text
stringlengths 65
6.1k
| label
class label 1
class |
|---|---|
SWING! is an important film because it's one of the remaining Black-produced and acted films from the 1930s. Many of these films have simply deteriorated so badly that they are unwatchable, but this one is in fairly good shape. It's also a nice chance to see many of the talented Black performers of the period just after the heyday of the old Cotton Club--a time all but forgotten today.<br /><br />Unfortunately, while the film is historically important and has some lovely performances, it's also a mess. The main plot is very similar to the Hollywood musicals of the era--including a prima donna who is going to ruin the show and the surprise unknown who appears from no where to save the day. However, the writing is just god-awful and a bit trashy at times--and projects images of Black America that some might find a bit demeaning. This is because before the plot really gets going, you are treated to a no-account bum who lives off his hard working wife (a popular stereotype of the time) and when he is caught with a hussy (who, by the way, totally overplays this role), they have a fight which looks like a scene from WWE Smackdown! And, the one lady wants to cut the other lady with a straight razor--a trashy scene indeed! Later in the film, when the prima donna is behaving abominably, her husband punches her in the face and everyone applauds him! It seems like the film, at times, wants to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the audience PLUS they can't even do this well--with some of the worst acting I've seen in a very long time.<br /><br />Still, if you can look past a lousy production in just about every way (with trashy characters, bad acting and direction and poor writing), this one might be worth a peek so you can see excellent singing and tap dancing--as well as to catch a glimpse of forgotten Black culture. Just don't say I didn't warn you about the acting--it's really, really bad! | 0neg
|
A friend of mine bought this film for £1, and even then it was grossly overpriced. Despite featuring big names such as Adam Sandler, Billy Bob Thornton and the incredibly talented Burt Young, this film was about as funny as taking a chisel and hammering it straight through your earhole. It uses tired, bottom of the barrel comedic techniques - consistently breaking the fourth wall as Sandler talks to the audience, and seemingly pointless montages of 'hot girls'.<br /><br />Adam Sandler plays a waiter on a cruise ship who wants to make it as a successful comedian in order to become successful with women. When the ship's resident comedian - the shamelessly named 'Dickie' due to his unfathomable success with the opposite gender - is presumed lost at sea, Sandler's character Shecker gets his big break. Dickie is not dead, he's rather locked in the bathroom, presumably sea sick.<br /><br />Perhaps from his mouth he just vomited the worst film of all time. | 0neg
|
When converting a book to film, it is generally a good idea to keep at least some of the author's intended tone or conveyed concepts, rather than ignoring the author altogether. While it is clear that the director had access to and went on the advice of Elinore Stewart's children, it is key to note that the children believed their mother to be a complete liar in regards to the good, enriching, strengthening experiences of homesteading her land. The book details her life on her and her husband's adjoining homesteads in the vast Wyoming frontier; she chronicles daily adventures with her numerous friends and acquaintances, though they lived dozens of miles apart. The film, however, takes a standard stance for the time it was made, portraying this woman's experience as harsh, unforgiving, and nearly pointless. Perhaps the director was bringing some of his Vietnam War experiences with him to this movie (as some film aficionados have said), but it seems to be a lousy excuse for taking all the joy and beauty of the book and twisting it into a bleak, odious landscape devoid of friends or hope. Don't waste your time with this movie; read the book instead. | 0neg
|
Watched this on DVD in original language with English subs. Either the subtitling was very poor or the actual dialog doesn't make much of story and give any character development. There are quite a few HK stars in this but the movie doesn't need their presence to make it better or worse. It's just bad. The bright and colorful scenes done in CG are attractive for the sheer colors and brilliance but it can get overwhelming before long. If anything this makes me think of a child's movie with its nonstop barrage of cg, fight scenes, and crap plot. I'm certain I grasped what took place in the film but the whole delivery of the story was rather lousy. | 0neg
|
It figures this is a French film, LOL, with the emphasis on young girls with much older men...why is it the French are so fixated on this kind of thing? When the age difference is this great, it really comes off as pervy! Valentina Cervi is beautiful (she bears a strong resemblance to Olivia Hussey, of Zeffirelli's '68 Romeo and Juliet, set in a similar period), but she looks about 15 and the actor playing Tassi, her painting instructor, looks...well, 50 is KIND.<br /><br />Other posters have done the work of explaining the historical record (unusually detailed in this case) of the real Artemisia, a great artist and one of the earliest recognized female painters of this period (17th century). Her story speaks to us in modern times particularly because of the age-old accusation that "all great artists were men" -- she pretty much blasts that assertion to bits -- and because the story of her rape trial is so poignant. Not only was she clearly assaulted, and forced into a degrading sexual relationship (because in those days marriage to your assaulter was the only way to avoid social shame), but Tassi was a serial rapist and possibly killed his wife and child.<br /><br />The movie does a terrible disservice by inverting this truly fascinating and remarkable real life story -- very dramatic and not in need of any "spicing up" -- because in some weird Frencified way, it's "hotter" to have an oversexed teenager drawing male sexual organs and having a hot love affair with a man old enough to be her grandfather. That's "sexy" -- the truth is boring and seems too feminist/politically correct.<br /><br />It also disturbs me that this is ONLY part of Artemisia life considered interesting enough to film. The fact that she painted for decades (her famous painting of Judith beheading Holfernes was painted AFTER, not before the rape), that she was the first woman admitted to the prestigious Florentine Academy, that she went on to have children...oh that's boring stuff. After all, that's about a middle aged woman and they aren't "hot" like teenagers.<br /><br />I understand that there is a lot of creative license in making a film (or a book) about a real historical character. You need to create dialog, have subplots, create dramatic structure. Certainly some details can be sacrificed -- it's no big deal if the dates are moved a few years, or if Artemisia is played by a blonde actress (when we know from her self portraits that she was a brunette...and a big boned one, not a skinny minny), or something like that. But to turn her story around on her, and make rape into a romance is actually sick and disturbing. It's even worse because the director is female. She should be horribly ashamed of herself!<br /><br />If you LIKE this (and I know some people could care less about the real woman artist and just like period costumes and hot sex), you will probably like "Dangerous Beauty" with Rufus Sewell and Catherine McCormack. Similarly based on heavily re-written history, with lots of heaving bosoms and jewel encrusted goblets: Bon Appetit! | 0neg
|
I saw this movie once a long time ago, and I have no desire to ever see it again.<br /><br />This movie is about Preston Waters, a hard-lucked preteen, who always seems to be overlooked by his family and who always seems to be short on cash. All this changes when a bank robber runs over Preston's bike and passes him a blank check as compensation. Preston uses the check to withdraw $1 million from the bank (ironically, the money belongs to the bank robber who gave him the check). Preston then buys a mansion and says that he's working as the assistant of a mysterious and wealthy backer named Mr. Macintosh (named after his computer). After that, he just goes crazy with the money.<br /><br />On paper, this sounds like a great idea. However, on screen, it is one of the emptiest movies I've ever seen. For one thing, it's too unbelievable. I know some parts of the movie were meant to be incredible, but I draw the line at a twelve-year-old boy going out with a thirty-year-old woman, and being put in charge of a imaginary person's small fortune. Also, this was a shallow movie with weak acting, a predictable plot line and characters who are less than memorable. The characters were either cheesy, over the top, annoying, or underdeveloped. But "Juice" was a funny character.<br /><br />If you're looking for a good movie to watch with your family, skip this one. | 0neg
|
Mann photographs the Alberta Rocky Mountains in a superb fashion, and Jimmy Stewart and Walter Brennan give enjoyable performances as they always seem to do. <br /><br />But come on Hollywood - a Mountie telling the people of Dawson City, Yukon to elect themselves a marshal (yes a marshal!) and to enforce the law themselves, then gunfighters battling it out on the streets for control of the town? <br /><br />Nothing even remotely resembling that happened on the Canadian side of the border during the Klondike gold rush. Mr. Mann and company appear to have mistaken Dawson City for Deadwood, the Canadian North for the American Wild West.<br /><br />Canadian viewers be prepared for a Reefer Madness type of enjoyable howl with this ludicrous plot, or, to shake your head in disgust. | 0neg
|
Admittedly, I find Al Pacino to be a guilty pleasure. He was a fine actor until Scent of a Woman, where he apparently overdosed on himself irreparably. I hoped this film, of which I'd heard almost nothing growing up, would be a nice little gem. An overlooked, ahead-of-its-time, intelligent and engaging city-political thriller. It's not.<br /><br />City Hall is a movie that clouds its plot with so many characters, names, and "realistic" citywide issues, that for a while you think its a plot in scope so broad and implicating, that once you find out the truth, it will blow your mind. In truth, however, these subplots and digressions result ultimately in fairly tame and very familiar urban story trademarks such as Corruption of Power, Two-Faced Politicians, Mafia with Police ties, etc. And theoretically, this setup allows for some thrilling tension, the fear that none of the characters are safe, and anything could happen! But again, it really doesn't.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the only things that happen are quite predictable, and we're left with several "confession" monologues, that are meant as a whole to form modern a fable of sorts, a lesson in the moral ambiguity of the "real world" of politics and society. But after 110 minutes of names and missing reports and a spider-web of lies and cover-ups, the audience is usually treated to a somewhat satisfying reveal. I don't think we're left with that in City Hall, and while it's a very full film, I don't find it altogether rich. | 0neg
|
If you've ever seen this movie, you'd know that it! If you haven't, and want to see a classic BAD movie, I suggest you see this movie, because it ranks right down with the worst. So, if you're REALLY bored, go rent it. If you want to know what it's like, here's my little summary: Adam Sandler is hired to work on a giant cruise ship with some Ms Universe models and five other people. Adam doesn't like how one passenger is getting all the babes, and he tries to take over with the cheezy jokes. BUT WAIT! It only gets worse! You'll have to rent the movie yourself to see how bad it truly is. | 0neg
|
This movie was awful. The ending was absolutely horrible. There was no plot to the movie whatsoever. The only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by Robert DuVall and James Earl Jones. Their performances were excellent! The only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice. If the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story, it would be worth watching. Instead, Robert DuVall's and James Earl Jones' performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline...or lack thereof. Not only was I left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie....well an actual movie...not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason. It was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time. There was nothing special about any of the characters. The only thing special was how Robert DuVall portrayed a rambling, senile, drunk, old man. Nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end. When the movie ended, I sat amazed...amazed that I sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while. It never happened! The cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and I realized that I had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning. It wasn't even a story. The entire movie takes place in a day's worth of time. That's it. It was one day in the life (and death) of some Southerners on a plantation. How much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie Training Day)? The acting performances by the entire cast were excellent, but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie...if you can even call it a movie. | 0neg
|
It was 9:30 PM last night at my friend's camping trailer and we were so hyped to watch South Park (a new episode). The thing is, in my country, South Park airs at 10:30 PM and we decided to kill time by watching the show now airing, Father of the Pride. I'll start by saying that I have only watched to episodes. The first time I watched it, I found it unfunny and crude for nothing, so I thought ''Holy sh*t, I have a football game early tomorrow, so I have to stop watching stupid cartoons''. But yesterday, I tried to give Father of the Pride a second chance. I find that it's a complete rip-off of The Simpsons, only replacing yellow human characters by lions instead.<br /><br />The second thing is I wonder why it got it's TV-14 rating. I find The Simpsons a lot more vulgar, and the only real vulgarity in this show is a few homosexual (unfunny) jokes. The Simpsons is also a lot more violent (Halloween specials) and crude. I also heard that the creator of the series has also directed Shrek 2, well I've got news for him: Shrek 2 was way better and I think he stayed too much in the family thematic. However, I must admit that Father of the Pride did make me smile (even burst out laughing once) three or four times.<br /><br />All in all, I don't mind Father of the Pride. I don't hate it, but I don't like either. I've seen way better from ''The Simpsons''.<br /><br />3.5/10 | 0neg
|
This movie is so bad, I knew how it ends right after this little girl killed the first person. Very bad acting very bad plot very bad movie<br /><br />do yourself a favour and DON'T watch it 1/10 | 0neg
|
I have not seen many low budget films i must admit, but this is the worst movie ever probably, the main character the old man talked like, he had a lobotomy and lost the power to speak more than one word every 5 seconds, a 5 year old could act better. The story had the most awful plot, and well the army guy had put what he thought was army like and then just went over the top, i only watched it to laugh at how bad it was, and hoped it was leading onto the real movie. I cant believe it was under the 2 night rental thing at blockbusters, instead of a please take this for free and get it out of our sight. I think there was one semi decent actor other than the woman, i think the only thing OK with the budget was the make up, but they show every important scene of the film in the beginning music bit. Awful simply awful. | 0neg
|
Wow. This is really not that good. <br /><br />I would like to agree with the others in that at least the acting is good... it is, but it is nothing special.<br /><br />The movie is so precictable and i for one am sick of receiving culture info through movies.<br /><br />*/**** | 0neg
|
Why is it that when a star reaches the top of the star chain, they ruin all the good work by making a bad movie? Burt Reynolds peaked, then started making dreadful Hal Needham car chase flicks. Arnold Schwarzenegger became the hottest property in Hollywood, only to invite derision upon himself with the appalling Last Action Hero. And here, loquacious Eddie Murphy erases memories of Trading Places and 48 Hours with this "family" adventure flick, which is an unbelievably tedious, childish and generally plain awful misfire in which the chance to see Charlotte Lewis's great big breasts in a tight blouse is the most appealing aspect of the entire film.<br /><br />The story is pure humdrum. It concerns social worker Murphy, contacted by mysterious types and told that he is the Chosen One. Chosen for what, I hear you ask. His job is to rescue a Tibetan boy with mystical powers from a race of demons who want to rule the world. As the main demon, classy actor Charles Dance looks terribly embarrassed to be in the film, but hey, I'm sure he was well paid for sacrificing his talents. Of all Murphy's films, this is easily the worst. I've read some reviews which suggest that it is nice to see Murphy in an atypical role, in a non formulaic kind of film, and while both points are loosely true there's no forgiving the fact that the film - however atypical and non formulaic it might be - is an absolute load of garbage.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Having seen the first ten episodes, I must say this show sucks. <br /><br />What bothers me the most, is that the show was shot in Canada. I know it's cheaper, but they should have shot it in California, so we could have had scenes in the desert. That would have been more true to the movie. The first scene where they are outside in another world is in the mountains, with lots of pinetrees where it looks cold. That does'nt feel very Egyptian. What worked so well in the movie was that it felt like you were in the ancient Egypt. Here it feels like they're running around fighting aliens in a Canadian forrest. And it's so lame that appaerantly, on other planets, the fall comes as well. You can see leaves on the ground in the forrests that all look like forrests outside Vancouver. It just makes the show even more unbelievable and dumb. <br /><br />And then there is Richard Dean Anderson. He is no Kurt Russel. Sure he does a decent job and he tries to copy Russels performance a little bit, but he is just not as cool as Russel. And not nearly as good an actor as Russel. And Russells way of playing O Neill, well he was much more cynical. Andersons O Neil, is way too soft. I liked it that Russels version just did'nt give a s*** and had no trouble detonating the bomb until the very end of the movie. <br /><br />Michael Shanks does a really good job as Jackson though taking over from James Spader.<br /><br />Teal'c is a really annoying character. He is Jaffa. Not a Jaffa. Just Jaffa. Aaaarrgh!! A former bodyguard of a pathetic Ra character, seen only in the pilot and in one other episode so far. Teal'c speaks talks and acts like a robot. I've seen better acting from Jean Claude Van Damme.<br /><br />And the fact that Teal'c and the Ra character and the people they saved in the movie, can speak English all of a sudden is also incredibly dumb. What made the aliens so scary in the movie was that they spoke an ancient language and were real monsters. <br /><br />As for the special effects, they are really good in the pilot. But the very rare effects in the actual show are badly done and looks cheap. Especially a planet they visit with crystals. It's so obvious they walk around on a soundstage with a badly made painting in the background. It's an insult to us viewers that they made it look so cheap. Especially when they could have made it in front of a bluescreen with cgi backgrounds. <br /><br />The X-files had better effects when they aired their first episodes in 1993. That was 4 years before SG-1 started. And they did'nt have the apparent two million dollar budget per episode, that SG-1 supposedly had. They must have spend all the money on catering. Because I don't see it on the screen. <br /><br />Incredibly boring and pointless show, that could have been great if they had shot the show in Hollywood with a bigger budget and better writers and better characters. | 0neg
|
Andie McDowell is beautiful as the 40-ish woman whose late start at a serious relationship leads her to a considerably younger man and a subsequenet falling-out with 2 long-time best girldfriends.<br /><br />Seeing a gigolo/gold-digger in the sincere young man, the "girl-friends", dead-set on terminating this "silly relationship", go over and beyond the call of duty in "helping out" their friend (who obviously is blinded by this gigolo's tricky game".<br /><br />A short succession of situations is absolutely ridiculous. Far fetched no longer covers it. Without these unbelievable scenes, there may have been hope for a sweet love story. Instead, all the viewer is left with is an involuntary shaking of head -- these things just don't happen! Without giving away cliff-hanger details, I warn the viewer of having high expectations for this film; most (like me) will be very disappointed. On a scale of 1 to 10, this one ranks a weak 4 with me. There is much better material out there. This one isn't worth your time. | 0neg
|
Blank Check is easily one of the worst films of the nineties. The plot is completely pointless; its overtones of lonliness are pathetic. Do you really believe a twelve year old acting as a personal assistant for a millionaire could accomplish everything in this film, like buying a mansion for a mere $300 grand. The notion, let alone the bargain-basement price, will only be believed by the most gullible viewers. Please, respect your intelligence and don't watch this awful, awful film. | 0neg
|
Its not the cast. A finer group of actors, you could not find. Its not the setting. The director is in love with New York City, and by the end of the film, so are we all! Woody Allen could not improve upon what Bogdonovich has done here. If you are going to fall in love, or find love, Manhattan is the place to go. No, the problem with the movie is the script. There is none. The actors fall in love at first sight, words are unnecessary. In the director's own experience in Hollywood that is what happens when they go to work on the set. It is reality to him, and his peers, but it is a fantasy to most of us in the real world. So, in the end, the movie is hollow, and shallow, and message-less. | 0neg
|
Okay first of all, I didn't sit down to watch the premier of a "Star Trek" Series to see a cowboy flying around in space. this is how a normal Enterprise episode works<br /><br />1 Archer finds a nebula or something aloung the lines of that and wants to take a closer look but it might destroy the ship.<br /><br />2 he sends a shuttle into the nebula and and the shuttle get damaged...<br /><br />in all of the episodes I have seen, all of the problems are happening because of Archer's stupid mistakes. Oh and did you see the preview of one episode showing Archer and T'pol kissing?!?!?!?!?!?!? I was planning to watch that episode but after that I totally gave up on Enterprise and turned to TV right off. Come on!!!! This is star trek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!<br /><br />Also what was with the banana slug?? In one episode, Hoshi had a banana slug but had to leave it behind for some stupid reason. Okay fine, little dumb to bring you pet slug in space but whatever. Okay that was what I thought until they left it on a desert planet!!!!! A BANANA SLUG CANNOT LEAVE IN A DESERT!!!!!!!!!!!! How dumb are these writers<br /><br />Any ways, just saying if Enterprise is on DON'T WATCH IT!!!!! | 0neg
|
A model named Laura is working in South America when she is kidnapped from her hotel room by a gang and taken into the jungle. They demand a huge ransom for her release. Peter is hired to get her home safe and there is a bonus in it for him if he can bring back the money as well as the girl. Peter is taken to the jungle by helicopter with friend Jack. They try to give the kidnappers fake money in return for Laura but the plan goes horribly wrong and they have to bail out in the helicopter. The helicopter is shot and they also have to bail from that (not going well so far). Also roaming the jungles is a devil of sorts. In reality its just a naked black guy with weirdly big eyes and a breathing problem. He starts to kill a few of the kidnappers and Laura escapes only to be captured by some primitives. The rest of the film is a bit of a blur really.<br /><br />Now I'm not a massive Jess Franco fan, in fact to date this is only the second film of his I have seen, but even I can tell that this really isn't one of his best efforts. The films drags along at a pretty slow pace without much at all happening. The whole thing could have been edited down quite easily into a 25 minute TV show. There are plenty of overly long shots of people walking through the jungle that could have just been lifted straight out.<br /><br />Devil Hunter is poorly lit (Infact I don't think it was lit at all), badly dubbed, poorly acted and slow yet for some reason it didn't bore me. I think the main reason for this was some of the hilariously bad scenes in it. For example a scene where Laura is walking in the street was obviously shot in a real street as crowds of people stop to stare straight at the camera as its shooting. Another funny scene has one of the gang who has been killed, hung in a tree dripping blood as one of his friends stands directly under him screaming for what seems like minutes. Then for no reason at all the man in the trees head just falls of and hits the guy under him. It has to be seen to be believed. Then of course there is the actual devil. It is just some naked black guy who despite the fact he has massive eyes, he has very blurry vision.<br /><br />The film was hooked up in part of the video nasty scare in the 80's here in the UK and was banned. Now why it was I have no idea. There is very little gore at all and it's hardly a shocking film. Minus the nudity I would have said that it could get away with a PG almost. The only thing I can think of is that it was never actually watched and was added to the original list because of word of mouth.<br /><br />There is not much reason to watch this film really unless you are a massive Jess Franco fan. There is plenty of nudity to keep you from falling asleep and also some scenes that are so bad you can have a good laugh at them but other wise I would say just pay for a ticket to South America and get lost in a jungle. It would probably be more fun.<br /><br />3/10 | 0neg
|
Return to Cabin by the Lake does not, in any way, stand up to the original. With only one main character (Stanley) returning for the sequal, the film is not even worth the 2 hours of your time. I am a huge fan of the first film, the story line and acting was really good, but this is one movie that I will never again watch. It is basically equal to what the sequals to Urban Legends and Blair Witch were like, but with much worse acting. I've personally seen better acting in soap operas, it is so pitiful that you just have to laugh. I, in no way, recommend this movie to anyone, watching it will just detract from the first. | 0neg
|
Terrible movie. Nuff Said.<br /><br />These Lines are Just Filler. The movie was bad. Why I have to expand on that I don't know. This is already a waste of my time. I just wanted to warn others. Avoid this movie. The acting sucks and the writing is just moronic. Bad in every way. The only nice thing about the movie are Deniz Akkaya's breasts. Even that was ruined though by a terrible and unneeded rape scene. The movie is a poorly contrived and totally unbelievable piece of garbage.<br /><br />OK now I am just going to rag on IMDb for this stupid rule of 10 lines of text minimum. First I waste my time watching this offal. Then feeling compelled to warn others I create an account with IMDb only to discover that I have to write a friggen essay on the film just to express how bad I think it is. Totally unnecessary. | 0neg
|
This video nasty was initially banned in Britain, and allowed in last November without cuts.<br /><br />It features the Playboy Playmate of the Month October 1979, Ursula Buchfellner. The opening cuts back and forth between Buchfellner and foggy jungle pictures. I am not sure what the purpose of that was. It would have been much better to focus on the bathtub scene.<br /><br />Laura (Buchfellner) is kidnapped and held in the jungle for ransom. Peter (Al Cliver - The Beyond, Zombie) is sent to find her and the ransom. Of course, one of the kidnappers (Antonio de Cabo) manages to pass the time productively, while another (Werner Pochath) whines incessantly.<br /><br />The ransom exchange goes to hell, and Laura runs into the jungle. Will Peter save her before the cannibals have a meal? Oh, yes, there are cannibals in this jungle. Why do you think it was a video nasty! Muriel Montossé is found by Peter and his partner (Antonio Mayans - Angel of Death) on the kidnapper's boat. Montossé is very comfortably undressed. Peter leaves them and goes off alone to find Laura, who has been captured by now. They pass the time having sex, and don't see the danger approaching. Guts, anyone? Great fight between Peter and the naked devil (Burt Altman).<br /><br />Blood, decapitation, guts, lots of full frontal, some great writhing by the cannibal priestess (Aline Mess), and the line, "They tore her heart out," which is hilarious if you see the film. | 0neg
|
I have to say I am really surprised at the high ratings for this movie. I found it to be absolutely idiotic. The mother gets "visions" when she touches certain things or people? And one thing she touched twice made her vision continue... Just seemed so ridiculous. Deedee Pfieffer's performance was awful I thought. She was very irritating. The girl who played Lori did a good job and so did most of the supporting cast for what they had to work with.<br /><br />I usually love LMN and am very open minded when it comes to movies but this movie seemed to have a ridiculous plot and over the top acting and it just was not for me. | 0neg
|
This film had a lot of promise, and the plot was relatively interesting, however the actors, director and editors seriously let this film down.<br /><br />I feel bad for the writers, it could have been good. The acting is wooden, very few of the characters are believable.<br /><br />Who ever edited this clearly just learnt some new edit techniques and wanted to splash them all over the film. There are lots of quick 'flashy' edits in almost every scene, which are clearly meant to be symbolic but just end up as annoying.<br /><br />I wanted to like this film and expected there to be a decent resolution to the breakdown of equilibrium but alas no, it left me feeling like I'd wasted my time and the film makers had wasted their money. | 0neg
|
Well, where to begin? I guess I can start with the general complaint regarding the way in which this film is marketed. Call me ignorant for not knowing of Schneebaum's book before viewing the documentary that has been based off of it and decide that I have been living under some kind of a rock, but don't blame me for picking this movie up since the title and the description on the box makes no note of the fact that this "documentary" is actually a companion to said book. Yeah, I felt quite stupid after viewing this little flick seeing as how the reason as to why I sat down to watch it in the first place was to get a good serving of a "Modern Cannibal Tale." I mean, am I a fool for expecting this film to actually cover most of its story on the behavior of cannibalism in jungle tribes? I certainly didn't expect an hour and forty-five minutes of one old geezer kissing his own ass by whining about every little detail of his dull and worn out life. I certainly didn't expect the insipid directing and I most notably did not foresee myself laughing so hard at Tobias Schneebaum and all of his off-putting glory.<br /><br />Schneebaum is indeed unlikable. The old man just rambles and bitches the entire film making the whole picture a personal tale of his even though he isn't even that interesting a character to fill a story. Oh really? He was a cannibal? Ninety percent of the movie is focused on next to nothing regarding Schneebaum's dirty past. The only time that we really get to see some cannibal action is when Tobias finally breaks his little silent treatment about what happened to him in Peru and say that he had "a small piece." That's it, folks. Ninety minutes of bull later and Tobias Schneebaum is a cannibal by three inches. It's like calling a movie "The Life Of A True Don Juan" only to see that the only the time the protagonist of said film did something sexual happened during college when he once played "just the tip." Unbelievable.<br /><br />The directing is, indeed, superbly ghastly as there is no flow or rhythm to the story that is being told. Alright, I understand that I didn't read Schneebaum's volume before watching his celluloid tale of it, but I can still recognize some bad pacing and even worse editing. One minute Schneebaum is talking about cruise ships and tourism and the next he's going on and on about how he can't drive and then jumps to talking about some dead relative or some failed and miserable saga in his life. I mean, Jesus, can you at least slam his back story to the first part; follow up with some stuff covering his homosexuality and then end it off with a hearty look into his visit to Peru? Also: I don't particularly care much for Schneebaum's insipid little quips on life and living, but I at least implore the old man to keep consistent with his ramblings. If I hear a guy talking about how he prefers life in the jungle I don't expect him to suddenly bitch and moan about wanting to go back home twenty minutes later. Absurd.<br /><br />Another note on the directing is the random clips from the story at hand to the small little television appearances in which our hero has appeared. While some might find the clips to be fancy little breaks from the story, the director has overused the gimmick and broken his entire film into pieces by seemingly attempting to place most of the efforts of telling the story on the old reels.<br /><br />The bottom line, here, is that Tobias Schneebaum is a fraud. Pure and simple. I know that I haven't read the book, but I'm still holding on to the argument that this film is totally useless by noting that a good film must stand on its own. This documentary relies way too much on the assumption that the viewer is already an avid fan of Schneebaum's work and instead goes on from that assumption like a supplemental disk found on a DVD. Schneebaum is both arrogant and bitchy, striking a sour combination when mixed with the fact that his story is remarkably un-riveting. If you're looking for a solid piece on the nature of humans and cannibalism, turn away because "Keep The River To Your Right" is an embarrassingly hilarious self-serving rant over a man who is long overdue for a straight-jacket and a gag. | 0neg
|
Even if you're a huge Sandler fan, please don't bother with this extremely disappointing comedy! I bought this movie for $7.99, assuming it has to be at least halfway decent since my man Sandler is in it and because I assumed some women would get naked (judging by the R-rating and scantily-clad women on the cover). Well, there are quite a few scantily-clad women, but none get naked. I'm not sure what point this was in Sandler's career, but I'm guessing it was even before his SNL days. I can be wrong. This is like watching one of his home movies. He might look back at a cheesy movie like this and reminisce about the good ol' times...but we (the audience) are left to dry. This is hardly a "movie"! Sandler does a lot of talking to the camera, and even admits at one point that this is "no-budget" movie (that's right, not a low-budget movie, a NO-budget movie). So our job is pretty much to laugh AT the quirky characters. There is no steady plot, it's like an extended sketch comedy show--but a crude and badly written one. That guy who played the nasty comedian was completely annoying and it was implausible in the first place that he would receive such a mass audience. And Sandler finds his comic inspiration by saying the one classic Henny Youngman line "Take my wife, please" and the audience is on the floor? I'm not even going to TRY to make any logic here. Sure, Sandler's current and recent movies are not known for making a lot of sense (the penguin in "Billy Madison," the midget in "Happy Gilmore's" Happy Place) but the comedy works. This is a strictly amateurish work, and even if you're curious about Adam's early days in film--you still won't be interested. You're better off checking out his start on SNL or maybe his underrated role in "Mixed Nuts." Of course, the Sandman is not the only actor wasted in this thankless vehicle. Billy Bob Thornton also makes a short appearance, Billy Zane ("Titanic") has a supporting role and the great Burt Young (from the "Rocky" movies) has a significant role. <br /><br />This awful comedy will most probably be collecting dust on the 99-cent rental section of your local video store--and rightfully so. <br /><br />My score: 3 (out of 10) | 0neg
|
Let me be really clear about this movie. I didn't watch this movie because of the plot, I watch it for the saucy sex scenes. That being said, this movie is so god damn awful I flip between pure joy of seeing a godly body of Traci (Mandy Schaffer) and cringing my eyeballs out for the disaster of a plot.<br /><br />Spoiler Alert The first scene of the movie already had me cringing.. you see a woman painting something by the lakeside, in pure bliss and serene, then a beautiful girl approach and ask if she could paint beside her. When they both finished, they show each other what they had done... and the woman painted A VINEYARD WHEN SHE IS FACING INFRONT OF THE LAKE. What kind of screwball director would make this kind of mistake?? And in another scene, Traci gets to kill her teacher's lover by smash him with the sail pole, and then she swims away, and none of the town's police suspected her once. I mean HELLOOOOO? MANDY DID NOT WEAR A GLOVE DID SHE? HER FINGER PRINTS ARE ALL OVER THE GOD DAMN BOAT!! After that, it gets worst, whenever Mandy is around, there is the "chilling" sound effect played which sounds like a cat in hissy fit. It's also a real pity Rosanna Arquette's is in this movie. I feel real sorry for her to have to star in this super low budget soft-porn no brainer. Same goes for Jürgen Prochnow, who also has the misfortune to star in this movie. All in all, 2/10. | 0neg
|
Weak plot, predictable violence, only semi interesting characters. Like the writer (also one of the stars?) was fictionalizing his own screw ups and added an incredulous fantasies of drugs and murder to make it "hot". From the predictable rap and house soundtrack, to the family conflicts, it's poorly acted, stereotypical, and ultimately terribly boring. Even the title has been done before - IMDb lists FIVE movies with the same name released in 2007-2008!! <br /><br />Note: Saw it on Showtime, which listed the synopsis for one of the other movies. Was halfway thru before I realized no one was an undercover cop. Even tho another stereotype, would have made it interesting if it happened. | 0neg
|
Because IT IS, that's why! This is the same jealous-daughter-kills-people flick we've seen a billion times. Rosanna Arquette makes anything worth watching, and Mandy Schaffer's brief nude scene (after teasing via scantily clad attire throughout the film) at the end almost make this trite blarney worthwhile, but not quite.<br /><br />* out of **** | 0neg
|
This is a movie that relies solely on the somewhat controversial image of incest and lesbianism to get noticed.That is it.The dialogs are pathetic and the sensuality of the "sex scenes" is absolutely absent.The acting and the dialog are more suited for high-school children,yet the subject is intended for adult audiences. It is a gutless and shallow movie.It could have been way better if it had a story and more drama. Ah and on top of that, one more thing: why are inner monologues so excessively used? Makes it seem so cheap.All in all an embarrassing movie for Romanian cinema as well as for mature audiences attempting to view it.I know the means are scarce but, that is not always an excuse for a movie flopping as this one does.And please start using some good actors in your movies and stop recycling them from musicians (Tudor Chirila) - they can't act! | 0neg
|
If you're after the real story of early Baroque painter Artemisia Gentileschi, you'll be disappointed- however if you're after a reasonably crafted bodice ripper with an art theme, you've found you're movie.<br /><br />This film is such a foundationally inaccurate depiction of Artemisia Gentileschi's life that it almost made me weep. (Type in Artemisia inaccuracies in Google and check out some of the fact vs. fiction articles.) From a purely technical point of view though, the film was alright: the sets, costumes, and especially the chiaroscuro lighting helped create an immersive early 17th century experience; although the above mentioned GLARING FACTUAL INACCURACIES let it down a bit.<br /><br />I wonder how the director/co-writer Agnès Merlet defended her film at the time? Perhaps she refused to portray Artemisia as a victim, which would've been unfortunate, because lets face it, she was. | 0neg
|
This movie in away was super-clever. It's theme rhymes with every single horror movie ever made. Valentine makes ZERO attempt to be original. What is valentine anyway? It's a bunch of people giving each other the same lame messages that were given to the same people a year earlier. There is nothing original in Valentine. <br /><br />I only saw it once, and in that one viewing here are some of the films it ripped off. 1.Prom Night 2.Carrie 3.Scream 4.Any other horror movie in which somebody is killing somebody.<br /><br />I know there is more, but my mind was slowly turning into a puddle of silk so it couldn't grab them as fast as they came.<br /><br />Valentine had no chance of being a good movie. How come every horror movie has to have a "suprise" killer, people you don't care about because their emotions take a turn every other scene. One minute a nice girl turns into an evil B--ch, then she's an insecure woman, and so on and son on.<br /><br />Normally any horror movie (in my book) can be saved by gore, once again Valentine doesn't have this. It was as if they tried to make it PG-13 but failed, so they left the edit. <br /><br />Do not see this overly-inspired, rip-off unless you hate yourself, and you want to die.<br /><br />*1/2 (3) -J.Leonard Rollins- | 0neg
|
I saw this movie about 5 years ago, and the memory of it still haunts me to this day. I was fully aware at how awful it was supposed to be going into it, so I have only myself to blame. But like most, I didn't believe all the negativity. Being a Sandler fan, it just seemed inconceivable one of his movies could really be that bad. I figured it was just Sandler haters. I couldn't have been more wrong.<br /><br />What we have here is a comedy that does not contain even 1 second of anything funny. That is actually quite an accomplish. You'd think in a 90 minute comedy, they might have accidentally stumbled upon something even remotely amusing. But no, it's just horrible. It's not "so bad it's good", its just bad. You cannot laugh at how bad it is, you can only cry. You wait patiently for a joke that will at least make you chuckle, but they never come.<br /><br />Have you seen the movie The Ring? Where the people watch a video tape and die 7 days later? If this movie was on the video tape, people would die instantly, by their own hand, and there would be smile on their face as they realize their agony has ended, and that would be the first smile since they pressed play.<br /><br />You might be inclined to watch it just to see how bad it is, unable to curb your curiosity. Don't. Please don't. Trust me, I'm doing you a favor. There are 2 types of people in the world, those that think Going Overboard is the worst movie ever made, and those that have not yet seen it. | 0neg
|
The fine cast cannot uplift this routine tale of a secretary murdered by her married paramour. In fact there are more questions than answers in this one-sided tale of romance and murder; and since we are only provided with the prosecution's side, none of these questions will be answered. This is the type of fare that appeals to the "He Woman, Man Hater" clubs of America. As presented, it is the tale of an innocent woman who just happens to be "caught up" in a romance with a married, high-profile attorney. Is it possible that IF, she had not been two timing her boy friend and having an affair with a married man, the whole nasty murderous, sordid incident could have been avoided? When you watch this, don't worry about going to the 'fridge, you won't miss anything. | 0neg
|
After an initial release of 4 very good Eurotrash titles, REDEMPTION has managed to scrape the bottom of the barrel with THE BLOODSUCKER LEADS THE DANCE. I found NO Bloodsuckers anywhere in this movie.<br /><br />The story is simple. A mysterious count invites several actresses to his castle for a little vacation. After some sofcore sexual shenanigans the girls get decapitated one by one. Who is the killer? Who knows? There are more red herrings in this one than at the local fish market on Friday.<br /><br />The pace is excruciating. The story is silly and the skin scenes aren't all that terrific either.<br /><br />Give this one a miss. | 0neg
|
I picked up this movie for $5 dollars at a discount book store, Adam Sandler is a awesome actor and i figured it would be a good movie, well, it wasn't. There was absolutely no story line at all, bad jokes, and the other comedian said "The F-Word" every other word he said,cursing usually dosen't bother me but this was over the top. And even worse than the lack of story line was the parts when Sandler would just begin talking into the camera at random parts in the movie, it reminded me of Dora the Explorer when they turn and look at the screen and ask you questions. And last of all is when they would randomly put in Bikini shots of girls at random times in the movie. In my opinion, Don't buy this movie, its a waste of money | 0neg
|
Valentine is a horrible movie. This is what I thought of it:<br /><br />Acting: Very bad. Katherine Heigl can not act. The other's weren't much better.<br /><br />Story: The story was okay, but it could have been more developed. This movie had the potential to be a great movie, but it failed.<br /><br />Music: Yes, some of the music was pretty cool.<br /><br />Originality: Not very original. The name `Paige Prescott' Recognize Prescott?<br /><br />Bottom Line: Don't see Valentine. It's a really stupid movie.<br /><br />1/10<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
(SPOILERS IN THIS)<br /><br />"Rosenstraße" is a movie about heroic women in German Nazi time. But it is way too long, it is not touching and sometimes even boring! There are too many clichés and not enough good acting.<br /><br />The storytelling (storyline) is bad. Like in James Cameron´s Titanic an old woman remembers events of her live. Good, now we´ve got a point of view. Than there is another woman introduced who does the same. Confusing is that they both are recalling events of lifes of other people! Come on! This is a lack of knowledge of basic story telling...How can Riemann know about the fate of the little girl´s mother and her interrogation for example?<br /><br />The scenes are shown in the wrong order and you rarely know when it took place. For example the scene when Riemann is proposing to Fabian. When did that happen? The scene looks like it is set in the Twenties...<br /><br />Riemann´s character is of course a talented pianist, well, she is even a Baroness! Wow. Her brother comes back from the Eastern Front, he has received a "Ritterkreuz" which he is showing in some scenes. So he is a war hero and still a fine man who preserved his conscience. And he gained knowledge of massacres committed by Germans. He even made some photographs! And so it goes, cliché after cliché is piling up and this is why the movie does not work.<br /><br />Basically von Trotta made a chick flick out of something what could have been a decent movie. And in the end it´s all very simple. Riemann finds a way to get Goebbels into bed and - ta da! - everyone is free. Which is not a historical fact but pure imagination despite the "true story" claim at the beginning. Like "Sass" it is vaguely BASED on a true event.<br /><br />It is sad but true, this IS the typical German movie these days. It is bad! Macaulay J. Connor<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Ok, first the good: Cher's performance and the cinematography. Although I'm no Cher fan, she gives an excellent performance and her part was well written. The cinematography was well done and captures a sense of romance.<br /><br />The Rest: a thin plotline, Nicholas Cage's performance, and a totally unhumorous and weak attempt to portray an Italian-American family from New York. Firstly, everytime time Cage opened his mouth I cringed. I don't know what kind of accent he was trying use. I honestly don't, it sure wasnt any New York or Italian accent I've ever heard. It was quite surreal. And it wasn't because I'm some stickler for accuracy, his voice just cloyed in my ears. And I like Nicholas Cage in other performances. Secondly, and this is purely anecdotal, but I have many Italian relations, friends and acquaintances in New York City, and frankly I've gotten more laughs and felt more joy in the appreciation of the Italian ethnic family by far than this movie provided. And that would be on a boring night at the house. What a let down. | 0neg
|
What is this crap? My little cousin picked this out obviously for the overly girlie DVD art and title... I decided to watch it with her so she didn't get bored, and I sure was appalled at the horrible quality.<br /><br />First, the acting was terrible. They seem like amateur actresses reading off of cue cards. The delivery is sub-par and very formulaic. Scene cuts were terrible.. it looks like they took it straight from the story board, if there was one.<br /><br />Secondly, the jokes and stereotypes weren't original or well played at all- again, very formulaic. I can't count the times I was able to predict the next joke. I got a few chuckles out of the blatantly "subtle" sexual innuendos. The Cat, The Beaver Patch, Hung Wong?.. c'mon! Just.. stay away from this movie. It's not cute, it's not funny, it's not even stupid-funny. It's just stupid-stupid. It's like a PG kids' movie with unnecessary sexual innuendo, vulgarity, and violence to bump the MPAA rating. STAY AWAY.<br /><br />"Would you like to ride my yacht?"<br /><br />"Is that what they're calling it now?"<br /><br />"You could ride my ding."<br /><br />"Oh! I think I got blood on my stool!"<br /><br />Badly played, sir. | 0neg
|
Overall an extremely disappointing picture. Very, very slow build up to the basic storyline. The role of Maria Schrader searching for her families secret past. (Every take seems to last forever
. There is really no rhythm in the film.) ***SPOILERS*** Her Mother Ruth is rescued from the Nazis, by a German woman, played by Katja Riemann. The entire character of Ruth is so one dimensional, so stereotypical. ***SPOILERS END*** The film cuts back and forth between present day New York and Berlin and Berlin 40s something. Please when you do that, give the audience an indication of what time exactly the story takes place. There is never a clear indication of time very annoying. Worst part is, the end. ***SPOILERS*** The entire show and jabber about the Jews being so terribly tormented, simply by a bureaucratic accident! Give me a break. That's how the Jews got out of the Rosenstrasse? The question of who freed the Jews is NEVER answered. Was is Goebels who freed them? Did Lean Fischer sleep with Goebels? In Venice the film won an acting award for K. Riemann, why? I have no idea. Must be the Jewish theme
| 0neg
|
What was with all the Turkish actors? No offense but I thought it was all for nothing for all these actors. The film had no script to test any actors acting skill or ability. It demanded next to nothing I bought this film to see Michael Madsen. He is one of my favorite actors but this film was another failure for him. The script was so bad. Their was just nothing to sink your teeth into and all the characters were two dimensional. Madsen tried to act like a hard ass but the script and direction didn't even allow him to do enough with his character to make it more interesting or 3 dimensional.<br /><br />Even the sound effects of the gunfight at the beginning of the film sounded like the noise of paint ball guns when they are fired in a skirmish. It was really weird and they didn't sound like real guns. A video game had better sound effects than this film. There was also a really annoying bloke at the beginning of the film who was a member of the robbery gang. He had this American whining voice like a girl shouting lines like "Lets get the F#$k out of here" and What are we going to do man". He sounded like a girl. As a positive It was funny to watch and it made me laugh too. For a few seconds. Whoo Hoo ! Dumb Film. Poor Madsen. He will bounce back... | 0neg
|
This is not so much film as big budget children's television. As far as I can tell, the villain is a giant swarm of chocolate covered espresso beans. This theory seems to be verified by the fact that the subtitles refer to it as 'Insomnia'. When it's first mentioned that a civilization had been wiped out by insomnia, I thought "Wow! A nihilistic martial arts film!" but no such luck. Although you have to consider it experimental cinema when the villain is strangled by an old man's long, white eyebrows. Zu Warriors makes exactly the same amount of sense whether the subtitles are on or off. That's not a good sign. I found the special effects to be somewhere between Ray Harryhausen and Xena: Warrior Princess. Primitive. | 0neg
|
WARNING: This review contains SPOILERS. Do not read if you don't want some points revealed to you before you watch the film.<br /><br />With a cast like this, you wonder whether or not the actors and actresses knew exactly what they were getting into. Did they see the script and say, `Hey, Close Encounters of the Third Kind was such a hit that this one can't fail.' Unfortunately, it does. Did they even think to check on the director's credentials? I mean, would YOU do a movie with the director of a movie called `Satan's Cheerleaders?' Greydon Clark, who would later go on to direct the infamous `Final Justice,' made this. It makes you wonder how the people of Mystery Science Theater 3000 could hammer `Final Justice' and completely miss out on `The Return.'<br /><br />The film is set in a small town in New Mexico. A little boy and girl are in the street unsupervised one night when a powerful flashlight beam.er.a spaceship appears and hovers over them. In probably the worst special effect sequence of the film, the ship spews some kind of red ink on them. It looked like Clark had held a beaker of water in from of the camera lens and dipped his leaky pen in it, so right away you are treated with cheese. Anyhow, the ship leaves and the adults don't believe the children. Elsewhere, we see Vincent Schiavelli, whom I find to be a terrific actor (watch his scenes in `Ghost' for proof, as they are outstanding), who is playing a prospector, or as I called him, the Miner 1949er. He steps out of the cave he is in, and he and his dog are inked by the ship. Twenty-five years go by, and the girl has grown up to be Cybill Shepherd, who works with her father, Raymond Burr, in studying unusual weather phenomena. Or something like that. Shepherd spots some strange phenomena in satellite pictures over that little New Mexico town, and she travels there to research it. Once she gets there, the local ranchers harass her, and blame her for the recent slew of cattle mutilations that have been going on, and deputy Jan-Michael Vincent comes to her rescue. From this point on, the film really drags as the two quickly fall for each other, especially after Vincent wards off the locals and informs Shepherd that he was the little boy that saw the ship with her twenty-five years earlier. While this boring mess is happening, Vincent Schiavelli, with his killer dog at his side, is walking around killing the cattle and any people he runs into with an unusual item. You know those glowing plastic sticks stores sell for trick-or-treaters at Halloween, the kind that you shake to make them glow? Schiavelli uses what looks like one of those glow sticks to burn incisions in people. It's the second-worst effect in the movie. Every time Schiavelli is on screen with the glow stick, the scene's atmosphere suddenly turns dark, like the filmmakers thought the glow stick needed that enhancement. It ends up making the movie look even cheaper than it is.<br /><br />And what does all this lead up to? It's hard to tell when the final, confusing scene arrives. See, Burr and his team of scientists try to explain the satellite images that Shepherd found as some kind of `calling card,' but none of it makes sense. Why do Shepherd and Vincent age and Schiavelli does not? Schiavelli explains why he is killing cattle and people and why he wants Shepherd dead, but even that doesn't make much sense when you really think about it. I mean, why doesn't he kill Jan-Michael Vincent? After all, he had twenty-five years to do it. And the aliens won't need him if Shepherd is dead anyhow, so why try to kill her? Speaking of the aliens, it is never clear what they really wanted out of Shepherd and Vincent. What is their goal? Why do they wait so long to intervene? How could they be so sure Shepherd would come back? Not that the answer to any of these and other questions would have made `The Return' any more pleasant. You would still have bad lines, really bad acting, particularly by Shepherd, cheesy effects, and poor direction. Luckily, the stars escaped from this movie. Cybill Shepherd soon went on to star in `Moonlighting' with Bruce Willis. Jan-Michael Vincent went on to be featured in dozens of B-movies, often in over-the-top parts. Raymond Burr made a pile of Perry Mason television movies right up until his death. Vincent Schiavelli went on to be a great character actor in a huge number of films. Martin Landau, who played a kooky law enforcement officer, quickly made the terrific `Alone in the Dark' and the awful `The Being' before rolling into the films he has been famous for recently. You can bet none of these stars ever want their careers to return to `The Return.' Zantara's score: 2 out of 10. | 0neg
|
This is an action Western. James Steart leads an all star cast in the scenic Northwest, which is filmed in great splendor. The scenery and costumes are great. There is action and adventure. Stewart plays a wealthy cattleman who runs afoul of a crooked government in the old Nothwest.<br /><br />The main drawback is the stereotypical cynic that Hollywood has always made into a hero. Even when this movie was made, the cynic was the stereotypical hero, and the one Stewart portrays really has few saving graces. He is kind to his two partners, and that does give him an extra dimension of credibility and likability.<br /><br />However, he is so piggish to everyone else, it is hard to really care for him, or to accept him. He is much like the one dimensional spaghetti Western characters (cut not that bad).<br /><br />Still, the minor characters are quite enjoyable. Walter Brennan, Royal Dano, Harry Morgan, and others make this worth watching. | 0neg
|
*Possible Spoiler*<br /><br />'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a useless movie. The acting was not good and the plot wasn't even remotely interesting.<br /><br />'Cabin by the Lake' is a good TV movie. The sequel was not. Judd Nelson was very good in the first film and put a whole lot more into his character than in this. It seemed as if HE wasn't even interested in doing the sequel. His acting was good but it could have been better. I really don't want to comment on the rest of the cast because in my opinion, they're not even worth mentioning. But I'll do it. The character of Alison isn't even hardly shown in the first part of the film. All of a sudden she's the center of attention next to Stanley Caldwell. The role didn't make sense and it should have been thought out a little better. Dahlia Salem was absolutely terrible. Her acting was way below decent and the casting people should have looked for somebody else, anybody else. The director, Mike, was a confusing character. He seemed to have a purpose for being there but it didn't seem like his death was necessary. The acting for this role was good, nothing great but better than Salem's.<br /><br />The plot was real lousy if you think about it. Stanley, who is presumed dead, makes his way onto the set of 'Cabin by the Lake', the movie based on his script. He stumbles upon the director and in a short time, the director is dead and Stanley is running the show. Yeah, out of nowhere the crew is just going to let this stranger come into the picture and finish the film not knowing anything about him. There's some killings, not a whole lot, and the one's that are shown are ridiculous. One of the actresses on the set gets electrocuted while filming a scene. Another character gets chewed up by a motorboat. And one gets tangled up in a plant before drowning. These writers must have been hard up for excitement.<br /><br />I just have to say that I was not impressed with the filming of the movie. The way that it kept changing from looking low budget back to normal started to become irritating very fast. Also, the new cabin by the lake was poorly created. We aren't shown it but only in a few scenes, and the whole thing with the chain in the basement was useless. It worked in the first film only because we were shown the room a lot more, but it didn't work in this one.<br /><br />There were too many characters in this sequel. All of them except for a few had no reason to be there. The acting of what little is showed was really bad and...they just didn't have a purpose in this movie.<br /><br />All in all, 'Return to Cabin by the Lake' is a sequel picking up from where the first left off. 'Cabin by the Lake' I can take but this was just not impressive. Judd Nelson should have avoided this one and so should you. It's nothing like the first and it went entirely too slow. Nothing happened in the first hour and it continued to drag on for the second. Not to mention that the writing was horrible. Put this on only if you need some help getting to sleep.<br /><br />So, we see that Stanley defies death and is still alive and well. By the way he talks, it sounds like there could be a possible third installment to a movie good just by itself. Quit throwing in sequels and we may be alright!<br /><br />(Did the film makers not realize that they showed us how they filmed the lake scenes from the first one? They were all done in a tank. Never, never reveal the secrets of filming.)<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
There are bad movies, terrible movies even boring movies...I can watch most and put up until the end, not this time. Avoid this like the plague, annoying music throughout, terrible editing, no comedy, its tackier than a novelty mug...My missus wanted to watch this thinking it would be Legally Blonde material or something kind of watchable, but never better than average, chick flick. Its the first time she was begging me to push the stop button.<br /><br />The Girls, well, they were not great to start with (Denise done OK in Starship Troopers and Wild things) but you have sank to the gravel. I feel like a mug having spent 30 minutes on this...Pamela Anderson is almost unrecognisable after much construction work to her face.<br /><br />Please take my advice if you want to avoid wasting valuable oxygen and brain cells ranting at the utter mince that is on your screen. | 0neg
|
Of the three titles from Jess Franco to find their way onto the Official DPP Video Nasty list (Devil Hunter, Bloody Moon and Women Behind Bars) this is perhaps the least deserving of notoriety, being a dreadfully dull jungle clunker enlivened only very slightly by a little inept gore, a gratuitous rape scene, and loads of nudity.<br /><br />Gorgeous blonde Ursula Buchfellner plays movie star Laura Crawford who is abducted by a gang of ruthless kidnappers and taken to a remote tropical island inhabited by a savage tribe who worship the 'devil god' that lurks in the jungle (a big, naked, bulging-eyed native who likes to eat the hearts of nubile female sacrifices).<br /><br />Employed by Laura's agent to deliver a $6million ransom, brave mercenary Peter Weston (Al Cliver) and his Vietnam vet pilot pal travel to the island, but encounter trouble when the bad guys attempt a double-cross. During the confusion, Laura escapes into the jungle, but runs straight into the arms of the island's natives, who offer her up to their god.<br /><br />Franco directs in his usual torpid style and loads this laughable effort with his usual dreadful trademarks: crap gore, murky cinematography, rapid zooms, numerous crotch shots, out of focus imagery, awful sound effects, and ham-fisted editing. The result is a dire mess that is a real struggle to sit through from start to finish (It took me a couple of sittings to finish the thing), and even the sight of the luscious Buchfellner in all of her natural glory ain't enough to make me revisit this film in a hurry. | 0neg
|
Wow-this one sucks. I'm gonna sum it up as quickly as possible. <br /><br />A count invites 4 naive sluts back to his castle. A bunch of nothing happens for a long time. Some lame and un-erotic soft-core sex scenes happen. Some girls get their heads cut off (off-screen)-The End.<br /><br />The only things going for this one are the decent looking sets and costumes, some bad dubbing which leads to some unintentionally funny dialogue, and a few brief nudie shots. And believe me-those things are not enough to redeem the 90-minutes of tedium that this film is. In fact-the best part is the tacked on beginning from the distributor that features some slutty goth chicks covered in blood and showing their tits-and again-this is definitely not worth the price of admission for this garbage. As everyone else has noted- the title of the film is completely nonsensical-as there's absolutely no bloodsucking, nor dancing of any sort in the film at all. It may as well have been called 'The Goat-Raper Leads the Circle-Jerk'-and at least then it would have had a better title that also pertains to nothing in the film. An accurate title would have been '90 Minutes of Torture'-another alluring title that would have at least been truthful...for the viewer. Honestly-the trailer that's on the disc shows all the best parts (and i use the term 'best' extremely loosely...) so I highly suggest watching that instead if you're still curious. I can't imagine anyone liking this wreck of a film-please take my advice and leave this one on the shelf. 2/10 | 0neg
|
This is the first time I ever saw a movie with Jamie Foxx, and I bet it will be my last. I failed to see why he was funny, although people in the audience thought it was very funny when he made a face to the camera, or for saying "I am going to take a shower".<br /><br />The plot is completely predictable. The bad guy comes after the good guy. The good guy has a woman, so the bad guy uses her. In between, the officials screwing up. The final scenes are utterly unbelievable. You spend 2 years and millions of dollars chasing a guy, but you don't do your home work to solve a trivial riddle?<br /><br />There's no great acting, there isn't much of a plot or storyline, and the shooting is done MTV style. Don't waste your money on this one.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
I got this movie because I worked at a movie store so I got free rentals. It came in, and the cover made it look alright. Hot chick, carrying a weapon, alright, I'll check it out.<br /><br />Oh man, bad move. This was so horrible, I spent half the movie watching in fast-forward to get to the nudity, which was minimal. I think MAYBE three scenes of partial nudity.<br /><br />Cheesy dialogue, crappy violence, poor excuses of characters. I feel bad putting this movie down, because I know it was made on a cheap budget, but so was "Clerks" and it became a cult classic and a franchise.<br /><br />2/10. | 0neg
|
They constructed this one as a kind of fantasy Man From Snowy River meets Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid, and just for a romantic touch Ned and Joe get to play away with high class talent, the bored young wives of wealthy older men. OK, there are lots of myths about Ned Kelly, but there are also a lot of well documented facts, still leaving space for artistic creativity in producing a good historical dramaticisation. I mean, this is not the Robin Hood story, not the Arthurian legends, not Beowulf, not someone whose life is so shrouded in the mists of many many centuries past that any recreation of their life and times is 99% guesswork. It's only a couple of lifetimes ago. My own grandparents were already of school age when Ned was hanged. <br /><br />So it's silly me for fancifully imagining this movie was a serious attempt to tell the Kelly story. Having recently read Peter Carey's excellent novel "The True History of the Kelly Gang" I had eagerly anticipated that this would be in similar vein. But no, the fact is that Mick Jagger's much derided 1970 Kelly was probably far closer to reality, and a better movie overall, which isn't saying a whole lot for it.<br /><br />Glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the DVD! I'll give it 3/10, and that's only because some of the nice shots of the Australian bush make me feel generous. | 0neg
|
Well the reason for seeing it in the cinema was that it was a sneak preview, else I would never have seen this terrible teenage slasher movie. I mean haven't we had enough of this yet? Scream and Scary Movie at least did not take them self serious! The plot sucks, and the acting is the worst I've seen. (Only Godzilla can compare, which is also the only movie that competes in being the worst I've seen in the cinema with this one.)<br /><br />There is so many plot holes in the story, and the girls are so alike, that you don't even now who has been killed, and who has not. (and you don't care.) The only of them I knew in advance was Denise, and she was the most talent less actress I have ever seen in this bad excuse for a movie.<br /><br />Stay as far away from this movie as possible. (2/10) | 0neg
|
The premise of the movie has been explained and if you've gotten this far you don't me to pretend that I'm a movie critic. With that being said my own opinion of the movie is quite low. I'm a fan of Takashi Miike but this goes down in the category of his not so great work along with DOA 2 and 3, and some others (many).<br /><br />The movie seems to get a free pass because it is a Takashi film and nothing Takashi does can be wrong. This is a highschoolers approach to cinema. For the rest of us we'll find and hour and a half of a kid screaming for no real reason completely annoying (and yes, this does take away from the film), the pace of the film almost reaching levels of rigomortis, and the acting...well...hmmm. <br /><br />If one is a Takashi fan you'll see it regardless to peak your interests. It lacks any originality (see the Neverending Story) or any character development from the lead character in the face of conflict other then a quite superficial one. <br /><br />As it has been pointed out this is the first film Miike has been credited with co-writing, but that doesn't mean much as non of what we'd hope would be Miike's personality would spill over into the screen. All we get are some of the token Miike shots vis the director of photography.<br /><br />The movie had the potential to be something great. The premise is not a difficult one to run wild with. But this one seemed to have been run into the ground.<br /><br />My suggestion is if you're just getting into Miike is go with some of the standards like Gozu, Ichi, and Audition. Then movie into his works like Blue's Harp, Fudoh, Rainy Dog, Bird People of China. | 0neg
|
Warning: Avoid this super duper awful movie...if you watched it you will be SOOOOOOOOO disappointed.<br /><br />Pam and Denise are grandma age now what are they doing? Trying SO HARD to be young innocent and sexy, just not working AT ALL. Pam and Denise act so horribly in this movie.<br /><br />Plus The script is absolutely atrocious, I can't believe someone can came out with such crappy ideas. With the development of movie industry, movie lovers are not as easy to satisfy as the ones in the last century. I bet the movie goers from last century will hate this too.<br /><br />Stay away from it. I think watch "White Chicks" from 2004 it's so much better that this...make no mistake at that time I thought that's the worst movie I have ever seen. | 0neg
|
The earlier part of the film was rather enjoyable but towards the end it became trite. Although Turturro is an actor I generally like, his Luzhin often resembled a bad Rain Man impression and the portrayal of the genius as a semi-autistic man was annoying. Overall it seems as if this film is trying to hard and ends up looking pompous in spite of mostly fine performances. | 0neg
|
Ned aKelly is such an important story to Australians but this movie is awful. It's an Australian story yet it seems like it was set in America. Also Ned was an Australian yet he has an Irish accent...it is the worst film I have seen in a long time | 0neg
|
In director Sooraj Barjatya's Vivah,20-something Delhi boy Shahid Kapur finds himself smitten by the demure, small-town girl his father has selected for him to marry. Drawn to her innocence and simplicity, Shahid agrees to the marriage barely moments after he's met her at her home in Madhupur, and the young lady in question Amrita Rao seems equally floored by her charming suitor. The marriage is fixed for six months later, and the couple find themselves in the first throes of young, budding love, their geographical distance notwithstanding. But Amrita, who's been raised by her uncle and her aunt after her parents' death, is struck by a horrible calamity just hours before the marriage. And then, it's up to Shahid to play the honourable lover and to embrace her unconditionally.Much in the same vein as Hum Aapke Hain Koun and Hum Saath Saath Hain, Barjatya's new film Vivah too is on one level a family drama with an extremely idealistic premise. But sadly, the plot of this new film comes off looking way too outdated, even more far-fetched than those regressive Ekta Kapoor soaps. And the problem is clear you just can't relate to such squeaky-clean characters who don't have one bad bone in their bodies. There are many things that work in favour of and against Hindi films, and timing is one such important factor. Twenty-five years ago, perhaps the plot of Vivah may not have felt like such a stretch, but today it just seems like the product of a mind stuck in a time warp. Perhaps the film's only saving grace is the fact that it oozes sincerity from start to finish, you can make out right away that the filmmaker's intention is not to deceive. Judging both by Barjatya's previous films and by closely examining this new one you can safely declare that Barjatya believes in a perfect world, he believes in his good-as-gold characters, he believes that large families can live together happily under the same roof without the slightest bumps.But alas, he's unable to translate his vision to the screen. It's difficult to overlook how one-dimensional his protagonists are Shahid and Amrita, both virtuous and virginal I mean, think about it, the first time they hold hands is an hour and twenty minutes into the film. Barjatya may think he's returning to his Maine Pyar Kiya roots with Vivah, but truth is that the reason we embraced Salman and Bhagyashree in that film, or even Salman and Madhuri in Hum Aapke Hain Koun is because they had such fantastic chemistry. Because although they were created out of the same mould as Shahid and Amrita in Vivah, those pairs had mischief and masti. Shahid and Amrita are just insipid and boring.For a film that relies so heavily on music to narrate its story, the filmmaker chooses a string of 70s-style tunes that only further slacken the film's deadening pace. But if I had to choose just one reason to explain why Vivah doesn't work for me, it's because I'm not sure I can relate to any of the characters who inhabit Barjatya's story. To some perhaps, Vivah will give hope, that a perfect world like this is actually out there somewhere. But I'm a little cynical I guess. So, give me the coquettish Madhuri of Hum Aapke Hain Kaun, give me the bratty Salman of Maine Pyar Kiya, I'll even take that mischievous Karisma Kapoor of Hum Saath Saath Hain. But save me from these dullards. You know, some marriages aren't made in heaven. This one's Vivah! | 0neg
|
... to not live in Montana and especially not to live there at the end of the 19th century.<br /><br />"A river runs through it" certainly is a well made movie from a cineastic stand-point. Great landscapes, Redford acting well.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the story is bad (if there is a story at all).<br /><br />I felt sorry for the narrator / author, who is as dry, narrow-minded a character as his father, a preacher. Being driven, not driving his own life, he is left to watch his brother, who is also caged in the small town environment, losing his life. The author never even comes close to undestand his brother's motivations, but at least realizes, that he is lacking the slightest amount of homour / fun. All there is, is fly-fishing, where he follows even as an old man the style of his father.<br /><br />The end is not surprising, it is forseeable from the very beginning.<br /><br />Definitely NOT a must-see (3 / 10)<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Today I found "They All Laughed" on VHS on sale in a rental. It was a really old and very used VHS, I had no information about this movie, but I liked the references listed on its cover: the names of Peter Bogdanovich, Audrey Hepburn, John Ritter and specially Dorothy Stratten attracted me, the price was very low and I decided to risk and buy it. I searched IMDb, and the User Rating of 6.0 was an excellent reference. I looked in "Mick Martin & Marsha Porter Video & DVD Guide 2003" and wow four stars! So, I decided that I could not waste more time and immediately see it. Indeed, I have just finished watching "They All Laughed" and I found it a very boring overrated movie. The characters are badly developed, and I spent lots of minutes to understand their roles in the story. The plot is supposed to be funny (private eyes who fall in love for the women they are chasing), but I have not laughed along the whole story. The coincidences, in a huge city like New York, are ridiculous. Ben Gazarra as an attractive and very seductive man, with the women falling for him as if her were a Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderas or George Clooney, is quite ridiculous. In the end, the greater attractions certainly are the presence of the Playboy centerfold and playmate of the year Dorothy Stratten, murdered by her husband pretty after the release of this movie, and whose life was showed in "Star 80" and "Death of a Centerfold: The Dorothy Stratten Story"; the amazing beauty of the sexy Patti Hansen, the future Mrs. Keith Richards; the always wonderful, even being fifty-two years old, Audrey Hepburn; and the song "Amigo", from Roberto Carlos. Although I do not like him, Roberto Carlos has been the most popular Brazilian singer since the end of the 60's and is called by his fans as "The King". I will keep this movie in my collection only because of these attractions (manly Dorothy Stratten). My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Muito Riso e Muita Alegria" ("Many Laughs and Lots of Happiness") | 0neg
|
This film, The Alamo:Thirteen Days to Glory, is utter rubbish. The acting is awful, it is far too patriotic and its historical accuracy is not always at its best (Historians would have a field day). It does have a few good moments but not enough to keep interest because it is far too long. Rating * out of **********. | 0neg
|
The plot of this terrible film is so convoluted I've put the spoiler warning up because I'm unsure if I'm giving anything away. The audience first sees some man in Jack the Ripper garb murder an old man in an alley a hundred years ago. Then we're up to modern day and a young Australian couple is looking for a house. We're given an unbelievably long tour of this house and the husband sees a figure in an old mirror. Some 105 year old woman lived there. There are also large iron panels covering a wall in the den. An old fashioned straight-razor falls out when they're renovating and the husband keeps it. I guess he becomes possessed by the razor because he starts having weird dreams. Oh yeah, the couple is unable to have a baby because the husband is firing blanks. <br /><br />Some mold seems to be climbing up the wall after the couple removes the iron panels and the mold has the shape of a person. Late in the story there is a plot about a large cache of money & the husband murders the body guard & a co-worker and steals the money. His wife is suddenly pregnant. <br /><br />What the hell is going on?? Who knows?? NOTHING is explained. Was the 105 year old woman the child of the serial killer? The baby sister? WHY were iron panels put on the wall? How would that keep the serial killer contained in the cellar? Was he locked down there by his family & starved to death or just concealed? WHO is Mr. Hobbs and why is he so desperate to get the iron panels?? He's never seen again. WHY was the serial killer killing people? We only see the one old man murdered. Was there a pattern or motive or something?? WHY does the wife suddenly become pregnant? Is it the demon spawn of the serial killer? Has he managed to infiltrate the husband's semen? And why, if the husband was able to subdue and murder a huge, burly security guard, is he unable to overpower his wife? And just how powerful is the voltage system in Australia that it would knock him across the room simply cutting a light wire? And why does the wife stay in the house? Is she now possessed by the serial killer? Is the baby going to be the killer reincarnated? <br /><br />This movie was such a frustrating experience I wanted to call my PBS station and ask for my money back! The ONLY enjoyable aspect of this story was seeing the husband running around in just his boxer shorts for a lot of the time, but even that couldn't redeem this muddled, incoherent mess. | 0neg
|
A lot of death happens in the wild. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out! But does it need to be the focus of a nature documentary? What is with this fascination with gruesome death? Do we really have to see an adult elephant torn to shreds by a pack of hungry lions? Or, a cheetah grabbing a gazelle by the throat in slow motion, no less! I thought this was going to be a family-friendly nature film! <br /><br />And, why not have the courage to show the gruesome violence in the film's trailers? Were the filmmakers afraid of losing money?<br /><br />Then in typical, comic relief fashion we get to see the magnificent Birds-of-Paradise perform mating rituals to the most annoying and stupid narration humanly possible. It was surreal! It's as if the filmmakers believed they were only addressing a roomful of First and Second graders on a school field trip! Wow! From the mean to the moronic in a heartbeat!<br /><br />If there are any future nature documentary filmmakers waiting in the wings reading this film review, why not focus on: Animals actually copulating; giving birth; laying eggs; bathing; sleeping; cleaning each other; socializing; playing; emotional displays other than fear and anger; unusual behaviors, like mouth brooding; migration; problem solving skills; culture (yes, many animal species have what humans call culture); communication skills; parenting, healing abilities, etc. In other words, stop focusing on violence or dumbing down beauty, and why not be much more well-rounded - and focus on delight and inspiration, instead? | 0neg
|
I was excited to view a Cataluña´s film in the Berlin´s competition. But after the presentation I was total disappointed and furious. Too much blood, too much time, too much themes for nothing. The Spanish Civil War, like every war, was horrible. The revenge, a very human behavior, not pretty at all, is shown in uncountable films and plays, as well as the relations between homosexuals and the scepticism in Spain about Catholicism . But what Mr Villaronga try, is a pseudo tragedy that can belongs to the worst of the film´s history. It is really a pity to see Angela Molina in this movie. I advise nobody under no circumstances to go to see this film. | 0neg
|
Iberia is nice to see on TV. But why see this in silver screen? Lot of dance and music. If you like classical music or modern dance this could be your date movie. But otherwise one and half hour is just too long time. If you like to see skillful dancing in silver screen it's better to see Bollywood movie. They know how to combine breath taking dancing to long movie. Director Carlos Saura knows how to shoot dancing from old experience. And time to time it's look really good. but when the movie is one and hour it should be at least most of time interesting. There are many kind of art not everything is bigger then life and this film is not too big. | 0neg
|
I can't believe that those praising this movie herein aren't thinking of some other film. I was prepared for the possibility that this would be awful, but the script (or lack thereof) makes for a film that's also pointless. On the plus side, the general level of craft on the part of the actors and technical crew is quite competent, but when you've got a sow's ear to work with you can't make a silk purse. Ben G fans should stick with just about any other movie he's been in. Dorothy S fans should stick to Galaxina. Peter B fans should stick to Last Picture Show and Target. Fans of cheap laughs at the expense of those who seem to be asking for it should stick to Peter B's amazingly awful book, Killing of the Unicorn. | 0neg
|
The Horror Channel plays nothing but erotic soft porn Gothic flicks each night from 10pm till about 4 in the morning, but their 'scare' factor is very limited, if one exists at all. In fact I am sure I will find a multi-million pound lottery win more scary than anything this channel has to offer.<br /><br />The Bloodsucker Leads the Dance deserves special mention because it is I feel, the undisputed low of a channel full of lows. I cannot even begin to tell you how bad this film is, but for the purpose of completing the minimum 10 lines demanded by this site, I will at least give it a go.<br /><br />Firstly the title is misleading and bears no resemblance to the action on the screen. In fact the film might as well have been called 'Toothbrush' or 'Wallpaper' for all it has to do with the plot. At least they used toothbrushes...at least they had wallpaper.<br /><br />There are no bloodsuckers for miles around and whats even worse there are no dances, not one. I'm sure they were making two different films by mistake here.<br /><br />A more suitable title would have been, 'Horny Italian Count Leads Five People to a Scary Castle and Bores us Silly for Ninety Minutes.' Yes that fits better.<br /><br />The acting is terrible and and the dubbing appalling, and that guy who plays Seymour was almost as wooden in his walk as he was in his character....abysmal.<br /><br />The only saving graces of this film are a small but slightly interesting lesbian sex scene, two small and very interesting heterosexual sex scenes, and the added attraction in that every single female character gets her kit off. Bonus.<br /><br />Otherwise steer a wide birth away from this one. No vampires, no dancing, no scenes of a brutal or gruesome nature and no way on Gods earth I will ever, ever, ever watch this one again.<br /><br />No word of a lie, this film could put you off motion pictures for life. | 0neg
|
I saw this at the premiere in Melbourne<br /><br />It is shallow, two-dimensional, unaffecting and, hard to believe given the subject matter, boring. The actors are passable, but they didn't have much to work with given the very plodding and unimpressive script. For those who might have worried that Ned Kelly would be over-intellectualised, you can take comfort in the fact that this telling of the story is utterly without any literary depth at all, told entirely on the surface and full of central casting standards. However, it doesn't work as a popcorn film either. Its pacing is too off-kilter and its craft is too lacking to satisfy even on the level of a mundane actioner.<br /><br />I very much doubt Gregor Jordan could sit back and say to himself "this is the best I could have done with the material".<br /><br />Ned Kelly is a fascinating figure, and equally so is the national response to him. Possibly folk genius, possibly class warrior, possibly psychopath and probably all these things, he has dominated Australian true mythology for over 120 years. Once again, his story has failed miserably on the big screen.<br /><br />Such is life. | 0neg
|
Daraar got off to a pretty good start. The first scene really left me at the edge of my seat wondering what would happen next. Other than that, the first half of the movie is a total BORE. All the first half of the movie is about is Rishi Kapoor falling head over heels in love with Juhi Chawla. By the way, don't you think he's a little old for her???<br /><br />Things finally start to spice up towards the middle of the film when Juhi tells us about her previous husband; and wow what a lunatic is he! He was an over-protective, neat-freak with a really HOT TEMPER! He used to beat up poor Juhi for no good reason! One of the reasons I really don't like this movie is because I can't stand to see Juhi (my favorite actress) get so abused. This film in general has WAY too much abuse and bloodshed; I find it so sickening!!!<br /><br />Anyway, all I'm trying to say is if you're thinking about renting Daraar, you should put it right back on the shelf where you found it and pick something else! | 0neg
|
I saw this movie recently because a friend brought it with him from NYC. After 30 minutes, I said to him," You've got to be kidding. Is this some sort of joke?" He thought it was good. I told him that I thought it was probably one of the silliest movies ever made. "What was it supposed to be?" I asked. "A propaganda movie made for children?" The plot is stupid. The acting is the worst ever for most of the principals and frankly people who look at this sort of tripe and think it has anything to do with life, love or even afterlife, of which it offers an incredibly idiotic view...need some psychiatric help. Please, if someone tries to get you to stick this in your DVD or Video player, consider it like you would a virus introduced into your computer...it won't destroy your player but it will destroy your evening. If they had made Razzies in the '40s, this would have won in every category. (PS. It also goes under the dubious sobriquet of "Stairway to Heaven.") | 0neg
|
There are lots of extremely good-looking people in this movie. That's probably the best thing about it. Perhaps that even makes it worth watching.<br /><br />"Loaded" tells the story of Tristan Price (Jesse Metcalfe), a young man who's about to make his mark on the world. He's the son of a well-to-do family with a good reputation, and he's on his way to law school. But like so many such settings, things aren't quite as perfect as they appear. The expectations in this family far outweigh the love. Except for school, Tristan's father rarely lets him leave the house. This seems to be the result of some past traumatic event that shook the family, which is partially revealed through flashbacks but isn't spelled out until the very end. Tristan's claustrophobic environment causes him to let loose in very extreme ways at the first possible opportunity, when his friends take him out to a strip club to celebrate his graduation. The celebration soon follows some strippers back to a beach house party, and from there, Tristan befriends Sebastian Cole (Corey Large), who pulls him into a drug dealing underworld.<br /><br />While technically well-made, this movie suffers from a lackluster script and a storyline that isn't very engaging. Also counting against this film are some constant camera tricks that generally seemed annoying and out-of-place, such as slow-motion, fast-motion, freeze-frames and echos. These are the types of effects a director might normally utilize to show a character's perspective while on drugs, except in this case they seem to have been sporadically tossed in at random points, in some cheap attempt at style.<br /><br />Despite its cast of relative unknowns, performances were good all around, most notably with respect to the main antagonist (Corey Large). I suspect we'll be seeing at least a couple of these people in bigger and better projects in the future.<br /><br />Of course, when mentioning the actors, I must mention their looks. Rating based on hotness, this movies scores an 11. The women in this movie are incredible-looking and almost distract you from what a boring movie you're watching. I'm sure the male characters are also quite attractive, but you'll have to ask someone else to comment on that.<br /><br />Overall, I can't recommend this movie, not for buying, renting, or even seeing for free. It's unfortunately just not worth the effort it takes to sit through. | 0neg
|
If I had not read Pat Barker's 'Union Street' before seeing this film, I would have liked it. Unfortuntately this is not the case. It is actually my kind of film, it is well made, and in no way do I want to say otherwise, but as an adaptation, it fails from every angle.<br /><br />The harrowing novel about the reality of living in a northern England working-class area grabbed hold of my heartstrings and refused to let go for weeks after I had finished. I was put through tears, repulsion, shock, anger, sympathy and misery when reading about the women of Union Street. Excellent. A novel that at times I felt I could not read any more of, but I novel I simply couldn't put down. Depressing yes, but utterly gripping.<br /><br />The film. Oh dear. Hollywood took Barker's truth and reality, and showered a layer of sweet icing sugar over the top of it. A beautiful film, an inspiring soundtrack, excellent performances, a tale of hope and romance...yes. An adaptation of 'Union Street'...no.<br /><br />The women of Union Street and their stories are condensed into Fonda's character, their stories are touched on, but many are discarded. I accept that some of Barker's tales are sensitive issues and are too horrific for mass viewing, and that a film with around 7 leading protagonists just isn't practical, but the content is not my main issue. The essence and the real gut of the novel is lost - darkness and rain, broken windows covered with cardboard, and the graphically described stench of poverty is replaced with sunshine, pretty houses, and a twinkling William's score.<br /><br />If you enjoyed the film for its positivity and hope in the face of 'reality', I advise that you hesitate to read the book without first preparing yourself for something more like 'Schindler's List'...but without the happy ending. | 0neg
|
This HAS to be the worst movie I've ever attempted to watch. In the first 15 minutes, there wasn't anything to keep my interest in this movie. I was on vacation at the time, and had plenty of time to devote to a just-for-the-fun-of-it movie. The condo we were staying in had this movie in stock -- they must have got it from the $1 store or something.<br /><br />If you like Adam Sandler, this is nothing like any other movie he's made. This started with a bad premise and then just got worse. There's nothing even remotely funny in it.<br /><br />I've watched a lot of movies, including some I didn't care for. But if you decide to waste your time on this movie, don't say I didn't warn you. | 0neg
|
I thought this was a very clunky, uninvolving version of a famous Australian story. Heath Ledger and Orlando Bloom were very good in their roles, and gave their characters some personality; but the whole thing felt forced and mechanical.<br /><br />The beginning could have been a lot more involving; perhaps starting with a shootout, and then flashing back for a recap of how they got there or that sort of thing. And I felt like every scene was routinely predictable and signposted, like a very bad tv soap.<br /><br />I was really looking forward to this movie, and hoping for something a lot better. The only thing I can say in its favour is that it beats the Mick Jagger version, but not by much. | 0neg
|
This movie was made-for-TV, so taking that into account, I'm not going to rip into it as hard as I would a feature film. The script is sub-par, but it does succeed in being mildly humorous in spots, whether it means to be or not. The acting is mostly over-the-top, but that is true for many lower-budget movies.<br /><br />The aspect of this movie that I really hated, though, was that 90-95% of it is shot on film, but in random places, there will be 5-10 seconds where the footage is shot on video. You can tell because there is less contrast, the colors are less vivid, and the footage is clearly 30 frames per second instead of film's 24 frames per second. I'm not sure if maybe these scenes had to be shot later and at that time they didn't have the money to shoot on film (I assume this is why, anyway), but it is disorienting and really makes the film look shoddier than it had to look.<br /><br />Anyway, I've definitely seen worse movies, but I definitely wouldn't say that I enjoyed this movie and I can't recommend that anyone see it. | 0neg
|
That's what my friend Brian said about this movie after about an hour of it. He wasn't able to keep from dozing off. I had been ranting about how execrable it was and finally I relented and played it, having run out of adjectives for "boring". <br /><br />Imagine if you will, the pinnacle of hack-work. Something so uninspired, so impossibly dreadful, that all you want to do after viewing it is sit alone in the dark and not speak to anybody. Some people labor under the illusion that this movie is watchable. It is not, not under any form of narcotic or brain damage. I would ONLY recommend this to someone in order to help them understand how truly unbearable it is. Don't believe me? Gather 'round. <br /><br />Granted, as a nation, we in America don't always portray Middle Eastern peoples in a tasteful manner. But how about a kid in a sheik outfit bowing in salaam-fashion to a stack of Castrol motor oil bottles? You'll find that here. GET IT? THE ARAB WORSHIPS OIL. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Having the kid fly planes into a skyscraper would've been more appropriate. Who in their right mind would think that was a funny joke? It's not even close to "cleverly offensive". It just sucks and makes you want to punch whomever got paid to write that bit in the face. <br /><br />In the middle of the film, a five-man singing group called the "Landmines" takes the stage at an officers' ball. Okay- are you ready? The joke is THEY SING TERRIBLY AND OFF-KEY. Why did I write that in caps also? Because the joke is POUND, POUND, POUNDED INTO YOUR HEAD with a marathon of HORRENDOUS sight gags. They start off mediocre enough; glasses cracking, punch tumblers shattering... then there is, I am 100% serious, a two-frame stop-motion sequence of A WOMAN'S SHOES COMING OFF. You read that correctly- the music was so bad, in one frame, the woman's feet have shoes on. In the very next- the shoes are off!!! Get it, because the music was so bad, her shoes came off! What the F???? <br /><br />Then there is an endless montage of stock footage to drive home the point that the SINGING IS BAD. If any human being actually suffered through this scene in the theater without running like hell, I would be astonished. This movie is honestly like a practical joke to see how fast people would bolt out the doors. Robert Downey Sr. directs comedy the way his son commands respect by staying drug-free. Badly. Other things to watch out for:<br /><br />1. The popular music shoehorned in wherever possible. Every time Liceman appears, a really inappropriate Iggy Pop song plays. Plus all the actors do their best to act like it got really chilly for some reason.<br /><br />2. Barbara Bach's criminally awful accent. She sounds like she's trying to talk like a baby while rolling a marble around on her tongue. There is no nudity, and there are several scenes where the boys all moan and writhe from a glimpse of her cleavage, like they're in a community school acting class and they've been directed to act like aroused retarded people. <br /><br />3. Liceman feeds his revolting dog a condom. Remember; when this movie came out throwing in "abortion" and "condom" was seen as "edgy". <br /><br />4. Tom Poston plays a mincing, boy-hungry pedophile, back when Hollywood thought "pedophile" and "homosexual" were one in the same. Flat-out embarrassing. <br /><br />5. Watch the ending. Nothing is wrong with your VCR. That is actually the ending. Tell me that doesn't make you want to explode everyone who's ever made any movie, ever. <br /><br />Watch this at your own risk. Up The Academy has been known to actually make other movies, like The Jerk or Blazing Saddles, less funny simply by placing the videotape near them. | 0neg
|
I watched this movie for a project on love. please tell Nicolas Cage to learn what it would feel like to be his character, and then re-read the lines he's saying. My life cannot go on... i accidentally cut off my own hand...my brother was close by. Obviously his fault. And since when have happy endings included the nice guy who takes care of Mom sad and alone. No closure, bad script, and doesn't have enough extension of minor characters. Save yourself, unless your up for a good laugh. Costumes were done appropriately, and extras did a fabulous job. I'm sure it would have been a fun movie to make, but keep it more genre specific, I can't recommend this movie to anyone I know, because it is not an intellectual movie. It is not a chick flick. It is not a strict romantic. And I can't show kids because of the sex and questions to follow. All in all, just not a good flick. | 0neg
|
I saw this by chance showing on cable on wanted to like it as I thought Sandra was quite funny from what I remembered. The only facial movement I had throughout the movie was jaw dropping stunned at how awful a movie I just suffered through.<br /><br />The person who said this is one of the funniest movies of all time please point out one line, just one scene, that is even worth a chuckle.<br /><br />She is a much better singer than I remember her to be, but I didn't want to watch a lounge act.<br /><br />I think this is a movie try hard to like since they think they should and don't view it objectively. | 0neg
|
I had never heard of this Adam Sandler movie until I saw it on the wall at Blockbuster. Being an Adam Sandler fan at the time, I rented it. HONESTLY I could only watch about 30 mins. of it. It was TERRIBLE. Do whatever it takes to keep this out of the hands of the public. I honestly hope this movie goes OOP soon, and I hope it STAYS THAT WAY! | 0neg
|
The worst thing about Crush is not that it's acted pretty bad, or that the plot is virtually non-existent, and it's not even that bad that the camerawork could have been better.<br /><br />No, the worst part of this movie is that it has a few absolutely brilliant moments that keep you hoping that there are more to come.<br /><br />But in the end, it's too little, too late. If you are a fan of violin-music and cheap tearjerking scenes of 40+ women crying and hugging and talking about babies and marriage - then by all means, don't miss it.<br /><br />I myself am not exactly thrilled to see the things listed above in a movie, and as a result I had a pretty horrible time. The few absolutely brilliant jokes can not make up for the rest of it.<br /><br />The verdict: 4/10. Guilty of wasting my time.<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
Closer to reality and containing more depth than "Breakdance", Stan Lathan's "Beat Street" is still a pretty dull show. Again this pic is really only cashing in on the 'breakin' craze but at least we get a little bit of entertainment from the plot, which concerns the lives of three young friends and a younger brother, all growing up in Queens, New York. Each has their own unique talent. One is a hustler, one a d.j., another an artist who creates 'burners', while little bro' Lee is a hot 'hip hop' dancer.<br /><br />Lathan is unable to generate any real audience interest in the story though, and his young cast are likewise struggling with their characters. Therefore it is left almost entirely to the funky music and the 'fresh' dancing to save the day.<br /><br />Choreography is again sharp for both club and street scenes, but this alone is not enough to lift ""Beat Street" to greater heights. Unfortunately the film really falls flat late on, after showing a glimmer of hope that it just might get interesting.<br /><br />Sunday, August 25, 1996 - Video | 0neg
|
This movie sucked. It really was a waste of my life. The acting was atrocious, the plot completely implausible. Long, long story short, these people get "terrorized" by this pathetic "crazed killer", but completely fail to fight back in any manner. And this is after they take a raft on a camping trip, with no gear, and show up at a campsite that is already assembled and completely stocked with food and clothes and the daughters headphones. Additionally, after their boat goes missing, they panic that they're stuck in the woods, but then the daughters boyfriend just shows up and they apparently never consider that they could just hike out of the woods like he did to get to them. Like I said, this movie sucks. A complete joke. Don't let your girlfriend talk you into watching it. | 0neg
|
Some films that you pick up for a pound turn out to be rather good - 23rd Century films released dozens of obscure Italian and American movie that were great, but although Hardgore released some Fulci films amongst others, the bulk of their output is crap like The Zombie Chronicles.<br /><br />The only positive thing I can say about this film is that it's nowhere near as annoying as the Stink of Flesh. Other than that, its a very clumsy anthology film with the technical competence of a Lego house built by a whelk.<br /><br />It's been noted elsewhere, but you really do have to worry about a film that inserts previews of the action into its credit sequence, so by the time it gets to the zombie attacks, you've seen it all already.<br /><br />Bad movie fans will have a ball watching the 18,000 continuity mistakes and the diabolical acting of the cast (especially the hitchhiker, who was so bad he did make me laugh a bit), and kudos to Hardgore for getting in to the spirit of things by releasing a print so bad it felt like I was watching some beat up home video of a camping trip.<br /><br />Awful, awful stuff. We've all made stuff like this when we've gotten a hold of a camera, but common sense prevails and these films languish in our cupboards somewhere. Avoid. | 0neg
|
Protocol is an implausible movie whose only saving grace is that it stars Goldie Hawn along with a good cast of supporting actors. The story revolves around a ditzy cocktail waitress who becomes famous after inadvertently saving the life of an Arab dignitary. The story goes downhill halfway through the movie and Goldie's charm just doesn't save this movie. Unless you are a Goldie Hawn fan don't go out of your way to see this film. | 0neg
|
This movie portrays Ruth as a womanizing, hard drinking, gambling, overeating sports figure with a little baseball thrown in. Babe Ruths early life was quite interesting and this was for all intents and purposes was omitted in this film. Also, Lou Gehrig was barely covered and this was a well know relationship, good bad or indifferent, it should have been covered better than it was. His life was more than all bad. He was an American hero, an icon that a lot of baseball greats patterned their lives after. I feel that I am being fair to the memory of a great baseball player that this film completely ignored. Shame on the makers of this film for capitalizing on his faults and not his greatness. | 0neg
|
Wow, a movie about NYC politics seemingly written by someone who has never set foot in NYC. You know there's a problem when at one moment you expect the credits to roll and the movie continues on for another half hour. The characters are boring, John Cusack's accent is laughable, and the plotline teeters between boring and laughable. A horrible movie. | 0neg
|
<br /><br />Paul Verhoeven finally bombed out on this one. He became a joke on himself. Once again we have a film which includes sex and violence, immorality, leering at women and lots of attitiude talk between the characters and dollying pans.<br /><br />Its all for nothing. Because their is no action at all in this film. It fudges all its set pieces. All the actors give the kind of performances form a Verhoeven film. In other words rampant over acting on almost every level. Starship Troopers got away with it because it was such a macho world the characters inhabited. In this scientists are acting the same way. Sorry Paul but Soldiers and scientist are not really made of the same mindset.<br /><br />One major flaw in the plot was that after escaping for that one night to do evil things Kevin Bacons character then returns back to the science lab where we have already spent more then enough time watching these animated manniquens (Elizabeth Shue excepted) walk and talk. Why not show the extent of what the character could do in the outside world. How could they possibly track him if he could be anywhere at all??? Think os all the different things that could have been done with this concept, both in terms of story and characterisation. Then look at what this film does and you really how badly done and concieved the whole project really was.<br /><br />More insulting is the Doco on the DVD where everyone is claiming that Verhoeven is some kind of MAd Genius. Well one out of two isnt that bad.<br /><br />This film has nothing of note in it. Just like the title says.<br /><br />Hollow!!! | 0neg
|
"In 1955, Tobias Schneerbaum disappeared in the Peruvian Amazon. One year later he walked out of the jungle...naked. It took him 45 years to go back." Supposedly, "Keep the River On your Right" is "a modern cannibal tale". In reality, anyone looking for some insight into cannibalism will be sadly disappointed. The first half of the movie is more like a travel log of New Ginuea, mostly touting the native art. The second half relies on still photos of a Peruvian cannibal tribe, but really that's about it. Unless of course, you are interested in home movies of a Jewish wedding, or Schneerbaum introducing his former male lovers. I give up. Big disappointment and not really "a modern cannibal tale." - MERK | 0neg
|
...okay, maybe not all of it. Lured by the false promise of bikini-clad women on the movie's cover...but the HORROR...THE HORROR... ...whatever you do, do NOT watch this movie. Gouge out your eyes, repeatedly bash your skull in...do what it takes. Never again--never forget!<br /><br /> | 0neg
|
"Valentine" is another horror movie to add to the stalk and slash movie list (think "Halloween", "Friday the 13th", "Scream", and "I Know What You Did Last Summer"). It certainly isn't as good as those movies that I have listed about, but it's better than most of the ripoffs that came out after the first "Friday the 13th" film. One of those films was the 1981 Canadian made "My Bloody Valentine", which I hated alot. "Valentine" is a better film than that one, but it's not saying much. The plot: a nerdy young boy is teased and pranked by a couple of his classmates at the beginning of the film. Then the film moves years later when those classmates are all grown up, then they're picked off one-by-one. The killer is presumed to be the young boy now all grown up looking for revenge. But is it him? Or could it be somebody else? "Valentine" has an attractive cast which includes Denise Richards, David Boreanaz, Marley Shelton, Jessica Capshaw, and Katherine Heigl. They do what they can with the material they've got, but a lackluster script doesn't really do them any justice. There are some scary moments throughout, however. <br /><br />** (out of four) | 0neg
|
When an attempt is made to assassinate the Emir of Ohtar, an Arab potentate visiting Washington, D.C., his life is saved by a cocktail waitress named Sunny Davis. Sunny becomes a national heroine and media celebrity and as a reward is offered a job working for the Protocol Section of the United States Department of State. Unknown to her however, the State Department officials who offer her the job have a hidden agenda.<br /><br />A map we see shows Ohtar lying on the borders of Saudi Arabia and South Yemen, in an area of barren desert known as the Rub al-Khali, or Empty Quarter. In real life a state in this location would have a population of virtually zero, and virtually zero strategic value, but for the purposes of the film we have to accept that Ohtar is of immense strategic importance in the Cold War and that the American government, who are keen to build a military base there, need to do all that they can in order to keep on the good side of its ruler. It transpires that the Emir has taken a fancy to the attractive young woman who saved him and he has reached a deal with the State Department; they can have their base provided that he can have Sunny as the latest addition to his harem. Sunny's new job is just a ruse to ensure that the Emir has further opportunities to meet her.<br /><br />A plot like this could have been the occasion for some hilarious satire, but in fact the film's satirical content is rather toned down. Possibly in 1984 the American public were not in the mood for trenchant satire on their country's foreign policy; this was, after all, the year in which Ronald Reagan carried forty-nine out of fifty states in the Presidential election and his hard line with the Soviet Union was clearly going down well with the voters. (If the film had been made a couple of years later, in the wake of the Iran/Contra affair, its tone might have been different).<br /><br />The film is not so much a satire as a vehicle for Goldie Hawn to show off her brand of cuteness and charm. Sunny is a typical Goldie character- pretty, sweet-natured, naive and not too bright. There is, however, a limit to how far you can go with cuteness and charm alone, and you cannot automatically make a bad film a good one just by making the leading character a dumb blonde. (Actually, that sounds more like a recipe for making a good film a bad one). Goldie tries her best to save this one, but never succeeds. Part of the reason is the inconsistent way in which her character is portrayed. On the one hand Sunny is a sweet, innocent country girl from Oregon. On the other hand she is a 35-year-old woman who works in a sleazy bar and wears a revealing costume. The effect is rather like imagining Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm grown up and working as a Bunny Girl.<br /><br />The more important reason why Goldie is unable to rescue this film is even the best comedian or comedienne is no better than his/her material, and "Protocol" is simply unfunny. Whatever humour exists is tired and strained, relying on offensive stereotypes about Arab men who, apparently, all lust after Western women, particularly if they are blonde and blue-eyed. There was a lot of this sort of thing about in the mid-eighties, as this was the period which also saw the awful Ben Kingsley/ Nastassia Kinski film "Harem", about a lascivious Middle Eastern ruler who kidnaps a young American woman, and the mini-series of the same name which told a virtually identical story with a period setting. The film-makers seem to have realised that their film would not work as a pure comedy, because towards the end it turns into a sort of latter-day "Mr Smith Goes to Washington". Sunny turns from a blonde bimbo into a fount of political wisdom and starts uttering all sorts of platitudes about Democracy and the Constitution and the Citizen's Duty to Vote and We The People and how the Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance blah blah blah
, but in truth the film is no more successful as a political parable than it is as a comedy.<br /><br />Goldie Hawn has made a number of good comedies, such as "Cactus Flower", "Overboard" and ""Housesitter", but "Protocol" is not one of them. I have not seen all of her films, but of those I have seen this dire comedy is by far the worst. 3/10 | 0neg
|
I only today, picked this up at the 99 cents only store today, and I still think I got ripped off. "Dream to Believe" is a pretty boring and unrealistic gymnastics drama and $1 is just too freakin' expensive for this. This film is probably only notable for 2 things: 1. It has a young Keanu Reeves. And 2. It's directed by Paul Lynch, the man who also did Promo Night. Now onto the movie. <br /><br />It's about a girl named Robin (Played by Olivia D'Abo) who is badly injured from a car accident that also cost her father's life. So the accident prevents her from competing in gymnastic tournaments, she is often picked on during her classes and eventually she meets some wild kid named Tommy (Played by Keanu.) Robin, when not in training, works part-time, along with her mother and stepsister, at a Laundromat owned by her abusive stepfather. Eventually she is chosen to compete. <br /><br />Overall, Keanu alone and some catchy 80s tunes are what prevent me from giving this 1 star, and it's also not one of the worst movies ever, but still far from good. The DVD itself is not getting any medals either as it appears to be sourced from an old VHS and towards the end, the sound goes out of sync and when the end credits are almost over, it fades to black, even though sound can still be heard. So this can probably be passed as a bootleg. The DVD artwork makes no sense either as it has what appears to be recent photos of Keanu and Olivia and the background has nothing to do with the movie, as it's also not in the movie itself, so the cover's obviously photoshopped. In any case, avoid at all costs, unless you're a Keanu fanatic. I probably won't be hanging to it any longer. I'm probably gonna give it to The Cinema Snob, who's a great YT critic btw. Hey, if any of you have any crappy movies that they no longer want in their sight, feel free to donate to him to keep his show running. | 0neg
|
I remember when THE GOLDEN CHILD was released in 1986 it was universally panned by the critics , and I`m talking panned so badly that it more or less ended the glittering career of Eddie Murphy so I guess this movie has something going for it<br /><br />It gets off to a bad start where Buddist monks kneel in front of a child with a blank expression on his face . Bad guys enter the temple<br /><br />Child sits with blank expression<br /><br />Bad guys chop up the monks<br /><br />Child sits with blank expression<br /><br />Bad guys pull out giant bird cage and stick the child inside who now sits with ... Go on guess ? You do get the impression that even if they were taking him for a sleepover at Michael Jackson`s wonderland ranch he`d still give the same blank expression , this movie would be better titled THE WOODEN CHILD<br /><br />The title sequence starts and being a movie from the 1980s a pop soundtrack features heavily . Obviously this might have been cool and funky at the time but now in 2004 it seems very dated . Not only that but it jars completely with the somewhat bloody opening . In fact that`s the main problem ( And boy it`s a serious one ) with this movie - The whole mood seems to change from scene to scene so much so that sometimes it`s like watching scenes from totally different movies spliced together . I blame the director personally but it should also be pointed out that both the screenwriter and producer should share equal blame too . Did anyone know before shooting commenced what type of movie this was going to be ? It`s part fantasy , part martial arts , part buddy movie , part comedy and it`s all crap | 0neg
|
Other than some neat special effects, this movie has nothing to offer. They threw in some gore and some nudity to try and make it interesting, but with no success. Kevin Bacon's acting was pretty good, but he couldn't salvage the movies lack of plot. | 0neg
|
1st watched 2/16/2002 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Arne Glimcher): Mystery??/Thriller with too many ridiculous plot twists. Despite the very talented cast this movie is way too predictable and just downright under-estimates it's audience. The movie-going public is not stupid and I hope will not keep filling certain stars pockets again and again despite what they are involved with. We think that this movie is going to be about something with Connery's conviction against capitol punishment in the beginning but it turns out to be nothing but a standard, contrived for the audience's sake, run of the mill, let's never get it over with, thriller. We are pulled into every silly switch in character, as they are portrayed to us when it's needed in the story, and we're ready for this thing to be over way before it ends. Yes there is some good acting here, especially from Blair Underwood, Fishburne, and Ed Harris in a psycho-supporting role but the story does not work from almost the beginning to the very long-awaited end. | 0neg
|
This is surely one of the worst films ever made and released by a major Hollywood studio. The plot is simply stupid. The dialog is written in clichés; you can complete a great many sentences in the script because of this. The acting is ridiculously bad, especially that of Rod Cameron. The "choreography" is silly and wholly unerotic. One can only pity the reviewer who saw 23-year-old Yvonne's dance as sexual; it's merely very bad choreography. The ballet scene in the film's beginning is especially ludicrous. If you are into bad movies and enjoy laughing at some of Hollywood's turkeys, this is for you. I bought the colorized version on VHS, making the movie even worse. Yvonne's heavy makeup, when colored, has her looking like a clown all the time. And she's the best part of this film. What a way to launch a career. | 0neg
|
Sure, I like short cartoons, but I didn't like this one. Naturally, kids would love it. But then again, I'm not a kid anymore (although I still consider myself young).<br /><br />I will not tell you anything about the story, for the simple reason there is no story. How is it possible this dragon of a cartoon was nominated for an Oscar?! Well... I guess it's because people in the 30's were more happy with not much than now. In the present where we live, everything must happen fast. Look at the movies nowadays, and you will come to the same conclusion: we live in a society that doesn't allow men to be slow. That's really a shame. I wish I lived in the 30's, because it seems so peaceful. But every time has got its ups and downs, I guess...<br /><br />To conclude: if you like music (and frogs), you'll have to see this cartoon. Otherwise, don't spill your time on it. | 0neg
|
I rented I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW from my video store because of all the controversy that surrounded it when it was first released in 1967. I also heard that at first it was seized by U.S. customs if it ever tried to enter this country, therefore being a fan of films considered "controversial" I really had to see this for myself.<br /><br />The plot is centered around a young Swedish drama student named Lena who wants to learn everything she can about life. In particular she wants to focus her attentions to making some sort of documentary on what the average Swede thought about certain political issues such as the Vietnam War and race issues in the United States. In between asking politicians and ordinary denizens of Stockholm about their opinions on politics, she has sex with her drama teacher, classmates, and married men.<br /><br />What kills me about I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW is that 40 years ago, this was considered pornographic. Really, the sex and nudity scenes are few and far between, even then it's not shot like some cheaply made porno. While my countrymen mind find it shocking, in reality sex and nudity are a major staple in Swedish cinema. Even Ingmar Bergman, arguably their answer to good old boy John Ford, had sex scenes in his films.<br /><br />I do commend the filmmakers for the fact that any sex shown in the film is shown for artistic purposes rather than just to shock people and make money to be shown in pornographic theaters in America. I AM CURIOUS-YELLOW is a good film for anyone wanting to study the meat and potatoes (no pun intended) of Swedish cinema. But really, this film doesn't have much of a plot. | 0neg
|