Datasets:

jfcalvo

/

imdb-from-dev-with-timestamps

like 0

test_9500

pending

e6484608-6eef-48fd-86bb-1845cb2b92e2

This very forced attempt to fuse Robert Altman and Quentin Tarantino (who is wildly overrated himself) is neither informative nor entertaining. The character development is arbitrary and unbelievable -- especially in the final scene of the thugs and the little boy, as other reviewers have noted. Also, a couple of humorous moments aside, the film is not as funny (black humor or otherwise) as the director seems to think it is.

neg

test_9501

pending

522972dd-008b-467c-ac76-c16d5bc45974

What I miss most of all in this film is that it lets no place for imagination, everything is said. It is like a documentary film, but not as good as a documentary, because it is no documentary. A patchwork film without a continuous story. Very superficial, nothing to think about, because the film tells you already what you are supposed to think. Too many different problems are touched but none is worked out in order to make you think. I do not even know if it is a funny film that wants to be serious or a serious film that wants to be funny. Many scenes are very unrealistic, and the acting is quite poor. The film is quite boring.

neg

test_9502

pending

904d1b04-1a91-4c23-b25a-56c1b61f839c

Well, I saw this movie during the last San Sebastian Film Festival. The reaction to it was...let's say as funny as the movie unintetionally is. It happened that they showed a copy with terribly wrong spanish subtitles. They seemed to be a translation from chinese to english and then to spanish. It was all confusing, the genders were switched (girls appeared as boys and boys as girls), and my friends and I remember great lines... but because they were so absurd. All in all not a good movie, but if they ever show it on tv, and you have nothing to do, and if you want to laugh (again, not so much with the movie) then go ahead, "Visible secret" is your film.

neg

test_9503

pending

f49c44f7-9d34-4e2d-b41b-83652a9886cb

Before I begin, let me get something off my chest: I'm a huge fan of John Eyres' first film PROJECT: SHADOWCHASER. The film, a B-grade cross of both THE TERMINATOR & DIE HARD, may not be the work of a cinematic genius, but is a hugely entertaining action film that became a cult hit (& spawned two sequels & a spin off).<br /><br />Judge and Jury begins with Joseph Meeker, a convicted killer who was sent to Death Row following his capture after the so-called "Bloody Shootout" (which seems like a poor name for a killing spree – Meeker kills three people while trying to rob a convenience store), being led to the electric chair. There is an amusing scene where Meeker talks to the priest about living for sex but meeting his one true love (who was killed during the shootout), expressing his revenge for the person who killed her – Michael Silvano, a washed-up football star who spends his days watching his son Alex practicing football with his high school team (and ends up harassing his son's coach). But once executed, Meeker returns as a revenant (or as Kelly Perine calls "a hamburger without the fries"), whose sole aim is to get his revenge, which basically means making Silvano's life a misery.<br /><br />Let me point out the fact that Judge and Jury is not a true horror film. It is a supernatural action film, with Meeker chasing Silvano, using his ability to change form (which amounts to David Keith dressing up as everything from an Elvis impersonator, a French chef (with an accent as bad as his moustache), a drag queen, a clown & a stand-up comedian), a shotgun which fires explosive rounds & an invulnerability to death (although that doesn't stop Martin Kove from shooting Keith with a Desert Eagle), to pay Silvano back for killing Meeker's wife.<br /><br />Director John Eyres does not seem interested in characterisations, instead focusing solely on action scenes, which the film has plenty of. But that is the film's main flaw, since there's nothing to connect the action scenes together. The acting is surprisingly good, with Keith delivering the best performance, supported ably by Kove, as well as Paul Koslo, who plays the washed-up cop quite well. Kelly Perine is annoying as the cabbie who tries to help but makes the situation worse.

neg

test_9504

pending

8c6755f7-8d85-4517-a0fd-1e62a885a791

If this is not heavily featured on every list of "what not to watch", it should only be because those keeping that particular list are not aware of its existence, which, as long as that remains so, is the acceptable alternative. I'm not kidding you, this is a *bad* "movie". Joseph Meeker returns from the dead, with various vague, undefined supernatural powers, the most employed of which would seem to be appearing in new, increasingly comical-looking and ridiculous(and never scary or creepy... in general, when this goes for the latter of those, it winds up just being bizarre, and attempts at the former just don't work, period) outfits and stereotypes/archetypes, and he is portrayed by David Keith(whom I respect in... well, at least Daredevil), doing a more often than not terribly inconsistent(which could also have to do with script) and often over the top performance. A character or two have personalities so unbelievably irritating that they're painful to watch. The editing thinks it's considerably more clever than it really is(and what on Earth was with the red tint for the flashbacks?). Cinematography... oh, dear. Framing, coverage, effective use of angle(that one could be attributed some to editing, too, perhaps), please, guys, stop me when I say something you've ever heard about the existence of. As far as the technical side goes, this is a pretty lousy excuse for something more worthwhile to put in the projector than unexposed film. But why stop there? The plot is just poor. The basic idea's been done, and it's been done so much better than this(The Crow would be one). The way it's told is gimmicky, and while there is some explanation behind the flashbacks, it still doesn't satisfy. Pacing is about non-existent. The lead is distinctly unlikeable, and there's more personality in a barn door, not to mention that those are also considerably less wooden. Kelly Perine and Thomas Ian Nicholas? What in the name of all that is good and just(pun intended) are you doing in this? Perine, you were already funny before this, on The Drew Carey Show, Nicholas, well, I haven't seen you in anything preceding American Pie, but if nothing else, you *were* funny later on, and in those productions, the amusement was intentional. Dialog is... the less said, the better. Language is unrestrained, and tends to be stupid. The violence is shoddily done, and they don't even seem to care to try to hide it(hinting at it might have been the smarter strategy). Characters, don't get me started. Why spend so much energy on portraying unexciting, at times utterly illogical, events? The more you think about this, the worse it gets. It's not even passable as a "bad horror flick", or a B movie(it may very well pass through the rest of the alphabet, and go further still), it couldn't scare you on the scariest day of your life if it had an electrified scaring machine. I recommend this only to people who want to disprove how bad this is, and don't say I didn't warn ya. 1/10

neg

test_9505

pending

ffd8a6c8-8041-4f5c-b369-860f9945d843

So much for JUDGE AND JURY, which lives up to its nonsense title. What good is there? The lighting is terribly foggy! Another horror movie you ask? Well, that's perfectly explainable. David Keith actually does pretty good at disguising clowns, chefs, and other shenanigans while being the killer who escaped death row. But overall, despite some new twists, it's reasonably stupid. Unapix has been putting out some ludicrous productions recently, and this one only means so much. We, the jury, find this film guilty for its indecent exposure to many of us sitting around believing it's a total waste of our time!

neg

test_9506

pending

7d36390d-23b5-4f13-bde8-36176512e0b2

I rented this thinking it would be pretty good just by the cover of the movie case. Judge and Jury started out pretty good killer chasing the man who killed his wife on a bike with a cool gun, but this movie got progressively stupider as it went on. David Keith is awesome actor especially when he plays a role like this too bad the movie was a piece of crap it really wasted his talent. Judge and Jury was well plain dumb I gave it a 3 should have gave it a 2, I gave it an extra star just because David Keith's gun was cool.

neg

test_9507

pending

4abe23fc-8b87-4842-abe4-0fa74643b4c2

It`s funny how instinct warns you of something . For example as soon as the company credits read Nu Image I knew instinctively I`d seen a really crap film by them somewhere before but couldn`t remember where . Nevertheless I just knew JUDGE AND JURY was going to be crap and it was . Maybe I`m psychic ?<br /><br />!!!! MILD SPOILERS !!!!<br /><br />The opening is rather violent with several people getting blown away for no more reason than being in the wrong place at the wrong time . I don`t know about you but I`m geting slightly fed up with exploitive violence onscreen nowadays along with bad language , especially if it`s spouted by actors as bad as the ones in this movie . Anyway the plot revolves around the bad dude getting executed and coming back to reek revenge on the man who shot his wife . Oh did I mention the bad dude and his wife murdered a couple of people on their wedding night ? Yeah he`s a serious badass mofo . In fact he`s so bad ( And I don`t mean the acting - I`ll get to that in a moment ) that he`s impossible to take seriously and this is before he`s executed only to return as Elton John , Elvis , a French chef etc . I wonder if Keith David got paid for this ? because he looks lke he`s having so much fun on screen that`s the only reason he`s playing the role . What a pity this reviewer didn`t have any fun whatsoever watching JUDGE AND JURY . Hey maybe the producers could send me Keith`s fee ? Gawd only knows I deserve it.<br /><br />I disliked this movie a lot as if you hadn`t guessed and my main beef isn`t with the stupid plot or the cheap production values but with its attitude to violence . If like me you`ve had a wine bottle cracked over your head or been kicked in the ribs very hard several times you`ll know violence is an obscene painful thing , but JUDGE AND JURY will have you believe that if you`re thrown through a window , crash through some bannisters and fall twenty odd feet onto a table not only will you be unhurt but you`ll be able to outrun a couple of rabid devil dogs . It could of course be argued that any film starring Sly , Arnie or Bruce also suffers from this same dishonest showing of violence but with JUDGE AND JURY it yanked my chain

neg

test_9508

pending

87f5d15e-7528-49da-9701-2d7fcc5a9f3d

It goes without saying that a modicum of allowances has to be made when a true story is being adapted for the big screen. But if you shoot a fairy tale that has next to nothing to do with what actually happened - why call it Bugsy and make the audience believe this was a halfway true story? The Godfather trilogy processes many real characters and events, Once Upon A Time In America does it, too, but they don't claim to be telling true stories.<br /><br />* SPOILER*<br /><br />In the movie, Benny has this grand vision of a gambler's Eldorado; in real life Lansky had to argue him into going to Nevada. Benny deemed the notion of a counterpart to Monte Carlo idiotic, and he'd have preferred to continue his life as a playboy in L.A. Not until much later Benny warmed to the idea. But of course he's the hero of the movie, so naturally the idea had to be his.<br /><br />In the movie, Benny wants to use Count diFrasso to get close to Mussolini in order to assassinate him because he was Hitler's partner, and Hitler killed jews in gas chambers, after all. Obviously we're supposed to like Benny, so the screenwriters invented this nonsense. In real life, at that time nobody knew about the gas chambers, least of all Benny who was completely uninterested in politics. In fact he did use the countess' connection and he did visit Mussolini, but not to kill him, but to sell explosives to him. He even met Goebbels and Goering during his sojourn in Italy.<br /><br />The whole Greenberg subplot was nonsense. Greenberg didn't turn stool pigeon, he didn't seek refuge with Benny, Benny didn't kill him (that was up to Albert Tannenbaum)... at least they got the name right.<br /><br />I guess it was supposed to be very romantic to have Virginia return to Benny, offering him the money she had stolen. The movie even goes so far to tell us via text panels that she ruefully returned the money to Lansky after Benny's assassination. Let me just say, revisionism just doesn't get more impudent than this.<br /><br />This list is by no means exhaustive - there's the issue with Benny's family not living in L.A, the way Benny deals with Dragna and Adonis, the portrayal of Costello (a disagreeable corporate type), Lansky (a lovable teddy bear), Benny himself (an aging windbag who wouldn't have reached age 12 if he had regularly gone "bugsy" in situations like those in the movie, and what's more, who neither has the good looks nor the charisma of Benny Siegel) and many others. Apart from a few hard facts nothing's right in this flick.<br /><br />* SPOILERS END HERE*<br /><br />All in all, this is the one mafia movie that manages to be even more ridiculously bad than Harlem, NY. But honor where honor is due: This is a feat in itself.

neg

test_9509

pending

5d5c34d6-9f36-4385-a792-0b710c17e02f

The reality of the mafia environment is absolutely dog-eat-dog where a gangster will be killed for showing any sign of weakness because they become a liability. I've got no problem with the human side of gansters' being portrayed but Bugsy steers too far in the direction of soft, comical, men. The film is enjoyable but is only light entertainment and not a biopic of a man who, though exciting, was extremely dangerous and fearsome.<br /><br />The acting's all good and the direction very solid. The locations and era are very well represented and the themes very interesting. Did Bugsy really want to kill Mussoulini?

neg

test_9510

pending

c3d8f802-4de7-4b22-bf85-4cd2acea5caa

Not as bad as "Billy Bathgate" but close. Try as he might, Warren Beatty just could not be believed as Bugsy. Whenever he flipped out, instead of being shocked by the violence, I found it pretty embarrassing because it was so phony. The other actors don't fare as well either. Annette Bening just doesn't have what it takes to play seductive women, she is better off with safe characters. As many have noted, Joe Mantegna would have fared better if the script had him as a more believable George Raft. Only Harvey Keitel emerged unscathed, but then again this guy can do these movies in his sleep. And Robert Beltran, with just one line, steals one of the big Beatty, Bening scenes. With these films, I'm never sure if the director is intent on making the mobsters seem like normal businessmen or if it just comes out that way. Either way, I don't like it. These guys were killers and no matter how much Las Vegas is indebted to Bugsy Siegel, I don't think that a movie should be made glorifying the guy, especially one with a big studio backing.

neg

test_9511

pending

cf339380-caed-40e5-98a2-aaf90ef59f20

A tedious gangster film that leaves you wishing someone had edited it farce more ruthlessly. I would have thought that the story of the creation of Las Vegas would prove interesting but it fails at almost every turn. Warren Beatty's performance as the stupid and unlikeable Bugsy Seigel leaves you wishing you were watching someone else. Once or twice he flashes through the fog of his performance to deliver an interesting scene but most of the time you just can't care about him. Annette Benning gives a skilled turn as his untrustworthy lover but even she's only faintly more savoury than he is.<br /><br />I really wouldn't bother with this turgid drama unless you're a Benning devotee.

neg

test_9512

pending

2da31f60-f2d5-4e3f-9475-5ec0ad139d3b

Bugsy Siegel was 31 when he went out to the West Coast. In addition to his dreams about Las Vegas, he toyed with the idea of acting. He was a good looking guy and about 7 years younger than his pal George Raft, so it wasn't such a crazy idea.<br /><br />Warren Beatty was 54 when he made this movie and despite the hair dye, he's too old for this part. Beatty was miscast; Bugsy should have been played by someone like Alec Baldwin. Bugsy was a tough guy feared by his contemporaries; Beatty just doesn't radiate menace.<br /><br />This was a vanity project for Beatty, who hasn't come to terms with the fact that he's no longer a leading man.<br /><br />The other big annoying miscast is Mantegna as George Raft. Raft had a distinctive voice and mannerisms, none of which Mantegna even attempts to match. You never once believe that Mantegna came from the streets.<br /><br />Warren Beatty and Robert Redford have both been pretending to be younger for years by massive use of hair dye, and now it;ll be a shock to suddenly go gray and play character parts.

neg

test_9513

pending

154497ea-c335-4ccb-bc72-11997285461b

My girlfriend wanted to see this (lol this is the case a lot)...so I rented it. Then I saw how acclaimed this was nominated for 10 Oscars. GREAT! this should be good ol' drama. This movie had a lot of potential...the direction and the way everything was paced was very well. But once the movie ended, I couldn't help but ask myself if this story was really worth making a film for. Virginia Hill (Annette Bening) was EXTREMELY annoying, I just couldn't tolerate her character at all. Warren Beatty was excellent in the film acting-wise, but again I just found it hard to have sympathy for his character....he just came off essentially as a idiotic, hotheaded loser of a gangster..who had no place in 'the life' in the first place. How'd he get in with the likes of Meyer Lansky and Lucky Luciano anyway??? This film just left me with a bland but uneasy feeling...what was the big deal with this movie? I just didn't feel a completeness with Bugsy. Beatty's antics, although acted quite well, just seemed too random and illogical. I'm guessing that's how Siegel really was....but it was just too much of that. There just didn't seem to be much of a real story here. My basic assessment of it would be <br /><br />"a hot-headed, playboy, underachieving gangster falls in love with a loser of a woman, comes up with the idea of 'Las Vegas'....but his failed attempt at the casino he builds, along with having no regard for his mob bosses' money gets him killed."<br /><br />What else is there besides that? I just didn't see the big deal with this, and it was a big disappointment. There must've not been many movies to come out in 1991, how this was nominated for 10 Oscars is beyond me (although the two it won is justifiable). 1.5/4 stars.

neg

test_9514

pending

3ec12db8-8998-4017-9d82-cc2709ec1a8a

The movie was supposed to release in 2002 and was much awaited due to the promos but it finally released in 2003 after the producer died<br /><br />The movie is good in parts but overall isn't great<br /><br />The scenes between Rani and Ajay are okay but the other scenes are not well handled<br /><br />The film is too similar to BOLLYWOOD Hollywood and though this was planned before that got released first so originality is lost<br /><br />Milan Luthria disappoints overall after KACHCHE DAAGE<br /><br />Music is good but too many songs<br /><br />Ajay Devgan looks jaded and his appearance gives away that the film was delayed and his acting looks boring too Rani is good Sonali is good too rest are okay

neg

test_9515

pending

17c6e2ae-4d2a-436b-81ef-2ecf65c8f1e8

I was on a British Airways flight from London to New York when I saw this movie. I wish I could have fallen asleep. The story line was very thin and the editing crew did their best to stretch it out as long as they did.<br /><br />Gary, played by Andy Garcia, was such an unlikable character that I found it hard to be supportive of him. Andy's acting ability is good but not good enough to make up for the poor writing in this movie.<br /><br />Andie MacDowell did a fine job with her portrayal of Linda, Gary's romantic interest. I can not say anything bad about Andie, I always enjoy her acting. The problem here is that the romance between Andy and Andie is so far fetched and unbelievable. The two do not make a good pair on the big screen.<br /><br />The end of the movie was almost as much of a let down as the movie itself. A nod from the Pope and all is forgiven, come on. The event that allows this movie to have a some what happy ending and that the writers would expect us to accept it is pathetic. Gary does not change and only by the death of a dear friend does his situation get better.<br /><br />There are tons of great movies that should be seen before this one. Don't waste your time.<br /><br />

neg

test_9516

pending

7228e432-9ce7-4811-ae22-705464da4b5c

A trite fish-out-of-water story about two friends from the midwest who move to the big city to seek their fortune. They become Playboy bunnies, and nothing particularly surprising happens after that. The final 15 minutes are especially cheesy. But at least the Bunnies looked good...

neg

test_9517

pending

ea6ca485-496e-48c0-8557-a369508a324f

What's the point of this film? It's totally forgettable. Unless you have a serious bunny fetish, look elsewhere. So the bunnies had a merit/demerit list. No chewing gum in front of the customers. Are we supposed to find that interesting?

neg

test_9518

pending

dd25ae59-9359-47af-bd24-703855c6a7e1

Boston Blackie movies have some strengths -- mostly in that the pacing is swift and the hero is cheerfully unfazed in even the worst circumstances. But the plotting is frequently atrocious, and the unrelenting comic bits often kill the pacing (if the plot happens to be atypically good) or are just unfunny and inappropriate.<br /><br />This one involves Blackie chasing an escapee from the asylum (Steve Cochran in a really poor performance) who has become fixated on beautiful Nina Foch (who puts in a nice, rather subtle acting job). Inspector Farraday, of course, believes Blackie has gone homicidal maniac (he at least has some evidence in this one for that), and is incompetently trying to jail him as Blackie goes after the real killer. The plot has possibilities, but any time any real tension gets going, we a get a not funny comedy routine. It doesn't seem like anyone at Columbia understood that, in a movie about a pursuit of a really dangerous maniac, cute little comedy scenes about hiding an inconvenient body from the inspector disrupt any willing suspension of disbelief. (One just concludes our clever hero is an idiot -- deadly for a film like this.) <br /><br />This one is not worth the time. For a well plotted episode of this series, see Alias Boston Blackie.

neg

test_9519

pending

9f80a843-9038-40b3-8510-68bda38d348e

I just saw this early this morning on the Fox channel quite by accident (my dog woke me up) - I had seen it years ago and thought I remembered it fairly well. As a kid, I had enjoyed it. But now? As another poster commented, several of the reels were out of order, and while it was disorienting at first, and bizarre, it seemed to fit the production - what was just awful became surreal and amusing. Musical numbers for what I think was the "big" fundraiser show("you're in show business, I'm in show business, most of the kids are in show business, let's put on a show")come out of nowhere BEFORE all the talk about putting on a show, and then fade without applause to totally unrelated "straight" scenes. The leading man's girlfriend shows up, spits out lines and lines of dialogue, then disappears. I was half awake, and loved every insane minute of it.

neg

test_9520

pending

89a49909-1cef-48ab-a8c9-23ece080fe70

This is one for the Golden Turkey book. It's another of those "putting on a show" flicks. The dialogue is turgid. The music is terrible. The costumes may be the worst ever. And the Nick Castle choreography is hilariously dreadful. Check it out, oh ye who love bad flicks. Only Perry Como is tolerable.

neg

test_9521

pending

efe0c39f-22d0-4331-a783-24da6f3839b1

SPOILER ALERT<br /><br />A cliché-riddled film that somehow makes an anti-death with dignity statement, though it attempts to do the opposite. Washington is a paralyzed forensics officer who has been suffering and wanting to die for the past four years (apparently he wrote his huge selling book only a year ago though, so it hasn't all be despair). He arranges for an assisted suicide with his doctor who will return in a week.<br /><br />In the meantime, he helps out on a serial killer case. He recruits the gutsy, I don't wanna do it, but I'm just so good at it, cop Jolie, and they track down impossible clue jumping to highly unlikely conclusions in matters of moments. Hey, that old bolt means that the killer has the millionaire's wife in a steam tunnel by the old Woolworth building. Shyeah, right. It's laughable. Yet no is smart enough to figure out that doctor who's going to assist him is the killer.<br /><br />When he comes to Washington to murder him (ahead of schedule), he has a change of heart and struggles unbelievably for his life. Cut to the obligatory bad guy about to shoot the good guy scene when BANG the gun goes off--- but the bad guy didn't fire! No the woman steps out of the corner, she has just shot him in the back.

neg

test_9522

pending

588abd36-bcde-4d14-88c0-f9b9b2faaf3e

The storyline has too many flaws and illogical sequences to be worthwhile. Jolie's acting is pretty flat and poor, Washington's is OK, the rest of the cast are cardboard cutouts. Somehow almost everything about this film oozes mediocrity. The plot is lame. The only thing I liked more or less about this film are the fairly original methods the perpetrator uses to end his victims. Technical details are worse than the most far-stretched CSI 'knowledge' and gizmos and halfway the movie one wonders if the director even cared about detail credibility. (Some Spoilers hereafter!) I mean, an EKG machine with a pure sinus wave reflecting a man's heartbeat, a quadriplegic with full body muscle spasms and one working index finger, sure. A killer gutting a man's bowels whilst keeping him alive to allow the rats to feast on him followed by a rat aiming for the guy's FACE! What's with all that stupidity? Then there are quite a few continuity goofs, but you can find those elsewhere here on IMDb Honestly I found it a bit of an insult even to my limited intelligence.<br /><br />Waste of time. Still 4 out of 10 to keep my girlfriend from kicking me.

neg

test_9523

pending

6de51dce-2602-48c3-89d1-5f0f76c05288

*Criticism does mention spoilers*<br /><br />I rarely make user comments, but this is one movie I have no problem slandering. This movie stinks, and its mediocre of rating of 6 and a half stars is probably too high for such pulp. The Bone Collector is not at all the same calibre of film that Silence of the Lambs or Seven were, despite what its ad claims. This is a perfect example of how not to make a thriller. The pace of this movie was extremely slow- I actually left for about 10 minutes half-way through and came back at the exact scene with the exact same character with absolutely no progression (I refer to you the part where Angelina Jolie's character debates Denzel about cutting off a corpse' hands). The movie is not at all scary, but tries to compensate this with a love-subplot albeit sexy Angelina Jolie's character and Denzel Washington's. Of course, what you get is something comparable to that of the mentor-student relationship as seen in the brillian epic Silence of the Lambs with Hannibal Lecter and Starling, however, even this lacks all effectiveness and I was personally routing for the villain to kill Denzel off so as to avoid hackneyed giggles between the two. With such a crappy movie, I was half-expecting a plot-twist or some sort of spectacular situation to occur at the end to give the movie some credit- things that mediocre movies like Arlington Road and Scream pulled off. Anybody with a 4th grade education can see the ending how will be resolved ( a situation which mimicks Alfred Hitchcock's Rear Window). The cliche of having the killer explain his motives was uninspired enough, but the reason was so ridiculous and stupid it had me spewing latte over the screen. Esoterically speaking, I even think the murderer's intention was completely lost as Denzel happily recovers from his loss over the proverbial 'chess game' and gets with his pet project, Angelina.<br /><br />If you are a fan of movies with original ideas and genuinely dynamic concepts (like I am), you will not appreciate this film. If you have not attended a single movie in your life and would like to catch-up on every single Hollywood cliche ever borne (the late-night knock on the window from somebody else but the murderer, the ridiculous serial-killer to prime investigator relationship, the horrible 'woman trying to get by in an all-male dominated workforce aka SOTL) , see this movie....but even then its too slow-paced and you'd be bored.

neg

test_9524

pending

518ebbb5-58a9-4cd2-803a-a4b92c0ec2b6

I can envision the writers of this story thinking up this script:<br /><br />1.Let's make a serial killer movie like Se7en, Knight Moves, Copycat, and Silence of the Lambs. People like serial killer stuff. It'll sell... 2.The killer needs to adopt some sort of pattern. I know; he'll copy it out of a serial killer mystery novel. That hasn't been done yet, at least not exactly like that. 3.Now, we need some kind of way to make this movie unique; of course, the good guy can be bedridden like in Rear Window. 4.Lastly, we need a twist ending that will give this movie the success of The Sixth Sense and The Usual Suspects.<br /><br />Okay, now that you know these things, you know the whole movie, so don't waste your money. One thing I really hate about moviemakers is that they take a perfectly good concept for movies and completely run them into the ground. I wrote better stories than this when I was in Junior High. I just kept checking my watch every five minutes. When the twist ending finally came, I wasn't shocked, I just said, "Oh. Who cares?!" The characters are two-dimensional. They have your typical movie personalities. This movie is just proof that stealing the elements of other successful movies is no excuse for a bad script. I give this movie 1 out of 10. Normally, it would earn at least 2 or 3, but I'm so sick of the unoriginality. When will they learn? 1/10

neg

test_9525

pending

50df2619-53f3-4e54-bb9f-ad73a7e25cfc

The Bone Collector is set in New York City & starts as one of the world's foremost criminologist's & crime scene experts Lincoln Rhyme (Denzel Washington) is involved in an accident which leaves him a bedridden quadriplegic. Jump forward four years & Alan (Gary Swanson) & his wife Lindsay Rubin (Olivia Birkelund) are kidnapped, soon after New York cop Amelia Donaghy (Angelina Jolie) is called to a crime scene & finds the buried & mutilated body of Alan. Amelia notices some unusual crime scene evidence & makes a note of it which impresses Rhyme when he is asked to work on the case, he quickly realises the evidence are in fact cryptic clues to the whereabouts of Lindsay. Having cracked the clues the cops get there too late to save her but this is just the beginning as a sadistic serial killer continues to kill & leave forensic clues for Rhyme & the police...<br /><br />Directed by Phillip Noyce I watched The Bone Collector last night & I have to say it's one of the worst big budget post The Silence of the Lambs (1991) & Se7en (1995) serial killer thrillers I have seen, in fact it makes Friday the 13th (1980) look sophisticated & realistic! The script by Jeremy Iacone was based on the book by Jeffery Deaver & is so poor on so many levels I hardly know where to begin. For a start it takes itself deadly seriously & that makes all the other flaws seem twice as bad. The character's are truly awful & I didn't believe any of them were actual human beings. First we have Lincoln Rhyme who is paralysed from the neck down & there's just not a lot the script can do with him, in fact he quite literally can't do anything but lie in bed for the whole film. He is seemingly impressed with Amelia because she stopped a train & thought a fresh footprint near a murdered person might be of relevance, I'm not being funny here but wouldn't any cop realise a footprint near a murder victim might be of some relevance? Why is he so impressed with her? Then there's Capatin Cheney who is not only unlikable & shouts at everyone for no apparent reason but is so incompetent that he failed to connect several murders committed in a short space of time where each victim had sections of flesh & skin surgically removed from their bodies, how exactly did this guy get to be a police Captain? Then there's the killer whose motives are less than plausible, are you trying to tell me they devised an intricate plan to murder at least seven people because they spent six years in jail for something they actually did? If they wanted revenge on Rhyme why did they kill all those other people who had no connection to anything, I could maybe just about buy someone wanting revenge against the guy who put them away but not to kill several other people who have no connection to themselves, the intended target Rhyme anything else. Also after devising an intricate plan to kill these people & get away with it they suddenly turn into the most stupid person in history as despite holding a large knife & being able to walk & use their arms they are actually defeated & nearly killed by a quadriplegic who has no movement in his body below his neck! How did that happen? I should also mention Amelia who is a terrible character, she actually buys her own camera to take crime scene photo's & shoots rats for no apparent reason.<br /><br />Besides some of the worst written character's ever the story & plot isn't much better We never find out why the killer is using The Bone Collector book as inspiration We never find out why the killer was taking strips of flesh from his victims. It's never explained why a rookie cop like Amelia is allowed to enter crime scenes even before the proper forensic teams. There is no reason given for why the killer chooses his victims. Also the killers clues are a little obscure aren't they? I mean a bloody animal bone & shaved rat hair? Logically how does someone go from a bone & rat hair to the exact pinpoint location of the next victim & has the whole of New York to choose from? There's some nonsense about a bird that sits on Rhymes window ledge which is just totally random & at almost two hours The Bone Collector is really slow going. There is so much wrong with The Bone Collector & it all comes down to one of the worst scripts ever, it's atrocious on all levels & has zero credibility. Apparently Angelina Jolie has stated that she shot nude scenes for this film but they were cut because they were felt to be too distracting.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $48,000,000 The Bone Collector is well made with good production values & that Hollywood gloss about it. I also must add right now that I think Angelina Jolie gives one of the worst performances I have ever seen, I think she is absolutely terrible in this. Denzel Washington just sort of lies there really, Queen Latifah is awful & even Michael Rooker can't do much as he is stuck with a clichéd & one dimensional character.<br /><br />The Bone Collector has to be one of the worst Hollywood films I have seen in a while, I saw it for free on telly last night & I still feel cheated & ripped-off. There are just so many things to poke holes at it's silly, embarrassingly awful or should that be awfully embarrassing? Works either way to be honest...

neg

test_9526

pending

a065e43f-a539-4305-880f-9c05d5195782

Am I the only person who thinks that the entire Forensics and Scenes Of Crime community in the USA must detest this almighty slap in their faces. A rookie cop is first to a crime scene where her back up is so slow to respond that she has time to send the kid who found the body to the local store to buy a disposable camera. By the time he returns (still no senior cops, SOCOs or other assistance for the lovely Jolie - this is New York isn't it??) it has started raining and she gets to work photographing the evidence, only after she'd stood in front of an Amtrak to stop it disturbing the scene.<br /><br />I want to know the name of that camera as the photographs were so incredibly detailed that no amount of zooming in distorted the images!! The horror continues:- not in the film itself (pretty ordinary I'm afraid) but in the Lincoln Rhyme character as played by Mr Washington. This man is a highly dedicated Forensic Crime Scene Examiner with years of experience who, instead of the highly trained but invisible local Crime Scene Examiners, entrusts the work to an untrained cop, a rookie cop, who proceeds to find the very obviously placed clues and move them before photographing them thus contaminating every item and making DNA profiling well nigh impossible. Now that was a bright idea eh? I know one should be able to suspend disbelief to a degree but those who say this film is intelligent must have entirely disengaged their ability to think in order to find this film believable.<br /><br />I have given this film 4/10 for the superb acting of Denzel Washington and for Miss Jolie's lips which are the only items requiring my disbelief to be suspended!

neg

test_9527

pending

b9bdd925-5ba3-4eb1-be07-7fde9a74da5b

I wouldn't recommend this to anyone, except cinema-goers who like to laugh at a film, not with it.<br /><br />Quite a promising premise and set of actors get progressively worse over a film which ends with perhaps the worst ending ever seen in a film. I won't spoil it, but basically the most over-used set of movie cliches get done badly and half heartedly for the most disappointing last five minutes to any film, ever.<br /><br />The movie also includes the most cringe inducing scene ever, the attempt at on-screen chemistry between the two lead roles when we're presented with a close up of Angela Jolie stroking Denzel Washington's finger lovingly. It may be the only thing he could move, but quite why the viewer is treated to a zoom of Washington's finger getting stroked amidst the kind of dimmed lights and music appropriate for a sex scene is beyond me. I laughed out loud and shook my head.<br /><br />The direction of the storyline borrows heavily from Se7en, but here it is executed far more simplistically, and far too obviously. To call it a poor-mans Se7en would be an understatement, this really is nothing more than a made for TV movie and even Jolie and Washington's best efforts can't convince that this is a box office film.

neg

test_9528

pending

ae94bea5-d75d-4d3a-8466-1d03de50de39

A formulaic story with all the tired cliches. I was shocked that the horrible script became a movie! What a waste! How many ORIGINAL scripts are scattered around without being produced? <br /><br /> At the climax I could predict what will happen in every single shot.<br /><br /> Oh, and don't even get me started about the idiotic sexual tension between the gorgeous female cop and the paralyzed cop who can barely move a finger. YEAH RIGHT. I CAN BUY THAT. What next? Fingers porn?

neg

test_9529

pending

b8779376-909b-44af-81b0-52a450e807b8

Wow -- this movie was really bad! You talk about formulaic, typical movie plot? Watching this movie was like hitting my head repeatedly against a brick wall. The transitions kept trying to be cool but failed. The plot twist at the end, where we find out who the bad guy is was unexpected, but doesn't make much sense until his monologue. Even then... The amount of gore in this movie doesn't help either. Are all of those images necessary? My last complaint is about the plausibility of chunks of the movie. Would the PD really send a lone officer into an unlit warehouse, subway tunnel, or wherever to find a body, when the location of the perp is unknown? And why does the romance at the end just kind of happen all of a sudden? It's like the writer was trying to fit in every Hollywood cliche he could. Don't waste your time seeing this piece of... something.

neg

test_9530

pending

a4c90bf9-3bd3-42b1-ab70-3370e54c934f

If a copy of this movie fell into the wrong hands, the world would be in grave danger. I am a huge fan of "B" movies, and I have seen my share of bad ones, but there is not a letter in the alphabet that could adequately describe this rancid piece of solidified puke. This movie even surpasses the "so bad it's good" phase and goes straight on to the "so bad your world will seem a little less meaningful for having watched it" phase.<br /><br />It is hard to say what is more disturbing: .1. The fact that the people who wrote this thought their political satire (I use the term very, very, very loosely) was witty enough to film .2. They were able to find so many other people who agreed with them enough to work on this garbage for obviously little or no money .3. That someone actually thought it would be a good idea to pick this crap up for distribution on a horror anthology DVD.<br /><br />Were I a weaker man, I most likely would have jammed grapefruit spoons into my eyes and then blindly flung myself to my death in oncoming traffic after watching this. As it stands though, I live ,but I am forever scarred by the experience.

neg

test_9531

pending

34ea0e10-ec03-4b42-9485-83a91269fff5

Move over Manos. Back off Boogens. It doesn't take a Baby Genius to know that Malibu Beach Vampires (MBV for the rest of this tome) is now and always will be (unless someone makes a sequel to Zarkorr The Invader) the worst film ever. The only horror in this thing is watching it. I wonder if this was an attempt for someone to meet babes by casting a movie. If this was the case, the babes ain't babes just like this ain't a movie. It's dreck. No wait. I dishonor the word dreck by calling it dreck. Ulli Lommel (of Boogey Man fame) would call it "uber dreck" or Scheiße. It should be used to torture prisoners. If you find it on a shelf in a video store, back away from it quietly and notify the authorities.

neg

test_9532

pending

17679fa0-b11d-43ab-983b-35514ccac65d

....is where I'm assuming this movie came from. I mean, I've watched plenty of B movies over the course of my young life so far, and I wouldn't even classify this as a B movie. I remember seeing films in my high school mass media class that surpass this one.<br /><br />So the premise is...a bunch of dancing numbers and goofy crap happens. Women in bikinis, who aren't even that great looking to begin with, dance in the beginning and sing. Guys with hairy chests show up and girls with fangs who are out in the sunlight. I mean, I can barely put together a cohesive sentence just thinking about this movie. According to most people on this site, Manos the Hands of Fate and Pod People are the worst movies (MST3K classics :-D)...I used to be one of them. Then I saw this movie. Usually I don't try to trash a movie too much, but the people who made this really do deserve it. It is THAT bad and THAT unbearable, and I'm assuming the director or an actor in the movie is the only person who rated this a ten.

neg

test_9533

pending

621ec445-3b7c-4a11-b084-74185981725b

OK - say some college in southern California has an movie making class. And some dudes were enrolled just to film girls, and they gave them a camera. And then they were drunk/stoned/ or just to plain stupid to actually use a camera, and they turned this in for their grade. AND FAILED.<br /><br />That is my only explanation for this, this, thing. Good God they left the date and time counter on during some of it. The picture started in new scene way before the sound, and forget about a plot. Well apparently there was one and they had to tell you all about it once the 3 hour introduction sequence was finished. But I am glad they did because I never would have gotten it by watching this.<br /><br />STAY AWAY from this.

neg

test_9534

pending

91ad05e3-b19d-4bdb-9690-70154fa0c675

I like bad films, but this thing is a steaming heap. From the shaky cameramen to the horrible sound and devastating acting, don't waste a second on this pile. Fifth graders could have made a better film and first graders could have written a better script. Want a real synopsis? Ugly chicks in neon bikinis dancing for way too long. A disjointed plot made worse by hideous acting. The on-location sets weren't even passable. The church scenes take place in a dance studio, and oh yeah - what's with the two tap-dance numbers that come up out of the blue?<br /><br />Oh, and the total number of naked breasts, which couldn't have even saved this film - 0. Add this one to the trash heap.

neg

test_9535

pending

471b790d-6ba6-4a70-b883-dd10786b8875

Wow! After the first five minutes of watching this "film", I was quite tempted to put a bullet in my brain, and end my life. It's really hard to describe what exactly this film is about. I honestly don't know what kind of human being would even finance a piece of excrement. The film looks to have either been shot on video or 16mm. I normally don't have a problem with SOV movies, are shoddily made 16mm films, but this was just so awful. And where did they find these "actresses"? I have seen some bad acting, but this takes the cake. Watch the first 5 minutes and you'll see what I mean. BCI Entertainment should be boycotted for distributing this god awful sludge. This has to be the worst film I have ever had the displeasure of viewing. I want my 74 minutes back! If you are able to sit through the first 5 minutes, without either shooting your TV or committing mass homicide, then give a shot. After all, what have you got to lose?

neg

test_9536

pending

cde214c2-ff1e-45b1-8c5b-de0e13c0ba9b

THE OTHER is a supposed "horror" movie made during the 1970s. It is not to be confused with the similarly titled THE OTHERS, which starred Nicole Kidman.<br /><br />The plot is as follows - a woman with strange supernatural powers teaches her twin grandsons something referred to simply as "the game". One of these twin boys - Niles - is supposed to be "good". The other one - Holland - is supposed to be evil.<br /><br />The idea sounds interesting enough as an abstract concept and the movie was adapted from a novel. I can only hope the novel was interesting as the movie was incredibly boring from beginning to end.<br /><br />The execution of this movie is very much like a TV movie of the kind UK residents might see on Channel 5. In fact, this movie looks like it was made to be the daytime afternoon movie for this TV channel. A slight trimming to one or two scenes and this would be a U-rated movie of the kind Disney produce. But even the youngest of children are more likely to be bored than scared by THE OTHER.<br /><br />You don't need to check out the director's CV to realise horror is not his forte.<br /><br />Mr. Mulligan relies heavily upon the characters to drive the story. This is obvious from the get-go. I haven't seen any of his other movies but TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD is a highly regarded crime movie on this site. Unfortunately in THE OTHER, the characters are given too little to do and the plodding script ensures the movie never really takes off in the way one might expect.<br /><br />The direction is as bland as you could possibly find. Almost every single scene takes place in the daytime! Think about this - a scene shot in the open landscape in rural America during daytime with the camera focusing on vast area. Does it sound scary or atmospheric? Believe me, it isn't. It comes across as something more akin to an episode of LITTLE HOUSE ON THE PRAIRIE than a horror movie. And yes, both the aforementioned TV series and THE OTHER were shot in California.<br /><br />There is a noticeable absence of danger or malice that makes the whole exercise seem rather pointless.<br /><br />The ending was clearly meant to be highly disturbing and perhaps influenced that of another movie from this time period. I won't reveal which movie but I'll give 2 clues - a young boy was a main character and the movie is well-known. And I'll add that the concept was used to much greater effect in the latter movie.<br /><br />The acting is actually quite good and is the only reason why I have awarded 2 stars. The actors playing the twin boys, along with the actress playing the grandmother, all try hard with the poor material they are given.<br /><br />Diana Muldaur is completely wasted in a thankless role as the mother of the twin boys. Do not be fooled by her high billing on the cast list. She gets very little screen time and her presence just comes across as a ploy to cash-in on her long established TV career in order to help attract TV viewers.<br /><br />I paid careful attention to the blurb on the back of the DVD cover (of the Region 2 version in the UK). Comparisons were made to THE EXORCIST, which I thought was a complete insult to that movie. There is no comparison. THE EXORCIST had everything this movie should contain but does not - suspense, tension, tongue-in-cheek humour, highly disturbing content, great acting, superb characterisation and viewer involvement. Ironically, THE EXORCIST was made only a year later but in terms of style and execution seems like decades ahead of the bland drama known as THE OTHER. THE OTHER comes across as a work that would have seemed tame in the 1950s let alone the 1970s!<br /><br />The 1970s was a great era for horror movies with classics such as THE EXORCIST, THE OMEN, THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE, THE LEGEND OF HELL HOUSE, SALEM'S LOT to name just a few being produced. For this reason, THE OTHER proves an even greater disappointment.<br /><br />If anyone finds the synopsis of THE OTHER interesting, they might want to read the book or do a little more research on what the book was about. I would advice everyone to skip the movie.

neg

test_9537

pending

9dfc0d21-2bf3-47c6-b7f4-4c8477e43958

What a waste of talent -- although it appears that Crudup in real life is a lot more like the vapid, self- absorbed, character-less character he portrays in this disappointing movie.<br /><br />In art, sometimes the empty spaces reveal more than the painted or created content. What this movie reveals is the unconsciousness and the contradictory/competing, unresolved impulses/consciousness of the film's director/writer. It unintentionally shows the LACK of awareness that a truly evolved, deeply aware character should have and be tormented about in order to deserve audience empathy or sympathy OR the lack of which is used to serve as a cautionary tale to the audience. But this film fails on either level in that regard.<br /><br />The fact that Cal, the main character (very much an ANTagonist, not a protagonist in the true sense of the word), has no empathy for anyone, especially those most deserving of it (which does NOT include him) and that he has such overblown, entitled, self-pitying, whiney sympathy only for himself, combined with the hallmark lack of remorse and no sense of guilt or awareness of his impact on others -- all converge in this film to make him the epitome of the self-involved, developmentally arrested, narcissistic sociopath -- somehow this is now the gold standard for males on film and in the world at this point and time. <br /><br />One of his counterpoints (James LeGros) states with a laser-true flash: "I bet you haven't done one good thing in life -- and I bet you won't". It captures the absolute essence of the Cal character. Something the other characters he bulldozes over in the film seem to realize fairly quickly despite the director having stacked the deck to manipulate sympathy for Cal. That is a testament to the supporting cast's talent and skills.<br /><br />Cal's eventual 'return' has nothing to do with character development, transformation or evolution of consciousness. It has only to do with the ultimate capitulation that until something better comes along, he may as well be back in his comfy cozy status quo of entitled enablement where the living is easy and no one will demand that he grow up--something of which he is willfully incapable and uninterested in doing.<br /><br />The film could have been pointed and intentional about showing the traps and tragedies -- the devastating effects of this kind of lack of conscience/ consciousness, but it excuses and glorifies it instead -- in fact, it wallows in self-pity right along with the arrogant, selfish, emotionally stunted main character.<br /><br />(and it sure sent chills up my spine when thinking of the recent revelations about convicted murderer Scott Peterson).<br /><br />If you want to see Crudup at his most nuanced and full of an exciting potential that has never been truly realized in my opinion, see the underrated 'Inventing the Abbotts' ....

neg

test_9538

pending

53b56be0-2d3c-475a-87a9-794cbcf4bf31

This film was so unfocused, rambling and uneven that it was an effort to watch the whole thing. (I actually thought some interesting plot elements might develop.) This was nothing more than a "coming-of-age" film for the thirty-something generation. Total crap and I have no idea what Julianne Moore was doing in this since it was the only reason I picked it off the shelf at the rental store.

neg

test_9539

pending

a587e437-46e0-405e-b202-9ea2226435b2

This is one of those road movies that would like to tell you a lotta things about women,the universe,the better life,the terrible solitude of the brilliant architect from Manhattan who severs all links with everyone,including his three years old child -which may seem irresponsible to some-Actually the hero wins hands down when it comes to selfishness and the scene with his old school pal ,which begins as some kind of good old days conversation and ends on a threatening note is the oasis in a desert movie.<br /><br />The scene with-the-father-who-left-home-when -I-was-a child has been told and told and TOLD.Of course it did not prevent the offspring from making his way of life.And when you see the hero's wife's attitude ,you may think she must never have heard about woman's lib.<br /><br />The best is the soundtrack which includes superb songs by Willie Nelson,Tom Waits or Bonnie Raitt...But you can enjoy them without this tedious pretentious work.

neg

test_9540

pending

5075ff69-29d6-4a8e-8dd3-f4b8df996619

I am one of those people that respect every film-maker as having achieved, each film I watch I usually respect(although I admit I select carefully) and appriciate for what it is. Not any more. This is truly one of the worst scripts I have seen produced as a film...so much so I felt compelled to warn others off it. The dialogue was truly unbelievable, the main protaganist was about the last person I would be interested in finding out more about. A scene were an old school friend 'tells it like it is' made me laugh only because it was a pathetic attempt to reveal the subtext of an already concluded plot. The direction is glib at best and at worst film-making by numbers. To compare this film to the atmospheric majesty of a film like Five Easy Pieces is a travesty.

neg

test_9541

pending

b9064d5a-8a27-4321-a933-253232a8de51

The reviewer in Variety said this was "overwritten and overlong", and I kind of agree with it. It has some events that seem forced and unlikely, like when Cal (Crudup once again as the 'lost, vacant, and kind of dull' male) and Julianne Moore find a map of the US in kind of an unbelievable place. The story is one of those 1970's "guy must find meaning in his life" stories, and I found myself imagining Jack Nicholson in his prime playing the role of Cal. The whole "hitting the road to find meaning in life" theme is still kind of interesting though. Does it all really lead back to family? I wasn't so sure. The acting is okay, I particularly liked Karen Allen and James LeGross, who unfortunately only have supporting roles. I'd give it a 'five'.

neg

test_9542

pending

44b50549-772b-45cb-bf56-365474ccad1f

The worst movie I've seen in a long time. This whole thing rings false, and the Billy Crudup character especially so. The potential for a good story is there, but this movie never comes close to delivering. Every plot element just drifts away.

neg

test_9543

pending

5fc3d05c-d433-4f4a-abfd-43ce806e624c

Lois Weber's film "Hypocrites" was and still kind of is a very bold and daring film. I enjoyed it and was very impressed by the filming and story of it. The priest sees the hypocrisy of the people in his church and tries to show them the "naked" truth. The people are appalled when he reveals the naked statue portraying truth, after failing to lead them to it and the few that did, help along the way. The people do not want to face the truth that they are doing anything wrong, but it shows them putting things before God, going to beach parties acting inappropriate, their materialistic ways, and other things in which the people of our world do that tend to not be morally right. In the end, failing to gain any followers, he must enter into the gates of heaven alone. This film seems to me to be very bold, in the fact that a naked woman is shown throughout it, especially considering the time period in which this film was made. The imagery and symbolism portrayed in this movie I found incredible. The way they made the naked woman translucent and using a naked woman to symbolize the naked truth shows a lot of creativity and art. Showing the different sins of the people as they walked down the road and refused to follow along the path, each with different excuses, setbacks, and/or higher priorities, was a great way of representing the people of today. This film does a very good job of getting the moral message across to its audience. Lois Weber has a tremendous way of capturing her spectators' attention with her creativity, symbolism, visuals, and through auditory. Even the music of the piano throughout this film is very beautiful and fitting with the whole theme.

neg

test_9544

pending

1a42cc2c-fc42-4f77-8ff8-3334fb956391

The story, as I understand, is "based on real events." That can be either good or bad, depending on what sort of license is taken with those real events and how they are rendered.<br /><br />In this case, the results are enough to gag a maggot. I wasn't expecting much going in -- anticipating a story of rich high-school kids taking an ocean cruise under a stern skipper. That is, what I figured was a coming-of-age movie along the lines of something about boot camp or basic training, the kind in which the drill sergeant says, "My duty is to snap you out of your winsome civilian ways." Well, it IS that, in a way. The kids start out as kids and end up as an organic group. But this is far hokier than any boot-camp movie I've ever seen, outside of a deliberate comedy. Who WROTE this thing? The air is filled with slogans that belong, not in high school, but in the third grade. The dialog offends the ear.<br /><br />Jeff Bridges usually does a better-than-average job but in this case his performance is mediocre. He brings nothing extra to the part, although given his lines, it's hard to know how he could do much with them. The rest of the cast is undistinguished and a few of the kids are painfully inadequate. There's a lot of tearing up, and considerable crying. The best scene involves a dolphin.<br /><br />The immature clichés continue to the very end. The Coast Guard is cast in the role of the hard-hearted court at the hearing that follows the disaster. The interrogator does nothing but hit Bridges over the head with his misinterpretations and misconstruction of events. "You let the crew drink alcohol, didn't you?" (A couple of harmless drinks.) "And you didn't punish them, though you punished them for killing a fish." (The dolphin business.) The technical details surrounding the sinking are left murky. What is a "white squall" anyway? And if it's as dangerous as Bridges claims, why weren't the whole crew alerted and wearing life vests? But why go on? If "The Albatross" were a Dreadnaught, it would still be torpedoed and sunk by the ludicrous comic-book script.

neg

test_9545

pending

83a7138a-a7db-4a6d-b878-8a0122ff28c8

As a person who knows the filmed ship and some other ships, too, I cannot see the movie as a movie, only. As a movie is has some great, wonderful shots of the ship, most of them done on an existing vessel - apart of the ones in the disaster scenes, of course, and a certain room under deck. But regarding the story and dialogs I only can call it big crap. Nothing of that would happen like this on a real sailing vessel. No wonder, the film had bad impact on the existing ship - if I didn't know better, I wasn't tempted to do a sailing voyage for sure. Definitely, for Europeans I recommend to switch off once the ship ran aground. After that, the over-emotional, very American part begins which I couldn't bear. The pics are really, really great, no wonder in a Ridley Scott film, but if you can avoid listening to the text, it will become much better.

neg

test_9546

pending

8d16d24a-4e0f-458e-99b7-127ae4af9699

Duncan Roy's writing and direction is really, and regularly, below par. Actually it sort of stinks. AKA is almost as bad as his recent (horrible, self-serving) remake of Dorian Gray - absurd, contorted dialogue among the 'upper class' characters, at once idiotic and pretentious, amateurish, stilted to its core. Characterisiation and script - and sometimes the acting - is creaky like a school play...but worse, there's a sort of peacock self-certainty about the direction which is just soul destroying when the director clearly hasn't grasped...he's just no good. Diana Quick must be cringing with embarrassment. DR you should just get out of film...seriously.

neg

test_9547

pending

320314b9-93aa-40a9-a008-67d90cbfd607

AKA <br /><br />Aspect ratio: 3 x 1.78:1 within 2.39:1 frame (Triptych) <br /><br />Sound format: Dolby Digital<br /><br />1978: A working class teenager (Matthew Leitch) assumes a false identity and gatecrashes high society, where he learns harsh lessons about the divisions between Rich and Poor.<br /><br />Autobiographical feature by director Duncan Roy (JACKSON: MY LIFE... YOUR FAULT), an exposé of the pre-Thatcherite aristocracy, as seen through the eyes of a low-rent 'commoner' whose world view is transformed by his adventures amongst the Upper Classes. Unfortunately, Roy's screenplay says very little we didn't already know about the excesses of the idle rich, and the narrative is only briefly ignited by Leitch's relationship with a handsome but self-destructive rent boy (Peter Youngblood Hills) who turns out to be no less hypocritical than the very people he seeks to emulate. Also starring Diana Quick (as an outrageous snob who believes working class people are "embarrassed to be alive"!), Bill Nighy as the black sheep of a wealthy family, Lindsay Coulson ("EastEnders"), Blake Ritson (DIFFERENT FOR GIRLS) and Georgina Hale in a typically flamboyant cameo, flashing her boobs at all and sundry, without a care in the world! <br /><br />Unfortunately, much of the film's impact is diluted by Roy's insistence on using a Triptych effect (three separate 1.78:1 images are letterboxed within the 2.39:1 frame, each one providing a different viewpoint of individual scenes), which shrinks the image and distances viewers from events on-screen. A long, pointless film, too personal for wide appeal, and hampered throughout by a cinematic process which fails to reconcile the story at hand. A single-image version is also available (framed theatrically at 1.85:1), with the on-screen title AKA: LIES ARE LIKE WISHES.

neg

test_9548

pending

a4def370-a914-4404-acfa-2e5ad0d39c10

Unlike one of the reviewers below, I don't think that a great and glittering career should lie ahead for the director of this inept and tedious piece of navel-gazing. Whereas it is good to see a British director attempting to break out of the confines of convention, AKA's only claim for innovative fame rests on the novelty of the triple screen. At first you think that this might prove to be an interesting device, but its only real contribution to the film is to test your eyesight and patience. Seeing the same character from 3 different angles in a 2-dimensional movie does not make it more revealing or complex. If you can forget the triple screen (which, granted, is very hard to do), you then have to deal with the unintentionally hilarious script. The audience is beaten into submission by chiche upon chiche about the British class system. The film has the political and emotional sophistication of an episode of Upstairs and Downstairs. To sum up: the Emperor's New Clothes. And a rather poor outfit, too.

neg

test_9549

pending

27353960-111e-4059-b13d-04f1b42603be

I'm a bit spooked by some of these reviews praising A.K.A. Not only do they sound as if they were written by the same person, but they contain all kinds of insider information that surely you could only find by reading the press book from cover to cover. Please don't tell me that the director is writing his own reviews as that would just be too sad to contemplate.<br /><br /> Afraid I'm another one of those who hated the film and was surprised by its unapologetic amateurism. Great idea, shame about the execution. And it was most disconcerting to watch so many good actors (as well as some very bad ones including the leaden lead) all apparently thinking that they were appearing in a series of very different films.<br /><br /> I wish that A.K.A. had been audacious, innovative or just simply interesting. Sadly it was like watching an unintentionally hysterical home video with arty aspirations. A missed opportunity.

neg

test_9550

pending

bbbdb7a0-2583-45a9-bd92-23c0d0a82e21

I was very interested in seeing this movie despite the article I read about the director in Tattler Magazine. I don't judge movies by what the director may or may not have done. This debut feature was very difficult to watch. I found the split screens to be a distraction to the drama in the film, some of the supporting characters gave bad performances, and the film to be a copy of several other films I have seen. There really wasn't anything fresh about this

neg

test_9551

pending

63951e07-7c5f-4d97-85ab-22ac8d649420

What a self-indulgent mess! Duncan Roy's film is apparently autobiographical, however it's impossible to find any glimmer of emotional truth in this chaotic, badly acted and woefully amateurish fiasco.<br /><br />In a way, you have to admire the balls of a man who through grim determination and a very generous benefactor manages to make a film about his own rise and fall - from abused, working class lad to criminal English lord. However, the tone is either so self-pitying or so arch, that it's impossible to engage with either characters or plot. The raw material is potentially great stuff, however Roy seems unable to tease out the kind of tale that should grab you by the throat, then move you to tears. And it's a complete mystery why it was ever made to be screened as a triptych of images - presumably because a single image would have been too tedious to watch.<br /><br />It's also interesting to see so many otherwise good actors - Bill Nighy, Diana Quick, Lindsay Coulson - giving career-worst performances.

neg

test_9552

pending

05a4cfc6-7fe6-4aaf-94c9-31f7bd865854

What can I say about this movie, it really is one of the worst gay themed movies, ever to come out of the UK. I can only imagine the likes of Diana Quick and Georgina Hale, needed the money. What story there is, is such a rambling mess that you loose interest pretty quickly. It's supposed to be based on real life events. Well, all I can say to that one, is that it's an insult to the real life characters. The DVD is out at the moment in the UK. It's available in either the split screen format, which must make it even worse that the full screen version I watch. Gay cinema can be so much better than this, and we deserve more.

neg

test_9553

pending

4efec8e9-65c1-4684-820c-86029c09edbb

I was so looking forward to seeing this at the film festival in Sydney. I left the theater, like many others, before the end credits because I couldn't sit through it any longer. It was badly shot, the sound sucks, and the acting was worse than an episode of The Love Boat. Now I know why this film hasn't been able to find an American distribution company to release it in the United States. This screams of a low budget high school production.

neg

test_9554

pending

69a64ed3-d898-43db-8f8c-6511f5d45294

I saw this film without knowing much about it at all. The split screen device was immediately irritating, and things didn't improve for me after the title sequence had finished. The plot, characters and dialogue were all extremely cliched - poor guy from abusive family gets thrown out of home, wants to get out of his 'lot', reinvents himself, changes his voice, dresses in others' clothes, is adopted by a gay man who he proceeds to disgard on his way up to becoming part of an international set of drug taking British aristocrats.<br /><br />The estate of Patricia Highsmith (talented mr ripley) should be suing the makers of this film. The triple screen to me, together with the over 120 min duration, emphasises the almost non existent editing. Can't decide which image works and is the most powerful, why not show three and hope you get it right with one of them. This gimmick removed any connection or interest I had with any of the characters. Important dialogue was repeated 3 times across each screen, as if to say 'this is an important / moving / deep moment, ok!'.<br /><br />Don't waste your time.<br /><br />

neg

test_9555

pending

ea5640d4-b9c5-4b8e-acf9-e5e926ec69a6

This movie was so frustrating to watch. The split screens don't allow you to get very involved in the emotions of the actors. I was constantly going back and forth watching all these tiny images that I found myself with wiplash by the end. This is basically a rip off of "The Talented Mr. Ripley" and "Timecode" I was very let down with this film makers attempt to be cool. I wish I had walked out like so many other people did.

neg

test_9556

pending

62ae7cd3-a114-4600-9c68-b1912789db55

When I voted my "1" for this film I noticed that 75 people voted the same out of 146 total votes. That means that half the people that voted for this film feel it's truly terrible. I saw this not long ago at a film festival and I was really unimpressed by it's poor execution. The cinematography is unwatchable, the sound is bad, the story is cut and pasted from many other movies, and the acting is dreadful. This movie is basically a poor rip-off of three other films. NO WONDER THIS WAS NEVER RELEASED IN THE USA.

neg

test_9557

pending

dca5294a-3937-4dc5-9f6c-89771c4c3ee3

It's so depressing when film makers try to be cool and it's so obvious here. This has below average acting, laughable dialogue, split screens that are difficult to watch, and many goofs in it's attempt to be a period film and autobiographical. This film should be avoided at all costs. I was told not to go and see this film. I wish I had listened.

neg

test_9558

pending

e149134e-6479-4a2f-8627-008f042f59ed

This is by far the worst version of William Shakespeare's tragic masterpiece I have ever seen. It seems the filmmakers didn't actually read Shakespeare's text. No, they just took what they wanted from the Lawerence Olivier movie. The plot is out of order and slimmed down to its bare necessity, yet there is time for the non-canon Olivier created incest hint between Hamlet and Queen Gertrude. Could we have had the "Something rotten in the state of Denmark" bit instead? Casting is another issue. I understand that the far superior Branagh movie had its weak bits (Robin Williams and Charlton Heston come to mind), but this one has very few good moments. I do like Laertes and Polonius, but the rest of the cast is stale. Mel Gibson's creepy stubble is irritating, and one often wonders if he has any idea what he is saying. Many of the actors seem to have just memorized the part--they know less about what is being said than sophomores in high school.<br /><br />If you want a version of Hamlet, check out Kenneth Branagh's or even Lawerence Olivier. To be frank, even Disney's Hamlet is better.

neg

test_9559

pending

8fa2fd5b-8735-4af2-9d8d-a8ef0a6cf293

Well, to each his own, but I thought Gibson's Hamlet was the most god-awful rendition I had ever witnessed... as subtly nuanced as a paper bag, and as inspired as a telemarketing call. The only reason I watched the movie through to the end was that I held out hope that either it would get better or become unintentionally funny. No luck.<br /><br />No disrespect for the supporting cast or for Zefferelli's staging, but nothing can make up for the bungling of the main character. I have seen Hamlet well-portrayed as an African prince, as an animated lion, as a rough-and-tumble warrior, as a romantic poet, etc. etc. etc. . But IMHO this portrayal was just a plentiful lack of wit together with most weak hams.

neg

test_9560

pending

e7c18263-9313-4559-af03-b445b10b889c

It is one of the joys of Shakespeare that there can be no definitive performances - no single performance can be ‘right', but some can be wrong, and this one is. There are at least two things about Hamlet which cannot be dispensed with: 1. His indecisiveness and inability to take any kind of action. For God's sake that is what makes the play last as long as it does. If you had Othello there instead of Hamlet, Claudius would be dead by the end of Act One. Any production has to try to explain why Hamlet delays, why he is incapable of action. 2. His sexual disgust. His total revulsion at the thought of what his mother and uncle get up to in bed fill him with an utter disgust for all things sexual and this means that any kind of relationship with Ophelia is impossible. At the slightest hint of sex, Hamlet throws up. So, what does Mel Gibson give us? Lusty action-man. You could not get further from the character of Hamlet if you tried. There are lots of ways Hamlet can be played, but this isn't one of them! What I don't understand is since they managed to get such good actors for the other parts - Claudius, Polonius and so on, why couldn't they find one to play Hamlet as well. Mark Rylance in the part would have made this a great film. This ‘Mel Gibson', whoever he is, completely let down the rest of the cast. And lets face it, Hamlet without the prince really doesn't work.

neg

test_9561

pending

ca4f2dc5-0093-4f9a-8577-a9b1d10c1a74

Franco Zeffirelli's ("The Taming Of The Shrew," "Romeo And Juliet," "Jesus Of Nazareth," "Othello") third stab at transferring Shakespeare to the screen works very well, with the casting of Mel Gibson ("Mad Max," "Lethal Weapon" and pre-"The Passion Of The Christ" notoriety) in the role formerly owned by Sir Laurence Olivier (and rightly so; see my review on his "Hamlet," arguably the best interpretation of one of the Bard's timeless (and most quoted) tragedies) and redone 5 years later by Kenneth Branagh as a full-bloodied treatment, explaining its 3 hour 22 minute running time, combined with a dream cast (and a lot of little additions, which were well-chosen and expertly done by the contemporary master of William Shakespeare, Kenneth Branagh, the director of "Henry V" and "Dead Again." Joining the "Lethal Weapon" star are Glenn Close ("The Big Chill"), Paul Scofield ("A Man For All Seasons"), Alan Bates, Ian Holm, Michael Maloney (who would be cast as Roderigo opposite Kenneth Branagh and Laurence Fishburne in Oliver Parker's "Othello" (see my review of Olivier's "stage" version of the tragedy, though he only starred in it) and who Branagh would cast as Laertes in HIS 3-hour version of "Hamlet" (a proper homage to Sir Laurence Olivier and his classic version of the play; see my review on that one as well) 5 years later), Nathaniel Parker (who would be cast as Cassio in his brother's version of "Othello" 4 years later) and Helena Bonham-Carter, who would be cast in "Mary Shelley's Frankenstein" 4 years later. <br /><br />Zeffirelli intended this movie as a homage to Sir Laurence Olivier (who had died 2 years prior to this movie) and it works pretty well, for the most part. What I was slightly uncomfortable with was Zeffirelli's misplacing a lot of lines and in one scene, he gives one of Hamlet's lines to the Ghost. Also, Helena Bonham-Carter DID NOT convince me as Ophelia. She was too dull and unreal, whereas Jean Simmons (who had immortalized the role in Olivier's version) and Kate Winslet (who did an acceptable job in Kenneth Branagh's uncut, epic revisionist reworking of "Hamlet") were good in the role, with Jean Simmons being the BEST Ophelia ever, that's why she was nominated for Best Actress in 1948 (she didn't win-what a shame). Ian Holm said his lines too quickly, not slowly as I expected him to, in a scene with him, Laertes and Ophelia. But then again, I'm more used to Felix Aylmer and Richard Briers' interpretations of the role and I think that they did better jobs than Holm in their respective versions of "Hamlet" (both done by great directors, actors, text-editors, producers AND stars of all their versions of the Bard's work) as Polonius. <br /><br />The rest of the cast, however, was excellent. The scene where Hamlet confronts his mother was very well done, but Olivier and Branagh heightened the scene to better lengths to create even more emotional intensity and suspense that the scene required. <br /><br />I recommend this version just to pass the time, but it's ideal as a teaching tool for 12th-grade English teachers (I recommend showing Olivier's version first, then Branagh's and finally this version). Despite the film's "PG" rating, there was really nothing objectionable in the movie. Only what the play called for. <br /><br />The Best Versions Of "Hamlet" Are: <br /><br />#1 Sir Laurence Olivier and Kenneth Branagh. Both were so good that I can't decide which one was the best. See my reviews on these versions for more information. <br /><br />#2 Franco Zeffirelli. This one was alright. It started out alright with a scene not in the play, but should've then progressed to the actual beginning of the play, where a guard cries out "Who's there?" "Nay, answer me. Stand and unfold yourself!!" That scene scares the hell out of you because you're sitting quietly and then-bam!!, you almost jump out of your skin. In short, that scene sets the tone for the rest of the play. HUGE blunder on Zeffirelli's part to omit that scene. It also misplaced a lot of lines (and cut others that I think should've been put in), such as the line where Hamlet says to Ophelia "Get thee to a nunnery, why wouldst thou be a breeder of sinners?"; that line was supposed to have occurred in THAT scene, NOT where it was placed in the film (after the "To Be Or Not To Be" soliloquy. This version struggles between cutting out too much or too little from an excellent piece of literature. Kenneth Branagh would remedy that 5 years later with his uncut version of the tragedy, making HIS version a more fitting homage to Sir Laurence Olivier, as several of the actors (aside from him) had performed "Hamlet" on stage/or on film many times on different occasions. However, Zeffirelli's take on "Hamlet" IS faithful to the play and THAT's what I was looking for. The setup for the final act duel was the same as in Olivier and Branagh's versions, only that the denouement in Branagh's version was more violent than the denouement of the previous two faithful versions (more in line with the play; Olivier toned it down...and it worked equally well) and stuck more closely to the play, with Branagh throwing in a few harmless touches of his own...to very good effect. <br /><br />This version is Not Rated.

neg

test_9562

pending

a616ce57-74c4-4d3d-8ed2-1b503ee82f06

Admittedly, the only reason I watched this film -- since it's been about a decade since it was released -- was because of Ian Holm; I was intrigued to see his portrayal of my second-favorite character in this play. At any rate, this film is as gritty as anything the Old Zeff has produced since "Jesus of Nazareth." But some of the best parts of the play have been left out. I understand the directing/editing choices, but I don't think that it really does justice to the play. Perhaps I'm too much a purist. I would have to direct people (who have read this far) toward Branagh's version, if it weren't that I despise his tendency toward over-dramatization. All the same, he plays a better Hamlet than Gibson. But then, weren't we all waiting for Gibson to prove himself as an actor? Now, all he's done is to prove that he wants to make films in extinct languages.<br /><br />...Perhaps the only Shakespearean-worthy acting here is Scofield as The Ghost.

neg

test_9563

pending

416593a4-d268-4a20-8094-6b2211a8a327

<br /><br />The play has been heavily edited and the order of the scenes has been completely mixed up. The acting is appalling (especially by Helena Bonham Carter) and the cinematography poor.<br /><br />The result is a slow, confused, boring film which will put those new to Shakespeare off Shakespeare instantly!<br /><br />If you can't see a stage play then at least see the Olivier version (1948) instead of this drivel!

neg

test_9564

pending

ae67029a-186f-411f-b12f-b300811f4e6a

(This is a review of the later English release by Disney, featuring Alison Lohman, Patrick Stewart, and co.) <br /><br />I really wanted this film to be good. Really, really. I'm a huge fan of Princess Mononoke and Spirited Away, and after seeing all the glowing reviews on this earlier Miyazaki film, I was eager to see it. But I was shocked, shocked I say, at the quality of this film. Those later films boast well-crafted plots, 3-dimensional characters, and the best film music since...well...ever. This film just doesn't come close.<br /><br />Might as well start w/ the positive aspects, though. Like all Miyazaki films, this one is still very imaginative, with a bizarre fantasy/sci-fi setting, in a post-apocalyptic world where insects are the dominant species. Nausicaa can also boast some far superior animation to other films from its time. (though not as beautiful and fluid as Miyazaki's later films) And the English voice acting is quite well done.<br /><br />But this film...just...isn't...good... The characters are all cardboard - from saccharine sweet little Nausicaa, to the ruthlessly evil Tolmekians, to everyone in between. Once you've seen each of them for 30 seconds, you've seen all there is. And the fact that the plot just ambles along doesn't help.<br /><br />Then there's the music... Now, Hisaichi is hands down my favorite film composer, but Nausicaa doesn't do him justice. Half the music is 80's keyboards on overdrive, and it usually enters and leaves so abruptly that it distracts the visuals rather than helping them. I highly suspect that Hisaichi was told to compose a lot of the music before he even saw the picture.<br /><br />But wait! There's a great message with this film, right?! Let's all save the environment! Too bad that this film hits you over the head with it like a sledgehammer. There is a scene in which Nausicaa hugs a tree. No, really. I ain't kidding.<br /><br />It makes me a little sad to talk about how lame this film is. But for some reason all the other reviews on IMDb seem to adore it. And when the characters have to talk to themselves in extended sentences to tell you what's going on, that's lame.<br /><br />If you're the kind of person who worships anime, enjoys 80's music, and plants a tree every Arbor day, you will probably like this film. Otherwise, save your money for his later films, because they rock big time.

neg

test_9565

pending

83823c23-1278-4136-b61d-c2669fb440fb

I am partly a fan of Miyazaki's work. I say "partly" because most of his films fall into two categories: brilliant, and boring. Sadly this film falls into the later category.<br /><br />This film suffers from the same fundamental problems as Miyazaki's recent film "Howl's Moving Castle". An intriguing premise is set up, but then immediately reduced to little more than a backdrop for some unfathomable events that only serve to confuse the plot rather than explain it.<br /><br />The first third of the film reveals the post-apocalyptic world the story is set in, and actually looks like an very interesting story is about to unfold. From then on things go down hill. The middle part of the film is mostly made up of thinly-veiled eco-propaganda, and the ending is heavily marred by the reliance on the kind of impenetrable spiritualism which ruins a large number of Japanese animated films.<br /><br />Overall the film feels as though someone ripped out every other page from the script before passing it on the the animators. What is left is something which is visually stunning (although sadly the version I saw was an Nth-generation copy, with poor colour - which gives rise to the common myth that Nausicaa shows her bare bottom when flying), but which makes little sense and ultimately left me confused.

neg

test_9566

pending

64211427-4f88-4aac-b9e7-181da5079667

This movie is very difficult to understand, why do the couple want to divorce ? No reason is given, we don't know anything about their life in Lisbon, and even nothing about Marie's job. We may only understand that a certain bore appeared in this life. We don't even know who took the initiative of asking the divorce.<br /><br />The way of filming is kind of special : I didn't know the director's name before the end of the movie, when I read it on the screen, I understood why it was so slow, only 42 shots in a hundred minutes (I counted them) ! It reminded me of some Japanese movies I saw in the 90's, in fact we must accept that this is the expression of another culture even if the set is occidental. I don't know if this story would have suited a Japanese couple.<br /><br />One can see the logic of the scenes but the result is a bore, anyway I decided to watch it to the end because I wanted to get the spirit and the meaning of it all. In fact, I only understood that the story of these two beings may not be over yet since the train leaves the station without Marie. This is few for such a long time ! I can't recommend this work.

neg

test_9567

pending

9ab228c7-48c4-442b-9b60-b96fb1cbedb4

I usually much prefer French movies over American ones, with explosions and car chases, but this movie was very disappointing. There is no way to write a spoiler because nothing really happens. This French couple has been living in Lisbon for years, and they return to Paris for a friend's wedding. They announce to another friend they are having dinner with that they are going to split. Then nothing much happens, they don't seem to know whether they want to separate or not. I don't necessarily think that their hesitations make for a bad movie, it is very human to hesitate before making such a decision for good, but this could be treated in an interesting manner, giving some flesh to their desires and their relationship, but that does not happen. One gets out of the theater unsure of why these two got together or want to split. The only piece I enjoyed was the conversation with the drunk. That was true to life.

neg

test_9568

pending

7b23d84c-c5ca-4d5b-be1d-d4b3c380ade8

I thought this is an unbelievable boring movie! i heard the director can't speak french and so he left his actors tell what they wanted... Well, Valeria Bruni-Tedeschi is great, as usual but I can't say the same of other actors. They have nothing to say, especially Bruno Todeschini.<br /><br />They all seem very tired, this being one of the movie plot : tired of being together, of living abroad, of their live in general; so they spend half the movie sleeping in a hotel room. After a while i felt sleepy myself...<br /><br />I gave 4, because of some very beautiful scenes, including the last one.

neg

test_9569

pending

e2b89bdf-c204-4e65-8f8f-5ff6e58193d3

(Only light spoilers in here)<br /><br />Stealing Sinatra is a half-slapstick comedy about dimwit kidnappers, dimwit victims, and a few other side-stories thrown in to eat up some time.<br /><br />You will see some poor performances all around in this movie. The drama is forced, and the humor makes no sense. Whether you're watching the kidnappers threaten the victim who won't shut up, or a victim's father responding to the criminal's death threat with "Care for some tea?", none of it is believable. This quite comfortably fits into the "wannabe movie" category.<br /><br />You will also be listening to a repetitive goofy music track throughout pretty much the entire movie. It's quite unprofessional, and adds nothing. It's really just a sad attempt at making an achingly unfunny movie seem somewhat witty.<br /><br />However, if you're able to look past all of this and suspend a lot of disbelief, you might be entertained by the adequate storyline.<br /><br />I voted 4/10.

neg

test_9570

pending

6394786a-4d44-4d1d-bc80-98de7d334fa8

Underwoods goofy story about a young man(Arquette) who convinces his friends that they should kidnap Frank Sinatra Jr. (Nicholas). The film is written ridiculously, direction is odd, dialogues are out of place and scrambled, the actors didn't do it much justice either, Arquette is annoying throughout, Ian Nicholas was nonexistent, Macy was decent, but only because hes a pretty good actor and probably just tried his best not to come out of this project with a totally embarrassing performance, he was at least tolerable. This is a stupid film in my eyes, boring at times, not entertaining, just a film that i wouldn't recommend to anybody. IMDb Rating: 5.5, my rating: 4/10

neg

test_9571

pending

1d10fe51-ce55-4ec9-9102-03bacc54018e

Yah. I know. It has the name "Sinatra" in the title, so how bad can it be? Well, it's bad, trust me! I rented this thinking it was some movie I missed in the theaters. It's not. It's some garbage "movie" made by the folks at Showtime (cable station). Geez, these cable stations make a few bucks they think they can make whatever garbage movies they want! It's not good. I am as big a Sinatra fan as any sane man, but this movie was just dumb. Boring. Dull. Unfunny. Uninteresting. The only redeeming quality is that (assuming they did stick to the facts) you do learn about what happened to the captors of Frank Jr. Otherwise it's just a stupid film.

neg

test_9572

pending

960b3151-4865-410b-bc6c-d21e63b7cda4

I don't know where to begin. Perhaps the whole idea of this movie was just a disaster waiting to happen. There is nothing slightly humorous about a kidnapping. I don't know what was more offensive--the subject matter or David Arquette's "performance". It was like watching a bull get it's penis cut off, although I think the bull felt better afterwards. The filmmakers should find something about Sinatra other than his son's kidnapping to show (like, I don't know, his TALENT AS A SINGER!!!!). His family shouldn't have to relive that horror. Thank GOD it was just shown on HBO and not released in theaters. Please don't watch this if you have any self respect.

neg

test_9573

pending

e7bfcf9d-4096-45bf-8ea2-1a5e19b3a579

Except for the glossy look, this show had little to recommend it. The writing was patronizing and convoluted. Without exception the characters were shallow and unsympathetic. The female characters came off the worst... reduced to spoiled, selfish airheads whose soul ambition was to run around in slip dresses and stilettos, and try to bag a man. This aspect of the show is all the more curious as the series was produced by two women! The acting for the most part was dull and humourless with the cast playing one dimensional characters attacking every scene on the same note. This is not entirely the actors fault. Had they spent more time developing the characters and the storyline, adding a little injection of style and humour, MVP might have been a hit. What we're left with is something flat and vaguely unpleasant.

neg

test_9574

pending

d7d45553-264a-47c2-89f6-b88ca7b79681

I love Ustinov's distinctive, literate narration. And the photography is quiet nice. We put the film on for our 3.5 year old who sort of wandered in and out of the room. So for our first viewing, we only saw about 1/3 of the movie and were quite charmed. When we re-watched, sitting down for family time,we were all mortified at the violence and life-threatening situations the poor otter got into. About halfway through the movie, there's a rack of dead, bloody furry animals. Lots of blood, not just a little. Then at the end, there's a wild struggle with a dog, then blood clouds the water. You'd think, given the G rating, that's all you'll see...that they will IMPLY one of the animals died. Nope. They drag the carcass out of the water and show it plainly for several traumatizing seconds. Personally, as an adult I love horror movies and am fine with violent movies ala Scorsese, Cronenberg, Tarantino. Heck, I love the ultra violent Battle Royale. But those aren't kid movies and don't advertise themselves as such. If you are deliberately raising your young ones to see the harsh realities of life for cute animals, then this is the movie for you. If you are like me and my wife though, you might want to spare your child nightmares and avoid this one.

neg

test_9575

pending

4cc67a95-e996-4d2c-ae61-a7c2398f7764

I have never felt the need to add a review to this website until now, but having just sat through the film I felt it necessary to warn parents who may be thinking of showing it to their children. Please don't! This is no Disney film. This film tells us 'life is cruel' and if you show it to your children, in my opinion, you are too. <br /><br />The video box describes the film as a 'delight for all ages' and the IMDb plot outline describes it as a 'family film'. I just had to find a definition of 'family film' and came across the following: "Usually consisting of comedies or adventures, these films are often based on children's literature and can involve any number of helpful animals, friendly supernatural beings and fantasy worlds, all geared to stimulate and appeal to the imagination. Whatever the situation, there is little or no offensive material and generally a lesson is learned on the way." Not an apt description of Tarka The Otter, which contains some thoroughly unpleasant scenes, totally unsuitable for young children, and an ending that qualifies the film as a 'feel bad' movie. The lesson learned? As I said: life is cruel. Family entertainment? I don't think so. Unless you hate your family, that is. <br /><br />Another review, more revealing than this but worth reading, can be found by following the 'external reviews' link.

neg

test_9576

pending

5d26700b-4bce-4472-bfbf-13e483fa619d

I really don't know much about the Marquis de Sade, not having read any of his book, but I never imagined him as a flaming queen. Carson Kressley of Queer Eye For the Straight Guy, or Jack from Will and Grace would have fit easily into the role that Nick Mancuso gave us.<br /><br />The movie itself was rather thin and seemed more of a parody - or an excuse to show the Paris whorehouse several times with men and women having a good time on the couches in the parlor. What? They can't afford a room? I did find it cute that the Madame (Irina Malysheva) felt she was doing her patriotic duty taking care of the soldier's needs.<br /><br />The movie was just an excuse to show a lot of breasts - and I mean a lot! Fans of Gimli (John Rhys-Davies) might be interested in seeing him in a different role as Inspector Marais.

neg

test_9577

pending

98431bb5-2569-4d4c-85fc-95246b54f2bd

The revisionist history -- making the evil Marquis de Sade a semi-heroic romantic -- is mind-boggling enough. But the atrocious acting, amateurish cinematography and terrible dubbing make this film achingly bad. The only reason to keep watching is that almost all the women in the film are gorgeous. And, amazingly, being tortured for days, with hands bound overhead, apparently doesn't detract from a woman's beauty, hairstyle and makeup. My guess is that the producers filmed mostly in Russia, choosing women for their looks -- and willingness to work cheap -- rather than acting ability. If you decide to watch this because you have nothing better to do, or are a film student looking for bad examples, fast-forward through every scene not involving nudity.

neg

test_9578

pending

b213393c-b0d8-49cb-97f7-0990aa3b8f4d

This movie is not very bad tjough. But one cannot find anything new about the personality of Marquis de Sade from this movie. The movie tries to stay on the borderline between erotic and insightful and it cannot succeed at either. The cinematography is really bad (straigh-to video quality)<br /><br />

neg

test_9579

pending

cf4e487a-9eea-47ce-99f7-dd807862f2a3

Douglas Sirk's inaugural "women's-picture" weepy for Universal, based on a preachy, dogmatic, didactic novel by the intolerable Lloyd C. Douglas (author of that other beloved piece of crap, *The Robe*). Rock Hudson, in the role that catapulted him to stardom, plays Bob Merrick, a drunken playboy worth untold millions who is more interested in chasing skirts and racing speedboats than in finishing his medical degree. In the first scene, he wrecks his boat on a sumptuously photographed lake. The accident nearly kills Merrick, and thus he requires a rather mysterious "resuscitator machine" to keep him alive . . . meanwhile, across town, beloved surgeon Dr. Phillips finally drops dead from a heart condition. Since the local hospital can maintain only one resuscitator at a time, Phillips dies so that the louse may live. When Merrick learns of this, he tries to make apologetic overtures to Phillips' family, especially to the widow (Jane Wyman, coiffed and clothed in matronly hauteur), but indeed anyone and everyone who knew the surgeon spits at Merrick like a brace of cobras. One doctor on the hospital staff even calls it "a total waste" that the playboy lived instead of the Christ-like surgeon. Hippocrates might have had something to say about that!<br /><br />These early scenes are where you'll find the typical Sirkian iconoclasm: the director rubs our faces so much in the unpleasantness of middle-class, mid-century America, that one finds oneself rooting for the wastrel playboy to put whoopee-cushions under the ramrod fannies of these moral hypocrites. But, alas, no: the risible plot of the novel must proceed, and Merrick soon finds himself getting converted by God, in the guise of pipe-puffing Otto Kruger, an artist who claims that Phillips made him a better man and even a better painter. (Why don't we see any of this amazing art?) We learn that the intolerably ubiquitous Dr. Phillips would often refuse payment for medical services rendered (though who exactly qualified for these "magnificent exemptions" is never made clear). This is supposed to provide our hero with a whole new outlook on life and an example of personal conduct. Kruger even tries to make it all sound very illicitly exciting: "Once you start this thing, there's no way out of it! It's an obsession . . . a MAGNIFICENT obsession!" So Merrick tries it out by AGAIN pestering the widow with apologetic overtures, but he somehow causes her to get hit by a car. She loses her eyesight. Apparently, Merrick will have several more stations-of-the-cross to trudge past before he can be accounted a decent fellow.<br /><br />But Sirk continues to sneak in his revenges even as the movie grows more and more preachy. The most obvious bit has to be the presence of Agnes Moorehead as the head hospital nurse and Wyman's friend and unrequited lesbian lover. Note the disappointment on Moorehead's face when Merrick, finally redeemed as a doctor, shows up to save Wyman's life near the end. Hudson's own homosexuality, an open secret in Hollywood at the time, is also used to great ironic effect. He and Wyman -- dowdy and fifteen years older -- generate absolutely zero erotic heat in their scenes together, which, by the way, are purposefully few, presumably because any more scenes between the stars would hopelessly expose this whole enterprise. (One thing we feel certain of: if Rock Hudson was obsessed by anything, it certainly wasn't Jane Wyman.) It's a chronic case of *Tea and Sympathy*. Sirk seemed to enjoy tweaking everyone's noses by having this gay actor -- who was attractive to the innocent ladies of the era -- coolly drift through these exquisitely-colored "women's pictures". In fact, the director worked with Hudson 6 or 7 more times, to best effect in the follow-up to this film, *All That Heaven Allows*, which re-teamed Hudson with Wyman but was also accompanied by a realistic plot. In *Obsession*, meanwhile, we must endure God/Kruger gazing beneficently down from an observation-window onto Merrick and his medical team as they prepare to save Wyman's life, in tandem with a musical score of swelling vocals from a cheesy Hollywood choir.<br /><br />But to see why Sirk is considered an auteur, check out the scene wherein Wyman explains to her grown daughter that she can in fact tell the difference from night and day. The entire frame is blackened, here: the daughter is barely visible, and Wyman's face is faintly silhouetted against a faint light. She goes on to say that she hates the night because "I know that Dawn will never come again". A great, chilling moment that deserves a much better movie than *Magnificent Obsession*.<br /><br />4 stars out of 10.

neg

test_9580

pending

f30b53d7-71f2-464c-9dc5-93e0f6802ec4

I would like to know the real name of the Lodge where scenes from the movie were filmed. It is truly beautiful and hearkens back to 20's and 30's architecture like the Hotel Del Coronado. I know it was on either Big Bear Lake or Lake Arrowhead and would like to hear if it is still in existence. As for the movie itself, it is truly amazing that Jane Wyman was even nominated for an Academy Award. This must have been a period when she was well liked by her Academy peers. It really would have been interesting to get a true impression from Wyman and the other actors in this movie regarding the script. The script of this movie, like the recent Kevin Costner movie with a message in a bottle, is so unbelievable that it it limits the credibility that the actors can bring to their parts. Rock Hudson can be forgiven. He was never a great actor, was able to get by mostly on his looks and didn't get credible roles until later in his career (Pretty Maids is the exception). But Wyman must have been forced to take this movie through contractual requirements or the studio system.

neg

test_9581

pending

83771b26-ff98-42d2-8440-83291d49a313

Daft potboilers don't come much dafter than this, but it's a Douglas Sirk movie which makes everything alright. Except in this case it doesn't. Based on a sanctimonious novel by the sanctimonious Lloyd C Douglas, (he wrote "The Robe"), and already filmed in 1935 with Irene Dunne and Robert Taylor, it's got more uplift than a cantilever bra.<br /><br />Rock Hudson is the arrogant playboy who not only feels responsible for making Jane Wyman a widow but later is directly responsible for the accident in which she loses her sight. To make amends he takes up medicine, becomes a great eye surgeon and restores it. (No, it sin't quite that daft; he had planned to become a doctor before becoming an arrogant playboy). In between times, they fall in love.<br /><br />Try as I might I can't quite find the redeeming social commentary and critique of American mores that are supposed to lie just below the surface of Sirk's films, (this one isn't too deep). On the plus side Rock Hudson isn't half bad, (I think I am rediscovering him), and, of course, it looks great, (in Sirk's films people live in rooms the size of cathedrals). Nothing in this film matches the best of his later work and even in soap-opera terms this is definitely daytime TV.

neg

test_9582

pending

03c27425-4d46-4c7a-965a-194a50b2db2a

I saw this at my in-laws' house one night when it popped up on TV and my mother-in-law said it was one of her favorite movies. Well, she can have it.<br /><br />Look, I can enjoy a chick flick now and then, as long as it's good. But this one's extra-sappy, unrealistic, and just plain predictable, despite some decent performances from Rock Hudson and Jane Wyman. It's uncanny how quickly a woman can accept having her eyesight taken away from her. Oh well, they say love is blind...<br /><br />The neat and tidy happy little ending nearly made me gag, too. And how often did we need Otto Kruger repeating the title? It happened not once, not twice, but THREE times!

neg

test_9583

pending

849ed500-0248-42d3-990f-b899f9f6dde4

One of the more prominent/popular episodes, but clearly one of the worst. A red-shirt female falls for Khan (instead of dropping dead - for a change) and then proceeds to betray Kirk and the Enterprise as if loyalty were a non-existent character trait on the ship. Makes one wonder what kind of psychology tests this supposedly brilliant Starfleet uses to test people when hiring. We have the same kind of absurd lack of loyalty in "Wink Of An Eye", when a red-shirt male takes the enemy's side just because he falls in love! Same as in SS. (However, in that episode the betrayal plays a tiny role in the overall plot.) This is very silly because it once again makes Kirk's crew seem like a bunch of soft-headed, easy-to-impress morons, who - once they fall in love with the enemy - are capable of doing just about anything. The fact that McGivers switches back to Kirk's side doesn't ameliorate the illogic in any way. Lord McGiveth and the Lord McTaketh...<br /><br />Why is Khan kept behind a regular door when they know he has superior strength? That's one of several ST plot-devices that undermine Kirk's intelligence. Why does Khan hold a knife against McCoy's throat? If Khan is of such superior intelligence then one would expect him to be more wily with the way he carries himself. And what's with a Sikh being played with a Latino accent? Montalban should have been provided with a vocal coach. I was half-expecting to hear "the plaaain! the plaaaain!" in the background at any moment. Why the hell would Kirk (or any ship captain) provide limitless use of the ship's library concerning the innermost technical details of the Enterprise to ANYONE? Is the Starfleet an institution solely consisting of idiots? <br /><br />SS is a very cartoonish, silly episode, so no wonder Trekkies love it. It doesn't have too many sci-fi elements in it, which is what Trekkies hate the most. It also figures that the ST franchise chose to revive this dull character for the second movie, that way pleasing rabid Trekkies, who were so very disappointed with the first movie which - you guessed it - had far too much sci-fi for the average tiny Trekkie brain.

neg

test_9584

pending

d601c391-ea61-4fca-b793-de2b72af260d

I have seen this movie and I did not care for this movie anyhow. I would not think about going to Paris because I do not like this country and its national capital. I do not like to learn french anyhow because I do not understand their language. Why would I go to France when I rather go to Germany or the United Kingdom? Germany and the United Kingdom are the nations I tolerate. Apparently the Olsen Twins do not understand the French language just like me. Therefore I will not bother the France trip no matter what. I might as well stick to the United Kingdom and meet single women and play video games if there is a video arcade. That is all.

neg

test_9585

pending

5dd66e92-40cc-4081-8ae3-a8062818dea3

This movie was alright. Mary-Kate and Ashley play twin sisters (sorry for stating the obvious) who against their will are sent to Paris to spend the week with their rich uncle or something like that.<br /><br />Right away two French boys (who looked slightly inbred) start talking to them and taking interest. Blah blah blah. It's an Olsen twin movie - we already know what's going to happen between them. Anyway, along with that, the twins meet a FABULOUS French model because they're in Paris, the fashion capital of the world. They make bffs with the model and spend a fun montage of shopping in the city of lights. Yep.<br /><br />Plotwise, I frankly can't remember what happened. I guess that could say something, but hey, it's an Olsen movie. "Olsen movie" seems to be synonymous with "light entertainment".<br /><br />Overall, this movie was annoying. I mean, can I really identify at all with two girls who are devastated upon hearing that they're going to Paris? Really? Also, the jokes really weren't that funny. However, I watched the whole movie. So it had to be somewhat entertaining. The fact that it was set in Paris was what probably kept me watching.

neg

test_9586

pending

8f9e13ab-b50c-4fce-b09d-25e0973d2fbc

I was once a big Olsen fan. I received this movie when I was six and watched it almost nonstop until I was nine. Then it lay on my shelf gathering dust until yesterday. I was left speechless.<br /><br />Mary-Kate and Ashley play Allie and Mel, two twelve year olds who are sent to spend Spring Break in Paris with their ambassador grandfather. Along the way, they meet, as one might expect, two cute French boys who show them the more fun side to Paris. I guess the two boys were okay, fake French accents aside. <br /><br />The plot is predictable and the humour is shallow and corny. Mary-Kate and Ashley play two shallow girls with too much make up on their face. <br /><br />Don't watch this movie if you're not into the Olsen twins or family movies.

neg

test_9587

pending

9f9300dc-4cad-4d24-aa56-fdc5bca69c81

A stupid movie, with a stupid plot. Feels like they threw every imaginable cliché in a blender. I especially "Liked" the part, where two teenage girls gets the french president to clean the water. Because we all know how dedicated America is to conservation of the environment. Kyoto, anyone?? And the french chef, who has apparently never seen or tasted a hamburger... This is why people think Americans have no culture. That, and the fact that we meet your kids when they come to Europe to "see the world" (i.e. eat at McDonalds in foreign capitals) They are not as dumb as the two ditsy preteens in this movie, but they have just about the same amount of cultural enlightenment and good manners.

neg

test_9588

pending

87fcc351-e5de-47ec-a69e-06f042c8ed04

the boys were the most appealing things in the entire movie. the girls were lame and pathetic, i mean, how can they own their own clothing line, dolls, movies, producing studios, and not smell this bomb from far away? in order to gain some sort of responsibility, which i dont really see the sense in the punishment..., they are sent to paris, far far far away from home to live with the so-called strict grandfather who holds an important standing with paris. i cant really remember what he was, so who really cares? the detail doesnt help, the girls are sent to paris to learn something.. so what exactly do they learn when they meet two french boys and are able to manipulate the guy that supposed to watch them so they can meet these guys on scooters? the typical pre-teen movie, having all pre-teens wishing to misbehave and be able to afford the trip to paris or some far away country away from parents? i dont really like the olsens anyways, they never could really shake off the image of michelle, on full house... in case you didnt see that, then you were lucky from the start. (F F-)

neg

test_9589

pending

8282f2e4-7d72-4092-802f-169315c09d06

OK I watched this movie. Someone needs to kick me. WHY must the Olsen twins insist on subjecting the world to this putrid torture? This was another movie of watching the Olsen twins travel to an exotic location, meet some cute guys,look pretty and have everyone drooling over them.the direction,the plot development,ugh the acting. i don't know about the U.S., but in my country it is considered extremely stupid to hop onto the bike of a guy u met like,10 minutes back. though i'm now convinced that these girls will never learn to act, i really hope that one day we'll get to watch a movie with an original,even slightly plausible plot.

neg

test_9590

pending

1df238c8-ad43-49ef-a9b1-d81b3429b98d

This movie is pretty predictable nuff said....from the delayed kissing scene to the inevitable coming around of grandpa...this is a great movie for the 10-12 age group but beyond that it has no market..i give it 4/10 only because it achieved exactly what it set out to do and nothing more.

neg

test_9591

pending

ba854d73-068c-4ee3-a2b8-e2f9501ddad5

Oh yes, I admit I have made myself guilty of the crime of seeing this piece of trash. I can't say I was forced by aliens who pointed a gun at my head, tied me to a chair and made it impossible for me to close my eyes and then turned this awful excuse for a movie on. No I did it with free will. I deliberately tortured myself. Let's go through the fact here folks. - The acting is an insult to humanity. - The plot (if it exists) is ridiculous. - The character development is horrendous - The characters that appear in the movie are so clichéd you would <br /><br />recognize them in your average comic book. - The editing is sloppy and unimaginative. - The camera-work is low key. - The dialogue is simply the worst in cinematic history. - The directing: well let's say, I bet it wasn't Hitchcock.<br /><br />Then to add to these facts, there was absolutely no talent involved wath so ever. The director must be smoking crack now to forgive himself for inflicting this poison to the world. <br /><br />Bottom line: Passport to Paris is one of the worst movies ever made. PERMANENT!

neg

test_9592

pending

205855bb-6975-49a5-a7a3-b419f70b2890

This movie sucks so bad. Its funny to see what a poor story this has, where two pea-brained American twins who know about nothing outside their school can come to another continent, and do unimaginable things there. Its just so stupid and so bizarre. How can they just find two French guys, hit on them and in the end kiss them, not knowing anything about them? More realistic would have been having the guys take them away and rape them, which could have easily happened in such a situation. As for the bit where they make the French President drink 'bad water', that was just lame. I don't think he would have been too pleased in real life. Everything worked out too easily for the girls, and they could have been in real trouble many times in the movie, if it at all depicted real life.<br /><br />My Rating : 0 / 10

neg

test_9593

pending

9e3f0a94-db31-4936-8f01-8a139b545996

Just what the world needed-another superficial cookie-cutter Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen movie. This movie gives out horrible messages to girls everywhere, complete with stereotypical "junior high" experience. They make learning anything at all seem completely taboo. I can't stand the fake French accents, or those guys on the mopeds racing around who eventually "fall" for the twins. Why am I putting everything in parenthesis? Because its all stereotyped. The twins even complain about not having a stereotypical grandfather. They should be happy they even have a grandfather at all. How does this fit the Mary-Kate/Ashley mold? This one has them fixing up a single guy who (gasp!!) ISN'T THEIR FATHER!!!!! Yes, folks, they actually have a mother who appears for all of five seconds. I haven't even sat through thirty minutes of this and I can already tell how it will end up. This movie is so pitiful, it makes Miss USA seem like an academic bowl. Really.

neg

test_9594

pending

0db38981-f86c-4f99-b45f-3bea056e90dc

this is horrible film. it is past dumb. first, the only thing the twins care about is how they look and what boys like them. they are in 7th grade. not to say i am a prude or anything but it sends the wrong message to girls of all ages. being pretty and popular is not everything. but that is what the twins make it out to be. The plot is even worse. the girl's grandpa just happens to be the ambasitor(sp?) to France. He has a co-worker take the girls around paris and they meet two "cute french boys" with motorcycles. they sneek out to meet the boys start to really like them ETC.....they meet a supermodel in process and go around paris with total strangers they think are cute. need i say more? this movie may be cute to 8&9 year olds. the twins play ditsy losers that want boyfriends. it makes sends the wrong idea to girls. the film itself is not great either. i don't recomend this to anyone. i give passport to paris 2/10

neg

test_9595

pending

cd4b9915-09e0-4220-bcea-5e12ec03e62f

Now, I watched this when I was hungover one Sunday and my auntie and uncle were visiting one day with my 2 cousins (one was 11, the other 9). We stuck on the TV and Passport To Paris had just started. My cousins both had said that they watch Two Of A Kind sometimes and I said they could watch the film if they liked. Since I was in no fit state to get up, I just stayed in the living room with them and ended up watching the film! I have to say, as a person who has no interest in those kinds of TV shows or films, I actually enjoyed it... it must have been the alcohol lol but I do admit, it would probably only appeal more to girls aged between 6 and 13, but it was a movie to pass the time. There's always a movie or a show that you don't think you'll like, but for a laugh, you enjoyed it.

neg

test_9596

pending

10dee845-19b3-40bb-bcc0-25d6ab3de8b5

Well, first off, the twins are exactly the same. there is no one is girly and one is tomboy (Ashley is taller than Mary-Kate though) and their boyfriends aren't even French, so that is bad because they are faking the accents. Lamo. It is also not that bad, not their best. I am A big Mary-Kate and Ashley fan, don't get me wrong. the storyline is OK and it is funny to watch. it is not the type of movie that you would watch over and over again. But hey, when they made this movie they were still new at the whole making their own movie thing. The girls also act like they are older then 13. but if you are a young viewer this is a good movie. Not so good if you are older than 13 unless you are a parent watching a movie with your kids. then it's OK. Good luck MK+A with your future movies!

neg

test_9597

pending

11a49f6e-01b6-44d7-83e6-94b568e1b513

Firstly let me get this of my chest I hate Octopussy with an absolute passion. What is so frustrating is that it had so much potential and had a very good opening sequence, unfortunately post the opening sequence it all goes downhill. Firstly there was absolutely no plot to begin with, just an excuse for Moore to tell his corny jokes. Next there are several sequences that would make a Bond fan cringe,for instance the sequence in which Bond turns up to diffuse a bomb dressed as a clown. The villains are pretty poor, Louis Jordon fails to make an impact as Kamal Khan and Bollywood veteran Kabir Bedi is equally poor as his henchman. It's funny that when people debate over what the worst Bond movie is and Octopussy gets overlooked when it can easily give them a run for their money.

neg

test_9598

pending

d4d1ede4-a78e-42d9-9582-91ac8a5000b9

I saw Roger Moore huffing it on the scenes that required running or exercise. He was a James Bond who would be most comfortable sitting at a bar telling stories with his fellow British Knights. Nothing against the elderly in age-appropriate roles, but how realistic is it for a frail-looking 58 year old man to be fighting on the wings of planes, hanging off the side of a train, swimming in a swamp with crocodiles, etc.? Aside from the fact that OCTOPUSSY was incredibly silly, vapid, and moronic, the fact that a frail oldster engaged in many death-defying stunts just made it so much easier to laugh at James Bond. By 1983 Roger Moore was clearly looking his age, and he was long past the time when he looked like he could fight with younger men. I saw this movie in the Theater, and the howls of laughter were many and very often. Any credibility that James Bond had built up was gone after OCTOPUSSY.<br /><br />The only thing missing from OCTOPUSSY was Benny Hill and his supporting cast. Another low point was that the incredibly lame Louis Jordan was one half of the Axis of Evil. Jordan helped to make the whole concept even more laughable. And the Russian General was a total goof. OCTOPUSSY works better as a comedy spoof similar to SPIES LIKE US.<br /><br />Even the fight scene on the train was just a bad copy of the same train scenes done in many other films by better actors. Take EMPEROR OF THE NORTH (1972) where Lee Marvin & Ernest Borgnine fought all over the top & bottom of the train and made it look exciting and real.<br /><br />Roger Moore had a thin, frail body in 1983 and yet his stunt double was clearly a younger, taller, athletic & muscular man. Even the hair color did not match. This only made his fight scenes more comedic. The Moore stunts looked like those old low-budget Chop-Socky Kung-Fu movies, especially with the bad editing. The Director seemed to try to make the bad acting and bad stunts better by providing several views of the same stunt. This only accentuated the differences between Moore and his stunt double. The fact that the Train scenes with Moore were shot inside a studio could be noticed from the lighting when Moore was in the shot versus the exterior shots of the stunt double on a real train. Though many of the Bond Movies have to be the worst ever when it comes to editing their stunt-fights. You can usually clearly see that the Bond actor is not actually fighting. Overall OCTOPUSSY has to rank as one of the worst movies ever made, and easily the worst of the worst Bond movies.

neg

test_9599

pending

c920fdd6-c48d-4ca5-939c-318465cd91ab

An aging Roger Moore is back yet again as Bond, this time trying to find out why Agent 009 was killed, and why he had a forgery of a Faberge egg with him, and where it came from. He ends up in New Delhi India, then in East Germany after finding out about a Russian general trying to detonate a nuclear bomb at a circus, hoping NATO will push for complete disarmament, so he can take control of Western Europe, then the rest of the world.<br /><br />Despite the way it sounds, this is really more of a romance, I think, between Bond and Octopussy than an action movie, and longish, but still somewhat fun. But there are way too many attempts at humour in this one; at times it seems like it was intended to be a comedy. Also, Timothy Dalton would have been better than Roger Moore in this, so there wouldn't have been so much of an age difference between Bond and Octopussy. <br /><br />Useless trivia: the small plane used by Bond in the pre credits sequence is now hanging up in a Quaker Steak and Lube restaurant in Clearwater/ Largo area Florida, USA.<br /><br />**1/2 out of ****

neg