Datasets:

jfcalvo

/

imdb-from-dev-with-timestamps

like 0

test_100

pending

8b112318-477e-4efc-8e9e-32c53db908d5

"Cover Girl" is a lacklustre WWII musical with absolutely nothing memorable about it, save for its signature song, "Long Ago and Far Away." This film came out before Gene Kelly really hit his artistic stride, and while there are evidences of his burgeoning talent here, mostly he plays sidekick to Rita Hayworth. And there's the problem. Rita Hayworth is gorgeous, no doubt about that. But she's simply not a compelling screen presence. I've always found myself wanting to like her more than I actually do, and this movie is no exception. She's simply not a very good actress, and she's not even a very good dancer. Good looking as she is, there's something vapid about her, and this movie suffers because of it.<br /><br />Grade: C-

neg

test_101

pending

193977c5-bbb6-4cd7-a838-d63b7fbe972e

Formulaic slasher film, only this one stars three ten year olds (all born during a lunar eclipse) as the killers. Nice, huh? A little bit of gore and a nice nude scene may make this worthwhile for diehard fans of the genre, others beware.<br /><br />*1/2 out of ****

neg

test_102

pending

789b572b-d858-4945-a9c1-0cca92715d9f

Is it a poorly acted, cliche-ridden pile of trash? Of course. Anyone who doesn't realize that when they pick up the box in the video store probably doesn't have any right judging movies in the first place. Thus, I will now rate the aspects of the film that we actually care about on a scale of 1 to 10:<br /><br />Violence and gore: 4 -- For this genre, there are very few deaths, and the gore is almost non-existent. Anyone looking for a little blood should probably look elsewhere. The only redeeming quality is the fact that kids are doing these awful things, which raises the bar a little.<br /><br />Suspense: 1 -- Okay, I feel bad for anyone who gets scared by this trio of dorky looking kids.<br /><br />Nudity/sex: 7 -- Lots of boobage from three different women, one of whom is the MTV vj Julie Brown. There are two sex scenes, but little is shown in them.<br /><br />Unintentional humor -- 4 -- There are a few good laughs with the kids trying to act scary, but all in all, it's just bad, not funny bad.<br /><br />Overall -- 4 -- It's not unwatchable. There are a few fun moments, and enough nudity to keep your attention for the entire movie. However, only watch this movie if you're a big fan of the 80's slasher flicks. This definitely falls on the lower end of the scale, but it's not all the way at the bottom. The real downside is the disappointing ending. It almost ruined the movie for me.

neg

test_103

pending

38b07a71-4156-42b6-9d75-5e1bfa4aeb8d

'Bloody Birthday' is an odd and, at times, humorous low-budget horror flick along the lines of 'Mikey' or a less intelligent version of 'The Good Son'.<br /><br />Set in a small Californian town, three babies are born at the height of an eclipse, where planetary alignment means they are somehow born without emotions. Ten years later, our three little psychopaths take themselves on a killing spree, doing away with parents, siblings, teachers and anyone else who irritates them. Only one teenage girl knows the truth to be able to stop them. There is no explanation for why babies across the world born at the same time aren't equally as twisted but there you go!<br /><br />For a slasher film, it's very tame in terms of violence and gore, which I suppose highlights the problem of casting child characters as the killers as there is only so much you can expose the young actors to. Instead, it's amusing and a little disturbing seeing three ten-year-olds plotting murders and carrying out their plans using guns, knives and crossbows. The main reason why it doesn't descend into being totally ridiculous is because the child actors are very convincing in their roles with the way they slyly play the little innocents in front of undiscerning adults while showing their dark side to the girl who knows the truth.<br /><br />'Bloody Birthday' is rather mediocre as a horror flick, with few scares and little blood, but because it has the shock factor of having kids as the killers, it is a bit unique in that way. One to watch if there's nothing else on.

neg

test_104

pending

3ad276da-217a-45e3-ac59-8d905e6b12ca

When people say children are annoying u think ya my little cousins can be annoying and i said LITTLE. These children are turning 10 and they are without a doubt the most annoying bratty children you will ever encounter (in a film). Lets start with the blonde - Debbie - She's a slut of a girl, i mean come on she wears mini skirts, she has stupid frizzy blonde hair and a freckley red bunny like face. She acts so innocent. Next we have the second child - the Geek - who thinks he's so cool, with his long range shooting and his use of a silencer (a coat over the gun) and most of all his evil bratty smile. The next kid is the quiet one you don't care about so thats all on him. This film angered me at the children's intelligence and the only enjoyment i got was from my cousin who kept bitching about them.

neg

test_105

pending

817bc6e1-7458-4b42-bca4-2ca27356645c

When you make a film with a killer-kids premise, there are two effective ways to approach it; you can either make it as realistic as possible, creating believable characters and situations, or you can make it as fun as possible by playing it for laughs (something which the makers of "Silent Night, Deadly Night" did, for example, on an equally controversial subject: a killer Santa). The people who made "Bloody Birthday", however, do neither of those things; they simply rely on the shock value of the image of a kid with a gun (or a knife, or a noose, or an arrow) in his/her hand. The result is both offensive and stupid. The whole film looks like a bad idea that was rushed through production (and then kept from release for several years). It's redeemed a tiny bit by good performances from the kids, but it's VERY sloppily made. (*1/2)

neg

test_106

pending

df9b80ca-eb1e-43e1-beb4-16cef0cdcb7c

Bloody Birthday is a totally rubbish slasher movie from beginning to end. <br /><br />I found the acting to be pretty good considering the genre of movie and its obvious low budget. I don't know what was going on with the cinematography but it looked ghastly. Way too over-saturated. Maybe this is a bad transfer to DVD or maybe it always looked like that, I don't know. <br /><br />There really are no redeeming qualities to speak of. There are a few deaths but not really gory. I wouldn't bother with it if I was you. The best thing about the DVD was the 15 minute interview with producer Max Rosenberg who was very amusing and honest. He didn't have anything good to say about director Ed Hunt and admits the movie was a failure, but he would like to re-make it as he believes it has a decent plot. However, he died in 2004 so I guess it will be up to someone else to take on that challenge. With the way things have been going in the last few years it wouldn't surprise me, there's at least one re-make per week at the cinema these day. It couldn't be any worse than the original I suppose but I couldn't care less whether it got re-made or not.

neg

test_107

pending

5ebd393c-89b3-4488-9eb5-2189f0fea15c

A mean spirited, repulsive horror film about 3 murderous children. Susan Strasberg is totally wasted in a 5-minute cameo, even though she receives star billing. If your a Julie Brown fan, you'll want to check it out, since she's naked in a couple of shots. All others,avoid.

neg

test_108

pending

9f581c4c-4929-4257-9469-7df8d0a33431

This movie cannot be serious because it has a nerdy looking kid named Curtis killing people. The other two psycho kids are kind of cute but that Curtis kid is just so ugly because he wears these huge, brown, ugly glasses. The actor probably wandered on the wrong set and he was really supposed to go to Revenge of the Nerds.<br /><br />Another thing that I hate so much about this movie is that Curtis takes his sweet time shooting people. I kept my finger on the fast forward button because he took too long and what was up with his voice? He sounded like he was fourteen and not ten. Another thing I hated was that he kept smiling like an idiot and there was no point to that.<br /><br />Then they put that annoying kid in the freezer and somehow he found a flashlight in there. That didn't make any sense and neither did the music. The music didn't fit any of the scenes.<br /><br />This movie is slow, boring and a waste of time. Watch a different movie on your birthday.

neg

test_109

pending

3f643aa9-01c4-41df-bec8-e506ac69ff5e

Bloody Birthday opens to a shot of Meadowvale General Hospital. There three babies are being born at precisely the same time during a total eclipse. A caption informs us that it is now 'Meadowvale, California June 1, 1980'. Two teenage lovers, Duke Benson (Ben Marley) and Annie Smith (Erica Hope) are getting down to business in an open grave. They hear noises and Duke investigates. Both Duke and Annie are murdered. Sheriff Jim Brody (Bert Kramer) is baffled and only has the handle of a child's skipping rope that Annie was holding, as a clue. Unfortunately before Sheriff Brody can solve the case his youngest daughter Debbie (Elizabeth Hoy) and two of her friends Curtis Taylor (Billy Jayne as Billy Jacoby) and Steven Seton (Andy Freeman) murder him. Just as they are finishing Sheriff Brody off another young boy from their class named Timmy Russel (K.C. Martel) turns up, the three killers are unaware of how much he saw. Soon after the incident Timmy plays with Steven and Curtis in a junkyard. Curtis locks Timmy into an old locker. Timmy manages to escape and tell his sister Joyce (Lori Lethin), but she doesn't believe him at first. The three children carry on their murder spree. Their strict teacher Miss Davis (Susan Strasberg) a lovemaking couple (John Avery and Sylvia Wright) in a van and Debbie's older sister Beverly (Julie Brown) are among their victims. Joyce begins to have her suspicions about Debbie, Curtis and Steven which makes her and Timmy a target for the evil trio. Will they be able to convince the authorities that these three innocent looking 10 year olds are really soulless killers?<br /><br />Co-written and directed by Ed Hunt I have an intense dislike for this film. I think it's absolutely awful and doesn't have a single enjoyable aspect to it's 83 minute running time. The script by Hunt and Barry Pearson gives us no explanation for the child killers motives beyond the solar eclipse that blocks out Saturn and therefore for some bizarre astrological reason these three children don't have any conscience, so these are the only children ever born during a total eclipse? If that is true why do they wait until just before their tenth birthday's before starting their killing spree? I guess it just suddenly kicks in, right? To it's credit it is reasonably well paced but I still found it incredibly boring and tedious to sit through. The film as a whole is very unexciting and predictable, the children are revealed as the killers within the first 10 minutes and as I've mentioned next to no motive is given. It's very silly at times, too. Check out the scene where Debbie stops Steven by throwing a bowl of water over him! The Sheriff's death is put down to him falling down some steps, yeah right the injuries suffered from that type of accident aren't going to be the same as if your beaten to death with a baseball bat like he was in reality, any competent Doctor or Pathologist would have spotted that within 5 seconds. There isn't a single drop of blood spilt in the entire film and all of the lame killings are dull and unimaginative. There is some out-of-place looking nudity as Debbie charges 25c to let boys peek through a hole while her sister Beverly strips. There is an early scene just after the 5 minute mark when Joyce walks from the kitchen to the living room and the boom mike is clearly visible at the top of the screen, not even a little bit of it the whole damn thing. The general incompetence continues throughout the film. The whole production is bland and instantly forgettable. The acting is poor throughout, those three kids are very annoying and got on my nerves right from the start and made sitting through this film even more of a chore, especially Curtis in his geeky over-sized glasses. I just hate this film really, simple as that. I can't think of a single good thing to say about it. Definitely one to avoid.

neg

test_110

pending

c7ef5023-e8c9-4be0-ae85-ccb19cd9815d

Might end up being the biggest disappointment that I will see in 2009. I seem to be the rare person who disliked Park's Oldboy, but I think that his "Lady Vengeance" and "Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance" are among the best films I've seen in the 2000's decade. Therefore, I really was looking forward to see this, especially as it got such positive reviews. Instead, I found the film clichéd, and broke little, if any new ground to the vampire genre. And while I can appreciate a bit of gallows humor in movies like this, I felt Park did this at very inopportune times.<br /><br />Others have compared/contrasted this to "Let the Right One In," and I have to say that "Let the Right One In" was far superior to this one, and was a fresh take on the vampire genre. Sadly, Park's take was a tired one.

neg

test_111

pending

2ffe05c7-63a1-4745-931f-754c73949a79

For years, I've been a big fan of Park's work and "Old boy" is one of my all-times favorite.<br /><br />With lots of expectation I rented this movie, only to find the worst movie I've watched in awhile. It's not a proper horror movie; there's no suspense in it and even the "light" part is so lame, that I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.<br /><br />I introduced my younger brother to Chan-Wook Park and what a disappointment he got from this. For me, an idol has fallen.<br /><br />If you loved movies like "Old boy", the Mr & Lady "Vengeance" or even his short films on "Three extremes", don't waste your time, the film's not worth it.

neg

test_112

pending

753f988e-d4d3-469f-acb1-b1035c9e9224

Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.<br /><br />Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: <br /><br />* From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.<br /><br />* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.<br /><br />* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.<br /><br />* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.<br /><br />* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.<br /><br />* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.<br /><br />In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.

neg

test_113

pending

0219b26c-1836-4f6e-85ca-c6889c0b8da4

Some may go for a film like this but I most assuredly did not. A college professor, David Norwell, suddenly gets a yen for adoption. He pretty much takes the first child offered, a bad choice named Adam. As it turns out Adam doesn't have both oars in the water which, almost immediately, causes untold stress and turmoil for Dr. Norwell. This sob story drolly played out with one problem after another, all centered around Adam's inabilities and seizures. Why Norwell wanted to complicate his life with an unknown factor like an adoptive child was never explained. Along the way the good doctor managed to attract a wifey to share in all the hell the little one was dishing out. Personally, I think both of them were one beer short of a sixpack. Bypass this yawner.

neg

test_114

pending

69d6d908-3a90-45aa-96c6-fa4e36de9d07

An obvious vanity press for Julie in her first movie with Blake. Let's see. Where do we begin. She is a traitor during a world war; she redeems that by falling in love; her friends (who are presumably patriots because they are German citizens) are expendable and must die; and she winds up as a heroine. OK. The scenes with the drunken pilot and the buffoons who work for French intelligence can't even be described, and we won't even mention Rock's romantic scenes with a female. (By the way, when they visit a museum, look at his gaze - I reran it on video and it's priceless). Is it a farce or is it a romantic classic or is it a war movie? I don't know and you won't either.

neg

test_115

pending

1d9dfdc0-c7a9-4c73-8db3-dad1d3c8aaae

Blake Edwards tried very hard to change Julie Andrews image in this film. He tried to make her sexy not realizing she already was. I think they were both still a bit irked that Julie had not been chosen to film her Broadway success of Camelot and was passed over as not being sexy enough. Unfortunately, they chose this vehicle to try and assuage this belief. It gets to the point where it is almost funny seeing Rock Hudson, who we all know now was gay, kissing Julie every 2 minutes throughout this movie. It seems now that they were not only trying to make you believe that Julie was a femme fatale but that Rock was straight. Sadly, they have absolutely no chemistry together and the unending kissing scenes start grossing one out. The other error they made with this picture was not knowing what kind of movie they were making. It is almost three separate movies. There is the drama of Julie as the German spy trying to get military secrets from Rock. There is an air war movie with lots of footage of WWI vintage planes swooping about and there is the stupid attempts at humor that Blake Edwards seems to think he has to insert in every one of his pictures whether it is appropriate or not, In this case, it was not. The only truly redeeming qualities in this film are looking at the always lovely Dame Julie and hearing her sing in that crystal clear bell-like soprano. Of course if you love her, you may overlook the weaknesses of this film just because of her. You can always tell yourself, afterward, that it was a hell of a lot better than sitting through STAR!

neg

test_116

pending

92db201c-c8cf-4c1b-9e53-920b8430a0e3

Julie Andrews satirically prods her own goody-two-shoes image in this overproduced musical comedy-drama, but if she approaches her role with aplomb, she's alone in doing so. Blake Edwards' film about a woman who is both music-hall entertainer and German spy during WWI doesn't know what tone to aim for, and Rock Hudson has the thankless task of playing romantic second-fiddle. Musicals had grown out of favor by 1970, and elephantine productions like "Star!" and this film really tarnished Andrews' reputation, leaving a lot of dead space in her catalogue until "The Tamarind Seed" came along. I've always thought Julie Andrews would've made a great villain or shady lady; her strong voice could really command attention, and she hits some low notes that can either be imposing or seductive. Husband/director Edwards seems to realize this, but neither he nor Julie can work up much energy within this scenario. Screenwriter William Peter Blatty isn't a good partner for Edwards, and neither man has his heart in this material. Beatty's script offers Andrews just one fabulous sequence--a striptease. *1/2 from ****

neg

test_117

pending

95ab4e7c-65df-42f3-995d-9e183d7fb78c

Years ago, when DARLING LILI played on TV, it was always the pan and scan version, which I hated and decided to wait and see the film in its proper widescreen format. So when I saw an inexpensive DVD of this Julie Andrews/Blake Edwards opus, I decided to purchase and watch it once and for all.<br /><br />Boy, what a terrible film. It's so bad and on so many levels that I really do not know where to start in describing where and when it goes so horribly wrong. Looking at it now, it's obvious to any fans of movies that Blake Edwards created this star vehicle for his wife simply because so many other directors had struck gold with Andrews in musicals (MARY POPPINS, SOUND OF MUSIC, THOROUGHLY MODERN MILLIE, etc) but also because Andrews was snubbed from starring in projects made famous on stage by Julie herself (CAMELOT, MY FAIR LADY, etc) because Hollywood thought she wasn't sexy or glamorous enough. So Blake created this stillborn effort, to showcase his wife in a bizarre concoction of spy story/war movie/romance/slapstick comedy/musical. DARLING LILI suffers from multiple personalities, never knowing who or what it is. Some specific scenes are good or effective but as a whole, it just doesn't work at all to a point of it being very embarrassing.<br /><br />Mind you, the version on the DVD is the "director's cut", or in this case, "let's salvage whatever we can" from this notorious box office flop. In releasing the DVD, Edwards cut 19 scenes (19!!!!!!!!) from the original bloated theatrical version into this more streamlined and yet remarkably ineffective version. The film moves along with no idea of what it is. We are 25 minutes into it and we still don't know what's going on or why we're watching what's going. What kind of spy is Lili? How powerful is she? Was she ever responsible for someone's death? Instead we watch a thoroughly bored looking Rock Hudson trying to woo a thoroughly bored looking Julie Andrews. Things aren't helped much with the inexplicable reason why the two fall in love. Why does Julie fall for Hudson? Why him and not other men she got involved with? There should have been one of her ex hanging around, trying to win her back or trying to decipher her secret. This would have given us some much needed contrast to the muddled action. It would also have given us some impetuous to the sluggish proceedings. There's no catalyst in this story.<br /><br />One only has to look at the cut scenes to clearly see that Edwards and the writer just came up with ideas inspired by Andrews' (and Edwards') previous successes. The best (or worst) example is the scene when Andrews and Hudson follows a group of children who sing in the middle of a forest. Edwards channeling SOUND OF MUSIC. It's no wonder he removed it from the DVD. Back in 1970, that scene might have worked on a certain level but today, that moment reeks of desperation. There are other plot elements directly inspired by Andrews/Edwards other films. The endless scenes of dogfights is inspired by the much better MODERN MILLIE. The musical moment "I'll give you three guesses" was created just to make fun of Julie's MARY POPPINS persona, which is turned "raunchy" with Julie doing a striptease in the act. The ending, bird's eye view of Julie running towards Hudson's plane, is another "wink" at SOUND OF MUSIC.<br /><br />The whole thing is confusing. Julie plays a singer, born from a German father and British mother, who lives in England but sings her (English) songs in Paris. You never know exactly where the story takes place. Some moments are just badly edited. Like when Julie and her "uncle" are on horseback. They talk and talk and then Julie suddenly sprints off in mid-sentence. I'm like "what happened here?"<br /><br />The comedy bits are unfunny and cringe-worthy. Every scene with the French police are pathetic. Where's Peter Sellers when you really need him. The action is stupid beyond belief. When Julie and her "uncle" are on their way to Germany on that train, Hudson's squadron shoots rounds of bullets at the train, almost killing Lili in the process. Brilliant. What's also funny about that scene is the two leave on the train in the middle of the night but Hudson and his squadron reach the train even though they fly off the next morning. That's one slow moving train there. <br /><br />The musical moments. The beginning is the best part of the entire film (and the reason I gave this film 3 stars) but it's effect is diminished considerably because it's repeated at the end. Speaking of redundant, did we really need to see a can-can dance, Crepe Suzette stripping scene and Julie stripping too? The "Girl in no man's land" is OK even if it's bleeding obvious, but that moment just doesn't make any sense whatsoever because Lili sings it to a group of injured soldiers at a French hospital, making me wonder: how many soldiers there were injured indirectly by the result of her spying?<br /><br />The whole project is listless and without energy. The romance is 100% unbelievable. Rock Hudson is way too old and tired looking (check out the museum scene). Julie looks dazed, like she's on Valium. But what really kills this ill-conceived project is Julie playing a German spy. Edwards desperately wanted to dispel the Mary Poppins syndrome afflicting his wife and believed that playing a traitor was a good career decision. As much as I like Julie, she's no Greta Garbo, who pulled it off so beautifully in MATA HARI. Funny enough, even if Julie plays a German spy, she still comes across as cloying and cute.<br /><br />How bad is DARLING LILI? Even after 37 years since its release, Blake Edwards felt he still needed to work on it for its DVD release.

neg

test_118

pending

71c3ef69-2fe6-401f-91e6-0d276e0ae643

David Bryce's comments nearby are exceptionally well written and informative as almost say everything I feel about DARLING LILI. This massive musical is so peculiar and over blown, over produced and must have caused ruptures at Paramount in 1970. It cost 22 million dollars! That is simply irresponsible. DARLING LILI must have been greenlit from a board meeting that said "hey we got that Pink Panther guy and that Sound Of Music gal... lets get this too" and handed over a blank cheque. The result is a hybrid of GIGI, ZEPPELIN, HALF A SIXPENCE, some MGM 40s song and dance numbers of a style (daisies and boaters!) so hopelessly old fashioned as to be like musical porridge, and MATA HARI dramatics. The production is colossal, lush, breathtaking to view, but the rest: the ridiculous romance, Julie looking befuddled, Hudson already dead, the mistimed comedy, and the astoundingly boring songs deaden this spectacular film into being irritating. LILI is like a twee 1940s mega musical with some vulgar bits to spice it up. STAR! released the year before sadly crashed and now is being finally appreciated for the excellent film is genuinely is... and Andrews looks sublime, mature, especially in the last half hour......but LILI is POPPINS and DOLLY frilly and I believe really killed off the mega musical binge of the 60s..... and made Andrews look like Poppins again... which I believe was not Edwards intention. Paramount must have collectively fainted when they saw this: and with another $20 million festering in CATCH 22, and $12 million in ON A CLEAR DAY and $25 million in PAINT YOUR WAGON....they had a financial abyss of CLEOPATRA proportions with $77 million tied into 4 films with very uncertain futures. Maybe they should have asked seer Daisy Gamble from ON A CLEAR DAY ......LILI was very popular on immediate first release in Australia and ran in 70mm cinemas for months but it failed once out in the subs and the sticks and only ever surfaced after that on one night stands with ON A CLEAR DAY as a Sunday night double. Thank god Paramount had their simple $1million (yes, ONE MILLION DOLLAR) film LOVE STORY and that $4 million dollar gangster pic THE GODFATHER also ready to recover all the $77 million in just the next two years....for just $5m.... incredible!

neg

test_119

pending

fb11a3fe-8fd6-425b-ada1-1ed3ca1b691f

I'm not a big fan of musicals, although this technically might not qualify as a musical. But I thought I would give it a chance as I love war movies. It was mediocre at best.<br /><br />Hudson seems totally out of kilter in this role. It just didn't work for me. Julie Andrews probably played her part as best as she could, but I just find it hard to buy her as a conniving, deceptive spy. Sorry, I know that is classic stereotyping on my part. But I have to say I think this is Julie at her most beautiful and feminine looking. I always thought of her as more matronly, but then surely that's a result of her roles in Sound of Music and Mary Poppins. No doubt they were desperately trying to get her out of that typecasting in this role. She was quite beguiling in appearance here, but I still didn't buy her as a spy.<br /><br />I couldn't keep my focus through the whole movie and found myself tuning in and out - and having conversations with those in my room (which I usually never do - I'm always shushing everybody). So that tells you how little it held my attention. Don't waste your time!

neg

test_120

pending

04cec3c0-34a3-4e94-a394-1d5a6ed1b837

Blake Edwards' legendary fiasco, begins to seem pointless after just 10 minutes. A combination of The Eagle Has Landed, Star!, Oh! What a Lovely War!, and Edwards' Pink Panther films, Darling Lili never engages the viewer; the aerial sequences, the musical numbers, the romance, the comedy, and the espionage are all ho hum. At what point is the viewer supposed to give a damn? This disaster wavers in tone, never decides what it wants to be, and apparently thinks it's a spoof, but it's pathetically and grindingly square. Old fashioned in the worst sense, audiences understandably stayed away in droves. It's awful. James Garner would have been a vast improvement over Hudson who is just cardboard, and he doesn't connect with Andrews and vice versa. And both Andrews and Hudson don't seem to have been let in on the joke and perform with a miscalculated earnestness. Blake Edwards' SOB isn't much more than OK, but it's the only good that ever came out of Darling Lili. The expensive and professional look of much of Darling Lili, only make what it's all lavished on even more difficult to bear. To quote Paramount chief Robert Evans, "24 million dollars worth of film and no picture".

neg

test_121

pending

0ab85921-6cc5-412c-ae6a-1abf46fd8389

A tough sell: British playwright Ronald Harwood adapts his autobiographical stage drama into loud, bellowing film about WWII Shakespearean theatrical troupe saddled with an aged, blustery, brilliant-but-unreliable star at the end of his tether. The actor's effete assistant works diligently to get his master coiffed and costumed for a production of "King Lear" (during an Air Raid!), yet both men are losing their grip on their unraveling situation. Based on the waning years of actor Donald Wolfit, whose dresser was Ronald Harwood, this acclaimed production would seem to be a welcome haven for scenery-chewing thespians. Unfortunately, Albert Finney (at this point in his career, not at all elderly) seems too robust and quick-thinking to play the actor; Finney (and Oscar-nominated director Peter Yates) cannot modulate Sir's moods and bouts of coherency in a way that makes sense to us, so that in one scene he's stopping a train with the commanding echo of his voice, and in the next he's curiously falling apart. With such a wreck of a human being in the midst of failing health and aptitude, one would assume a dedicated assistant would go to great lengths to protect his boss (and his future), yet servant Tom Courtenay prods and badgers and goads Finney to carry on rather than rest. Courtenay, who played this part on stage (and was nominated for an Oscar alongside Finney for Best Actor), is far more attuned to his role, and eventually his bleating commands and confusion achieve the only real feeling in the film. These two, thankfully, do not peck at each other's heads, and scenarist Harwood is careful not to fall into a love-hate pattern (which could possibly be perceived in the film's first act); but, without a juxtaposition of servant vs. celebrity, there's nothing much to behold in this portrait except for the deterioration of narcissism, the hint at what once was. *1/2 from ****

neg

test_122

pending

fa6d695d-7033-4137-9855-a5b5f69a34f3

I wish I knew what to make of a movie like this. It seems to be divided into two parts -- action sequences and personal dramas ashore. It follows Ashton Kutsher through survival swimmer school, guided by Master Chief Kevin Costner, then to Alaska where a couple of spectacular rescues take place, the last resulting in death.<br /><br />I must say that the scenes on the beach struck me as so stereotypical in so many ways that they should be barnacle encrusted. A typical bar room fight between Navy guys and Coast Guardsmen ("puddle pirates"). The experienced old timer Costner who is, as an elderly bar tender tells him, "married to the Coast Guard." The older chief who "keeps trying to prove to himself that he's still nineteen." The neglected ex wife ashore to whom Kostner pays a farewell visit. The seemingly sadistic demands placed on the swimmers by the instructors, all in pursuit of a loftier goal. The gifted young man hobbled by a troubled past.<br /><br />The problem is that we've seen it all before. If it's Kevin Costner here, it's Clint Eastwood or John Wayne or Lou Gosset Jr. or Vigo Mortenson or Robert DeNiro elsewhere. And the climactic scene has elements drawn shamelessly from "The Perfect Storm" and "Dead Calm." None of it is fresh and none of the old stereotyped characters and situations are handled with any originality.<br /><br />It works best as a kind of documentary of what goes on in the swimmer's school and what could happen afterward and even that's a little weak because we don't get much in the way of instruction. It's mostly personal conflict, romance, and tension about washing out.<br /><br />It's a shame because the U. S. Coast Guard is rather a noble outfit, its official mission being "the safety of lives and property at sea." In war time it is transferred to the Navy Department and serves in combat roles. In World War II, the Coast Guard even managed to have a Medal of Honor winner in its ranks.<br /><br />But, again, we don't learn much about that. We don't really learn much about anything. The film devolves into a succession of visual displays and not too much else. A disappointment.

neg

test_123

pending

ef86ff41-dc26-497e-8466-c1efe54c2a7d

Alas, another Costner movie that was an hour too long. Credible performances, but the script had no where to go and was in no hurry to get there. First we are offered an unrelated string of events few of which further the story. Will the script center on Randall and his wife? Randall and Fischer? How about Fischer and Thomas? In the end, no real front story ever develops and the characters themselves are artificially propped up by monologues from third parties. The singer explains Randall, Randall explains Fischer, on and on. Finally, long after you don't care anymore, you will learn something about the script meetings. Three endings were no doubt proffered and no one could make a decision. The end result? All three were used, one, after another, after another. If you can hang in past the 100th yawn, you'll be able to pick them out. Despite the transparent attempt to gain points with a dedication to the Coast Guard, this one should have washed out the very first day.

neg

test_124

pending

3f5b5aea-5fcf-4163-b3dc-3733b9ce7c34

Wow, another Kevin Costner hero movie. Postman, Tin Cup, Waterworld, Bodyguard, Wyatt Earp, Robin Hood, even that baseball movie. Seems like he makes movies specifically to be the center of attention. The characters are almost always the same ... the heroics, the flaws, the greatness, the fall, the redemption. Yup, within the 1st 5 minutes of the movie, we're all supposed to be in awe of his character, and it builds up more and more from there.<br /><br />And this time the story ... story? ... is just a collage of different movies. You don't need a spoiler; you've seen this movie several times, though it had different titles. You'll know what will happen way before it happens. This is like mixing An Officer and a Gentleman with Backdraft, but both are easily better movies. Watch Backdraft to see how this kind of movie should be made ... and also to see how an good but slightly underrated actor, Russell, plays the hero.

neg

test_125

pending

70b5d38f-2b99-4a98-822a-9f21a93ce802

It seems ever since 1982, about every two or three years we get a movie that claims to be "The Next Officer and a Gentleman." There has yet to be one movie that has lived up to this claim and this movie is no different.<br /><br />We get the usual ripped off scenes from OAAG ("I want you DOR," the instructor gives the Richard Gere character his overdose of drills in hopes he'll quit, the Gere character comes back for the girl, the Gere character realizes the instructor is great, etc.) and this movie is as predictable as the sun rising in the East and is horribly miscast on top. Costner plays his usual "wise teacher" character, the only character he can play, and you really get a sense of his limited acting abilities here. Kutcher is terrible in the Richard Gere character, just miscast with acting skills barely a notch above Keanu Reeves.<br /><br />The main problem with this OAAG wannabe is the two main characters are so amazingly one-dimensional, you never care for either in the least and when Kutcher's character finally turns around (just like Gere did in OAAG) you just go "so what? The movie leaves no plot point unturned and seems to never end as if to say "oh wait, we forgot to close out the girlfriend story, or the what happens after he graduates story, or the other six plot points in the movie..." What's more baffling is the great "reviews" I see here. The general public's opinions never cease to amaze me.

neg

test_126

pending

02b7a63f-3b42-4650-bce1-5f53532709ac

This is a pale imitation of 'Officer and a Gentleman.' There is NO chemistry between Kutcher and the unknown woman who plays his love interest. The dialog is wooden, the situations hackneyed. It's too long and the climax is anti-climactic(!). I love the USCG, its men and women are fearless and tough. The action scenes are awesome, but this movie doesn't do much for recruiting, I fear. The script is formulaic, but confusing. Kutcher's character is trying to redeem himself for an accident that wasn't his fault? Costner's is raging against the dying of the light, but why? His 'conflict' with his wife is about as deep as a mud puddle. I saw this sneak preview for free and certainly felt I got my money's worth.

neg

test_127

pending

597fd508-3742-4822-815d-ee30db494820

Once again Mr. Costner has dragged out a movie for far longer than necessary. Aside from the terrific sea rescue sequences, of which there are very few I just did not care about any of the characters. Most of us have ghosts in the closet, and Costner's character are realized early on, and then forgotten until much later, by which time I did not care. The character we should really care about is a very cocky, overconfident Ashton Kutcher. The problem is he comes off as kid who thinks he's better than anyone else around him and shows no signs of a cluttered closet. His only obstacle appears to be winning over Costner. Finally when we are well past the half way point of this stinker, Costner tells us all about Kutcher's ghosts. We are told why Kutcher is driven to be the best with no prior inkling or foreshadowing. No magic here, it was all I could do to keep from turning it off an hour in.

neg

test_128

pending

99067787-78a9-493c-8be8-9b06a10ca872

I`m in two minds about FOLLOWING , the film debut of Christopher Nolan . Part of me admires it for costing 6,000 dollars to make but part of me hates it for being too art house . In many ways it reminds me of the cult movie PI , a film I disliked , and I can`t get my head around the central plot of a man who wants to be writer following people around . Wouldn`t it be more logical for someone wanting to be a writer to sit in front of a keyboard and write ? <br /><br />Oh well I guess FOLLOWING gives indie film makers hope that just because they made a no budget movie costing $6,000 over two thousand IMDB members will vote for it and over five hundred members will comment on it , but you have to wonder if this movie would be so well regarded if it wasn`t made by the director of MEMENTO ?

neg

test_129

pending

9a32d430-9a5e-40d8-ba7f-f053651c2562

the usual disclaimer - I do not give 1 star ratings to movies which are harmless, bad, low budget and silly, although they may deserve it. These films are often funny, and get rated 2-4 based sheerly on entertainment value - not as a representation of their exemplary film artistry. This film fits this model perfectly. It is a Mexican monster movie, riddled with voice-over narrative and extremely weak not-so-special effects. The makeup is not that bad, and the acting is sometimes quite entertaining, but this film is almost as silly as Aliens vs Predator and the script isn't half as slick (Aliens vs Predator might get a 1 from me, but I want to see it again before I commit).<br /><br />The plot is ridiculous, but deliciously convoluted. If you've read this far, you must really want to know... A group of remarkably unscientific scientists comprise the main characters. Most of them are heroes - sort of - but one is (of course) mad, and quite perverse. This mad scientist invents a laughable nuclear powered robot (who looks a bit like the tin man from Wizard of Oz, but has a human face inexplicably located inside its head). An Aztec mummy, discovered by the same 'scientist' whose wife just so happens to have been an Aztec princess in a past life (don't ask), is pitted against the robot for the big "climax" the fight scene alone is enough to put the most stoic movie watcher on the floor in belly laughs.<br /><br />For what its worth, given the budget and the utter silliness of the script, this is a very entertaining low budget goof ball monster movie. If you're into that sort of thing, go for it.

neg

test_130

pending

adc2b592-1370-4195-82a5-2812cc22869d

I have watched this movie twice in the past six months (what I go through so you don't have to).The first viewing left me half crazed and babbling.The second viewing at 5am on a rainy morn was a little better.I only screamed in agony once.<br /><br /> Seems Pocona (The Aztec Mummy)had the hots for a certain Aztec Princess who was"supposed to keep her maiden".Obviously they gave each other the business and were put to death for it.(Now that is severe!).But before they are the film tries to put us to death with a screeching Aztec ceremony.The singing will make your ears bleed.<br /><br /> Anyhow there is the usual reincarnation nonsense. Not to mention a treasure map on a breastplate & bracelet guarded by that swathed slob,Pocona.By this time Pocona looks like he's been on a 2000 year bender and is after the defilers of his tomb.His groans & moans sounds like he has a bad case of Montezuma's revenge(or he read the script for this movie).That will make your breath stink.<br /><br /> An evil Dr Von Krupp appears wanting the Aztec treasure(possibly to finance acting lessons & screenwriting classes for cast & crew).He is called The Bat because in The Curse Of The Aztec Mummy he wore a bat like cape, hat and something like a ski mask over his face.Guess it's better than the Laughing Fat Man.<br /><br /> The Bat in typical mad scientist fashion wants to rule the world. He stresses this by rolling his eyes,laughing maniacally and chewing the scenery.He has cobbled together an invincible robot.Looks like the 'bot was made from a garbage can, a chandelier and the grill of a 1957 Buick.This will make your eyes bleed.A company even takes credit for making this tin can!<br /><br /> Well the mighty showdown between Pocona and the Robot takes place in the Mummy's new crypt having been made homeless earlier.<br /><br /> About half of this movie is culled from "La Aztec Momia"never released in the US in its original form but in a chopped atrocity from Jerry Warren(see my review on "Attack Of The Mayan Mummy") and "Curse Of The Aztec Mummy".The robot is frankly stupid as are most of the characters.If that and the plot doesn't make you howl with laughter nothing will.<br /><br /> My first impression was so bad it would have gotten a one. But after seeing "Mayan Mummy"(which is a movie deserving of being burned) and watching "Robot" again, it garners a 3.You have to watch this with no expectations at all. Then it can be naively pleasant.

neg

test_131

pending

6f23210d-205e-4424-8924-2d57c986e38f

"RVAM"'s reputation preceded it. I first heard of it in one of those Medved style movie books, "The 50 Worst Movies Ever" or "The Golden Turkey Awards", or something like that. Every review of the film basically said that this movie was so bad that it would make you bleed from the eyes to watch it. So when the Exposed Film Society finally got around to showing it, I was anticipating the kind of cathartic experience that only a true cinematic stinker can provide. <br /><br />However, "Robot" wasn't really all that bad. <br /><br />Oh, this is definitely a "Z" film through and through. Some of the voice dubbing (as is usually the case for K. Gordon Murray imports) is awfully cheesy, and the movie itself seems to be structurally something of a Frankenstein, since a huge chunk of it seems to be footage from a previous "Aztec Mummy" movie, narrated with a voice-over by the leading man. A dead giveaway: anytime the question "Then what happened?" is asked more than twice in the dialog, you are looking at reassembled footage put together with little regard for plot coherence or momentum. In RVAM, "Then what happened?" or "What happened then?" is uttered at least four times in the 1st hour. <br /><br />Even without the structural problems, the plot and dialog don't translate well to an older American audience. For instance, as the hero explains (and explains and explains) the back-story. he includes a remark about Doctor Krupp, "a doctor who suddenly turned into an evil master criminal" and began his quest for the treasure that the Aztec mummy guards. No background, no explanation, he just "suddenly turned evil". Obviously, this was aimed at a pretty undiscriminating audience. <br /><br />The clincher, though, is the "Robot", the supposed "showcase" of this movie. This Robot is the worst robot special effect since "Undersea Kingdom" or even "Santa Claus Vs. The Martians". Compared to this hunk of junk, the Tin Man from the "Wizard Of Oz" looked like the Terminator chassis that chased Linda Connor through the foundry in T2. The Aztec Mummy himself is well designed and executed; he's recognizably undead, familiar enough to look like a mummy, and yet distinct from the "Boris Karloff" bandage collection familiar to most American audiences. But whoever designed the Robot in this followup had no feel for the concept...or no budget. They could at least have given him some knees, for heaven's sake. <br /><br />In addition, the titular battle is terribly executed and lasts less than 60 seconds. (I've seen shoving matches on junior high playgrounds that are more convincing.) Then the movie basically just stops. That seems a bit of a rip off considering the amount of time the movie spends building up to the battle itself.<br /><br />In spite of all these problems, the movie isn't horrible or incompetent the way a Coleman Francis film or a Larry Buchanan film was. Compared to "Monster A-Go-Go" or "Attack of The Eye Creatures", "RVTAM" is like a Coppola film. It's just kind of dull and boring and silly. The actors are competent (in a mannered B movie way) and reasonably photogenic; Dr. Krupp, in particular seems to be having a wonderful time as he leers and plots and capers about in his cape and "Phantom Of the Opera" suit. I often found myself rooting for him, in spite of his being the villain. <br /><br />Anyway, I've seen much, much worse. File this with "Samson Vs The Vampire Women", under "interesting Mexican juvenile oddities".

neg

test_132

pending

1ac8bebb-762e-4f0f-873e-779a5bcb96fa

This movie should have been billed as three movie-summaries linked together to form a full-length feature film (including lots of shots of people slowly walking down dark corridors and streets). BE WARNED! The first hour of this movie is simply a re-hash of the first two Aztec movies as told by the main character. The actual movie doesn't start until the thing is almost over. I must say, the overacting on the part of the Bat is quite hilarious.<br /><br />As for the robot, I thought a robot was a mechanical device that may or may not resemble a human. The Bat's "robot" consists of a radioactive reanimated corpse encased in a lead robot-body. As Tom Servo put it, "He's not that impressive; he doesn't even have knees!" That, and it takes the robot about an hour just to lumber across the room. But once he catches you, WATCH OUT! He'll disintegrate you with a touch (powered by radium? Pluh-ease!).<br /><br />This is a great movie when accompanied by Joel and the Bots. Otherwise, you're just a glutton for abuse.

neg

test_133

pending

a689b11a-290b-4519-a08f-756a078b4605

Despite having a very pretty leading lady (Rosita Arenas, one of my boy-crushes), the acting and the direction are examples of what NOT to do while making a movie.<br /><br />Placed in southern Mexico, Popoca, the Aztec Mummy (real Aztecs, by the way, DID not made mummies) has been waken up by the lead characters and starts making trouble in Mexico City suburbia, during the first movie (The Aztec Mummy). In this second part, the leading man and woman want to find th mummy and put it in its final resting place (a fireplace would have been my first choice...)<br /><br />Into this appears The Bat, a criminal master-mindless stereotype of a criminal genius who creates a "human robot" (some idiot inside a robot SUIT) to control Popoca and (get this) take over the world. The final match between the robot and the mummy is hilarious, some of the worst choreography ever witnessed. The funniest part is that this movie was made and released by a serious Mexican movie studio!<br /><br />The acting is just as awful hearing the movie in Spanish as it is in English (they dubbed the over-acting!). You should watch this movie through MST:3000. The comments are even funnier.

neg

test_134

pending

af6e9e3a-3c35-461f-8911-4da2ff1a2d73

I am a big fan of bad horrors, cheap horrors, b movies, and all that bottom 100 movies, and I do not deny those are the worst stuff ever to enter the big screen, or even your home video for that matter. Some of them, e.g. the infamous Manos The Hands of Fate, are truly bad, and watching them, especially on your own without any friends and beer around, is a torture for a good cinema taste. <br /><br />La Momia Azteca Contra El Roboto Humano, however, was not that bad. Well, of course it's BAD - it's silly, dated, corny, cheap, etc., there's an Aztec mummy, a tin robot, a fat masked villain, a mad scientist, Mexican mobsters, etc. the montage is poor, the lines, well, let's say the lines are not theatrical, the FX and SFX are the best what the Mexican low budget production could've offered, etc. etc. Still, the movie is FUN. it's so bad it makes you laugh cheerfully for an hour time. Sure it depends on one's sense of humor, however I'm pretty sure La Momia should teach any newcomers to this kind of cinema how to enjoy it. Please note: the movie lasts for about an hour, and I think it's just enough time of silliness one is able to easily digest. <br /><br />There's also another thing - watching La Momia can give you a clue what was the whole SF/Horror genre concept back in the fifties, when you compare it to the present day Matrix era of cinema entertainment. I think it also shows how both the industry and the audience evolved, due to the fact the watches like La Momia still attract full house in the theaters for some special shows (movies like this are special alright), and very often receive a standing ovation.

neg

test_135

pending

64fb918a-3e89-4bd7-b1a6-d2968400d0f0

I saw this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and even that show couldn't really make this movie bearable. I could make a better movie with a broken camcorder and action figures. Of course, you expect terrible special effects with a movie this old, but I've seen silents that were better. The storyline has enormous gaps that leave you trying to figure out why they are even at certain scenes. The cameraman apparently doesn't know what a tripod is, and had too much coffee, or something harder maybe, because the camera is ALWAYS shaking around. I couldn't even follow the plot, but suffice it to say, this is the absolute worst movie I have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />UPDATE: I saw "Epic Movie" a while back and have decided to give this movie a 2. It's NOT the worst movie I've ever seen anymore!

neg

test_136

pending

74f5f9a9-dc30-46fb-95f3-0d12a40e6bd0

Ah, such an original title for a very shoddy film. The dubbing is hilarious since the voices and mouths never seem to match. As a result, I had no idea what was going on as I watched this mess unfold. There are flashbacks within the flashbacks and no real time takes place until towards the very end. The Aztec ceremony had me laughing. I rewinded it twice and got the best ab workout ever. The singing Aztec lady is comic naturale and the dancing and costumes are a hoot. Some guy gets a face full of acid, there's a lot of fighting, you have no idea who any character is (not that I really cared), and it's a whole noir mess. Oh, and the actual fight doesn't happen for awhile, so during the movie feel free to get up, take a nap, take a trip. You won't miss anything exciting.

neg

test_137

pending

690c4e78-9267-4987-9e4c-2279469978fe

2/3 of this movie is recycled footage of the previous movies, a fact that's sadly obvious even to someone like myself who hasn't seen the original movies. And somehow it feels like a rip-off even though I haven't seen the stuff before. It's like that episode of every TV show where the characters sit around a photo album or something and you just see recycled footage of other episodes. I've seen some producers do extended montages of recycled footage, but never anything beyond 5 minutes or so. This movie is mostly stuff that had already been seen by audiences, so you could mount a case that it's one of the biggest rip-offs ever foisted on the motion picture public.<br /><br />I got to see it in the theater, in a 16mm print, which is good enough I suppose considering how rare this kind of material must be on film these days. I give the movie some credit for semi-convincing Gothic atmosphere and for unintentional humor, but that's about it. The Aztec mummy monster looks good, even has some mobility in his face which is better than most movie monsters of the period. But the robot is pitiful, although it's interesting that they made the human face totally visible. It's a "robot human" or something of the sort as they somewhat explain in the movie. I think that's considered an android. So technically in hard sci-fi terms this movie should be called "Android vs. the Aztec Mummy", but I doubt anyone was too worried about technicalities here anymore than they were worried about quality. In fact the movie is so sloppily put together that it makes television look good. Even the dubbing from Mexican into English is lazy and weak -- for example at one point the hero says "I might as well begin at the beginning...." what the heck kind of translation is that? Couldn't they at least have him say "start at the beginning" so that it doesn't sound repetitive? A high school newspaper editor could have fixed the screenplay of this movie. It's the epitome of utilitarian film-making, just absolutely nothing is in this movie that doesn't need to be there for the basic commercial purpose of the film. They put no more effort into making it than they had to, and considering the extensive recycled footage I would doubt that they actually spent more than a week making this movie.<br /><br />I will now cease posting about it on the principle that I don't want to expend more energy in the process of commenting than the creators of the movie actually expended while making it.

neg

test_138

pending

7cf3f390-c021-4b94-ab76-2df11fb6d79f

The first 2/3 of this film wasn't that dissimilar to the American mummy films of the 30s and 40s. Two lovers in ancient Mexico dared to defy the law and were doomed to die. One became an Aztec mummy whose job it was to guard the sacred treasure and his lady love. And the lady was reincarnated in the present day and the mummy was naturally attracted to her. So far, it's all the typical mummy film...though it's quite a bit slower and duller than the American versions. Oh, and of course the Aztec mummy looked really, really crappy.<br /><br />However, into this standard but boring film there is a super-villain. Why? I dunno--it sure didn't make any sense to have one. It seems this villain wants the treasure and he manages to hypnotize the lady and have her show them where the Aztec treasure is buried. Why does he need the treasure? Well, to buy the equipment needed to make an army of atomic robots, dummy! But first he has to construct a single mummy to defeat the mummy, as the mummy has so far been unstoppable.<br /><br />You've got to see these "human-robots" as they look like the enormous clunky robots from Flash Gordon and other serials BUT they have a rubber head of a supposed dead guy inside! They really look hilariously funny and seeing the conclusion when there is a huge battle between the lethargic mummy and the equally slow robot is worth sitting through the rest of the dull movie. Both battle in super-slow-motion like they are bathed in taffy... and it's done in such an artless and silly fashion that it is bound to elicit chuckles--certainly not thrills.<br /><br />Overall, the film is dreadfully dull and a muddled mess--especially at the end. However, for bad movie fans, it's a must-see--it's bad but unintentionally funny and great to watch and laugh at with friends.

neg

test_139

pending

422eaade-a453-44c4-92f2-0bcb8c42dffd

Following the pleasingly atmospheric original and the amusingly silly second one, this incredibly dull, slow, and uneventful sequel comes across as a major letdown. Once again the nefarious criminal mastermind the Bat (hammy Luis Aceves Castaneda) is trying to steal valuable jewelry from the Aztec mummy Popoca. The Bat builds a hilariously clunky lumbering robot with a human brain in order to achieve this heinous goal. Flatly directed by Rafael Portillo, with a talky and tedious script by Alfredo Salazar and Guillermo Calderon, cruddy continuity (for example, the Bat was clearly killed at the end of the previous film, but is miraculously alive and well here!), an excruciatingly sluggish script, an excessive amount of stock footage from the first two flicks, a meandering narrative, a crippling lack of action and momentum, largely dreary going through the motions (non)acting from an understandably disinterested cast, and a poorly staged climactic battle between the mummy and the robot (the movie finally bursts to sidesplitting stupid life with said big bash, but alas it barely even lasts two lousy minutes and thus proves to be much too little far too late to alleviate the severity of the general overwhelming boredom), this numbingly dry, drippy, and draggy snorefest rates as a complete washout.

neg

test_140

pending

ac12ef3f-5ee6-4be2-8d0a-0a2afca9f7b8

**SPOILERS** The third and mercifully last of the Aztec Mummy trilogy in the fact that the series major star-besides the Mummy- actor Ramon Gay, as Dr. Eduardo Almada, was gunned down by the outraged husband of a woman he was having an affair with on May 28, 1960! Still that didn't stop Gay, in him being edited into them from his previous films, from being in a number of future Mexican horror movies made over the next four years after his death.<br /><br />In "Robot vs the Aztec Mummy" we have the once again mad scientist Dr. Krupp trying to get his hands on the Mummy's golden breastplate and bracelet in order, by having them deciphered, to find the Aztez treasure that's been secretly buried somewhere in modern Mexico City over 500 years ago. "Robot vs the Aztec Mummy" is not much as a movie in itself in that its made up of stock footage of the previous Aztec Mummy films that take up over half of the films running time.<br /><br />After getting introduced to the movie's cast members, some who have been killed in the previous Aztec Mummy films, we get down to the real nitty gritty in it involving the evil as well as criminally insane Dr. Krupp also know as "The Bat". Dr. Krupp-who looks like a wild eyed and crazed Orson Wells-is a man with boundless visions of grandeur in him not only uncovering the long lost Aztec treasure but now, unlike in the two previous movies he was in, creating life and using it in making an army of human robots to take over the world. An idea he must have gotten from watching Ed Wood's 1955 "Atomic Superman" classic "Bride of the Monster".<br /><br />Unable to handle the Mummy in his two other encounters with it, where he ended up getting thrown by it into a snake pit filled with deadly rattlers, Dr. Krupp had created a robot, with a human cadaver stuffed in it, to the job, of doing in the Mummy, for him. With he Mummy sleeping in its tomb at a local Mexico City cemetery Dr. Krupp has his Robot-Man brake into the Mummy's crypt to do battle with it and destroy it with its bolts of deadly radiation. <br /><br />***SPOILERS*** The big built-up to the Aztec Mummy Robot-Man confrontation turns to be a big let-down with the Mummy having no trouble at all dispatching the "Tin-Man" in less then 30 seconds together with its creator Dr. Krupp. All this while both Dr. Almada and his friend and assistant Pinacate, who came to the Mummy's aid, have nothing at all to do but sit back and watch the action. Now without the mad and off-the-wall Dr. Krupp annoying it the Mummy can go back to its eternal resting place without ever worrying about the problems of the modern world at large, like Dr. Krupp, that it has really no interest in.

neg

test_141

pending

0e136436-fe10-4d61-a3d4-3a6b320638d9

With the dialogue in the dubbed version of this film, I don't think that Shakespeare is in any great danger. This is the story of an ancient Aztec mummy who has been disenfranchised. His stuff has been taken and this really ticks him off. He seems to know who's doing this even though he's a gyrating, raving entity. I loved the two dull men who tell the story of how the mummy was found and the doctor who is determined to destroy the creature. There are all these scenes in this ridiculous graveyard, full of cheap crosses and other junk. There's a mausoleum where the mummy is kept. I can't begin to reproduce the idiocy of this, including a snake pit where the good doctor is thrown (there is a door next to it so he can crawl out) to the robot, a mass of metal cans with a guy inside. The dialogue is awful. There are long pauses between speeches as if someone offstage is feeding them their lines. I love the scene where the two little kids accuse their mother of going out at night (she goes into this zombie state or something). Nonetheless, if your looking for a film that you can laugh at and never takes itself seriously, watch this. Have a couple beers first. Like a direct line from the mummy's tomb, "Watch this and your eyes will bleed and your breath will stink." What more can I say?

neg

test_142

pending

926e35cf-1e5c-4c6e-bc3b-68bd928b4916

Mexican 'classic' was the third entry in the Aztec Mummy series. As you will soon find out, this movie is anything but a classic, instead, it's more like a movie that deliberately tries to bore you.<br /><br />Some scientist wants to steal Aztec treasure from a tomb, but guarding that tomb is that walking toilet paper commercial: The Aztec Mummy. Knowing he can't beat the Mummy, he then builds a robot, and a very bad one at that. We only get to see Mr.Robot in the last reel, as he clunks around, and does battle with the Aztec Mummy.<br /><br />I have seen a lot of lousy Sci-Fi films, hell most Sci-Fi films I see are lousy, but this one, for it's entire duration of 64 Minuites, is the worst movie I've seen, with Fubar coming in a close second....<br /><br />In conclusion: Don't waste your time.

neg

test_143

pending

c49eaecc-2948-4a67-8462-d54ddd71c25b

There must be an error. This movie belongs with "Plan 9", and a lot others as a quite entertaining, silly diversion. You'll never accept you like it, yet you will watch it whenever it comes out on TV. It's as simple as that.

neg

test_144

pending

4309fa77-e421-46c1-9913-1d00fc2b1da1

Oh, man, they sure knew how to make them back then. Hollywood has forgotten the basic ingredients of bad movie making: cardboard steel and the god fearing scientist action hero! <br /><br />This film was so close to a masterpiece, alas it was not to be, as it failed to feature ray guns and invaders from the Moon. The MST3K version tried to fix this by adding a pilot of a show called Captain Cody, where a guy with a rocket propelled jacket fights bad make-up people from the Moon, but it didn't quite add up.<br /><br />Also, the comments of the guys in the theater were not nearly as funny as I expected them to be. All in all, a great disappointment.

neg

test_145

pending

2cd55b6b-ca7a-4f99-a750-f8f9bf09b65f

Awful, confusing bit of crap from South of the Border. I've now watched it twice and I STILL don't really know what was going on. It had something to do with a stupid looking Aztec mummy, a 'human robot' that's the dumbest looking robot I've ever seen bar none, and a woman who is the reincarnation of some ancient Aztec chick. Most of the story is told in a painfully slow and droning manner by an incredibly dull scientist. This guy is a marvelous sleep aid. His nemesis is a fat slob called The Bat, which is a pretty unimaginative name for an evil scientist.<br /><br />I guess the boring scientist and his wormy assistant dug up the mummy, and what a shocker, the scientist's wife just HAPPENS to be the reincarnation of the mummy's girlfriend. They keep the mummy perpetually in a mausoleum for some reason, I guess so that the overacting bad guy can steal it. It takes him five years to do this, because he's inventing a 'human robot' to steal the mummy, or attack it, or whatever. He's after some treasure that the mummy has, so that he can be rich. But excuse me, if the guy had this huge an intellect and a strong drive to succeed, why didn't he just patent some of his ideas and get rich that way? <br /><br />Oh, well, I suppose that would make too much sense. Instead, there is ridiculous fight between the mummy and the robot, and it's really hard to tell which one is faker looking or more cheesy. To tell you the truth, I watched this because I thought a film with a name like The Robot Vs. the Aztec Mummy just HAD to be fabulously cheesy. Instead it was just dully awful and mind blowingly confusing.

neg

test_146

pending

cebdd5b7-dbf6-4cae-8fb7-572f8620e149

The Robot vs. the Aztec Mummy was one of the silliest and least believable films I've ever seen. O.K, I can buy that the woman in the film is a reincarnation of a virgin that was sacrificed to an Aztec God. What I can't buy is that the incredibly phony looking mummy and the even worse looking robot. When you want to watch a film like this, you want to see lots of fighting action. But the robot and the mummy fight for about a minute total! Probably worst of all was the dia de los muertos art they had in the credits. It's the worst I've ever seen. Avoid this one if possible.

neg

test_147

pending

4bceaa30-37ba-42dc-8ebe-4d83c8fd74c9

Like a lot of movies involving little kids, this starts off "real cute" and likable...and then, after about a half hour or so, becomes the reverse.<br /><br />That's certainly the case here in this time-travel story (which I usually love) where an adult meets a kid who his really him at the age of eight! Great premise and a great lead actor in Bruce Willis, but.....<br /><br />The kid "Rusty" is a smart-aleck and whiny brat and Willis Rusty grown up now as "Russell" gets abrasive with his constant yelling. That is entertainment? No, thanks.<br /><br />Young Breslin has gone on to become a very good child actor, being involved in a number of films including "The Cat In The Hat" opposite a more famous child actor: Dakota Fanning. <br /><br />Overall, a disappointing film, especially with all the good press this movie got when it was released.

neg

test_148

pending

d7609f95-47af-4428-a15a-a9e58c4ee444

First of all, I wasn't sure who this film was aimed at - it seemed like a story for kids but had stuff in it kids wouldn't understand and find boring. There wasn't really much to it, Bruce Willis wasn't stretched as an actor at all. He did a lot of glancing to the side with that half smile of his - unless you are a big fan of his I wouldn't bother. And if it's the story you're interested in (guy who seems to have it all but is lacking emotionally is taught lessons from a child), I would go to see About A Boy. It has everything this film lacked, humor, sadness and reality.

neg

test_149

pending

e8dbdf0d-65c6-4f8b-8033-06fa0b5d4dfe

The Kid was born retarded. It pulls in a half-dozen directions, features dialog and action lifted from much older and better-known flops, and might be funny -- if only the writers knew what funny is.<br /><br />Disney stuff has gotten a lot better in the last couple of decades, but don't let that fool you. They should have given The Kid a wide berth, sang it a lullaby, then ran the train into a ravine. Mercy killing.

neg

test_150

pending

6062c6e1-1e07-4d35-8882-6c39b02458b0

what was Bruce Willis thinking when he signed on for this one?? this one made no sense to me.. i was so confused by it, it wasnt funny at all.. I dont even know why Disney made this one.. Bruce is a Great actor whom ive liked for a Long time .. and this disappointed me a lot.. Pass this one by on the video shelf....

neg

test_151

pending

a1865d78-5877-4a2c-936b-4d1e8aee9ffa

I can't emphasize it enough, do *NOT* get this movie for the kids.<br /><br />For that matter, you'd best spare the adults from it as well.<br /><br />All right, perhaps I'm overexaggerating a little. This isn't the worst kids' movie... no, let me rephrase that. This isn't the worst movie made by dissilusioned adults FOR dissilusioned adults and somehow marketed towards kids (that would be "Jack", which I've been meaning to review / gut like a fish).<br /><br />Adults won't learn anything surprising (well, if you must, fast-forward to just before the end credits for a Educational Bit about an Interesting Cosmic Phenominon). We don't usually end up doing as adults what we wanted to do as kids as reality tends to get in the way. Well, duh, I could have told you that (so can four years of college at an art school, but I degress).<br /><br />I have no idea what the heck kids could possibly get out of this movie. Most likely it will only upset them (we get to watch the moment when Russ was traumatized at eight years old). There's a better movie, "Kiki's Delivery Service", that has essentially the same message but handles it litely instead of drilling it into your head. And the adults will like it too!<br /><br />By the way, there is a moment in the movie made with amature MST3K-ers in mind, if they think of that OTHER Bruce Willis movie with a sad little kid in it.

neg

test_152

pending

f81704ac-3b1f-43dd-b940-ebbece9be93a

After 15 minutes watching the movie I was asking myself what to do: leave the theater, sleep or try to keep watching the movie to see if there was anything worth. I finally watched the movie: what a waste of time. Maybe I am not a 5 years old kid anymore!

neg

test_153

pending

842a23a5-987b-4270-8c89-46e85c2e7038

Bruce Willis, as usual, does an excellent job.<br /><br />[warning: may be considered a "spoiler"]<br /><br />While my friend thought it was good, I kept glancing at my watch during the entire movie wondering when it would end. After seeing such great flicks as "The Patriot" and "Chicken Run" I was really disappointed in Disney's "The Kid."<br /><br />Willis plays a middle-aged man with a harsh and realistic attitude on putting a positive spin on people's images (he's an Image Consultant). An unknown kid shows up. Yes, it's him but younger, and even Lily Tomlin can see him. At this point I'm reminded of a cross between a poor "Quantum Leap" episode and a bad time traveling flick.<br /><br />Kid and Willis go through trying to figure out why he's in that time period. They figure it out. They meet Willis when he's older. Nevermind that it never goes into detail how old Willis teleports them between time periods and gets them together to begin with, how he got that knowledge to begin with, how he came to the realization that he needed to do this, and so on.<br /><br />Basically, it's a very tired, unoriginal, uninspiring plot that has some great actors in it. The good news is that "the Kid" actor is nowhere near as annoying as he's presented in the trailers on television.

neg

test_154

pending

312c6e60-919c-4843-a011-a9eb557d326b

There are a few scripts like this one floating around Hollywood; this one is not even close to the best--just the first. This is all production value, no substance, but the Disney name probably will help it. A good idea, a wasted opportunity.

neg

test_155

pending

9b9a18d9-2082-4931-a6d3-75b3579ce0ff

The first few minutes showing the cold and crusty the Willis character were pretty enjoyable, especially with Jean Smart, but it really tanked after that. This is just hackneyed big man and little irritating kid stuff from way back with no innovation at all. I know that the casting probably picked this kid to show that Willis was just as irritating in his younger self, but I found this kid ESPECIALLY irritating and whinney.

neg

test_156

pending

aa21a2bf-3554-48d3-beaf-4ef3af952b0d

I saw this only because my 10-yr-old was bored. He and his friend hated it but of course liked being at the movies. This is the first time I've strongly disagreed with Ebert in many years. There is not a single thing to recommend this film. Willis is good, as always. But the story stinks, is unbelievable, there is no real story, no action, no interesting cinematic sequences, no surprises, and worst of all, the child star is A thoroughly repulsive slug guaranteed to turn off any parent who does not have a dweeby fat slob for a kid. By all means stay away and spare your child - unless you want to punish him or her. There is no excuse for such lousy directing or writing and one hopes these filmmakers will suffer accordingly.

neg

test_157

pending

db2dd806-3b2a-4c55-a65c-e7dc9576494d

"Fool for Love" is one of the several now forgotten films Robert Altman directed throughout the 1980s. This one, a screen adaptation of a Sam Shepard play that features Shepard in the lead role, just simply isn't very good. Altman made many not-very-good films over the course of his fascinating career, and many times the fault was his. But here I think the fault lies with Shepard for writing such a flimsy play. Altman's direction is assured, the performances are o.k. given what the actors have to work with, but this inconsequential screenplay goes nowhere, and takes its time getting there.<br /><br />Shepard is Eddie, a stuntman who has a love/hate relationship with May (Kim Basinger). The two fight endlessly over the course of an evening spent in some dusty motel in the middle of nowhere, while a mysterious man (Harry Dean Stanton) who may be either a figurative or literal father to both Eddie and May quietly observes. Randy Quaid rounds out the four-person cast as a gentleman caller.<br /><br />The only dramatic hook in the entire plot is the suggestion that Eddie's and May's relationship is incestuous. However, this hook feels more like a gimmick than anything. The screenplay doesn't explore their relationship in any detail, and it doesn't use their relationship to explore any more universal themes. Shepard and Basigner create eccentric, mannered characters who grow irritating within the first five minutes; Stanton and Quaid have little to do but provide reaction shots. <br /><br />The last half hour or so of the film is especially bad, when Eddie's and May's back stories begin to play out in flashback over monotone, somnolent voice over.<br /><br />Chalk this up to another of Altman's experiments gone awry.<br /><br />Grade: C-

neg

test_158

pending

9ee168d7-cc31-45ec-aabf-5f71f55f1b24

After reading Fool For Love in a Drama class of mine, I was looking forward to seeing how Sam Shepard's wonderful play would be translated to the screen. Much to my dismay, it was nowhere near as entertaining as the play. The film seemed to drag, the music was inappropriate for the tone of the movie, and all the raw energy of the play seemed to have been sucked out of this film version. It's a shame to see this come out this way even with Shepard's involvement, playing the role of Eddie. Do yourselves a favor...see the play next time it's being performed in your area or simply read the book instead.

neg

test_159

pending

14b0ca04-4484-4b05-ac8b-202790d9a68b

I had been amazed by director Antal's Kontroll back in 2003. His first American project, Vacancy, was less impressive but a decent start. Armored is his second feature and while the visual signature is recognizable, the film never rises above the level of a B movie. <br /><br />It's a shame because the main premise has all the ingredients for twists and turns and the ensemble cast featuring many quality actors should be able to deliver. Antal could have made a great heist film but instead goes for an action flick. Then again he could have shot a cool action flick but it doesn't really deliver in that department either. <br /><br />What you are left with is one implausible situation after another, a group of poorly sketched characters bicker and fight over a sum of money. If you look past the sharp cinematography, cast and the tight music score, you're left with what could have been a below average direct-to-video featuring Van Damme or Seagal. <br /><br />This was probably the most disappointing movie for me in quite some time.

neg

test_160

pending

58adf9a1-e1a7-4add-9687-e9e4c7924747

At the heart of almost every truly great crime thriller is a carefully considered, methodically planned-out high stakes super-crime, which 9 times out of 10 is committed by a bunch of likable, grey-scale morality underdogs for who life isn't fair, for whom getting back at the man is, well, something worth cheering for. First-time screenwriter James V. Simpson's script for Armored gets this half right. He made extra-double-sure that we've got nothing but sympathy for the recently orphaned, Iraq war veteran Ty Hackett (Stomp the Yard's Columbus Short), who's about to have his house taken away by an evil bank (brother, I've been there). And he gave Ty a good family friend in Mike (Matt Dillon) who is super nice and gets him a job at the armored car company that he works at with Baines (Lawrence Fishbourne) and some weird French dude (Jean Reno). These guys like to have fun and play pranks, but they are also serious armored car guys too, so that means they carry guns and are tough.<br /><br />After a short while, as one theoretically watches Armored, one might start to think as I did, that maybe - just maybe - this is going to be some kind of awesome, tongue-in-cheek, cornball heist movie with some on-the-nose characterizations that move the story along its natural course, cranking up the personal stakes of all involved in hopes of unveiling a really, really clever plan with lots of potential 'holy sh*t' moments. I mean, the music alone is textbook heist-movie - gritty, edgy beats working overtime as we're treated to close-ups of characters who say things like "As a matter of fact I do," and "Are you crazy??" For 45 minutes or so, the movie had some serious genre-flick potential.<br /><br />Then things start to really stink. These dudes, these idiots, have no plan. There's no "Ok, here's what we're gonna do..." scene, no blueprints, no explosives, no black van or ski-masks (despite their 'test-run', as can be seen in a trailer). No, these guys are going to steal $42 million dollars from their own trucks (which are only being tracked by HOURLY contact over the radio, despite being equipped with some fancy, big-deal 'GPS technology'), and they aren't even going to sit down and discuss it. Hell, Mike only tells Ty about the plan the night before, which is completely ridiculous. But of course, Ty's got his house to think about so as long as Mike promises that 'no one will get hurt,' he's on board. Guess what, though. Somebody gets hurt. Why? Because, besides driving the trucks into an abandoned factory to hide the money, they have no plan. That was it. That was how far they thought things out. So, naturally, things start to unravel. These cats deserve everything they get for being so unprepared.<br /><br />This script, frankly, feels like it's like the product of some bad improv game: "Armored Car, robbed by its own guards...GO!" Despite some half-decent buildup that could have maybe taken the film in a few interesting directions, the story just completely falls apart, and pretty soon, NOTHING makes sense, or is even remotely plausible.<br /><br />When filmmakers don't have a cool "hook" for their heist, their characters seem stupid, and bungling. And when characters are stupid, and bungling, it's hard for an audience to invest in them, and their story. And when that happens, any suspense drains out the bottom of the movie, leaving a laughable, hollow husk.<br /><br />Skip it. 3/10

neg

test_161

pending

c1b70a82-046c-48f6-bc3c-2c1fe7915739

I went to see this movie today, with hopes that it would involve an at least half-intelligent story. I was extremely disappointed, as it did not. The plot, and the decisions by the main character, were so far-fetched. I was hoping for a "Dog Day Afternoon"-type movie, but instead got something totally unacceptable. I actually found myself totally hoping for the "hero" to be knocked off, and I nearly walked out of the theater on several occasions when this should have happened but didn't. Heist movies are notmeant to be feel-good flicks, and this one tried to be just that. Every couple of minutes during the second half of the movie, I found myself saying, "no way". Without giving the whole story away, it revolved around an armored car guard who was financially down and out, and whose house was going into foreclosure. He was invited in on a heist, and accepted, only to back down once the action began. Weak.

neg

test_162

pending

7f8edeef-1313-4a9d-b782-06b8dacaaf86

I am so angry to the point i normally down make reviews with spoilers but in this case I'll make an exception.The first scenes of this movies are weak and then when they get to the meat and potatoes of the movie it sucks. This is one movie were i rooted for the bad guys because the captain-save-the-day was unbelievable and there was no connection to him or nothing to make you like him. The lead actor gave the weakest performance and Laurence Fishburne or Matt Dillon couldn't even save this movie. Sometime there are eye openers or great moments in a film that may not be that great..this movie has none. If you are looking for a movie to see in the meantime while nothing peeked your interest...don't choose this one..save your money.

neg

test_163

pending

7c7177e1-2d7f-4757-8fe6-1fa034aba05d

There is not much to add to what others have already commented, the movie fails hard where it shouldn't, it has no depth in the planning of the heist and the characters are so unbelievable.<br /><br />One thing that got me thinking, was that although the rest of the gang is trying hard to remove the pins from the doors of an armored truck, because there is supposed to be no other way of opening it, the guy inside the truck, with great ease manages to remove the floor of the truck which happens to have a hole in it so he can get out, and then get back in, without being noticed by anyone, because no one else could think that he could get out from there or even better, that they could have gotten into from there.<br /><br />Promising but not quite there.

neg

test_164

pending

7f0d4c03-905c-4f3e-a9d0-4672510fea4a

This movie is one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The cast was fantastic, but the movie itself was horrible. It was so awful, I had to register just to say how bad it was.<br /><br />I watched this movie, and I wanted to break it every minute I watched. It could have been great. Had a great premise. If you're going to rob an armored car, and there's a homeless person which sees you, you have to do, what you have to do. For the main character to decide to get a cop killed, and kill his friends and co-workers after the homeless guy was already dead, it's just ridiculous. And yes, I'm sure there will be responses to this about how his conscious got to him, but come on.<br /><br />The main character crawled out the bottom of the armored truck, no one saw him. He blew up the stash of money and grabbed and dragged the cop right behind the other guards and no one saw him. He was able to get back in the armored car, and no one saw him... This movie had potential, but blew it.<br /><br />You couldn't pay me to watch this movie ever again! DON'T EVER watch it! Aggravating...

neg

test_165

pending

b86a17a3-2819-48d4-b1f9-a587fa5ce4ca

Unbelievably disappointed. The pace was slow. The characters unbelievable and throughout the film as a whole just let me feel bored and unfulfilled. There was no real plot that could keep you revolving around the film and keep you interested. The heist itself never offered any excitement and didn't seem very well though through.<br /><br />There was not enough depth or background to any character and Laurance Fishbourne's character was one I eagerly awaited for, unfortunately Laurance has no idea how to play the thuggish brut and is much preferred as a likable character. Columbus short one of my favourite actors (in stomp the yard) let me down with his performance, his character was dark and you could hardly see what drove his reasoning.<br /><br />The only character I think offered anything to the film was Milo Ventimiglia (Peter Petrelli in Heroes). Though his character quite small and insignificant I think his touch added to an all around dull film.<br /><br />In Conclusion buy the DVD if you want to find a new way to waste your time.

neg

test_166

pending

713cd244-694f-4083-b99d-4946bb1c09d0

I have to admit that I am disappointed after seeing this movie. I had expected so much more from the trailers. The movie was absolutely horrible. It lacked a real story line and the acting was not exactly the best. Don't waste your time. The movie is not what the trailers lead you to think it is. I would have to say that I don't usually write anything about movies on IMDb (in fact this is my first one) but this movie was such a disappointment that I registered just to let people know not to waste their time or money. The story line is that of a heist that is to happen and it looks like it had potential to be good but the things that happen in the movie are a little far fetched to be believable. Watch another movie instead, maybe the inside man???

neg

test_167

pending

f66e34fa-8f23-48bf-bf89-e49a65512de3

How do you take a cast of experienced, well-known actors, and put together such a stupid movie? Nimrod Antel has the answer: Armored. Six co-workers at an armored car business decide to steal a large shipment of cash themselves. But, just as they get to first base with their plans, everything unravels quickly. With a plot like this, you'd think it couldn't be too bad, at least for an action movie. However, in the first 40 minutes or more of this movie we see what appear to be 6 normal, everyday kind of guys. They joke, they laugh, have a few drinks together, etc. Then, we suddenly learn they're planning to rob their own business. The hero Ty, (Columbus Short), is sucked into the scheme because of the cold, cruel world, even though he's a decorated veteran, nice guy, and reliable employee. Oh my, oh my! Then in the last 40 minutes of the film, these former regular guys nearly all turn into money-crazed psychos, willing to butcher each other for cash. In the last scenes Mike, (Matt Dillon), goes on a suicidal rampage for no other reason than to kill his former friend. The viewer has no hint before this ending that these men are this ruthless and bloodthirsty. It's utterly unbelievable and "B movie" is almost too kind for this sort of cheesy plot. I would say don't waste your time--too bad no one gave Laurence Fishburne, Jean Reno or Fred Ward the same advice before making this picture.

neg

test_168

pending

48d0c5c4-6ac8-4e47-82b7-23ce59146aec

A new guard in in the armored truck gig is recruited by his co-workers to steal 42 million from the truck. No bad guys, so no one will get hurt, right? Of course things go wrong and the new guard decides to have a conscience and make things right by saving the life of a dying man.<br /><br />I'll admit that I didn't really have any interest in this film, but I didn't have any interest in Fantastic Mr Fox either, and that film made my top ten of the year. Armored is even more of a disappointment then I thought it would be. As a heist film, it fails to deliver the goods, it's boring and full of plot holes and leaps in logic that one will hurt themselves thinking about it.<br /><br />Despite this the film somehow has a really great cast, but the film doesn't even use this to it's advantage. Everyone seems wasted in wooden characters that make stupid choices. Columbus Short is an uninteresting lead that is never charismatic and never makes the audience want to give a crap. Matt Dillon is the mastermind behind the heist and he plays Mr. Nice Guy at first, then when things don't go his way he quickly becomes the villain. The rest of the impressive cast include Lawrence Fisburn, Jean Reno, Skeet Ulrich, Fred Ward, Amaury Nolasco from Prison Break and Milo Ventimiglia from Heros. Non of them do much and when they actually do something, it's without much reasoning behind it.<br /><br />The film is relatively short, but even with it's running time under 90 minutes, it felt dragged out. How long can you make a movie about a guy trapped somewhere? Phonebooth did a decent job and it was even more restricted. The leaps of logic concerning the plot here are tragic. 42 million and all the security they have are check ins every hour or so? The entire plan from my understanding was to drive the trucks into an abandoned warehouse and hide the money. Pretend to get hit and burn the trucks. They would then walk away with the money. Of course something goes wrong, or there would be no movie right? Through a series of unfortunate events out so called hero has trapped himself inside the truck with an injured officer. The rest of the movie is Dillion and his crew banging on the doors to get in. How very exciting.<br /><br />The script calls for our hero to have financial problems, he might lose his house, which would in turn make him lose his brother. You see, both their parents died and it's just the two of them looking out for each other. So now he has a reason to join the heist. At first he didn't want in, but his money problems is just the right push to throw him in the thick of things. How convenient. <br /><br />Armored's whole spin on the heist genre is that it's from an armored truck, from the guys who drive it. After that basic premise, the film falls flat on it's face. I found myself wanting it to end sooner and sooner each time someone spoke. Speaking of the ending, it sucks. <br /><br />Skip it.

neg

test_169

pending

732d5c96-09b1-4f58-84bd-0181cdb6bb4c

this movie is sooooo bad that it forced me to create an account with IMDb just to warn others about it.<br /><br />i have been using IMDb for a long time, and many movies have come close to making me want to register to either praise or bash them, however none have ever been that worthy. Until now! <br /><br />I am a huge Matt Dillon fan. all i could ask myself throughout this movie is "how did Dillon choose this script"? really. i mean there are holes in it larger than Vredefort. <br /><br />i mean it is a modern day heist movie, not one set in the seventies. For crying out loud, even a child knows that armored trucks have gps tracking and the sort. makes you wonder what it takes to get a script produced in Hollywood.<br /><br />i could go on for ages, but i wont. believe me when i say this. save yourself the time and give this a skip.<br /><br />Sorry Matt, I'm still a fan, but this movie sucked.

neg

test_170

pending

3bbe46cb-774d-4657-80af-f8f0f1fce30a

OK I for one thought the trailer was quite good so was hopeful for this film, plus with the cast line up I was sure it couldn't get less than a 6 in my books. However I got annoyed half hour into the story... just where normal films get good, this film hit rock bottom. <br /><br />SPOILER * The guy who everyone is trying to help is so caring of other people getting hurt in the middle of the hustle that he turns on his colleagues to save a tramp and then locks himself inside one of the armoured trucks. Not only that, he constantly tries to get other peoples attention by which he ends up endangering more people and long story short, the outcome is that he is responsible for not just the tramps death, but also a police officer getting shot and the kidnapping of his younger brother... oh and all 5 of his colleagues dying disgraced deaths. <br /><br />But in the end he is HAPPY because he came to his senses halfway through the endeavour, so what if all his colleagues are now dead rather than sticking to the plan and being a millionaire. This film tried to be so politically correct it makes me sick! Ruined a good story. Shame really.

neg

test_171

pending

43b41435-1088-4051-b57f-f8d875bf49b8

Disappointing heist movie indeed, I was actually expecting a pretty cool cat and mouse stuff going on through out the movie and it does have few of those cat and mouse stuff going on, but it was just pretty stupid. And it basically showed all the good scenes in the trailer, as a matter of fact if you seen the trailer to this, you basically seen the whole film cause it is just that predictable. So basically the plot is about a few armored truck company workers that try to steal the 42 million dollars they are suppose to transport, until one of the members grows a conscience. I thought the movie would be better with it's cast of well known actors, but I was wrong. I mean this isn't necessarily a bad film but it just wasn't that good either or has any depth. This is most definitely a rental at best, just not really worth seeing it in theaters. heist <br /><br />4.8/10

neg

test_172

pending

f2f250b8-fa0f-4ab8-a52e-e61a2b6a4b09

After watching this for 15 minutes I knew how it would end. Its a cliché film with a stupid setup. I'm a big fan of thief films, but this one does not deliver anything new smart or special. It's about an insider heist gone bad because "hot head-bad guy" shots a bum, and of course "do goody-bad guy" goes on a moral trip. The reason why it's stupid and not believable is. When you've already gone so far to kill a bum, why not just kill the one guy that stands between you and 43 million. They got 45 minutes to stash the money and stage a robbery nobody in there right mind would hesitate to shoot Mr "do goody" and in this case he is a guy they known for a few days.... All and all I was leaning to fast forwarding from the middle of it, but I duked it out and boy do I regret it

neg

test_173

pending

55f97f17-81dc-4923-8bde-57c4dc144b8c

One of those movies in which there are no big twists whatsoever and you can predict pretty much whats is going to happen. Matt dillon was awesome once again, but the rest didn't played a bigger part as they should have.<br /><br />It was exciting in the beginning but kinda slow paced and predictable in the end.Its one of those flicks in which the good guy wins no matter happens.If you have absolutely nothing to do, you can give it a try I personally found it not worth watching. The story could have been more interesting and the director could have made it less of a B-movie by engineering a happy ending.

neg

test_174

pending

c7d01b5e-8c97-40bf-ae8a-6f25aff5d8ef

Dillon, Fishbourne, Reno, should have teamed up for a much smarter effort, because this one slides in the B-Category and could have been done with no-name actors and a much smaller budget, since anyway, 2 armored trucks and a wasted warehouse could not have coasted too much. Since the writers did not manage to come with a smart heist plan, they targeted the dramatics of the situation, but there was not much to exploit there either. Fishbourne and Reno do not bring anything to this movie except the media interest, they're only expensive advertising. Dillon is OK, but this was a walk in the park. The choices of the main character, Ty Hackett, are quite uninspired and the final, with the "reward" is quite childish. Waste of time, money, actors and so on.

neg

test_175

pending

5d3d6757-4523-4ff8-83ab-e807b88397c1

The film had it moments, but was disappointing in my eyes anyway. It was a reworking of Trespass (Walter Hill) and so The Treasure Of the Sierra Madre, with less tension, bite and human emotion. There was some nice acting but the story was limp and lacked any real depth. I watched the movie for Mr Reno and Mr Fishburn, neither were inspired and both had little to say or act out of their skin for. This movie has been done to death in the past and did not have to be made, eats up money which could be used on better movies. For an action movie it was sparse of action and as a thriller did not thrill. Better than watching snow fall, but not for me.

neg

test_176

pending

81c5f575-e31b-4aae-88a2-725456350d86

The sounds in the movie were so mundane and ridiculous, seriously banging on the door hinges for about 30 minutes really crunches your teeth and makes your head hurt.<br /><br />i love bad puns more than the next guy, but come on "no blood on our hands" being said about a million times by Matt Dillon' character, and when Matt Dillon's character shoots the bum the lead character which i fail to remember his name because i don't really think anyone cares gets blood on his hands literally.<br /><br />the background music with the heavy metal guitar ringing an A-chord for about 5 minutes isn't my idea of music, come on i was having the worst headache by the end of this garbage.

neg

test_177

pending

1c2f2919-7196-4774-b05a-de33b17bb41b

A heist film with Jean Reno, Matt Damon and Laurence Fishburne... sounds great on paper? I suspect it must have done when someone green lighted the production of this movie but the end product is terrible!<br /><br />The story is dull, the action boring, and, for a film that is only 88 minutes it seems to just drag on. I could feel my life slipping away and was sure there was something better I should have been doing... any paint to watch dry somewhere perhaps?<br /><br />Sigh. I'm a huge fan of Jean Reno, but what on earth was he thinking when he signed up to this? There are so many other great action movies around... go watch one of those and let this movie be best forgotten.

neg

test_178

pending

e6687780-d317-4128-b1d7-9da60b751a29

What a bad movie, the premise was all there, the actors were all there. And yet a believable plot, good dialogue, characters to relate to were somewhat missing.<br /><br />Typical heist gone wrong premise set against a backdrop of everyman being shafted by the system. The lead character Tye and his little brother have been having no luck and their house is going to be repossessed, along comes godfather Matt Dillon (Who does not look much older than Tye so not exactly sure how that happened)to the rescue with a plan to steal money from an armoured van which they work on as security guards. Tye has a brief flirtation with a conscience but decides to go along with it. And thus begins a truly awful hole ridden 30 minutes of unbelievable trash. I will not list all the ways in which this movie was unrealistic but let me point out the major ones:<br /><br />Because of Tye deciding to be a good guy because a homeless guy became collateral damage, all of his close friends including his godfather die. His godfather who is supposedly family and the man who brought him into the caper at the last minute to help him out dies because of Tye. Tye in the process of thwarting his friends and godfather destroys all the money. The money came from the same bank that was repossessing his house. And yet he chose it over the supposed family of Matt Dillon.<br /><br />There are many more, needless to say that this film was tripe and I earnestly hope nobody else goes to see it.

neg

test_179

pending

d1dc5057-ca1e-4e40-a8b8-5bab0175cf69

Well where do we start, there was a lot of potential for this film with such big stars playing a role. But the whole story was ruined by a horrific plot. This movie did not pan out to be what i would expect, the good guy makes it out alive, i mean co mon nobody wants the good guy to be successful. The ending was cringe worthy and very cliché no thought what so ever, YOU GOT THE PLOT ALL WRONG THE BAD GUYS ARE MEANT TO COME OUT SUCCESSFUL.<br /><br />If you want to waste 1 hour and 2 minutes of your time spend it doing something else this movie was the epitome of CRAP. I really think the actors did this movie for some quick Vegas cash no doubt about it. SAVE your money watch a better movie.

neg

test_180

pending

797d8499-89f0-4ff7-803b-29cbf65e68be

Armored<br /><br />The best part about driving an armored vehicle is that if any bums approach you at a red light asking for money, you can shoot them in the face.<br /><br />And while the armoured guards in this thriller aren't using their protective power to purge the drifter population, they are using their position to fleece their employer.<br /><br />When newcomer Ty (Columbus Short) lands a job with an armored trunk company, he feels like he has found his lot in life. Unfortunately, however, when he discovers that his co- workers (Matt Dillon, Jean Reno and Laurence Fishburne) are plotting to take the $42 M shipment for themselves, Ty must fortify himself – and the funds – inside the armored truck.<br /><br />A tedious caper with a plodding plot and phoned-in performances, Armored is an utterly forgettable film.<br /><br />Besides, if you really want to jack millions, it's a lot simpler to just disguise yourself as an ATM. (Red Light)

neg

test_181

pending

7ba528e1-11a2-4298-8a09-d64bef5c5956

This looks so good on paper - Matt Damon, Lawrence Fishbourne, Jean Reno, nice right? And a heist with $42 million - sounds like a kick-ass crime movie.<br /><br />Big disappointment - I reckon the stars got all the money because the production values on this are lousy.<br /><br />But more than that it the pseudo reservoir Dogs atmosphere when the easy crime goes wrong. It's very much made for TV stuff.<br /><br />All in all hugely disappointing - it score points for being what it is - but loses them massively for being, bluntly, not very interesting at all...

neg

test_182

pending

cac7f5c9-93a4-452f-819a-354c072022ef

This movie, despite its list of B, C, and D list celebs, is a complete waste of 90 minutes. The plot, with its few peaks, was very predictable. It was so silly that I cannot believe that I am taking the time to even write a review of it. Flex, to his credit, has grown in his ability to act since playing Michael Jackson in a made for TV movie a few years ago. Tangi, on the other hand, has regressed, as she was more talented in her role as Felicity's flunkie some years ago. As I sat watching this train wreck of a film, with its pitiful production and horrible sound quality, other four letter words came to my mind to qualify what I thought of this film. However, in an effort to keep my writings G Rated, I'll simply say this film is another four letter word starting with an L. LAME!!!

neg

test_183

pending

d8c06e8c-2eed-4f4b-a206-1b2524be7266

I was at Wrestlemania VI in Toronto as a 10 year old, and the event I saw then was pretty different from what I saw on the Wrestlemania Collection DVD I just watched. I don't understand how the wwE doesn't have the rights to some of the old music, since most of those songs were created by the WWF they shouldn't have to worry about the licensing and royalty fees that prevent shows like SNL from releasing season sets. Its pretty stupid to whine about, but for me hearing Demolition come out to their theme music at a Wrestlemania in person was a memory that I never forgot, and it didn't exist on this DVD. What is the point of them even owning the rights to this huge library of video if they have to edit it so drastically to use it?

neg

test_184

pending

756cf619-0884-4959-894e-465799df8a79

Just watched on UbuWeb this early experimental short film directed by William Vance and Orson Welles. Yes, you read that right, Orson Welles! Years before he gained fame for radio's "The War of the Worlds" and his feature debut Citizen Kane, Welles was a 19-year-old just finding his muse. Besides Vance and Welles, another player here was one Virginia Nicholson, who would become Orson's first wife. She plays a woman who keeps sitting on something that rocks back and forth courtesy of an African-American servant (Paul Edgerton in blackface). During this time a man (Welles) keeps passing her by (courtesy of the scene constantly repeating). I won't reveal any more except to say how interesting the silent images were as they jump-cut constantly. That's not to say this was any good but it was fascinating to watch even with the guitar score (by Larry Morotta) added in the 2005 print I watched. Worth a look for Welles enthusiasts and anyone with a taste of the avant-garde.

neg

test_185

pending

559d7f46-14c1-4d9b-82a9-18722bc5304c

When a friend once lambasted me for my first movie (a pretty bad videotaped affair), I argued that I could grow; Orson Welles' first movie, indeed, was even worse. He challenged me that it couldn't be, so I pulled out the Criterion laserdisc of (I think) CITIZEN KANE and played HEARTS OF AGE. My friend lasted just a few minutes before conceding the point.<br /><br />There is a little humor in this short, but it's basically as pretentious as (and perhaps a collegiate answer to) BLOOD OF A POET and other avant garde films of the time. It is what it is: a succession of images with a vague theme, and unless you really enjoy any footage of Welles (in heavy makeup, to boot), this isn't really even worth tracking down.

neg

test_186

pending

bf8e5c75-1898-4442-a366-baf056ab937e

I was a hippie age 22 in 1965, have seen the play 5 times, have 2 versions of the music, and have read the script many times. Maybe taken as an separate thing, the movie is OK, but as an adoption of the play, it's terrible.<br /><br />First the good. The songs are sung well, and the production values are pretty good. The homosexual implications in Black Boys, White Boys is cute. The Claude/Berger switch was interesting. Hair is a fluid production, and constant changes in it are inherent provided the basic spirit of it is retained.<br /><br />But the basic spirit was very much distorted. It seemed like all the producer wanted was to sing certain songs, and fit the story-line to them regardless of what that did to the original intent of the play.<br /><br />Claude, Sheila, and Hud were presented as a selfish brats who could care less about anyone outside their tribe. Claude destroyed Sheila's parents party (it's hard to believe that she smiled while her parents were being hurt), and repeatedly stole cars. Sheila stole the soldier's clothes and car. Then she left him in the middle of the desert where he would certainly sunburn badly, probably be busted in rank, and could likely die on that lonely Nevada road. Good fun. And Hud found it fine to break his son's heart while yelling at his ex. This is not what hippies were like, not what the play described, and is directly opposite to a love generation.<br /><br />I've never seen a hippie beg for money. The point was to be self-sufficient outside the capitalist system, not beg from it.<br /><br />After Berger is thrown in jail for ruining Sheila's party and Claude offers to bail some out, Berger insists on being bailed instead, with no better plan for bailing the rest that hitting on Sheila's parents, and then hitting on his own mommy.<br /><br />"Be In" has always been a very spiritual point, but here it is wasted on silly brides floating around. Even if this is part of his trip, it ruins a beautiful song. I know they're contrasting "Floating In Space" with the Army. But again, it totally ruins a beautiful song.<br /><br />While Sheila and Claude are skinny dipping, Berger steals their clothes, laughing "it was fun man" even after he could see both were very annoyed. Then a little later, Berger does one thing that no hippie ever does. He hits Claude. Terrible.<br /><br />Then they have the perfect opportunity to sing "Starshine" at night in some beautiful SF spot with the stars twinkling down, maybe working into an inventive duet. Instead, the whole tribe sings it in the blazing sun speeding down the road in a convertible (stolen of course).<br /><br />I was vastly disappointed with the movie in 1979, and I like it even less now. I think it would have been possible to do a reasonably close adoption of the show, but this ain't it.

neg

test_187

pending

3e491a7f-e93a-425a-9d0c-2a8ea6f034e9

I've liked Milos Forman's movies since I saw "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Amadeus" (two big masterpieces), but when I saw "Hair", I kept wondering if this was the same Milos Forman. This movie is boring and uninteresting to say the least. OK, the music is pretty good, but on screen it only seems like a bunch of drugged people dancing around (wait a minute... that's what it really is!). In fact, the only interesting part, and the only part where Milos' talent shows up, are the last 15 minutes or so, (SPOILER!!) since when Berger takes Claude's place as a soldier set to the Vietnam war. That 15 minutes are moving and well-directed, but it's a shame that we have to endure so much awful material before that.<br /><br />Well, maybe this is one of those movies you need to be "on the subject" to enjoy (the subject being marijuana, acid and other drugs the film glorifies). I'm not, so...

neg

test_188

pending

44bea749-3836-4249-9113-ddcf888c63ab

I should start off by saying I have something of a love-hate relationship with musicals. Some of them are fantastic, some are downright crap. So I expected Hair to fall into one of those categories. However, it didn't, falling instead in the middle.<br /><br />The songs aren't brilliant, though the "Sodomy" song did make me smile a lot, and everything is rather dated looking. But the movie didn't draw me in as others have, such as Rocky Horror. Although that's a bad example, since for years I hated Rocky Horror, then all of a sudden I got it and have loved it ever since. Maybe Hair will be the same. Although I doubt it will get as much exposure as Rocky Horror due to the language and nudity content, so I doubt I will get the chance to have it grow on me. Gettit? Hair....grow...oh suit yourself.<br /><br />Anyhow, I didn't get to see the last fifteen minutes or so due to a technical glitch, which was a shame, since I would have liked to see how it ended, especially after reading some of the reviews here.<br /><br />Not a film for the casual cinema-goer, but definitely one for musical lovers. I really hope they don't re-make it, though, since I think any such re-make would end up a shallow, pale, PC version of the original.<br /><br />Worth a look for lovers of the genre.

neg

test_189

pending

66337db4-0939-4abe-bb17-bace0f4e23fc

This film is an insult to the play upon which it is based. The character of Claude has been warped beyond recognition leaving a painful performance that does not even vaguely resemble the original plot. Shame, shame, shame. They have also cut a fair number of the original score of change the context in which the songs are sung. This warps the air of the film and causes the viewer who is aware of how this should be to wince as the writer of this screen play gives Hud a wife,turns Sheila into a spoiled rich girl, characterizes Claude as a cowboy, and kills Burger by sending him to Vietnam instead. If one is not familiar with the original plot I assure you this is not a bad film for you to see, but if you ever wish to see the original or are, as I am, a die-hard fan of the classic play, you would do best to avoid the film altogether. One really must stick to one or the other.

neg

test_190

pending

173eabfd-6035-49dc-b561-1dc7ac360471

hair, the movie based on the broadway hit,fails to achieve any redeemable cinematic qualities. you cant really take the play and make it a movie. whether one is so tempted by the rock music to see this movie, it really detracts from the quality of a broadway show. worse than seeing sitcom reruns. musical fiasco, and cant believe others rated it so high.

neg

test_191

pending

9eedb36c-840e-4a93-aa64-e0b6d6edec66

Sadness was the emotion I felt, after the screen went dark. Puzzled, was another. Why would two seasoned screen vets like Matthau and Lemmon sign on to this putrid project? I'm under the impression they didn't read the script, before the cameras started rolling. All the cast is wasted, in this unfunny, uninteresting and unimpressive movie. Sadly enough, this was one of elegant Edward Mulhare's last projects, here as the heavy. Dyan Cannon tries, Hal Linden looks bored, Donald O'connor reciting a few lines laden with profanity. (??!!). I'm not with the "Legion of Decency." My point is they were spouted purely for the strangeness of hearing him use off-color language. That is a desperate attempt to infuse "humor" into a picture. He actually did deliver the film's only morsel of entertainment, when he pattered about on the dancefloor, though. I save my harshest criticism for the leads. Walter Matthau should have known better. He still delivers great solo performances (IQ, Dennis The Menace, etc.). His character, although affable, is rather dull and one dimensional. Seen him once, seen him all. Jack Lemmon gives another one of his trademark, weepy, "just too darn sensitive" male portrayals. When he starts that mode, I vicariously want to hand him a box of tissues. OUT TO SEA is painfully unfunny, and whoever produced this mess should be made to walk the plank.

neg

test_192

pending

d2f6baf0-7853-4831-b535-15564f8f33e9

I never heard of this film when it first came out. It must have sunk immediately. :o) I saw it on cable while sick in hospital so I hardly had enough energy to watch it, let alone turn the channel. Better choice than the Style Channel. ;0(. Filmed on location, this travelogue should have been on the Travel Channel. The plot is recycled from ship board farces of the thirties and forties. The cast seems to have been recycled from the fifties. Donald O'Connor, star of musicals and Edward Mulhare as a card shark. As to the main cast, Walter Matthau is still playing the same part as he did in Guys and Dolls or was it the one about the orphan girl? Wiseacre irresponsible gambler and rounder. But it just doesn't take with a man of his age. As to Jack Lemmon, he plays his part so straight, he can hardly dip and glide when dancing. And as mentioned, Dyan Cannon is outstandingly attractive as another swindler sailing with her mother who thinks Walter is rich, while he thinks she is rich. Elaine Stritch plays Dyan's mother, another retread from the fifties. The most fun is the running feud between Brent Spiner as the domineering and snotty cruise director who immediately spots Walter as a poor dancer, and spends his time trying to get him dismissed so he will have to pay for his free passage. In the end, though he receives his comeuppances. Meanwhile Jack mopes about, meets an attractive woman, with mutual attraction, but their affair is broken up by Walter's lies that Jack is a doctor, when he was actually a retired department store buyer. But finally, the two men take to the sea in a rubber boat to intercept her seaplane and all is well. There does not seem to be any principal player under the age of fifty.

neg

test_193

pending

c69aae0c-91d2-480b-8b0f-e5a7cbbcca99

Let's not fool ourselves, okay? We all know that this film was made because of the success of the "Grumpy Old Men" movies. Unlike those, however, this travesty has zero humor and very little heart.<br /><br />Gloria DeHaven is the sole shining light to be seen. It breaks my heart that she was finally given the chance to show off her skills to a new generation of moviegoers, only to end up in a piece of dreck such as this. There was a touching scene which featured her being stood up by someone she was falling in love with. Her fine performance was the only quality acting going on in "Out To Sea". Everyone else is just going through the motions. 2/10

neg

test_194

pending

618fe726-8237-468f-be35-ee4b31dc6c1f

In 1904 Tangier, a wealthy American woman and her two children are kidnapped by Berbers, murderous desert pirates who scorn the Moroccan government and, by doing so, kidnap "American pestilence", which attracts the attention of U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt. Fictitious historical epic is less a grand adventure than it is a peculiar, somewhat exhaustive throwback to the desert-sheik films of the 1940s (with a bit of "The King and I" interjected, besides). Portraying the cloaked, mustachioed, bloodthirsty leader and his snippy, haughty captive, Sean Connery and Candice Bergen could be acting in two entirely different movies (neither one seems to know how far to carry the camp-elements of their characters and dialogue, and both seem singularly without proper direction). The various (and anonymous) slashings and beheadings which occur are arbitrary: we don't know any of these victims, and the big action scenes become blurry, noisy montages of sand-swept violence on horseback. The pluses: a much-lauded music score by Jerry Goldsmith (Oscar-nominated, but a loser to John Williams' "Jaws"), fine location shooting and cinematography. *1/2 from ****

neg

test_195

pending

488eb042-b641-4aec-b246-2e231313683a

Luscious Candace Bergen as a prim Victorian beauty, kidnapped by Sean Connery as a devilish desert Sheikh! How can you go wrong? How? Oh, let me count the ways!!! Earthy, primitive Sean Connery, exactly the right man to tame a brittle, classy beauty like Candace, is . . . well, underwhelming in the role. That's because, instead of having dialog about the real issues ("you are a woman . . . I am a man!") he has to babble nonsense about "the will of Allah" and "the wind blows destiny across the desert sands." John Milius, a director known more for the worship of naked male bodies and brute military force than any insight (or interest) in conventional human relationships, has a maddening way of cutting away from his desert lovers every time it looks like Candace might get kissed. Instead of watching nature take its course with two fabulously attractive people in a picturesque landscape, we are treated to endless, (and I do mean ENDLESS) shots of Brian Keith flashing his walrus sized choppers and delivering gritty sermons on the joys of being Teddy Roosevelt. I have nothing against Teddy Roosevelt, but watching him test out his new rifle or make speeches about the heroic death of a big bear just doesn't excite me the way the love story between Candace Bergen and Sean Connery would have . . . if it had ever actually gotten underway! The weird thing is, Milius spends most of his time building up characters and story lines that have no resolution. Candace's two little children in the story both get more screen time than she does. There's no humor, no chemistry, no sizzle, in any of the things that happen to her in the desert. Unless you think it's funny that after weeks of galloping around on horseback her hair is still perfect.<br /><br />The only "real" moment in the story is when, late at night, Candace Bergen shakes her little daughter out of a sound sleep on soft cushions and says, "we must escape." The little girl turns over and, without missing a beat, replies, "but mother, I was sleeping!" That one line sums up what's really missing from the story. No danger, suspense, or sizzle in the basic story line, of a cultivated lady in captivity. She (and her children) are both so snug and well cared for that it's hard to believe anyone is worked up about their fate.<br /><br />Mind you, if Candace herself had said the line it might have worked better. If the tension came from her enjoyment of her captivity, (or her delight at being in the arms of Sean Connery) and her guilt about all the trouble being caused by her abduction, then the story would have had some tension. But Milius makes the odd assumption that the audience is just as worked up as he is over whether Teddy Roosevelt will get the chance to prove his manhood three thousand miles away. In the end the pretty lady and her children don't seem to matter worth a damn to him . . . and since they're at the center of the story the whole thing seems rather dry and endless . . . like the burning desert sands.

neg

test_196

pending

ecee29e3-df42-4262-ad23-a4ae555b55d8

and I still don't know where the hell this movie is going? I mean really, what is this movie about? Is it about demonstrating Sean Connery's complete lack of Arabic? Is it about showing that if he could play the role of a Moroccan warlord then he was a natural to play the role of Ramirez in highlander? Why was Teddy Roosevelt even in this movie? Why was there so much sand that was put to so little use? Where was there so much table slapping? Why did Teddy ignore the Japanese guy who he was shooting archery with? Did he realize the man was Japanese? Why was no no credible excuse given for Connery's accent? At least Jean Claude Van Damme has an excuse for his French accent, whether it be being raised by French nuns in Hong Kong (Double Impact), being raised on the bayou in Louisiana (Universal Soldier), or having a French mother and being raised in Indochina (I cannot even remember the name of that movie)? Can anyone explain this?

neg

test_197

pending

9d4dea1e-aec8-4fe1-8420-651d172cb39e

I laughed so much when I saw this film I nearly soiled myself !. Awful acting, laughable effects (super imposed explosions), and dodgy slow motion fighting.<br /><br />One of the worst films I've ever seen !.

neg

test_198

pending

0029948f-a93c-4e08-9f36-5f8be401d246

Don't get me wrong. I really love the "arena-martial arts genre", and I get more and more surprised over how many films like this there are out there. This one is one of those, and it's not even close to be one of the best. With Mathias Hues in it, I thought it would be good. He can't save this movie though, and to be honest, he wasn't very good either. Just don't pay attention to what other people say; The fighting scenes in this movie are NOT good at all. I really know what I'm talking about, since I have seen so many movies like this. There are also a bunch of scenes that have absolutely nothing to do with the plot whatsoever. I guess they added these only to make the movie last a little bit longer, in addition to manifest the bad guy as,uuuuuuh.......bad (like we didn't know that already).

neg

test_199

pending

8bda9cbb-d955-4401-847c-de860895f254

This movie is not at all like City of God, you might get the same feeling but it isn't, there's no intense shooting nor intense drug scenes, you get the idea. If you ask me I think this film was a waste of time, there are a lot of other films which gives 100 times better meaning and teaching than "Wooden Camera". Yes I might be the only one to give a negative comment for this film but it's only in my opinion. It's one of those films where I can get the feeling that I'll be blown away but when the credits start to role my friends and I all gave mutual looks, and we all laughed at how ridiculous this movie was. So to conclude this matter, I advise not to watch it.<br /><br />Personal note - Making Africans talk English was a big mistake. In City of God they used their native language which gave the film much more power and reality.

neg