Datasets:

valerielucro

/

stanford_imdb_sample

like 0

What an insult to Olivia D'Abo who plays the film's heroine, Robin, to have Keanu Reeves appear so large on the box art of the film (and at least on recent reissues, to have only Reeves appear on the box), considering that she was the star. I realize that it is his name that will ultimately sell this long-forgotten After School Special, but at least give the woman some credit. <br /><br />Despite that, this has to be one of the worst teen sports-themed films that I have ever seen, and it strives very hard to add not only every teen and sports movie cliché from the class warfare between the feuding gymnasts to the teen romance. And, in striving to somehow deliver itself as an amateur alternative of Flashdance (with the music in one of the warehouse dance scenes is even quite close to Michael Sembello's notable 'Maniac' which was made famous by Flashdance, or was it the other way around?). It includes similar dance sequences and worse yet, even the 80s dance and sports traditions of corny dance-offs between the heroine and her antagonist(s), the one who doubts her successes and abilities on the team. We saw this in Trashin' (a vert ramp joust) and Rad (BMX dancing at the prom, although it wasn't much for competition, but rather for fun) for example. In fact, this movie is chock full of unrealistic corniness, such as the somewhat homo-erotic rolling in the clothes at the Salvation Army with Robin and her friend from the team.<br /><br />Nonetheless, the film is about a young girl who comes from a rather poor background. To top it off in a massive need to squeeze from audiences as much sympathy as possible, she lives with her ailing mother, her obnoxious sister, and her careless (and slightly abusive) stepfather. Needless to say, homelife is not so appealing. Add to the mix, a talent for gymnastics, but several obstacles to joining the team (including the nuisance of her arrogant, snobby teammates, and a coach who also eventually doubts her abilities to compete well). And, of course, we can't forget that she's got eyes for one of the pretty boy preppies who is dating one of the obnoxious teammates, nor that she doesn't have a steady boyfriend (although Keanu as Tommy later enters the picture). Could this kid be any more pathetic? And it seems that one mess after another comes along to embarrass herself in her painfully long, redundant, and clichéd quest to prove her worth to everyone.<br /><br />But, even the major moments of cheesiness which comprise most of the film, are hardly worth mentioning considering that the biggest distraction to this film is the horrible acting and dialog. (I like how the gym coach suddenly appears at the diner in the middle of the dance-off to scold the teammates). It makes episodes of 'Amazing Stories' look like Shakespeare.<br /><br />I imagine anyone able to locate this film and watch it these days is probably drawn to it mostly because of the nostalgic factor. For that you might be satisfied, but it is also an incredibly forced drama. So, Caveat Emptour.

0neg

I am a HUGE Adam Sandler fan, and one day I was looking at the Cast&Crew selection on one of his DVD's and saw 'Going Overboard' and decided to go out and rent it. So I went out with a few buddies of mine and rented it. We put it on and we were shocked to see an Adam Sandler that didn't hit puberty yet, he looks as if he was 12 when this movie came out. I couldn't even watch 30 minutes of this crap, I didn't laugh, chuckle, or even smirk at this movie, actually the only time I smirked was when I saw how horrid this movie was. I could not believe how hard he tried to make the viewers laugh in this movie...and it didn't work once. Although from seeing the horribly awful camera angles and hearing the disgusting script I realized why I had never heard of this movie,...because it sucks more than anything has ever sucked before. This movie, in my opinion, was the WORST movie EVER made,....EVER!

0neg

SHALLOW GRAVE begins with either a tribute or a rip off of the shower scene in PSYCHO. (I'm leaning toward rip off.) After that it gets worse and then surprisingly gets better, almost to the point of being original. Bad acting and amateurish directing bog down a fairly interesting little story, but the film already surpasses many in the "Yankee comes down South to get killed by a bunch of rednecks" genre because it is actually shot in the South.<br /><br />A group of college girls head to Ft. Lauderdale for summer vacation and are waylaid in Georgia by a flat tire after getting off the main road. (Note to Yankees: stay on the highway when you go to Florida.) Sue Ellen (Lisa Stahl) has to pee so she heads into the woods. When she finally finds a good spot to do her business she witnesses the local sheriff (Tony March) strangle his mistress (Merry Rozelle) to death. (Note to Yankees: do not wander off into the woods when in the South; not because you might witness a murder, but you may run across a marijuana plantation.) This is the point where the story, not the movie, actually comes close to being good.<br /><br />While Tony March will never have to practice his Oscar speech, his Sheriff Dean becomes a creepy facsimile of a normal guy torn by what he has done and what he must do. Tom Law is likable as Deputy Scott and is as authentic a Southern deputy as I've seen since Walton Goggins (Deputy Steve Naish) in HOUSE OF 1000 CORPSES.<br /><br />A few scenes in the movie are worth the mention. The girls stop at a BBQ in South Carolina and display their racism when a big black guy checks them out. Sue Ellen runs into a barn to hide behind some hay bales and in a shockingly realistic moment a large snake is hiding in the hay with her.<br /><br />And in the strangest scene, Sheriff Dean makes like he's about to rape Patty (Carol Cadby) and tells her to take off her clothes. Dean has turned the radio up to drown out the noise of what he's about to do. The preacher on the radio needs to go back and read his Bible. His sermon is about how Jezebel is saved by the blood of Jesus Christ. I feel sorry for this preacher's flock. Jezebel was in the Old Testament a few thousand years before Christ was born and by no means is she one of the five people you are going to meet in Heaven.

0neg

This can't be Mandy Schaffer's last film. Somebody, do something! :-(<br /><br />Argh.<br /><br />What little life this one might have had, the directing finished off. Don't blame the cast; they did OK. Even the winemaker's younger brother was pretty well done, and he didn't even get into the movie until halfway through. And please, please put Mandy in some more movies! She's too beautiful to bury her career at such a young age. Ya' breakin' my haht, heah....<br /><br />Two specific criticisms, in case anyone cares (apparently nobody liked this movie very much). First, the way Traci kept popping up at just the right melodramatic moment, in order to see whatever she was supposed to see, and never got seen in return, was very annoying. Hollywood: please stop giving villains perfect timing luck which runs out exactly when the climax arrives. It's dumb. Write better scripts so you won't have to use that lame plot device any more. If your script isn't good enough to stand up without that, then don't produce it.<br /><br />Second, Carmen wouldn't have fallen for that fake injury trick that Traci pulled. She already had Traci fingered. More bad writing/directing there.<br /><br />I could trash this movie further but mercy forbids it. Actually I didn't hate it as much as the others seem to have. It just didn't have much of a reason for being made, unless it was purely a vehicle to show off the lovely Mandy. Oh, and to whoever didn't think she was sexy... the character wasn't very well written, but how can you say she wasn't sexy?!? One or the other of us needs glasses, and I don't think it's me.<br /><br />MORE MANDY. (Not to be confused with "Moore, Mandy" -- although I'd like to see her again too. ;-)<br /><br />P.S. Did I mention I hope Mandy makes me more movies? <:-D

0neg

Blonde and Blonder was unfunny.Basically, it was a rip-off girl version of Dumb and Dumber, but less funny, and they used too much background noises and music.WAY TOO MUCH BACKGROUND NOISES AND MUSIC IF YOU ASK ME!!!!It starts out immensely boring, and TOTALLY inane.It doesn't pick up pace anywhere soon, and I was feeling more frustrated as this nonsense carried on.Maybe, the only thing that saved me from giving this movie a 1 was the last 30 minutes.I found it somewhat entertaining and interesting as it neared the end, but that was the only part.Also, I couldn't help but like Pamela Anderson and Denise Richard's characters a little.Even though this movie didn't get any laughs from me, it kept my attention.I wouldn't say to completely avoid this movie, but there are thousands of better films for you to spend your time and money on than Blonde and Blonder.

0neg

A very cheesy and dull road movie, with the intention to be hip and modern, shown in the editing style and some weird camera angles, resulting only in sleepiness. <br /><br />The cast is wasted, the writing is stupid and pretentious. The only thing worthwhile is the top-notch Lalo Schifrin's soundtrack, really cool and also the opening sequence, very original and interesting. <br /><br />Run if you can, the bad opinions and comments about this flick are totally deserved; it is really pure garbage. Of course that this has its charm, of watching a movie which everybody would not drop the beer glass on if it were on fire, but save it for a stormy day where you have absolutely nothing else to do.

0neg

Killer Tomatoes movies have this special kind of humor - you either love it or hate it. I personally like it, but in this fourth movie the feeling is gone. The tomatoes aren't the same, jokes are lame, even the actors aren't as funny. Because that's the only thing this kind of movies are supposed to be - funny.<br /><br />So now following the plot made to laugh, is annoying. They really shouldn't have done the fourth part to the Killer Tomatoes trilogy.

0neg

What does the " Executive producer " do in a movie . If I remember correctly it's the person who raised the financial backing to make the movie . You might notice in a great number of movies starring Sean Connery that he is also the executive producer which meant Connery himself raised the money since he is a major player . Unfortunately it should also be pointed out that a great number of movies " starring Sean Connery were solely made because he managed to raise the money since he's a major Hollywood player , it's usually an indication that when the credits read that the executive producer and the star of the movie are one and the same the movie itself is nothing more than a star vehicle with the story/screenplay not being up to scratch <br /><br />PROTOCOL follows the saga of one Sunny Davis a kooky bimboesque cocktail waitress who saves a visiting dignitary and as a reward gets made a top diplomat . Likely ? As things progress Ms Davis ( Who has problems being able to string two sentences together ) finds herself in more outlandish and less likely situations . When I say that PROTOCOL stars Goldie Hawn who is also the film's executive producer do you understand what I'm saying about the story/screenplay not being up to scratch ? Exactly

0neg

A woman asks for advice on the road to reach a mysterious town, and hears two ghoulish stories from the local weirdo, both zombie related. But perhaps fate has something nasty in store for her too...<br /><br />The Zombie Chronicles is absolutely one of the worst films I have ever seen. In fact I must confess, so bad was it I fast forwarded through most of the garbage. And there was a lot of that, believe me. It runs for just 69 minutes, and there is still tons of filler. You get some skinhead doing a lot of push ups, plenty of dull kissy-kissy scenes between goofy teens (that rhymed, tee hee) and some fine examples of why some people should never become actors.<br /><br />As for the title characters, they barely even have a footnote in the film. Why, you get more undead action in the intro than you do the preceding feature! Though, considering how pathetic the eyes bursting out of sockets and the eating of brains sequences are (amongst other 'delights'), maybe that's a blessing in disguise.<br /><br />And to top it all off, it looks likes it's been filmed on someone's mobile phone for broadcast on Youtube. Jerky camera-work, scratches on the print, flickering lights... I had to rub my eyes when I realised it was made in 2001, and not 1971. Even the clothes and fashioned look about three decades out of date!<br /><br />If you think I'm not qualified to do a review of Chronicles having not seen the whole film, then go ahead. YOU try sitting through it, I betcha you won't even make it to the first appearance of the blue-smartie coloured freaks before making your excuses and leaving. It is truly laughable that anyone chose to release it, and honestly you'll get far more fun resting your drink on the disc than actually torturing your DVD player with this gigglesome excuse for horror. In fact, don't for surprised if it packs it's bags and leaves in the morning, leaving you doomed to watch VHS tapes for the rest of your life. You have been warned... 0/10<br /><br />P.S What kind of 18-rated horror has the woman keep a massive sports bra on during the obligatory sex scene?! See, the movie can't even get that part right...

0neg

I saw this DVD in my friends house and thought that this was a Turkish action movie with some Hollywood-not very big-names in it. Interested enough I decide to give it a shot later.. It was a tough to bear experience believe me. Then, after finally seeing the credits roll I tought 'We Turks really suck at Hollywood style film making.. This is an insult to the heist|hostage movie genre..' but then wait! I checked some names and no, they were not Turkish names and no, this was not a Turkish movie; on the contrary it was literally shot in America with an American director & crew! That made me thinking-again!- How on earth can you persuade names like Micheal Madsen, Edward Furlong or even Arnold Vosloo to take part in such a project? with money probably.. That kept me thinking further.. How can you raise such amount of money to offer them and a supposedly international cast? Then all my meditation paid off and I came to find the answer.By hiring the cheapest equipment and crew that you can find. And if you still have to difficulty in adjustin your budget then: by writing and directing the movie you are trying to produce-or vice versa I don't have any information on that-. So bottom line this is not a bad movie as everybody are so anxious to present as.. It makes you think -in my case even meditate- and there are a lot of movies outthere that doesn't give even that affect.. This one at least makes you think; It makes you wonder.. It leaves you with disbelief.. and then It makes you wonder again..

0neg

This movie had the potential to be far more than it was. But it not only fails to deliver, it brings up nauseous self righteous preaching at the same time.<br /><br />John Cusack is even flatter than he was in Midnight of the Garden of Good and Evil. The difference is that this time he is supposed to have an southern accent, which he noticeably loses several times each scene.<br /><br />Al Pacino does his shtick but seems to be walking through this film and collecting a paycheck. He's good as usual but hardly standout.<br /><br />Supporting cast -- throw in female romantic interest which added little, if anything, to the story. Speaking of the story, a convoluted "who really cares" tale where Cusack is the self-righteous Mayor's boy who just has to search for "the right thing" to be done.<br /><br />People don't act this way. Cusack's character loses all credibility at the end, of which without revealing it, is preach and nauseous. The final scene makes the penultimate silliness seem profound. It's also completely inaccurate but I won't get into law.<br /><br />This is a bad, by the numbers movie. It seems interesting for the first 40 minutes and then it's really a preachy, proselytizing, self-righteous film for the last hour. Better off with mindless crap than this pile of junk.

0neg

If you've ever been harassed on the Underground by a Christian who says, "Jesus is the answer. What's the question?", then perhaps you should thank God if you've never met a Lacanian. Slavoj Zizek, the most evangelical of Lacanians, would surely exchange the word "Jesus" in that statement for "Lacan/Hegel".<br /><br />Zizek's star burns brightly at the moment, no doubt because we generally view films and pop culture purely as entertainment for our consumption. So it seems impressive when someone - anyone - comes along and says, "Hang on, films may say something about ourselves."<br /><br />The ideas Zizek expounds in this film are "true" purely because he says so. For example, Zizek explains that three Marx Bros are the ego, superego and id (God knows what happened to Zeppo, or Gummo … perhaps they're the sinthome...or is that movies themselves?). This is simply what they are. In Zizek's output, culture is not there to be investigated but merely to be held as an example of his ideology. People may object that he certainly has something to say - but how different is what he says from the Christian attributing everything to God's will?<br /><br />What's wrong with taking examples, from films or anywhere, to illustrate theory? Well, nothing at all. As Zizek seems to believe, they may even serve as a proof. However, it is merely cant and propaganda when these examples are isolated from their context. Without context, you can say and prove anything you want. For Zizek, Lacan is the answer – so he goes and makes an example of it. Everything but everything resembles the teachings of the Master and culture is there to bear this out, to serve this ideology. For instance, Zizek's exemplar of the fantasy position of the voyeur is taken from a scene in Vertigo when Jimmy Stewart spies on Kim Novak in a flower shop. But, in the context of the film, this is not a voyeur's fantasy position at all. Stewart has been deliberately led there by Novak. This presentation of examples isolated from their context continues throughout Zizek's two hour and a half cinematic sermon.<br /><br />His analysis of the "baby wants to f---" scene in Blue Velvet is laughable. Touching lightly on what he appears to consider to be the horrific (to the masculine) truth of "feminine jouissance", Zizek says that Isabella Rossilini's character not only demands her degradation but is, unconsciously, in charge of the situation. This is an example of her "jouissance". Well ... possibly. But - sorry to be prosaic - where is the evidence for this? In the film, she partially undergoes her humiliations because Hopper has kidnapped her son. Zizek may object that she also evidently enjoys rough sex with Kyle MacLachalan. But this may be due to any number of things. Isn't that the point of so-called feminine "jouissance"? According to Lacan, feminine jouissance, unlike phallic jouissance, cannot be articulated, it is beyond the phallic capture and castration of language. If this is right, then no example can be made of it. It also means that the entire concept is non-sensical and entirely mystical. It can only be designated by dogmatists such as Zizek: "There's feminine jouissance for you! Why is this feminine jouissance? Because I say so." <br /><br />What example can really be garnered from these films? Only Zizek's psychology. Why does he keep inserting himself into his favourite films, even to the point that, when in a boat on Botega Bay, he says he wants to f--- Rod Steiger too? Is this not the wish-fulfilment of someone who spends his life critiquing films? As the saying goes, Freud would have a field day with The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema - but with Zizek himself, nobody else.<br /><br />Zizek's theory that films show us how we desire may be right on the face of it, but these films cannot be strict universal examples of psychoanalytical laws. This film illustrates how Zizek desires and only extremely vaguely - as to be almost useless - how the rest of us desire. For, as any psychoanalyst knows, how we desire and what we desire cannot be fully separated - and cannot be easily universalised, if at all. Zizek's love of making everything an example of Lacan's Answer bears this out: how do we desire? like this, this is how I do it. Problem is, in Zizek's desire, everything and everyone else is rationalised into his desire. But Zizek is a Leninist and they certainly don't like letting the "subject" speak for itself.<br /><br />The Pervert's Guide to the Cinema is a summation Zizek's love of dogma and is entirely unphilosophical even if it remains very political (what dogma isn't?). Zizek has never questioned exactly what his motives might be when embarking on an analysis, what he is trying to discover, because the terms of his exploration, and therefore his ethics in doing so, are never put into question.<br /><br />Zizek is extremely prolific but all his books and this film say the same thing. He's a kind of Henry Ford of cultural theory: mass-production and any colour as long as it's black. He is perfect for today's highly consumerist society: supposedly critical while giving people the same c-ap over and over and pretending that it is something different. This is popular because people largely prefer readymade answers to their problems - which capitalism always claims to provide - rather than investigating things with any serious consideration at all. Which is kind of like being brain dead. For me, Zizek's third Matrix pill is a suicide capsule.<br /><br />PS: I loved Zizek's solemn remark - presented as a revelation about cinema and humanity - that music in films can greatly affect people's sympathies. Did this only occur to Zizek after he watched Jaws?

0neg

For those who'd like to see this movie? I'd say: go! Without the narration it might be a very good movie/documentary. But the music, the narration and some of the implemented story lines make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me. Following several animals, their life in several seasons one gets the feeling that it is an animal soap we're watching. But the melodramatic point of view just doesn't cut it for me, moreover if a predator finally catches up on a prey (one exception left there) the camera zooms out or skips to another scene. I ask myself why that happens, if they were to show reality, why cut the scenes that a melodramatic fairytale remains? I think the moral is important for the mass of the crowd, cause after all: it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet.

0neg

The silent one-panel cartoon Henry comes to Fleischer Studios, billed as "The world's funniest human" in this dull little cartoon. Betty, long past her prime, thanks to the Production Code, is running a pet shop and leaves Henry in charge for far too long -- five minutes. A bore.

0neg

The annoying mouse and lullaby really got to me and really had nothing to do with the story...It's something I would have done my 1st year in film school. Very sad. Additionally, the story just seemed to drag on for no apparent reason...there were too many things just thrown in there that had nothing to do with the story, which makes me feel that the creative team didn't really know what they were doing, or just that it should have been shorter...which would have been a blessing, not a crime. As I have just watched all of the episodes up to this point over the past week...I'd have to say that this was by far the worst, and I just wanted to warn others not to start with this one.

0neg

I don't care how many nominations this junk got for best this and that, this movie stunk. I didn't know whether to turn off the set, or file a lawsuit with O.J.'s attorney for wrongful damage to my mental health. I have seldom been this bored; to call this dung entertainment is a slap in the face of every movie-goer across the planet. The whole story was stupid, the acting was uninspired, the 'drama' was emotionless. I am thankful I didn't have to pay for this unfulfilling experience.

0neg

From the beginning of the movie, it gives the feeling the director is trying to portray something, what I mean to say that instead of the story dictating the style in which the movie should be made, he has gone in the opposite way, he had a type of move that he wanted to make, and wrote a story to suite it. And he has failed in it very badly. I guess he was trying to make a stylish movie. Any way I think this movie is a total waste of time and effort. In the credit of the director, he knows the media that he is working with, what I am trying to say is I have seen worst movies than this. Here at least the director knows to maintain the continuity in the movie. And the actors also have given a decent performance.

0neg

"The Crush" is a pleasant enough 40-something friends romantic chick flick for the first two-thirds or so, as it tries to be a Brit "Sex and the City". <br /><br />I particularly enjoyed the turn-around of the trophy young hunk whose character is not much fleshed out (come to think of it we didn't see all that much physical flesh of him either and Kenny Doughty is worth seeing more of). <br /><br />They sure make a lot more deal of young man/older woman than was made of the opposite in either version of "Sabrina" (neither movie do I like) or for that matter with the Douglas/Zeta-Jones or Dion/Svengali nuptials.<br /><br />Surrounding Andie MacDowell as an ex pat otherwise are welcome familiars from Brit dramas and comedies, such as tart-tongued Anna Chancellor. <br /><br />The plot twists towards the end feel very deus ex machina. But it wasn't until the credits came up at the end that I realized what might really be wrong. Just as with "Sex and the City," the writer/director is male, here first-timer Scot John McKay, and I think he really wanted to do a script about three gay men, probably about them coming out in relation to their lovers and at work (the characters are a school principal, a cop and a doctor), which would have been a better and more interesting movie. The working title for the film was "The Sad F*cker's Club" which would have made its parallels with the gay "Broken Hearts Club" even more obvious.<br /><br />(originally written 4/6/2002)

0neg

One could wish that an idea as good as the "invisible man" would work better and be more carefully handled in the age of fantastic special effects, but this is not the case. The story, the characters and, finally the entire last 20 minutes of the film are about as fresh as a mad-scientist flick from the early 50's. There are some great moments, mostly due to the amazing special effects and to the very idea of an invisible man stalking the streets. But alas, soon we're back in the cramped confinement of the underground lab, which means that the rest of the film is not only predictable, but schematic.<br /><br />There has been a great many remakes of old films or TV shows over the past 10 years, and some of them have their charms. But it's becoming clearer and clearer for each film that the idea of putting ol' classics under the noses of eager madmen like Verhoeven (who does have his moments) is a very bad one. It is obvious that the money is the key issue here: the time and energy put into the script is nowhere near enough, and as a result, "Hollow Man" is seriously undermined with clichés, sappy characters, predictability and lack of any depth whatsoever.<br /><br />However, the one thing that actually impressed me, beside the special effects, was the swearing. When making this kind of film, modern producers are very keen on allowing kids to see them. Therefore, the language (and, sometimes, the violence and sex) is very toned down. When the whole world blows up, the good guys go "Oh darn!" and "Oh my God". "Hollow Man" gratefully discards that kind of hypocrisy and the characters are at liberty to say what comes most natural to them. I'm not saying that the most natural response to something gone wrong is to swear - but it makes it more believable if SOMEONE actually swears. I think we can thank Verhoeven for that.

0neg

I saw this film opening weekend in Australia, anticipating with an excellent cast of Ledger, Edgerton, Bloom, Watts and Rush that the definitive story of Ned Kelly would unfold before me. Unfortunately, despite an outstanding performance by Heath Ledger in the lead role, the plot was paper thin....which doesn't inspire me to read "Our Sunshine". There were some other plus points, the support acting from Edgerton in particular, assured direction from Jordan (confirming his talent on show in Buffalo Soldiers as well), and production design that gave a real feel of harshness to the Australian bush, much as the Irish immigrants of the early 19th century must have seen it. But I can't help feeling that another opportunity has been missed to tell the real story of an Australian folk hero (or was he?)....in what I suspect is a concession to Hollywood and selling the picture in the US. Oh well, at least Jordan and the producers didn't agree to lose the beards just to please Universal...<br /><br />Guess I will just have to content myself with Peter Carey's excellent "Secret History of the Kelly Gang". 4/10

0neg

I Am Curious is really two films in one - half of it is the sexual experimental side of Lena and the other half is her curiosity with political/socialism. Whatever the director's intention, the two don't really mesh together. The director should have just stuck with the romantic side of Lena and made a separate movie for the politics. There is a bizarre mixture of political/war rallies, Dr. King, serious political interviews, flopping breasts, and pubic hair. The film feels more like a fictional documentary than a movie. Other than the interesting sex scenes, you'll be bored dry watching this film. Unlike many other reviewers, I think the nude/sexual scenes are overdone for what it is. If you want to see real porn, I'm sure there are better choices. The pervasive nudity is a major distraction from whatever plot there is. I think the cast did a fine job however. They played their parts believably. There is little of the over-the-topness I'm so used to seeing in the American films during this time.

0neg

I almost called HBO and demanded my money back for the month just because they've been airing this movie. I can just see the movie execs sitting around going, "Okay, we need to come up with something that's just like Home Alone, only we'll add a bunch of cash for the kid, hire cut-rate actors, and oh yeah, we'll make it a lot less funny!"<br /><br />Okay, maybe not the last part, but that's basically what you've got here. Not even worth seeing if someone else rents it. And as a movie for kids? Forget it. I wouldn't let my kids see this, not necessarily because of bad-taste jokes, but because I wouldn't want them to say, "What were you thinking showing us that lame piece of garbage, Dad?!?!"

0neg

There's not a drop of sunshine in "The Sunshine Boys", which makes the title of this alleged comedy Neil Simon's sole ironic moment. Simon, who adapted the script from his play (which goes uncredited), equates old age with irrational behavior--and, worse, clumsy, galumphing, mean-spirited irrational behavior. Walter Matthau is merciless on us playing an aged vaudeville performer talked into reuniting with former comedy partner George Burns for a television special (it's said they were a team for 43 years, which begs the question "how long did vaudeville last, anyway?"). Burns, who won a Supporting Oscar, has the misfortune of coming to the film some thirty minutes in, after which time Matthau has already blasted the material to hell and back. The noisier the movie gets, the less tolerable and watchable it is. Director Herbert Ross only did solid work when he wasn't coupled with one of Neil Simon's screenplays; here, Ross sets up gags like a thudding amateur, hammering away at belligerent routines which fail to pay off (such as semi-incoherent Matthau showing up at a mechanic's garage to audition for a TV commercial). At this point, Matthau was still too young for this role, and he over-compensates by slouching and hollering. It was up to Ross and Simon to tone down the character, to nuance his temperament to give "The Sunshine Boys" some sunniness, yet Walter continues to project as if we'd all gone deaf. The picture looks terribly drab and crawls along at a spiritless pace; one loses hope for it early on. *1/2 from ****

0neg

This stalk and slash turkey manages to bring nothing new to an increasingly stale genre. A masked killer stalks young, pert girls and slaughters them in a variety of gruesome ways, none of which are particularly inventive.<br /><br />It's not scary, it's not clever, and it's not funny. So what was the point of it?

0neg

The form of the film is that of a suspense shocker. There are surprises, twists and turns, reverses and excitements. At times, this is truly an "edge-of-the-seat" film. But it disappoints, and disappoints severely.<br /><br />The villain of the piece is not believeable; his character does not hold together. I refuse to "spoil" the film, but will only say that the character we meet at the beginning just could not be he whom we see at the end.<br /><br />The second major disappointment of the film is that--finally, it becomes little more that a bloody slasher film. There is little qualitative difference between this and one of the "Friday the 13th" films. Not that every film need always be totally tasteful, but this film does drip gore on occasion.<br /><br />Though the film features the magnificent Sean Connery, even he does not measure up to his usual standard, and often just seems to be walking through the paces.

0neg

I'll admit I've only watched a handful of episodes, but each one seemed completely different from the next. It seems after the first season, the producers decided to completely retool the show, drop characters, introduce new ones, and rewrite the entire show dynamic.<br /><br />As you have probably surmised already, the show is about quirky, unpredictable teenager Holly (Amanda Bynes) who moves in with her high strung sister Valerie (Jennie Garth) in New York City. Decent enough premise: odd couple + fish out of water + high jinx.<br /><br />While I miss the sitcoms of yore, this show unfortunately misses the mark on funny repeatedly, and it's sad because they have some decent talent.<br /><br />On top of everything, they insisted on changing the show (Val was living with a cast regular bf one season, then he was suddenly gone, so she opens a bakery? what?) When things change that drastically, you get the feeling that even the *show* knows it's bad. I mean, completely new sets, characters written off and new show regulars!<br /><br />On a side note (this is just nitpicking), I know this is a television show and not real at all, but Val and Holly end up living in a HUGE loft duplex (there are stairs) with a terrace... in MANHATTAN! Are you serious!?

0neg

Unlike "The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai", or "Big Trouble in Little China", or "Conan the Barbarian", which are horrible films that have a certain coolness and self-deprecating humor that turn them into cult sensations, The Golden Child is just plain bad.<br /><br />The premise itself is not unworkable, and there are some funny moments. But here the Eddy Murphy "flip attitude" just deflates any feeling of tension or danger in the story. And the special effects are silly enough to do more damage to that tension. The "mystic secrets" of Tibetan Buddhism are lampooned rather than drawn upon to compel.<br /><br />Without a feeling that anything is at stake, or that the characters are faced by real danger, why should we care?<br /><br />Who should see this film:<br /><br />-- big fans of Eddy Murphy who can't help themselves<br /><br />-- I can't think of anyone else<br /><br />I'll give this film a 4 out of 10 for the occasional joke that worked.

0neg

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.

0neg

As an Altman fan, I'd sought out this movie for years, thinking that with such a great cast, it would have to be at least marginally brilliant.<br /><br />Big mistake.<br /><br />This is one of Altman's big-cast mishmashes, thrown together haphazardly and improvisationally (or so it feels) with the hope that it would all come together in the editing room. It doesn't.<br /><br />As Maltin points out, this turkey is notable only for the debut performance of Alfre Woodard, who outshines the vets all around her. But other than that, avoid at all costs. (Which is pretty easy to do -- it's never been released on video -- to my knowledge -- and its cable appearances have the frequency of Halley's Comet.)

0neg

This movie is flawed on many fronts. Like many before it, it portrays more of the mythology of the Alamo than the history. The production is poor, overall giving the impression of a welfare project for lots of actors who might have otherwise had to work on Hollywood Squares. This to me was the greatest flaw - I know the ages and general personalities of the real Alamo protagonists and the geriatric ensemble of TV actors chosen to portray them never let any hint of believability intrude.<br /><br />As a native Texan, I grew up with the mythology. I later learned more about the history. I can accept a decent production from either perspective (although I prefer more historical accuracy), but this never gave me a chance to enjoy it. Even John Wayne's or Fess Parker's versions had more life than this stolid mess, while being only slightly less accurate.<br /><br />Very disappointing - avoid it.

0neg

Sloppily directed, witless comedy that supposedly spoofs the "classic" 50s "alien invasion" films, but really is no better than them, except of course in the purely technical department (good makeup effects). And any spoof that is worse than its target is doomed to fail ("Casino Royale", "Our Man Flint" are worse than almost any James Bond movie). After two hours of hearing the screeching voices of the aliens, you'll be begging for some peace and quiet. (*1/2)

0neg

Two years ago, on Berlin Film Festival we watched the Amos Kollek movie "Sue" in the Panorama program, with a wonderful Anna Thomson in the leading part. It's a film about loneliness and sex, and how the one thing is compensated by the other. In the same section on the Festival now we have to complain the superfluous antithesis of Sue, "Extension du domaine de la lutte", which now tries to convince us that loneliness and having NO sex is one and the same problem. But unfortunately we can't sympathize with "our hero" (how he is called by the story-teller), because he is unnecessarily and incomprehensibly tired of company and himself. Own fault, I'm sorry. I can't understand him. Not enough, the writer/director/actor want us admitting to him, that it's not his destroyed self-consciousness or the passivity of his personality, what brought him so far, but the rotten society and its image of sexuality. Yes, there are some deeper insights about gender relations, but we won't follow him so far... And the point is, that there is rather any sign of reflection about his own portion to the fate, having no sex. Who didn't notice yet, it's a quite depressing film...<br /><br />In the beginning, there had been some starts to be more accurate in sketching the situation. At the bed store the "hero" speaks about the hindrances buying a new bed. Perhaps it's too broad getting up the stairs, you have to stay at home half a day... THIS is a satire about a character, who doesn't know taking the life and heart in hands, DOING something... The movie doesn`t follow this path, but handles his characters with helplessness. Nobody believes, that "our hero" is able to instigate Tisserand for a murder. Too dull, too kind, too - passive (not to mention Tisserand's complex; he has an inhibition, but he couldn't be, of course, a murderer of women!). To finish: There are women and the world, it's not a device of a modern sexualized society. Help you as you can, but don't follow the messages and the "wisdom" of this movie, which announces bankruptcy to human relationships, without seizing the real conflicts within.

0neg

A Cinderella story made for adults who live in dreamland. The romance is very unrealistic, fluttery, lovey dovey, perfect etc. The Cinderella plot till the very end and Shahid Kapoor is the only reason for my stars. If you're looking for a dreamy romance with a twist, this is definitely you're movie, but for the rest of us real world people, I'd highly recommend saving your three hour watch time. Wake up people!<br /><br />Four out of the five people that saw the film with me would not recommend the film. We had a great time bashing majority of the unrealistic scenes. Maybe I'm missing something.. I just can't believe a movie like this can beat a classic like HDDCS!!

0neg

God, I was bored out of my head as I watched this pilot. I had been expecting a lot from it, as I'm a huge fan of James Cameron (and not just since "Titanic", I might add), and his name in the credits I thought would be a guarantee of quality (Then again, he also wrote the leaden Strange Days..). But the thing failed miserably at grabbing my attention at any point of its almost two hours of duration. In all that time, it barely went beyond its two line synopsis, and I would be very hard pressed to try to figure out any kind of coherent plot out of all the mess of strands that went nowhere. On top of that, I don't think the acrobatics outdid even those of any regular "A-Team" episode. As for Alba, yes, she is gorgeous, of course, but the fact that she only displays one single facial expression the entire movie (pouty and surly), makes me also get bored of her "gal wit an attitude" schtick pretty soon. You can count me out of this one, Mr. Cameron!

0neg

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Are all teen slasher flicks suffering from a drought of originality? It awfully seems so. First of all, this is a noble premise that could've been utilized well. A rejected young nerd who grows up, stalks and murders all the girls who tortured the hell out of him when he was in junior high? Can't say you had nothing to work with. But this film goes through the same motions as all the other recent slashers. Everything from the score to the camera angles allow us to predict exactly when a false alarm is coming and exactly when the killer will strike. We know the pattern by now. These stupid slasher movies push the credibility envelope more and more by the minute. Let me ask you something: Who, in their right mind, is going to surprise a friend of theirs in a dark, dreary morgue in the middle of the night and just surprise her out of the blue while she's all alone and surrounded by corpses? Does that make any damn sense at all?<br /><br />"Valentine" is only occasionally innovative. One good shot involves the butchering of Denise Richards' character. She gets trapped inside a pool and the killer pokes at her with a chainsaw. There's some good songs in the soundtrack, including one cool track by Orgy. The music video is contained in the special features section on the DVD.<br /><br />Even the acting is mediocre at best. The actors all sleep through their roles. Of course, David Boreanaz is often stoic, even in his portrayal as the title character on "Angel." Denise Richards is a fine actress, though, and she keeps a stoneface throughout the movie.<br /><br />"Valentine" is just like you'd expect: pretentious, implausible, forgettable, cheesy and without a good scare in sight. Don't even bother.<br /><br />My score: 4 (out of 10)

0neg

For the record, this film is intriguing but its hardly original. Back in 1998 a movie starring Talia Shire called The Landlady had almost the exact same plot but with younger characters.<br /><br />The story is Amanda Lear has had a bad life, abusive father, horny doctor, mental homes, etc. She's finally released from the happy home under the guidance of her perverted doctor...who she anally abuses and kills the poor guy. (now THAT was original) The doctor had financed a mansion for her before she killed him and buried the sucker in the backyard. After moving in she falls in love with a stud named Richard, who just happens to be married to a blues singer. If you've seen The Landlady you know the rest, she kills or tries to kill anyone that gets in between her and Richard (including a roadie).<br /><br />Much of the idea's came from the previous movie, same idiot sidekick that sticks his nose in, same spying on the guy with a bowl of popcorn, same flying a bodypress. It did have some original material, the beer bottle thing was brutal. The highlight of the movie was Amanda's beautiful breasts in the hot-top scene. Somewhat of a ripoff but not a total waste of time.<br /><br />4 out of 10

0neg

This is really a new low in entertainment. Even though there are a lot worse movies out.<br /><br />In the Gangster / Drug scene genre it is hard to have a convincing storyline (this movies does not, i mean Sebastians motives for example couldn't be more far fetched and worn out cliché.) Then you would also need a setting of character relationships that is believable (this movie does not.) <br /><br />Sure Tristan is drawn away from his family but why was that again? what's the deal with his father again that he has to ask permission to go out at his age? interesting picture though to ask about the lack and need of rebellious behavior of kids in upper class family. But this movie does not go in this direction. Even though there would be the potential judging by the random Backflashes. Wasn't he already down and out, why does he do it again? <br /><br />So there are some interesting questions brought up here for a solid socially critic drama (but then again, this movie is just not, because of focusing on "cool" production techniques and special effects an not giving the characters a moment to reflect and most of all forcing the story along the path where they want it to be and not paying attention to let the story breath and naturally evolve.) <br /><br />It wants to be a drama to not glorify abuse of substances and violence (would be political incorrect these days, wouldn't it?) but on the other hand it is nothing more then a cheap action movie (like there are so so many out there) with an average set of actors and a Vinnie Jones who is managing to not totally ruin what's left of his reputation by doing what he always does.<br /><br />So all in all i .. just ... can't recommend it.<br /><br />1 for Vinnie and 2 for the editing.

0neg

Outlandish premise that rates low on plausibility and unfortunately also struggles feebly to raise laughs or interest. Only Hawn's well-known charm allows it to skate by on very thin ice. Goldie's gotta be a contender for an actress who's done so much in her career with very little quality material at her disposal...<br /><br />

0neg

This is an art film that was either made in 1969 or 1972 (the National Film Preservation Foundation says 1969 and IMDb says 1972). Regardless of the exact date, the film definitely appears to be very indicative of this general time period--with some camera-work and pop art stylings that are pure late 60s-early 70s.<br /><br />The film consists of three simple images that are distorted using different weird camera tricks. These distorted images are accompanied by music and there is absolutely no dialog or plot of any sort. This was obviously intended as almost like a form of performance art, and like most performance art, it's interesting at first but quickly becomes tiresome. The film, to put it even more bluntly, is a total bore and would appeal to no one but perhaps those who made the film, their family and friends and perhaps a few people just too hip and "with it" to be understood by us mortals.

0neg

Watching this stinker constitutes cruel and unusal punishment at the hands of Sandler. Truly a slow and painful death.<br /><br />'Bought the DVD in the $5.88 bin at Wal Mart. But the thought that keeps echoing in my head is, "How can I get my money back?"<br /><br />The most unforgivable thing about the movie is that the boat JUST DOES NOT SINK!<br /><br />Best constructive suggestion: Mystery Comedy Theatre. You know that show on the SciFi Channel in which some guy and his muppet-machines spoof the most unwatchable horror flicks (Mystery Science Theatre). IMMEDIATELY, spin off a comedy program and feature this flick. Without a good humorous spoof of this train wreck, I fear that viewers may actually begin following Sandler with ice picks and chainsaws.<br /><br />

0neg

I saw the capsule comment said "great acting." In my opinion, these are two great actors giving horrible performances, and with zero chemistry with one another, for a great director in his all-time worst effort. Robert De Niro has to be the most ingenious and insightful illiterate of all time. Jane Fonda's performance uncomfortably drifts all over the map as she clearly has no handle on this character, mostly because the character is so poorly written. Molasses-like would be too swift an adjective for this film's excruciating pacing. Although the film's intent is to be an uplifting story of curing illiteracy, watching it is a true "bummer." I give it 1 out of 10, truly one of the worst 20 movies for its budget level that I have ever seen.

0neg

This is it. This is the one. This is the worst movie ever made. Ever. It beats everything. I have never seen worse. Retire the trophy and give it to these people.....there's just no comparison.<br /><br />Even three days after watching this (for some reason I still don't know why) I cannot believe how insanely horrific this movie is/was. Its so bad. So far from anything that could be considered a movie, a story or anything that should have ever been created and brought into our existence.<br /><br />This made me question whether or not humans are truly put on this earth to do good. It made me feel disgusted with ourselves and our progress as a species in this universe. This type of movie sincerely hurts us as a society. We should be ashamed. I really cannot emphasize that our global responsibility as people living here and creating art, is that we need to prevent the creation of these gross distortions of our reality for our own good. It's an embarrassment. I don't know how on earth any of these actors, writers, or the director of this film sleeps at night knowing that they had a role in making "Loaded". I don't know what type of disgusting monsters enjoy watching these types of movies.<br /><br />That being said, I love a good "bad" movie. I love Shark Attack 3, I love Bad Taste, they are HILARIOUS. I tell all my friends to see them because they are "bad".<br /><br />But this.......this crosses the line of "bad" into a whole new dimension. This is awkward bad. This is the bad where you know everything that is going to happen, every line, every action, every death, every sequence BEFORE they happen; and not just like a second or two before, I mean like, after watching the first 5 minutes before.<br /><br />Every cheesy editing "effect" is shamelessly used over and over again to a sickening point. I really never want to see the "shaky" camera "drug buzz rush" effect or jump cuts or swerve cuts or ANY FANCY CUT EVER AGAIN EVER. This is meticulously boring, repetitive and just tortures the audience.<br /><br />But.......and let me be specific here, the most DISTURBING thing about this movie is that given the production, it appears that a somewhat decent amount of money was actually put into this excrement. I personally will grab the shoulders of the director if I ever see him and shake him into submission, demanding that he run home and swallow two-gallons of Drain-O or I will do it for him.<br /><br />If we ever needed a new form of inhumane torture for our war prisoners abroad, just keep showing them this movie in a padded cell over and over again. Trust me, I think they will become more extravagant with suicide methods after the 72nd time of sitting through this.<br /><br />Stop these movies, they are just the most vile of all facets of our society. Please. Stop. NOW.

0neg

Blank Check is a movie that I saw on TV one day and like most movies they air on TV Blank Check wasn't that good. First of all no one I have ever met has seen Blank Check and that includes people that grew up in the 90s. Also Blank Check won't be remembered in the 00s either simply due to the fact that it will be overshadowed by pixar's films. I wouldn't call Blank Check a bad film but its not really entertaining either. (Or at least it isn't to anyone over the age of 6) Blank Check isn't a entertaining film because nothing about it is original. Everything just makes you go "what haven't I seen this before?" Blank Check rips off and tries to cash in on everything from Richie Rich to Home Alone (Which strangely enough both have Macaulay Culkin in it) Blank Check isn't a bad movie, but it deserves to fade into obscurity.

0neg

Pros: Nothing<br /><br />Cons: Everything<br /><br />Plot summary: A female reporter runs into a hitchhiker that tells her stories about the deaths of people that were killed by zombies.<br /><br />Review: Never in my life have I come across a movie as bad The Zombie Chronicles. Filmed on a budget of what looks to be about 20 bucks, TZC is a completely horrible horror movie that relies on lame, forgetable actors whom couldn't act to save their lives and gore that's more gross than frightening. How does a movie like this even get made? Simply put, avoid TZC like a sexually-transmitted disease.<br /><br />My last 2 cents: Humorously enough, this movie was made by a movie company called Brain Damage Films. They're brains must have really been damaged to come up with a craptacular movie like this.<br /><br />My rating: 1 out of 10(If it were up to me, this movie would get the rating of negative bajillion)

0neg

I'm in Iraq right now doing a job that gives plenty of time for watching movies. We also have access to plenty of pirated movies, this gem came along with 11 other movies, and this is easily the worst I've seen in a long time. I've seen a few other reviews that claim this movie doesn't take itself too seriously, but really, I think that's a cover up for the fact that its horrible. It's not tongue in cheek, the writers really thought they were improving on the movie Blade. This movie is just one notch above Vampire Assassin, which if you haven't seen, i recommend. At least that movie is so unbelievably bad that you'll laugh harder than you thought possible. This is right at that cusp of no redeeming qualities what so ever. from the bad acting, to cliché visual (ie opening credits), to the adobe premier special effects. they couldn't even get blanks for the guns, which may have to do with where the movie was filmed, but if you're going to use effects, make them close to accurate. as for the cast, it seems like they just went to a tae bo class and picked up the first not to ugly chick that walked out. Once again, like Ron Hall in Vampire Assassin, don't let stunt folk act, they can't. Also, the comment about this being a "return of old vampire movies"...no, it's not. This is exactly what all new vampire movies are about. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Blade, Underworld, they're all about some super star fighting the vampires. This is the newest vampire genre, with bad blood, fake screams, and cheesy over acting. obviously anyone who wrote a good review about this is somehow connected to the movie, or friends of the cast. But what do I care, I paid 33 cents for it. Anyway, to wrap this up, someone in their first semester of film school decided to make a movie, I give them credit because it's better than I could do. Of course I also know I can't make movies so I don't try. I do know how to watch movies though. I work 12 hour nights, 6 days a week, I've seen several thousand in the year I've been out here and this was so bad that half way through i was hoping for a mortar attack.

0neg

I love Jamie Foxx.<br /><br />And I enjoy 99% of all movies I see.<br /><br />And I walked out of this one.<br /><br />Now, I admit, it may have had something to do with the two middle-aged white women in the back of theatre who laughed at every little thing ("Oh no, Jamie's knocking on a door! HEE HEE HEE!"), but... this was just so incredibly annoying. There could be no sustained camera shot, and no camera shot from a conventional angle... everything had to be in-your-face, loud, and annoying.<br /><br />The bad guy tried to be smooth and Malkovich-like, but at this point, it's just old and tired. He brought nothing new or interesting. From all the characters, too many lines you saw coming, too many you've heard before, and too many "tough guy" lines... and I don't mind that sort of thing, really, as long as there's a bit of originality to it. In fact, pretty much the entire supporting cast just sucked.<br /><br />I love Jamie Foxx, and I think he's really funny, and I thought he was funny in this movie... but not nearly funny enough for me to endure everything else. <br /><br />This movie needed less shoot-em-up, less annoying camera shots, more emotion, more feeling, and more Jamie Foxx. I gave it a 2.

0neg

Any time a movie is so myopic in its desire to present a particular ending or viewpoint that it simply doesn't bother with an actual story, it's annoying. Those are the types of movies where the ending or viewpoint is conceived first, and the story simply tacked on. For this reason we often talk of the story "jumping through hoops" as it twists about, trying in vain to progress to the preordained ending in a logical fashion.<br /><br />The story in "Comet Over Broadway" doesn't just jump through hoops, it's a three ring circus. It's so ludicrous, so ill-conceived, so disingenuous that, if you are prone to speaking aloud to the screen, you will be carrying on quite a rant before it's through.<br /><br />The central theme of this screenplay cesspool is that of a woman choosing between family and profession. Since it's all so horribly muddled it will end up offensive to people of either opinion. So, in the end there's no point to the story, the theme becomes irrelevant and, as is often the case with poor screenplays, the acting doesn't save a thing.

0neg

Beyond a shadow of a doubt Mysterious Planet is one of the worst movies ever made, yet retains an affection in my heart because the poverty of its special effects and astoundingly awful sound track in the first 15 minutes (and to be honest that's all you need to see) combine to create something that is hilariously side-splitting.<br /><br />The opening scene in 'space' is just about as unfathomable as cinematography gets, as washing-up liquid bottles whiz past your eyes to muffled dialogue. Before you've had time to work out whether it's you who's gone mad, the credits roll and the action struggles to life.<br /><br />And aside from the double-headed plasticine giant snail that terrorises our heroes, you also get the added double bonus of having both the original actors voices AND the dubbed voices at the same time. Pure genius.<br /><br />The sad thing for fans of this kind of fare is that I've only ever seen one copy, so the chances of ever seeing it yourself is highly unlikely. Perhaps I own the only copy in existence.<br /><br />

0neg

Its plain to see why the makers of Scary Movie found it so easy to spoof these 'teen slasher' movies. They are so unbelievably formulaic. And if Valentine had been released a year or so earlier, I'm sure they would have been spoofing this film too - that's if they found any actual original material to distinguish it from the Screams, I know what you did last summers, and Urban Legends.<br /><br />Valentine offers nothing new to this genre, except a better than usual ending which, of course, leaves lots of room for the inevitable sequel. As always, a masked psychotic killer stalks a bunch of beautiful young women, killing the main character's friends, one by one, in typically over the top style. Lots of T&A on display, no character development, bad acting, and overly elaborate bloodshed.<br /><br />The thing I can't stand about these kind of movies is that they pass themselves off as 'who done its?'. The thing is that they aren't because the motive is only revealed once the killer has unmasked, and tells the main character who's friends have now all been murdered. Usually something that was never made at all clear during the film anyway (eg. main character's mother's uncle's fishing partner kicked his friend's father's dog). Everybody still left alive throughout the film is a 'suspect', but they are more 'Red Herrings' than suspects. As we all know at this point the main character manages an implausible escape and kills the unmasked psycho killer after the motive is revealed.<br /><br />Valentine followed this formula almost to the letter. ***************SPOILER!!!!!! (mini spoiler anyway)*************** In Valentine the motive was not revealed, but more, left for you to think about given that the film didn't quite conclude in the typical 'teen slash' way. The issue is only part resolved, and the goal of the lead killer may or may not have been fulfilled by surviving the bloodshed and killing almost everybody. Will the killer want more, or were the demons truly vanquished?<br /><br />This still didn't make Valentine a good film, instead it simply saved it from being as bad as usual, which still doesn't count for much. To anybody thinking of making another film along these lines, please don't. Originality is so important, and its hard to see any originality coming out of this genre.

0neg

One thing that astonished me about this film (and not in a good way) was that Nathan Stoltzfus, who seems to pride himself on being the major historian on the topic of the Rosenstrasse, was one of the historians working on this film, considering how much of the actual events were altered or disregarded. <br /><br />Another reviewer said that von Trotta said she never meant for Lena to bed Goebbels, but in that case, why did she give every impression that that was what had happened? Why not show other possible reasons for the mens' release, such as the disaster that was Stalingrad, or the Nazis' fear that the international press, based in Berlin, would find out about the protest.<br /><br />Also, why did the whole storyline play second fiddle to a weak family bonding storyline that has been done over and over again? Surely something as awesome as this could carry its own history! In places, it was as if the film had two story lines that really seemed to have little in common.<br /><br />Overall, this film failed in its aim, which was to draw attention to a little-known act of resistance, which is a shame, because done better, it could have had a major impact.

0neg

This was the third remake of SLEEPING WITH THE ENIEMY After YAARANA(1995) and AGNISAKSHI(1996)<br /><br />AGNISAKSHI was the only one which worked and was a better film<br /><br />DARAAR is directed by Abbas Mustan who sadly failed in their attempt here<br /><br />the story was good but the handling wasn't that good and the heroine was shown too regressive and the climax too was disappointing<br /><br />Direction is bad Music is good<br /><br />Rishi reprises his role of YAARANA(strangely which also was a remake of SWTE) and looks too fat for the lead and is okay Juhi is decent while Arbaaz tries too hard in his debut and does manage in many scenes to chill the audiences but his voice was terrible Johny is too loud

0neg

Paul Armstrong is a liberal, Scottish-born, professor of law at Harvard, known for his passionate opposition to the death penalty, who is hired to take on the case of Bobby Earl, a young black man from Florida who has been convicted of the rape and murder of Joanie Shriver, an eleven year old white girl. Earl claims that his confession to the crime was obtained under duress by a sadistic police officer and that the real murderer is Blair Sullivan, a serial killer already under sentence of death for several other murders. Armstrong visits Sullivan in his cell on death row, hoping to persuade him to confess to Joanie's murder, thereby saving Earl from the electric chair. <br /><br />At first all goes well. Sullivan confesses and Earl is released from prison when the appeal court quashes his conviction. As this development takes place only a little after halfway through the film, it is at this point that alarm bells will start ringing in the mind of the viewer. "Warning! Major plot twist ahead!" And so it proves. The anticipated twist soon materialises. Earl, it transpires, is actually guilty of the crime of which he has just been acquitted, and probably of several others as well, but hatched a diabolical plan together with Sullivan in order to secure his freedom; Sullivan will confess to Joanie's murder if Earl will murder his parents. (Just why Sullivan wanted his parents dead is never precisely explained). Armstrong now finds that he is himself in danger from the man whose life he has just saved; Earl has a grudge against Armstrong's wife, herself a lawyer, who acted as Counsel for the prosecution in an earlier case when Earl was accused of rape. <br /><br />"Just Cause" is an example of the auto-cannibalism in which Hollywood sometimes likes to indulge, cobbling together one film by recycling themes and plot devices from a number of others. The first half owes an obvious debt to films like "Intruder in the Dust" and "To Kill a Mockingbird"; about the only difference is that the Sheriff who beats a confession out of Bobby Earl is himself black, whereas in earlier films he would have been white. (Police brutality is now an equal opportunities activity). The central twist in the plot was borrowed from Costa-Gavras's "Music Box", although in that film the revelation does not occur until the very end. The finale, in which a lawyer, his wife and their young daughter are in danger from a former client, is an obvious plagiarism of the two versions of "Cape Fear", which also take place in the swamplands of the American South. Ed Harris' characterisation of Sullivan as a Bible-quoting religious maniac is a direct imitation of Robert de Niro's character in the Scorsese version of "Cape Fear", made four years before "Just Cause". <br /><br />(There is a postscript. Just as "Just Cause" borrowed heavily from several other movies, seven years later its central plot twist was, in its turn, to be blatantly plagiarised in the Ashley Judd vehicle "High Crimes"). <br /><br />The trouble with this style of film-making-by-numbers is that the resulting films are generally much less distinguished than those which inspired them. The whole is normally very much less than the sum of the parts, and "Just Cause" is a much lesser film than any of those which were cannibalised to make it. Harris is normally a gifted actor but this is one of his weakest performances, largely because he is not so much playing a character as playing de Niro playing Max Cady. Blair Underwood is OK as Bobby Earl the (supposedly) innocent young man of the early scenes, but unconvincing as Bobby Earl the murderous psychopath of the later ones. Sean Connery as Armstrong and Laurence Fishburne as the black Sheriff are rather better, but neither is good enough to save the film. (Connery and Harris were to act together in another, better, film, "The Rock", the following year). <br /><br />There is another problem with "Just Cause". The first half of the film looks like a standard liberal "issue" movie, anti-death penalty, anti-racist and critical of heavy-handed policing. The second half looks more like the work of a die-hard reactionary, preaching the message that all criminals are evil bastards, that the only way to deal with them is to fry them in the chair, that liberal lawyers are the useful idiots of the criminal fraternity and that police officers who beat up suspects are to be commended as heroes. The filmmakers seem to have been blissfully unaware that the plot twist casually introduced into the middle of their film had the (presumably unwanted) effect of reversing its political stance, or if they were aware of the problem they ignored it. A suitably convoluted plot was obviously thought to be more important than political consistency. 4/10

0neg

The worst movie I have seen in a while. Yeah its fun to fantasize, but if that is what you are looking for, I suggest you see Brewsters Millions. This was just terrible and corny and terrible at being corny. Unless you are five or like terrible movies, don't see this one.

0neg

Three part "horror" film with some guy in a boarded up house imploring the viewer not to go "out there" and (unfortunately) gives us three tales to prove why.<br /><br />The first story involves a young couple in a car accident who meet up with two psychos. It leads up to two totally predictable twists. Still, it's quick (about 15 minutes), violent, well-acted and well-done. Predictable but enjoyable.<br /><br />The second involves a man on the run after stealing a large amount of money. His car breaks down, he's attacked by a dog and stumbles into a nearby clinic. VERY obvious, badly done and extremely slow. Even at 30 minutes this is too long. Good acting though.<br /><br />The third is just barely a horror story. It involves a beautiful, lonely woman looking for Mr. Right. It has beautiful set designs, a nice erotic feel and a nice sex scene. But (again) predictable and not even remotely scary.<br /><br />It ends very stupidly.<br /><br />All in all, the first one is worth watching, but that's it. Tune in for that one then turn it off.

0neg

What? Is Jamie Foxx supposed to be funny?Does he really believe he is funny?Well, it's funny watching his confidence in being funny.The man has no identity whatsoever...I mean you can immediately see who his idols are, Denzel Washington and Martin Lawrence, because he tries really hard to imitate them in most of his movies.The only problem is that he does it bad, uneven, and what comes out are some parts where he somewhat looks like Denzel, with that macho-s**t attitude and then abruptly goes to being Martin Lawrence, the funny and clumsy-silly comic. There's no personal touch to all that, I mean he contributes nothing to the personality he tries to sell, and I'm sure he has nothing to say personally. He really is Mr. Dull-boy in person.<br /><br />I was really hoping Hollywood, and the black community in America would find somebody better to launch into super stardom, like Don Cheadle for example, but perhaps the pathetic Jamie better represents the generation that remixes the old.

0neg

Never cast models and Playboy bunnies in your films! Bob Fosse's "Star 80" about Dorothy Stratten, of whom Bogdanovich was obsessed enough to have married her SISTER after her murder at the hands of her low-life husband, is a zillion times more interesting than Dorothy herself on the silver screen. Patty Hansen is no actress either..I expected to see some sort of lost masterpiece a la Orson Welles but instead got Audrey Hepburn cavorting in jeans and a god-awful "poodlesque" hair-do....Very disappointing...."Paper Moon" and "The Last Picture Show" I could watch again and again. This clunker I could barely sit through once. This movie was reputedly not released because of the brouhaha surrounding Ms. Stratten's tawdry death; I think the real reason was because it was so bad!

0neg

The plot line of No One Sleeps is not a bad idea, and the subject matter is of quite a bit of interest. But, throughout watching this film, we were saying aloud, "These filmmakers go to the trouble of finding good locations, the lighting is good, makeup and hair are good...why is the sound so bad?" Throughout the film the sound was echoy, garbled and much of the dialog was unintelligible.<br /><br />There is some good acting in this film, and I think Jim Thalman is really a good actor. This story, with some of the same actors, would have been worth doing as a high-budget film.<br /><br />I just can't reiterate enough - if you have a limited budget, dedicate more to good sound. Sound is as much a part of a film as the image, and it's worth doing right. Could've earned a 6.

0neg

This film was choppy, incoherent and contrived. It was also an extremely mean-spirited portrayal of women. I rented it because it was listed as a comedy (that's a stretch), and because the cover said Andie McDowell was acting up a storm in it. She wasn't. I'm a gal, I watched this film with two guys, and we spent an hour afterwards exclaiming over how bad it was.<br /><br />WARNING: PLOT SUMMARY BELOW! RAMPANT SPOILERS!<br /><br />The movie starts out with a fairly hackneyed plot about an older woman who takes up with a younger man, to the severe disapproval of her two jealous single girlfriends. They want her to marry a boring guy their own age who is kind of in love with her. But she's so happy with her oversexed puppy that you're rooting for them to stick it out, and sure enough, she decides to marry the guy. But her harpy girlfriend, aided by the wishy-washy one, sets up a plot to trick our heroine into thinking the guy is cheating on her. It works. She has a fight with him, he runs out of the house and is crushed by a truck (Remember the movie's title?) So now he's dead, two-thirds of the way through the film. And although our heroine is a school headmistress who spends her time watching over girls, she apparently forgot to use birth control and is pregnant.<br /><br />She's already broken off relations with her girlfriends, because they were so unsupportive. Alone and pitiful, she decides to marry the boring guy. Did I mention that the boring guy who kind of loves her is a minister? She had asked him to marry her to the young guy (nice, huh?), but now she tells him she'll marry him, and apparently he has no objections to being dicked around in this fashion. But her girlfriends rescue her at the altar and take her home, where they not-quite-confess that they were mostly responsible for the love of her life getting smushed. She has the kid. In the final scene, they leave it in a crib inside her house while they go out on the porch to drink, smoke and be smug. I kid you not, it's that bad. I left out the part about the cancer red-herring and the harpy's ridiculous lesbian moment.

0neg

If the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless, one might well refer to "Ned Kelly" as an "Australian Western." For the people Down Under, Ned Kelly was, apparently, a folk hero bandit akin to Robin Hood, Jesse James, Bonnie and Clyde, and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. The descendant of Irish immigrants, Kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an Australian law officer, a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison. To get back at the government for this mistreatment, Kelly, his brother Dan, and two other companions, became notorious bank robbers, winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where Irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country.<br /><br />Perhaps because we've encountered this "gentleman bandit" scenario so many times in the past, "Ned Kelly" feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre's stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown. Ned is the typical heart-of-gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and, even then, only with the deepest regret. He also has the pulse of the common folk, as when, in the middle of a bank robbery, he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers, after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it. What movie on this particular subject hasn't featured a scene like that? It's acts of selective generosity like this, of course, that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers-that-be and the status quo. Geoffrey Rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment. There's even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers, so turned on is she by the romantic derring-do of the criminal lifestyle. And the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another.<br /><br />Heath Ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role, providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging. It doesn't help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice-over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film.<br /><br />"Ned Kelly" might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in Australian history, but as an entertainment, it's just the same old story told with different accents.

0neg

The episodic version of Robert Heinlein's Starship Troopers plays out at a deathly slow pace, following Johnny Rico leaving his parents, the (not very attractive) girl he lusts for, and joining the mobile infantry. The aliens in the show are nothing like the barbaric bugs from the film, instead being squid-like monsters that shoot lasers out of their mouths.<br /><br />Throughout watching this version, I was continually amazed at just how fruity they've managed to make the whole thing. The show is concerned mostly with the relationships between the recruits, and the aching, prolonged gazes they give each other through their battle armour visors, with 80s synth pop sometimes arriving *during* the sparse battle sequences which at last turning up in the final few episodes. In terms of construction, it owes a debt to Top Gun, sharing much in terms of pacing and content (and all that implies).

0neg

This film is just plain horrible. John Ritter doing pratt falls, 75% of the actors delivering their lines as if they were reading them from cue cards, poor editing, horrible sound mixing (dialogue is tough to pick up in places over the background noise), and a plot that really goes nowhere. I didn't think I'd ever say this, but Dorothy Stratten is not the worst actress in this film. There are at least 3 others that suck more. Patti Hansen delivers her lines with the passion of Ben Stein. I started to wonder if she wasn't dead inside. Even Bogdanovich's kids are awful (the oldest one is definitely reading her lines from a cue card). This movie is seriously horrible. There's a reason Bogdanovich couldn't get another project until 4 years later. Please don't watch it. If you see it in your television listings, cancel your cable. If a friend suggests it to you, reconsider your friendship. If your spouse wants to watch it, you're better off finding another soulmate. I'd rather gouge my eyes out with lawn darts than sit through this piece of garbage again. If I could sum this film up in one word, that word would be: Suckotrocity

0neg

This is definitely the worst movie Adam's ever done but at this point in his life, he was just happy to have a movie. There are 3 or 4 laughs in it but I used the fast forward button through some of it. Don't waste your time. I only saw it because I wanted to see all of his movies, but it sucked.

0neg

The sign of a classic movie is that it ages like a fine red wine. This movie is no Cabarnet and certainly no Casablanca. I agree with the other reviewers that the children in the movie are an unfortunate mutation that now plagues us nightly in sit-coms and the dialogue is stilted and preachy. But let's look at the obsolete theme of the movie.<br /><br />With the passage of sixty plus years of history comes wisdom. Since Watch on the Rhine, author Lillian Hellman has been exposed as a Bidenesque plagiarist with her so called real-life story "Julia" from her book "Pentimento". As one of the most odious of a plethora of Western-based USSR apologists, it is obvious her theme in the play and movie was to stir America to action to save the bloody Soviet dictator Stalin and international communism from the fascists, who had just proved their military superiority in Spain.<br /><br />As one reviewer correctly noted, this is not a pro-American play and movie, as Lillian went to her grave an American-loathing communist. This film chronicles that familiar smug stupidity of the intellectual elites that made up the American Left then, just as now the full mooner Left of The Daily Kos and Michael Moore has bought into the conspiracy theories and once again given aid and comfort to those who would destroy America.

0neg

Return to Cabin by the Lake just.... was lacking. It must have had a very low budget because a fair amount of the movie must have been filmed with a regular video camera. So, within the same scene - you'll have some movie-quality camera shots AND simple video camera shots. It makes for a very odd blend! I think they should have found SOME way to not do the "home video" type effect! <br /><br />I think it's worthwhile to see it IF you have seen the original CBTL because then you can compare and see the differences. But if you haven't seen the original CBTL.... you'll never want to see it if you see this one first! It will probably seem way too cheesy and turn you off from even caring about the original one.

0neg

This movie was rented by a friend. Her choice is normally good. I read the cover first and was expecting a good movie. Although it<br /><br />was a horror movie. Which i don't prefer. But no horror came to mind while watching the movie. It was a dull,<br /><br />not very entertaining movie. The appearance of Denise Richards<br /><br />was again a pleasure for the eye. But that's it. We (the four of us)<br /><br />we're a little bit disappointed. But feel free to see this movie and<br /><br />judge it yourself.

0neg

I think I will make a movie next weekend. Oh wait, I'm working..oh I'm sure I can fit it in. It looks like whoever made this film fit it in. I hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked!!! It looks like someones home movie and I don't think more than $100 was spent making it!!! Total crap!!! Who let's this stuff be released?!?!?!

0neg

This movie was so unrelentingly bad, I could hardly believe I was watching it. The directing, editing, production, and script all seemed as though they had been done by junior high school students who don't know all that much about movies. There was no narrative flow that made any sort of sense. Big emotional moments and climaxes (like one early on between Heath Ledger and Naomi Watts) and character relationships (like one hinted at at the very beginning) come completely out of no where and are not set up like they would have been in a more elegantly and effectively made film. The characters are sadly underdeveloped, making it difficult for us to have any sort of connection with them. The acting, surprisingly, is not entirely bad, but the terrible writing cancels out the relatively convincing performances. The film plays like a particularly bad T.V. western/epic, and sadly diminishes the fascinating (true) story that it attempts to tell. I have read a lot of reviews that defend the film as being important to Australians because of the subject matter. That's all very well, but just because Ned Kelly is an important Australian historical icon DOESN'T MAKE THE MOVIE GOOD. No one is saying that the subject matter isn't good, just the quality of the movie itself. Pearl Harbor was about a very important historical event to Americans, but that doesn't mean I'm going to defend the movie and say it was good, because it was still bad. A failure all around, though Heath and Orlando are lovely to look at.

0neg

:Spoilers:<br /><br />I was very disappointed in Love's Abiding Joy. I had been waiting a really long time to see it and I finally got the chance when it re-aired Thursday night on Hallmark. I love the first three "Love" movies but this one was nothing like I thought it was going to be. The whole movie was sad and depressing, there were way to many goofs, and the editing was very poor - to many scenes out of context. I also think the death of baby Kathy happened way to soon and Clarks appearance in the movie just didn't seem to fit. It seemed like none of the actors really wanted to be there - they were all lacking emotion. There seemed to be no interaction between Missie and Willie at all.<br /><br />I think the script writers should have went more by the book. It seems like every movie that's been made so far just slips further and further away from Janette Oke's writings. I mean in the movie they never mentioned a thing about the mine and the two boys or Clark getting hurt because of it. And I think Missie and Willies reactions to Kathy's death could have been shown and heard rather than just heard.<br /><br />Out of the four movies that have been made so far I'd have to say that Love's Abiding Joy is my least favorite. I hope with the next four movies that more of the book is followed and if Clarks character is in them I hope he's got a bigger part and I hope his part isn't so bland. I also hope there is more of Scottie and Cookie and maybe even Marty but who knows what the script writers will have in store next.

0neg

Dysfunctional family goes home for the holidays and murder and mayhem result. Violent sexy Milligan at his most home made. Little better than a home movie (as much of Milligans films are) this is a trip into depravity 1960's style. Notable for the copious nudity and sex this film is neither sexy nor gruesome, playing now more as quaint.(though decidedly r rated). The film suffers from its uneven cast and from the cheapness of the production.(No one was ever sure where the money went on his movies since he was always broke). Its a bad bad movie thats not worth seeing except as a Milligan completeist or because its got some good looking people fooling around.

0neg

> What a dud. It began with some promise, then became unfocused and > wandered. John Cusack's Cajun accent was laughable, Bridget Fonda's role > existed only to get a skirt into the film, and Pacino did Pacino. His entire > generation of actors -- Nicholson, Hackman, Caine, Hoffman -- have developed > a standard performance that each can deliver effortlessly (or, less > charitably, "mail in") in their paycheck films. This was > one. >

0neg

1 How is it that everyone can understand each other perfectly without devices like universal translators or translator microbes? Did the creators of this show realize that people who were taken from different parts of the earth, in different time frames (Attilla the Hun wasn't a contemporary of preliterate Hellenic cultures, nor were the Vikings contemporary to the Pyramid builders) speak different languages and can never develop a language so similar to modern day English(except for the inflections they "do not" use), which has been influenced by Latin, ancient Greek, Danish and French? <br /><br />2 Cultural differences can't be overcome so easily, trust has to be won, yet everywhere the team arrives they are welcomed without any suspicion and start ordering people around like they are their appointed leaders. Of course real fans would comment that they are perceived as gods. The people they meet should be shocked by their technology and accuse them of witchcraft and the like.<br /><br />3 Historical background: none. Visually it might vaguely remind you of Greek or Viking culture, but anyone can dress in a bunch of tablecloths or run to a local costume rental for a plastic helmet with horns and claim to look the part. A small-town theater group probably has better props.<br /><br />4 Boring! Another lame Canuck production, which inexplicably ran for ten long years. As a kids show it could make the grade, but anyone who has a little knowledge about human behavior and language couldn't bear to even watch the first twelve episodes of season 1, like I just did. I very much wanted to believe I had found a decent sci-fi show, otherwise I would shut it of and cleansed my computer of this refuge after the first five minutes!

0neg

This fanciful horror flick has Vincent Price playing a mad magician that realizes his vocational talents have been sold to another. He devise ways of avenging all those that have wronged him. His master scheme seems to back fire on him.<br /><br />Price is a little below par compared to his masterpieces, but is still the only reason to watch this thriller. Supporting cast includes Patrick O'Neal, Mary Murphy, Eva Gabor and Jay Novello.<br /><br />

0neg

It as absolutely incredible to me that anyone could make the comment that this film is not preachy. It is not only oppressively preachy, but absurd, stagebound, dramatically straight-jacketed, and painfully overwrought. Watching it, one feels like an 8 year old child being punished by having to write "I will not become a fascist" on the blackboard 100 times.<br /><br />Now I understand that it was made during the height of WW2, and was intended to be a brave condemnation of Hitler and the terrible suffering he brought about, (which anyone would whole-heartedly applaud) and I'm sure it accurately captured the mood of the day. But it is presented in such an immature, over-obvious, sledgehammer way, it fails abysmally as a work of art.<br /><br />The only good performances here are from Paul Lukas, who brings sincerity and intensity to his role as a quietly heroic anti-fascist; and Lucile Watson as the amusingly ill-mannered rich grandmother who slowly comes to realize how dangerous the world has become. Though their rootless upbringing has subjected them to all kinds of hardships, the children are ridiculously shown as robotically well-behaved little snips. They do not even remotely resemble real human beings. And Bette Davis, a great actress, here is so one dimensionally noble I cringed every time she was on screen. Her every word, her every gesture is meant to convey how SUPPORTIVE and UNDERSTANDING she is of the SACRIFICES her husband has to make and the great CAUSE he is fighting for, that she must've been wired to receive a painful electric shock if she dared allowed any hint of doubt or shading to surface in her portrayal.<br /><br />So yes, this is a very IMPORTANT film, just not a very good one.

0neg

The TV guide calls this movie a mystery. What is a mystery to me is how is it possible that a culture that can produce such intricate and complex classical music and brilliant mathematicians cannot produce a single film that would rise above the despicable trash level this film so perfectly represents. This is Bollywood at its best/worst, I honestly cannot tell the difference. Nauseatingly sweet, kitschy clichés on every level, story-line, situations, dialog, music and choreography. To put it bluntly, you must be a retard to enjoy it. I watched it to satisfy my cultural curiosity, but there were times when I had to walk away from it, because I could not take it any more. The only redeeming quality of the movie is the exquisite beauty of the leading actresses. <br /><br />

0neg

Really, I can't believe that I spent $5 on this movie. I am a huge zombie fanatic and thought the movie couldn't be that bad. It had zombies in it right? Was I wrong! To be honest the movie had it's moments...I thought it was cool when the guy got his head ripped off but that was about it. Overall I think that it would be more enjoyable to slide down a razorblade slide on my bare nutsack into a vat of vinegar then watch this movie again. The movie could have been better if we could see some boob but I had to watch the trailers for the other movies produced by this company to see that. Buyer beware...unless you are into masochism.

0neg

This has to be the worst piece of garbage I've seen in a while.<br /><br />Heath Ledger is a heartthrob? He looked deformed. I wish I'd known that he and Naomi Watts are an item in real life because I spent 2 of the longest hours of my life wondering what she saw in him. <br /><br />Orlando Bloom is a heartthrob? With the scraggly beard and deer-in-the-headlights look about him, I can't say I agree.<br /><br />Rachel Griffiths was her usual fabulous self, but Geoffrey Rush looked as if he couldn't wait to get off the set. <br /><br />I'm supposed to feel sorry for bankrobbers and murderers? This is a far cry from Butch Cassidy, which actually WAS an entertaining film. This was trite, cliche-ridden and boring. We only stayed because we were convinced it would get better. It didn't.<br /><br />The last 10-15 minutes or so were unintentionally hilarious. Heath and his gang are holed up in a frontier hotel, and women and children are dying because of their presence. That's not funny. But it was funny when they walked out of the hotel with the armor on, because all we could think of was the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I kept waiting for them to say "I'll bite yer leg off!" We were howling with laughter, as were several other warped members of the audience. When we left, pretty much everyone was talking about what a waste of time this film was.<br /><br />I may not have paid cash to see this disaster (sneak preview), but it certainly wasn't free. It cost me 2 hours of my life that I will never get back.

0neg

This game was made by Sega. Being made by Sega I didn't expect much, but I also didn't expect this junk either. For starters the camera angles work against you in this game. The motorcycle is your means of getting around. The motorcycle is the worst part in the game. Whenever you run in to something you just stick there and you don't move. You never fall off the bike or wreck for that matter. The main character hardly talks even though he's got a voice that suits him. The graphics are horrible. You ride through trees on your bike. The camera makes fighting the enemy impossible. This game wouldn't even be worth renting.

0neg

or anyone who was praying for the sight of Al Cliver wrestling a naked, 7ft tall black guy into a full nelson, your film has arrived! Film starlet Laura Crawford (Ursula Buchfellner) is kidnapped by a group who demand the ransom of $6 million to be delivered to their island hideaway. What they don't count on is rugged Vietnam vet Peter Weston (Cliver) being hired by a film producer to save the girl. And what they really didn't count on was a local tribe that likes to offer up young women to their monster cannibal god with bloodshot bug eyes.<br /><br />Pretty much the same filming set up as CANNIBALS, this one fares a bit better when it comes to entertainment value, thanks mostly a hilarious dub track and the impossibly goofy monster with the bulging eyes (Franco confirms they were split ping pong balls on the disc's interview). Franco gets a strong EuroCult supporting cast including Gisela Hahn (CONTAMINATION) and Werner Pochath (whose death is one of the most head-scratching things I ever seen as a guy who is totally not him is shown - in close up - trying to be him). The film features tons of nudity and the gore (Tempra paint variety) is there. The highlight for me was the world's slowly fistfight between Cliver and Antonio de Cabo in the splashing waves. Sadly, ol' Jess pads this one out to an astonishing (and, at times, agonizing) 1 hour and 40 minutes when it should have run 80 minutes tops. <br /><br />For the most part, the Severin DVD looks pretty nice but there are some odd ghosting images going on during some of the darker scenes. Also, one long section of dialog is in Spanish with no subs (they are an option, but only when you listen to the French track). Franco gives a nice 16- minute interview about the film and has much more pleasant things to say about Buchfellner than his CANNIBALS star Sabrina Siani.

0neg

This movie was so bad I couldn't sit through it without doing something else. There was no plot and no point. I was thoroughly bored and for a film about a stand up comedian, I couldn't recall one joke or funny line worthy of the description. Politicians with no charisma speaking technical jargon could not be less entertaining.<br /><br />So how was this made? Is there no quality control in film? Watching the girls in bikinis was the only distraction during this horrible experience.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine that Adam Sandler who has become popular and has appeared in fine comedies was able to survive after this kind of exposure. He was not funny in the least in this movie so it proves that the writing is so vital in effective comedy.

0neg

Don't even ask me why I watched this! The only excuse I can come up with that I was sick with Bronchitis and too weak to change the channel. :) It's too terrible for words, the movie that is, not the Bronchitis. The acting is deplorable, Richard Grieco hams it up as a trigger-happy, gun-slinging serial killer with a penchant for knocking off cops. Nick Mancuso phones in a performance as the cop on his trail and Nancy Allen manages to put in the only sympathetic role in the entire film. The script is dismal, peppered with clichéd lines, "Are you ready, Pardner?" purrs Richard Grieco to every single one of his victims. Dire. Avoid.

0neg

The acting is good, the women are beautiful, and the men are handsome, so if you're looking for well-acted soft porn, this movie is for you. Otherwise, you are wasting your time. The motivation of the main characters, in particular the eponymous lead, is often a mystery. She could have just told the truth - the truth as presented in the film, not necessarily the historical truth - and her lover would have been spared time in jail for a rape he did not commit. Was she protecting her father, who went off half-cocked, as it were, when he impetuously instigated a malicious lawsuit? Was she protecting herself, with her reputation suddenly of concern when heretofore only her art seemed to matter? During the trial, this strong-willed woman turns to mush before our eyes. Conversely, her lover, who starts off as a narcissistic jerk, becomes a selfless hero during the trial. At least his motivation is clearer: he sacrifices himself for love. Naturally, since no good deed must go unpunished, we are told that she never sees him again.

0neg

Within the realm of Science Fiction, two particular themes consistently elicit interest, were initially explored in the literature of a pre-cinematic era, and have since been periodically revisited by filmmakers and writers alike, with varying degrees of success. The first theme, that of time travel, has held an unwavering fascination for fans of film, as well as the written word, most recently on the screen with yet another version of the H.G. Wells classic, `The Time Machine.' The second theme, which also manages to hold audiences in thrall, is that of invisibility, which sparks the imagination with it's seemingly endless and myriad possibilities. And this theme, too, has again become the basis for a film adapted from another H.G. Wells classic, `The Invisible Man,' the realization of which, here, is `Hollow Man,' directed by Paul Verhoeven, and starring Kevin Bacon and Elisabeth Shue.<br /><br />Sebastian Caine (Bacon) and his colleagues have for some time been conducting experiments for the U.S. Government, exploring the possibility and practicality of invisibility, which they have, at last, achieved in a number of the primates upon which they have tested their method. They have, in fact, progressed to the point that effecting the invisibility is assured; their only problem now is bringing the subject back to the original `visual' state of being. It's a problem, however, that Caine, after diligent effort and too many hours in the lab, has solved-- or so he thinks. And when the application of his theory on a live subject is successful, he decides to present the results to the board of directors, in an effort to thereby maintain the funding necessary for the continuation of the project.<br /><br />At the last minute, though, Caine demurs, fearing that control of the project will be wrested from him before they can proceed to the next level-- the testing of a human subject. And he takes it upon himself to become that subject, securing the assistance of his research team by telling them that they've been given approval by the board to do so. But something goes wrong, and Caine becomes trapped in his cloak of invisibility; and as he and his team struggle to find the solution to his considerable dilemma before it's too late, it all begins to take a toll on Caine's mind. And suddenly, his fear of losing funding and control becomes inconsequential, as he finds himself facing the imminent danger of losing much more than that. Now there's a very real chance that he may lose everything-- Including himself.<br /><br />Verhoeven has crafted what is initially an exciting, even thought provoking film; he establishes a good pace and uses the F/X at his disposal to great effect, though he does tend to allow the striking visuals to overwhelm the character development. Anyone familiar with `The Invisible Man,' or actually anyone who can logically follow the progression of the story, will know early on that Caine is not destined for happier times. Still, Verhoeven has a style of storytelling that is definitely going to capture the attention and engage his audience. But he seems bent on rushing toward the climax, and along the way he abandons any and all of the nuance that has made his film thus far successful, opting to enter into a final sequence that is nothing more than a mindless blood-and-gore fest that betrays his audience and everything he's worked for earlier in the film. Rather than seeking an intelligent resolution to Caine's suffering, and using some inventiveness and imagination to take the film to it's inevitable conclusion, Verhoeven takes the low road, and though it may succeed on a purely visceral level, any meaning one could derive from the story dissolves like so many ashes in the wind, along with anything that would have made this a memorable film. And it's a shame, because Verhoeven has it at a higher level than much of what is offered in this genre, and he allows it to sink unnecessarily to one much lower.<br /><br />Kevin Bacon does a good job of creating a character that is believable, if only on the surface, which seemingly serves Verhoeven's purposes perfectly. There's little depth to Bacon's portrayal, but it has more to do with his director's agenda than his own acting abilities. Verhoeven simply does not allow Bacon the time to develop Caine to any extent; the character is mainly a vessel around which Verhoeven can build his story, and toward that end, it works. The film would have been better served, however, had Verhoeven and Bacon collaborated more closely on at least developing a bond between Caine and the audience that would have prompted some emotional involvement on the viewers part, something that would have drawn them in a bit, rather than leaving them at the gate, as it were, as mere observers of an F/X laden extravaganza.<br /><br />Elisabeth Shue comports herself well in the role of Linda McKay, Caine's willing accomplice in the ill-fated experiment, but it's basically a thankless part that offers little challenge, especially to an actor of Shue's caliber. The same can be said of Kim Dickens (so magnificent in the 2001 film, `Things Behind the Sun'). Her character, Sarah Kennedy, does little more than support the action and F/X. Both actors are capable of so much more, and deserve better than what they are given to work with here.<br /><br />The supporting cast includes Josh Brolin (Matthew), Greg Grunberg (Carter), Joey Slotnick (Frank), Mary Randle (Janice) and William Devane (Dr. Kramer). Entertaining to a point, and even successful on a certain (low) level, `Hollow Man' is one of those films that leaves you contemplating what could have been. Like an annual fireworks display, it will give you some momentary thrills, but after awhile it'll begin to blend in with all the others you've seen, without anything special to set it apart. And it's too bad, because given the talent and abilities of those involved here, it could have been so much more. I rate this one 4/10.<br /><br /> <br /><br /> <br /><br />

0neg

Wow, here it finally is; the action "movie" without action. In a real low-budget setting (don't miss the hilarious flying saucers flying by a few times) of a future Seattle we find a no-brain hardbody seeking to avenge her childhood.<br /><br />There is nothing even remotely original or interesting about the plot and the actors' performance is only rivalled in stupidity by the attempts to steal from other movies, mainly "Matrix" without having the money to do it right. Yes, we do get to see some running on walls and slow motion shoot-outs (45 secs approx.) but these scenes are about as cool as the stupid hardbody's attempts at making jokes about male incompetence now and then.<br /><br />And, yes, we are also served a number of leads that lead absolutely nowhere, as if the script was thought-out by the previously unseen cast while shooting the scenes.<br /><br />Believe me, it is as bad as it possibly can get. In fact, it doesn't deserve to be taken seriously, but perhaps I can make some of you not rent it and save your money.

0neg

The competition for the worst Warner Bros Kay Francis movie is stiff. I've only seen perhaps eight of them, but Comet over Broadway is the worst so far. The very best thing about it is that it's short. Oh, and the Orry-Kelly gowns (of course) are fine. James Wong Howe's cinematography is not. Kay Francis throughout looks fat-faced and far less attractive than she normally does. Minna Gombell whom I don't know otherwise is good as a semi-tough "burlesque" dancer (it looked more like a fashion show than burlesque). The closing shot - Kay Francis and her child (when did the child learn that Kay Francis was her mother? Did I doze off?) walking up a dirt path toward a prison painted in misty outlines on a sound stage drop is beyond ludicrous. The whole film is so cheap, so implausible and so careless that it feels infected by a sour cynicism on the part of everyone who made it: Warner Bros tossing garbage to dolts who don't know, in Warner Bros' cynical estimation of them, that what they're getting is garbage.

0neg

First: I bought it at the video store. Second: I watched it. Third: It was boring. Fourth: It was not funny. Fifth: Most of the antics were lame. And last, but not least: It's not only a bad movie, it's a total fiasco.<br /><br />I am a huge Adam Sandler fan despite this disappointing and forgotten film. I pity it because it was his first movie. Even if you are a huge Adam Sandler fan, don't bother watching this movie. Instead, just take the video, board a yacht, and throw it overboard.

0neg

IF you are planning to see this movie, please reconsider. I don't usually post my comments about something I've seen on television, but this one was such a waste of my life that I needed to do something productive to get that bad taste out of my mouth. Critiquing this movie would take far too long as there are so many things wrong with it. I will just simply say, please do not ever see this movie. It was a complete waste of my time and it WILL be a waste of yours. Anyone that wrote a positive review of this movie is one of two things; utterly inept, or working for the company that produced it. Again, I guarantee that you will indeed regret seeing this movie!

0neg

I'm trying to picture the pitch for Dark Angel. "I'm thinking Matrix, I'm thinking Bladerunner, I'm thinking that chick that plays Faith in Angel, wearing shiny black leather - or some chick just like her, leave that one with us. Only - get this! - we'll do it without any plot, dialogue, character, decent action or budget, just some loud bangs and a hot chick in shiny black leather straddling a big throbbing bike. Fanboys dig loud bangs and hot chicks in shiny black leather straddling big throbbing bikes, right?"<br /><br />Flashy, shallow, dreary, formulaic, passionless, tedious, dull, dumb, humourless, desultory, barely competent. Live action anime without any action, or indeed any life. SF just the way Joe Fanboy likes it, in fact. :(

0neg

While being a great James Arness western, this film has gone down as the worst Alamo film ever made. The story was terrible, inaccuracy all through it, and just downright untruths to boot! Continuity was cast to the four winds. Anybody catch the cannon sequence? The Mexicans were dumb enough to fire cannons that obviously had mud and ramrods still sticking out of the tubes. Come on! Then there is Brian Keith's ridiculous hat! Costumer must of been away or something. Or just out of their mind!

0neg

If you look at Corey Large's information here on IMDb, apparently there's a movie called "Reload" in production (as of June '08) in which he's playing a character named Sebastian Cole.<br /><br />First of all, how does such a crappy movie ever earn a sequel ... and second, didn't Sebastian get killed at the end of "Loaded"?<br /><br />I watched this in the wee hours of the morning when I was battling insomnia, and so I was drifting in and out while it was on. I'm sure I missed some plot points, but overall, it seemed really weak. Large's performance was (for me) one of the stronger parts of the film. I'm also a bit surprised at all the people commenting on the beautiful girls, since I thought the actress playing Brooke was pretty, but not exceptional.

0neg

My girlfriend once brought around The Zombie Chronicles for us to watch as a joke. Little did we realize the joke was on her for paying £1 for it. While watching this film I started to come up with things I would rather be doing than watching The Zombie Chronicles. These included:<br /><br />1) Drinking bleach 2) Rubbing sand in my eyes 3) Writing a letter to Brad Sykes and Garrett Clancy 4) Re-enacting the American civil war 5) Tax returns 6) GCSE Maths 7) Sex with an old lady.<br /><br />Garrett Clancy, aka Sgt. Ben Draper wrote this? The guy couldn't even dig a hole properly. The best ting he did was kick a door down (the best part of the film). This was the worst film I have ever seen, and I've seen White Noise: The Light. Never has a film had so many mistakes in it. My girlfriend left it here, so now I live with the shame of owning this piece of crap.<br /><br />News just in: Owen Wilson watched this film and tried to kill himself. Fact.<br /><br />DO NOT WATCH

0neg

I watched Cabin by the Lake this afternoon on USA. Considering this movie was made for TV is was interesting enough to watch the sequel. So, I tune in for the airing this evening and was extremely disappointed. I knew I wouldn't like the movie, but I was not expecting to be perplexed by the use of DV (digital video). The movie would have been tolerable if it wasn't for these juxtaposed digital shots that seemed to come from nowhere. I expected the plot line to be tied in with these shots, but there seemed to be no logical explanation. (WARNING: THE FOLLOWING MAYBE A SPOILER!!!!) The open ending in Cabin by the Lake was acceptable, but the open ending on the sequel is ridiculous. I can only foresee Return of Return to The Cabin by the Lake being watch able is if the movie was shown up against nothing, but infomercials at 4 o'clock in the morning.

0neg

Slow and riddled with inaccuracy. Over-looking its flaws this is still an interesting account of the famed and heroic siege of the Alamo during the Texas fight for independence from Mexico. James Arness as Jim Bowie. Brian Keith as Davy Crockett. Alec Baldwin as Col. Travis. Raul Julia as General Santa Anna. This made-for-TV project also stars David Ogden Stiers, Kathleen York and Jim Metzler. Very good original music by Peter Bernstein.

0neg

From a poorly contrived plot line that makes almost no sense to bad dialogue and disjointed scenes to the ultimate downer, bad acting (even Peter Falk can't find his way) "Finding John Christmas" is better left lost. Ms. Bertinelli's performance is without depth or emotion as are her co-stars, William Russ as brother Hank and David Cubitt as love interest Noah. Jennifer Pisana as Soccoro, the daughter of single dad Noah is almost unbearable to watch let alone listen to singing. But who can blame them with material like this. Michael J. Murray's script is juvenile at best. <br /><br />Each year at this time I search the TV guides and wait anxiously for some of the really classic Christmas and inspirational holiday films to appear on the small screen. Films like "Miracle on 34th Street", Ernst Lubitsch's delightful "The shop around the corner" and, of course the 1951 version of "Scrooge". There's Frank Capra's classics "It's a wonderful life" and "Meet John Doe". Hey, forget the classics. What about "Home Alone" or " Home for the Holidays" with Holly Hunter and a great performance by Robert Downey Jr.? <br /><br />My present to you is by way of advice. Your time would be better spent searching out these films than finding "Finding John Christmas". Merry Christmas!

0neg

This flick was a blow to me. I guess little girls should aspire to be nothing more than swimsuit models, home makers or mistresses, since that seems to be all they'll ever be portrayed as anyway. It is truly saddening to see an artist's work and life being so unjustly misinterpretated. Inconcievably (or perhaps it should have been expected), Artemisia's entire character and all that she stands for, had been reduced to a standard Hollywood, female character; a pitiful, physically flawless, helpless little creature, displaying none of the character traits that actually got her that place in history which was being mutilated here. Sadder yet, was to see that a great part of the audience was too badly educated in the area to comprehend the incredible gap between the message conveyed in the film, and reality. To portray the artist as someone in love with her real-life rapist, someone whom she in reality accused of raping her even when under torture, just plain pisses me off. If the director had nothing more substantial to say she should have refrained from basing her story on a real person.

0neg

Holy crap. This was the worst film I have seen in a long time. All the performances are fine, but there is no plot. Really! No plot! A bunch of clowns talk about this and that and that's your film. Ug... Robert Duvall's character is senile and keeps asking the same people the same qestions over and over. This earns him the same responses over and over. I am pretty sure this film got upto a six because people think they should like it. Good performances with famous and well regarded actors, but the actual complete work is a steamy turd. Well, maybe that's a bit deceptive since steam rising from a fresh pile sounds a little like something happening and in this film NOTHING HAPPENS! Sack

0neg

Imagine you're a high-school boy, in the back of a dark, uncrowded theater with your girlfriend. How bad would a movie have to be, in order that you would feel compelled to leave the theater and head home before it ended? This movie is that bad. Really. Movies often become so bad that they're good; this movie is beyond that stage of bad-ness. It is painfully bad. Horribly, terribly, crime-against-humanity bad.

0neg

Look carefully at the wonderful assortment of talent put together to make this movie: Connery, Fishburne, Capshaw, Harris, Underwood, Beatty, Thigpen, even cameos by Slezak, Lange, and Plimpton. They prove, in spades, the adage that a good cast cannot save a bad script. The story line requires so many leaps of faith from the audience that its implausibility should have exceeded even Hollywood standards. It's not particularly original, and the "twists" are downright cruel.

0neg

This movie is a 90 minute Ramones concert with brief periods of stupidity and absolute boredom. What kind of high school is this anyway?<br /><br />Unless you are a major Ramones fan, DO NOT and I repeat DO NOT waste your time like I did. This is utterly unwatchable from start to finish. This movie should be called Ramone Fever. Everyone appears to like them in this movie. There is not a plot to be found in this flick. As far as teen comedies go, you are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this one.

0neg

The French film "Extension Du Domaine De La Lutte" directed by iconoclast film maker Philippe Harel is based on the book of the same name written by a controversial writer Michel Houellebecq.He has also worked on this film's scenario.According to British cinema magazine Sight and Sound,it is also known as "Whatever".This film has been hailed as a breath of fresh air for French cinema due to its not so common theme of sexual politics and its implications on two stupid information technology workers.The film is marred by its much too evident voice over which introduces us to the main character.This makes us viewers feel as if we are watching a book that is bring read. The basic premise of problems related to loneliness due to chronic sexual drought is fine but the film goes out of hand once the hero starts recounting the misery faced by him and his friend.Instead of sticking to its main topic the film veers in other directions leading to its downfall.Beware:some women viewers might find not only the film but even its two heroes as moronic misogynists.

0neg

I cannot believe how popular this show is. I consider myself an avid sci-fi fan. I have read countless sci-fi novels and have enjoyed many sci-fi movies and TV shows. I really wouldn't even consider this true sci-fi. Every episode I have sat through was like a lame, watered down version of a Star Trek episode, minus anything that might make it interesting or exciting.<br /><br />It's basically a bunch of people standing around in ARMY fatigues, talking about something boring, who occasionally go through the Stargate and end up on a planet that looks just like Earth, with people who look and sound just like Humans! It seemed extremely low budget. The characters are all forgettable one dimensional cutouts, and the many attempts at humor fall flat. It reminds me when you see a commercial with a famous athlete in it, trying to be funny, but he is not. It is just sad.<br /><br />The movie was terrible as well. There is so much you can do with a portal through space, yet every place the ARMY people go is BORING! This shows no imagination! I actually thought the TV series "Alien Nation" from a few years back (based on the movie Alien Nation) was much better. That show actually had good story lines and decent characters. I wasn't crazy about "Alien Nation", but compared to this overrated crap, it was great!<br /><br />Also, unlike the great new "Battlestar Galactica" series, "Stargate" copied the look and feel of the lame movie too closely! They should have at least updated the cheesy "toilet flushing" special effect of whenever somebody goes through the Stargate.

0neg