeze in a couple "under the floor" shots during the murders in the club restroom. Unfortunately, as this is made for TV, the cool compositional details he uses so well with a wider image are nowhere to be found. Note to producers: give this man a reasonable budget and an anamorphic lens when you hire him.<br /><br />Summing it up: this film is bad by cinema standards and mediocre by TV standards(watch CSI, instead). If you're in the mood for a film like this, I've some excellent suggestions: pick up a copy of Dario Argento's "Deep Red"(my highest recommendation; superb film), "Opera", or even "Tenebre". They're stronger in every category.

full_train

What the heck was this. Somebody obviously read Stephen King and Sartre in the same semester. We get existential angst mixed in with cheap horror. There were moments that were disturbing but each one was canceled out by horrible music, CGI, or acting.<br /><br />The problem with weird narratives like this is that it feels lazy. Even David Lynch's work feels like that at times, and just like his interesting shows and movies it runs far far too long. And sadly this is only 98 minutes.<br /><br />The cast was attractive, and that is about the limit to this. I suppose it touches on feelings of adolescents and the fear of loneliness we all have, but just doesn't make the characters likable enough for us to care about their fates...whatever they were. The final scene leaves the whole thing ambiguous.

full_train

I know that the real story of Little Richard is a lot more thrilling than this maudlin and thoroughly average biopic. But then producer Little Richard was probably too reluctant to bring to light any sordid details of his life and just gave us a forgettable facsimile of his career highlights from the 50s and 60s.

full_train

This film concerns purportedly non-establishment types (aesthetically and sexually) who apparently cannot resist basic romantic needs. Although some excellent players take part, including Jon Tenney, Timothy Olyphant, and Cynthia Nixon, they are grounded by a puerile script which relies nearly totally upon clever dialogue; which isn't. Nixon's role possesses the best lines, but she often homes in on them too quickly, a timing flaw which must be saddled upon the director. The grotesque climax utilizes every available cliche, spent or not, and fittingly ends this drab attempt at comedy.

full_train

This is definitely a stupid, bad-taste movie. Eddie Murphy stars in what is written like a sitcom. He is surrounded with his perfect family, full of good family values. If you're looking for politically correct entertainment, this movie is for you. But if you hate the idea of being the only one not to laugh at obscene gags in a movie-theater full of pop-corn addicts, just flee.

full_train

I usually read reviews before I watch a movie. Guess what, I didn't do that before watching TLB, and I have to say I was very surprised to see the above average rating at IMDb. I found it to have a total lack of story. You just get dropped into it (and, sadly, not in the way Saving Private Ryan dropped us into the movie), and it also has a sudden end, which was very unsatisfying for me.<br /><br />I have to admit, the wounded soldiers looked pretty realistic to me, especially with the low budget in mind. But prepare yourself to have a laugh... Some guys are being tossed through the air after an explosion as if they are Olympic gymnasts. A mid-air corkscrew or somersault during WW I is a bit too much for me, especially when it's performed countless times during the movie...<br /><br />But the parts that really got me laughing until I almost cried were the scenes containing close combat. The screaming and shouting German voices...unbelievably funny. It seems as if they are spoken by one single actor / voice performer, because they all sound exactly the same, and it just sounds like a 'typical' German voice.<br /><br />I would absolutely NOT recommend this movie to anyone, except to people who just want to have some laughs because of the sad and corny quality of it.

full_train

I really do fail to see the actual surplus value of this movie. It's not bad enough to be hilarious. There's no sleaze or gratuitous nudity (although there was plenty of opportunity). There's no gore. There's no suspense in the first hour of the movie 'cause there's way to much scenes of tourist having a party and natives playing funky tribal music. That last part was actually funny on many occasions: You see these natives hitting congas and 'jembés' and that's indeed what you hear (badly synchronized) on the soundtrack. But they also added this funky bass-line on the soundtrack. So, where was the bass-player? At one point the natives get angry and start killing the tourists. Why all of the sudden? It's supposed to be because the evil white men build this tourist complex, which according to their myth awakened the wrath of the river-alligator-god (I actually missed the explanation for that one). But the natives did help for several months to build the tourist complex, so why the sudden angriness? And how in the hell did they manage to push the helicopter in the water??? It's all silly and pointless. This movie also features the skinniest Afro-American model I've ever seen.<br /><br />At one point our heroic leading couple visits this cave where a weird, crazy old man lives. The only point to that scene is that they make the "shocking" discovery that the killer-crocodile is actually an alligator. Crocodile or alligator, what's the difference? It's big, it's made out of plastic and it eats people. All the same to me. The alligator is a rather silly creation. It's very stiff & motionless and doesn't even flap its feet when it swims. The eyes don't even move when they're shot in close-up. I guess they didn't know 'animatronics' back then in Italy during 1979. There's also a lot of pointless inter-cut shots of the local wildlife. I suspect it's stock footage.<br /><br />Like, I said, the first hour was pretty lame and the only reason I didn't switch off the movie was because my cat was asleep on my lap and I didn't want to wake the sweet thing. But the last half hour of the movie did get better. We finally get to see some action when the alligator swims through a horde of panicking people snapping its teeth and munching on them. The most entertaining (and at the same time funny) scene is when Alice and Daniel drive a van over a bridge and it collapses. We're looking at a matchbox-version of the van falling in the river here. Funny. But nicely shot. In fact there are several other nice traveling camera-moves. Surprisingly for this type of flick. I was gonna point out some stupid details concerning the end of the movie, but I don't wanna spoil it completely, in case you do decide to watch this movie. My advice is to stay away from it. If you wanna see a decent alligator movie, then see Lewis Teague's ALLIGATOR. I admit, that one isn't Italian and isn't a JAWS rip-off, but it certainly is more fun. And if you're interested in other movies made by director Sergio Martino, then I strongly recommend the highly entertaining 2019: AFTER THE FALL OF NEW YORK. That one's an over-the-top rip-off of every possible existing post-apocalyptic-future-of-doom-movie. "Italians" and "rip-offs", two words that go together very well.

full_train

I read one other review that expressed the view that Platoon was a never ending cycle of marines killing people, being killed, taking drugs and talking trash.<br /><br />I don't agree with that because the film actually had more to it, but it a way, I can see what this person is trying to say: this had no real plot - which is a point i agree with.<br /><br />It is self-indulgent Stone at his best. He really wanted to show, not only how war leads to death, but also how it is extremely traumatic on those who survive. Unfortunately, the film seems to over "glorify" this aspect and the grand finale is just way too champagne, grand-standing, Oscar-hunting "let's create an enduring image" for my liking.<br /><br />The problem I have with Stone and other film-makers of his ilk is that they fail to understand this simply concept: depicting the terribly bloody deadly waste that war is DOES NOT PROVE OR EVEN REFLECT ON WHETHER it was an unjust or immoral war. We have seen the same thing emerge at the moment with Iraq. In case you're missing the point, let me put it to you bluntly: if you saw how truly bloody the second world war was and how destructive it was on the lives of the surviving soldiers, would you think it was an unjust war? If that fact alone doesn't convince you that it was an unjust war, then why should depictions of the horrors of Vietnam convince you that it was wrong to go to war in that instance. <br /><br />Personally, I do not support America's decision to go to war in Vietnam, but i certainly don't subscribe to the "this war is wrong because people died and suffered" theory. I don't think that motivations are always wrong by default, just because war in itself is terrible.<br /><br />This says nothing of the fact that the ending or the final big "twist" was a bit stupid. However, this is not Stones first oddball departure. Wall street was a magnificent film, up until the last 30 minutes or so when it made a dreadful "wrong turn." JFK is probably one of the few films Stone did that actually ended very well.<br /><br />But it hardly matters in this one because there was very little plot up until that point of the film to twist around. And this is why i gave it such a low mark. It was virtually story-less and ultimately boring - unless you fell for the manufactured poignancy.

full_train

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.

full_train

What can you say about a grainy, poorly filmed 16mm stag film, where the best and most attractive performer is a German Shepherd? Nothing that would be positive. Avoid this travesty at all costs. In any case, it would be difficult to find, since bestiality remains a taboo and illegal subject in the USA. I strongly suggest IMDb to re-visit their weighting formula for establishing ratings, since an 8.8 rating for this piece of fecal matter is absurd! I am, by no means, a prude and have spent many hours enjoying the classic porn movies of the 70's & 80's; but this is inferior product even by the looser standards of the (then illegal) stag loop.

full_train

This was a disappointing film. The people seem to have no substance, the lead protagonist Martin Cahil has zero redemptive values, in fact everyone in it including Jon Voight epitomizes sleeze. I would not recommend this film to anyone. The violence is distasteful, though artfully done. The filming is to black, at least the print i saw fit this category. A disappointment.

full_train

I had high hopes for this film. I thought the premise interesting. I stuck through it, even though I found the acting, save Helena Bonham Carter, unremarkable. I kept hoping my time spent would pay off, but in the end I was left me wondering why they even bothered to make this thing. Maybe in George Orwell's version there is a message worth conveying. If this film accomplished anything, it has inspired me to read Orwell's classic. I find it hard to believe his tale could be as disappointing as this adaption. If the film maker's message is "the mundane life is worth living", well then, they've succeeded. I would recommend this film to no one; 101 minutes of my life wasted.

full_train

I'm a horror/gore movie freak and this flick was so bad, I felt embarrassed for not only the "actors", but also the director and the poor sap of a producer who actually put his money up for this schlock.<br /><br />From the title, you'd expect some great carnage, somewhat of a storyline and at LEAST some direction or dialog. Instead, you get what looks like a slightly more violent and sexual Three Stooges episode. At least I laugh at the Three Stooges. While watching this crap, I turned another TV on and started watching Howard Stern until something interesting happened.<br /><br />Needless to say, I kept watching Stern.<br /><br />Watching this "film" I realize that I could produce a film with three monkeys, 2 DV cameras, $50 dollars in loose change and a broken PC. This film is my inspiration to get into no-budget film making. Watch this movie if you dare, but be warned...there is a lot of nothing in here but a whole lot of talking and very little action. This makes "KaZaam" look like a Meryl Streep film.<br /><br />I'm sure Germany didn't ban it due to sex or violence. Other countries need to take heed.

full_train

What do you expect when there is no script to begin with, and therefore nothing that the director can work with. Hayek and Farrell, and Donaldson and Kirkin are good actors, they just don't have anything to say or anything to react to. Even the earthquake was pretty poor. And I don't know how closely the movie follows the novel, but two have the Jewish girl show up out of nowhere just so show that Arturo has a nice, warm heart, but some stereotypes don't amount to anything. And he even buries Camilla out in the desert, instead of bringing her back to L.A. for a nice Catholic burial where he could at least bring her flowers once in a while. Pathetic. And the L.A. set was ridiculously graphically created. Anything good? The window to his apartment felt real, the curtains, the sounds, the wind. And Donaldson is always great. Has been since the Body Snatchers or Night of the Living Dead, whichever it was.

full_train

i don't know what they were thinking.by they,i mean anybody even remotely connected to this disaster.i've seen so bad movies,i've seen so really bad movies,and then there's this.but i will say one thing.whoever wrote the script has manged to put what could possibly the most inane dialogue over written,onto the screen.there is nothing good about this movie,either from a technical standpoint or any other standpoint.whoever allowed it to be made and then released should have been fired immediately.there are a few fairly well known names in this movie.actually i hesitate to use the word movie.it's more like a collection of random scenes that have no relation to another and make less than 0 sense.anyway,i fail to see why anyone with any dignity would appear in this.i got it really cheap,and i still got ripped of.even if i had gotten this movie for free,i would still have been ripped off.this is an absoluter 0/10

full_train

I feel like I've just watched a snuff film....a beautifully acted, taut, engrossing and horrible thing! A two hour litany of perversion in the most basic and all inclusive sense of the word, sexual violence and torture, rape, decapitation, incest, corruption, live burial, and abuse, abuse, abuse. No redemption whatsoever. And I WAS entertained. I couldn't stop watching. What does this say about me, about the people who make and act in this sort of thing, and a world that has become so desensitized that eventually real snuff films will be the norm. And I'm neither puritanical nor humorless, I don't try to hide from the existence of darkness, and I definitely have not led a sheltered life, but I am ashamed of myself. AND I'm sorry to see my British cousins dragging the subject-matter sewers the way my own tribe does. It doesn't have to be cozy, but does it have to wallow in vicarious sadism?

full_train

A perfect little atrocity...I doubt if a single shot lasted for more then the reglamentary-MTV 4.4 seconds. Woeful casting, worse even than in Kusminsky's version (a reminder: he managed to miscast Juliet Binoche and Ralph Feinnnes). But, hey-the rich got what they deserved. Dark and brooding Heathcliff reduced to the state of a golden-locked angel, frail and angellic Catherine presented as a chubby, melon-breasted heffer, meek and weak Linton is a peeping tom, and innocent Isabel becomes Sara Michelle-Gellar's character from Cruel Intentions. 15-year old Eddie Bauer and Abercrombie and Fitch donners-take notice. This thing was made for you. It is an hour-and-a-half long music video where everything is given to you; you are saved from the uncomfortable necessity of not even trying to understand the complexity of the characters, but even from initial shock at their actions. The actors tried, but, as I stated before, they were miscasted. Decent photography, but editing is on the level of TV production class in high school. I implore you all: read the book, or the cliffnotes even; watch the previous versions of it, even Kusminsky's; but stay away from the numerous future reruns, during which you will not receive the benefit of the commercial-free premiere.

full_train

Or "Marlowe At Sea". Yet another ridiculously overrated old film with Bogey. Quite talky, too. Bogey basically plays the same character as in the Marlow films; always in control of a situation, never nervous - no matter how dangerous a situation, calls women "slim" and "dames" and other such nonsense, is the only "real male" i.e. alpha male in the movie (the only other alpha male male being the head of Gestapo - but he is only a fat alpha male male), and - naturally - every attractive young woman who comes his way cannot resist his charms and wants his penis within hours of their initial introduction. The character clichés are all here. Bogey is supposed to be the same type of cynic-about-to-reform as in "Casablanca", and naturally he often refuses money or other valuables when being offered them - but how does that fit in with the tough cynic in him? It doesn't, so he can't be a cynic; Hawks wanted it both ways: a character who is both the "cool lone cynic" and yet a well-meaning humanitarian. I don't think so... Bacall does her non-chalant "cool babe" routine for the first time, and there are plenty of overrated, not all-too interesting so-called "sexual innuendo" exchanges between her and Bogey; these dialogues sound silly by today's standards. "Just purse your lips and whistle...". A load of crap... She was 19 when this was made but looks a lot older, and is far less attractive than the female stars of the day. Her bony face, with its sharp features, is nowhere even close to radiating the kind of feminine beauty of a de Havilland, the cuteness of a Myrna Loy, let alone the likability of an Irene Dunne. Bacall was more suited for playing vampires, not femme-fatales. (In real life she is very much like her face: a Hollywood bitch.) There is a scene in which Bacall breaks into tears; very unsuitable for her character. There are two or three bad musical numbers - but my fast-forward button was ready.<br /><br />If you're interested in reading my "biographies" of Bogart, Bacall, Huston, and other Hollywood personalities, contact me by e-mail.

full_train