Datasets:

jfcalvo

/

imdb-from-dev-with-timestamps

like 0

test_9700

pending

dcc2071e-2856-485f-8fd0-296b1cf68eba

I saw "Mirrormask" last night and it was an unsatisfactory experience.<br /><br />It is a film that is visually rich but with slow direction, poor plot line and 2-dimensional characterisation.<br /><br />I did, however, know this when I went in. I was willing to trust the two gentleman that I went with (knowledgable comic buffs) that the visuals would be out of the ordinary and so they were. Unfortunately, inexperience of direction meant that scene after scene passed with little in the way of dramatic tension or conflict. Though, this is a comment that could be made of many artists whose work is transferred to screen and who are given charge of direction. The pace of the story is lost as the camera lovingly dwells on the pretty pictures.<br /><br />I would not have gone at all without that reassurance that the style of the film would be worth seeing. I have tried with Neil Gaiman's work but am always left with the "emperor's new clothes" feeling. I live in hope but last night was no exception.<br /><br />I do not think I can continue with an analysis of Gaiman's work without losing the will to live. Read the rest of the comments and all his faults are eloquently described. I cannot comprehend, however, how he imagined that he had any understanding of the mind of a fifteen year old girl, Nor that what he had to say added anything to the sum total of human knowledge on growing up and assuming adult responsibility, or the changing relationship that a girl might have with her mother. These are the central themes of the film and they are handled ineptly, stereotypically and with no depth of imagination. All the pretty pictures in the world cannot make up for a piece of work that is flawed at the core.

neg

test_9701

pending

b90d2eaf-2302-49bc-ac23-f60a7dd0e475

Wow, what exciting visual effects. I also loved the costumes and artwork, the circus and ethereal feel to the film was sublime. It just required the need for the viewer to worry about the fate of our protagonist. As she is trapped in her imagination, there is never a sense of peril unlike, say, David Lynch's films which haunt every time. This also draws attention to which age group this film is aimed at. Who would this engage?<br /><br />Mirrormask is obviously going to draw comparisons with Labyrinth with the teen- angst/ fantasy theme, but unfortunately it doesn't really come close to delivering the same Henson essence. The ill mother theme is never fully explained and certainly not something that you care about while lapping up the eye candy.<br /><br />Not agonisingly awful a la The Cell, nor as engagingly dreamlike as Labyrinth - a forgettable but good-looking fantasy.

neg

test_9702

pending

403bc4b4-1635-4c65-8246-7cab6f4aa6f5

Well, that was sure a waste of Dave McKean's talents, wasn't it? Don't get me wrong: when it comes to graphic design, Dave McKean may be the best in the world right now. The layered, textured look he can accomplish with just a few pencil lines on rough paper make the efforts of people like Peter Greenaway and David Fincher look like what they are: hackwork. McKean has been the godfather of a revolution in the look of comics, film, even magazine ads which borrow the distinctive collage effect he has pioneered.<br /><br />But this movie? It's junk. Complete junk. The story, from Neil Gaiman, is, unfortunately, exactly what Gaiman has been giving us ever since he ripped off Clive Barker for the first time: a pseudo-mythic, overblown dreamscape, populated by characters which have Titles in All Capital Letters rather than names. Everything is allegory, to the point that it is impossible to get any human drama, emotion, or empathy from anyone involved. People make pithy postulations, speaking in riddles which bring to mind what Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead might have sounded like if Tom Stoppard had suffered a debilitating stroke halfway through its composition. Really, Gaiman, get over yourself. You're not a prophet. You're a poser.<br /><br />McKean's directing doesn't help - his pacing is poor, taking fully half an hour to actually rev himself up for the main picaresque plot, and then simply providing a disconnected sequence of events, none of them given any weight. The monsters don't menace because they're not foreshadowed, simply thrown at the screen. The plot doesn't engage because we don't really care about the rancid little protagonists. Half the dialogue, muttered into into shirt fronts and ubiquitous masks, is unintelligible.<br /><br />Some of the visuals are pretty, and I'm sure the fanboys will lick it up. Pity. Think of the amount of really good work McKean could have produced if he hadn't been stuck with this lame project.<br /><br />Grade: D/D-

neg

test_9703

pending

966d75e5-20db-46d7-b357-deb7652b4235

This film is really really bad, it is not very well done and is a lack lustre attempt at something but I am not sure what. I watched it and was very disappointed. It promised a lot, but delivered nothing at all. The characters are shallow and wooden, and the music, if you can call it that, is dreadful. There are of course all the creatures and animated beings, but they are so poorly done that it does not come across as anything other than a third rate movie. It is a real shame that more attention could not have been spent to the special effects, not the be all and end all of a movie I agree, but in a movie that is based around them, it's a very important factor. For me, a very sad attempt, and should be avoided.

neg

test_9704

pending

c1ba430f-fb72-4439-957b-baa9549cfe79

Having enjoyed Neil Gaiman's writing (especially his collaboration with Yoshitaka Amano in "The Dream Hunters") in the past, I figured Mirrormask to be a sure thing and was very disappointed. The beginning, live-action section of the movie was intriguing enough. The relationships between the characters was believable and easy to empathize with, and I loved the sets, the costuming, and Helena's artwork. The subsequent computer-generated scenes, however, were excruciating. The dialogue was awkward and pretentious, the interaction between the live actors and the CGI horrifying. Events occurred for the flimsiest reasons, and most events seemed superfluous to whatever plot may have existed. I only watched the first twenty or thirty minutes of the movie, so I'm not exactly an authority, but I strongly recommend that you don't watch any of it at all and stick with Gaiman's strong written work.

neg

test_9705

pending

9bb0df30-1d58-47f7-8a8c-48bb7511aae2

I'm trying to understand what people liked about MirrorMask. I am an avid film viewer and hobbyist film maker. As I was telling friends during my lunch hour, MirrorMask may well be my biggest movie disappointment of the year. Just like the short Moongirl, the film missed its marks. Several times during the movie it made attempts at humor. It sets you up for the laugh. Instead of making you laugh, it leaves you feeling empty. The jokes reminded one of the recent Star Wars films. They weren't funny unless you were five. And the acting felt similarly terrible. I've seen actors actually act in front of a blue screen. And I've believed it. But not in this film. Not for a second.<br /><br />This film takes a formula and tries to apply it with pretty artwork… And though the script is totally workable and the special effects quite beautiful, it has no heart to it and fails miserably. I left the film shaking my head and considered leaving the theater. I felt hallow and miserable and still haven't gotten the sour taste out of my mouth from it. I love independent film. I encourage people to view independent films to support them. But not this film. This film shouldn't have been made. At least, not like this. Why did the director miss the marks so clearly? They were clearly setup… Not just the humor. But the emotions. The drama. Even the lines were poorly timed and delivered. It was like the film walked on three legs instead of four. Its steps are awkward and miss timed. And it could fall over with the slightest push… Don't see this film. I don't care who you are. It isn't worth your time.

neg

test_9706

pending

26709f57-499e-40ef-bf88-0ef5650ad35e

"MirrorMask" was a terribly disappointing film for me. I had expected much from a Jim Henson production and had found favourable reviews comparing it to "The Labyrinth" and "Alice In Wonderland". Unfortunately, the film ended up in one of those "style over substance" pile of movies.<br /><br />Whereas most kids dream about running away from home to join a circus, Helena is a kid who has grown up in a circus (child labour, anyone?) who wishes to run away to join Real Life. Helena wishes that her mother drop dead, which is a bad move for a spoiled brat with a princess complex in a kid's fantasy movie. Next thing you know, Helena's mother flops over, and for some reason, she is suddenly transported to another world.<br /><br />Meanwhile, I felt as if I was transported to the Museum of Contemporary Art with a pair of foggy sepia-tinted glasses.<br /><br />The showcase of CGI-generated creatures and backdrop was interesting at first, and I liked the Orbiting Giants. It got a little too tiresome after a few minutes though, and I felt my mind wandering ...<br /><br />With no sense of narrative and MTV-style clips and soundtrack (the sphinxes reminded me of Basement Jaxx's "Where's Your Head At"), I did not feel involved in the plight of the protagonist and also frustrated, as we waited for the film to lead us wherever it wanted, hopefully towards the "Exit" signs of the theatre ...

neg

test_9707

pending

6204d86e-2ff9-4584-b3d2-252dc2f67677

I saw this film when it premiered in LA. I think I laughed 2 or three times. The rest of the time I was in shock at how ridiculous/poorly shot and poorly written it was. Kirby is in fact the only saving grace in the film. I was disappointed at the performance of Larry Bagby , whom I usually find entertaining. If you enjoy watching your friend's crappy homemade short films that they shot on their mom's 8mm video camera then there's a slight chance you might enjoy this film. Then again part of what makes those movies enjoyable is that it's your buddies playing all the parts. You don't know these people so you'll probably find it as dull and stupid as I did. Dear Mr. Nelson, go back to film school, intern for a while as a PA or a grip or some low level job so you can see how things are properly done in film . Then look for as long as you must to find a Director of Photography who knows what f. stop means, make sure he has ND filter on hand. Then try again. Repeat as many times as needed.

neg

test_9708

pending

8525bb50-f657-4cf3-9094-9e7102d040bf

The old man mouse in this cartoon would have you believe that all men are created equally EVIL............so if we have to kill men in order to stop Hitler..........we are just as bad as Hitler was killing the Jews........ Well.....I don't buy it Mr. Mouse............but I guess it paints a pretty picture and makes a cute cartoon.......but it wasn't the reality then and it ain't reality now.

neg

test_9709

pending

46a4b4e2-306d-4a3e-8594-cf72f0b04ad2

The DVD version released by Crash Cinema was very poorly done. The mastering engineer must have been either drunk, asleep or not even in the room while it was being done. It looks like it was mastered from about a tenth generation copy and about halfway through the film, the audio synchronization disappears. The dialog is about 10 or 15 seconds behind the audio. If you're thinking about purchasing this DVD, please save your money. I remember seeing this film at the theater back in 1973. Also, the VHS copy of this film under the title of "When Taekwondo Strikes" looks better than the DVD, but the remaining several minutes of the movie are "missing". Where is the original camera negative?

neg

test_9710

pending

7f9475dd-2af7-46cd-9b3c-4e44affce23f

I won't waste your time by describing the plot for this, the other reviewer already did this quite well. I will however give you my opinion of this movie. This movie is basically anti japanese propoganda. The japanese are portrayed as incredably evil b**tards who have respect for nothing, as well as having very poor martial arts skills (groups of japanese men get there asses kicked by single women on more than one occasion.) The fact that the japanese fighters lose almost every (if not every) fight in the movie kind of takes away the suspense. The plot is actually quite solid and perfect for a kung fu movie though. The problem lies in the fact that there's not much fighting. When there are fights some of the fighting is quite good, but other scenes are choreographed badly. One scene angela mao takes on six japanese in a church and kicks all their asses. The problem is they show her fighting them one by one when they're all supposed to be attacking at the same time. I gather this movie was incredably cheap considering how cheap some of the sets are. They use the same village set for when they are in korea and when they are in china without changing it at all. Some scenes are filmed at real locations though, and they look good. Overall the only real problem with the movie is it's slow moving and uninteresting plot. Since there are few fight scenes we have to rely on the plot for entertainment and, well, I wasn't entertained.<br /><br />one and a half stars out of four

neg

test_9711

pending

cc8db35b-afcc-497a-b067-685cc5b14d5a

***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** What's going on here ?<br /><br />Barbara Hershey, looking decidedly unsexy - as if she'd stolen her granny's spare wig - puts in an unconvincing performance as a woman who kills the wife of a man she has had an affair with 'in self defence' after hitting her forty odd times with an axe.<br /><br />Like Lizzy Borden, she is acquitted but after the most unconvincing argument ever presented to a jury by the representative of a supposedly 'innocent' defendant I have ever seen.<br /><br />Lizzy Borden took an axe and gave her father forty whacks When she saw what she'd done - she pleaded self defence<br /><br />I don't think so<br /><br />I find the defendants guilty of screening an unconvincing portrayal and have no alternative but to award this film a sentence of 4 out of 10 (which would have been lower but for the previous good behaviour of some of those involved)<br /><br />

neg

test_9712

pending

d3a3a4b7-2696-46a4-b5d1-17c33602bc49

Oh dear - quite how Alfred Hitchcock (North by Northwest, Spellbound, the 39 Steps) could turn out this nasty, cheapjack shocker is beyond me. Don't bother looking for hidden depths or deep meanings - there aren't any. This is just horrid, seedy and cheap. The one redeeming feature is the home-life of the inspector who leads the investigation - his wife fancies herself as a gourmet cook and constantly serves up her revolting culinary experiments to her poor husband. This is amusing, and just about saved me putting the film in the 'awful' bracket, but the film as a whole is one of the most unpleasant I've ever seen. I believe this was Hitchcock's next-to-last film - perhaps someone was trying to tell him something.

neg

test_9713

pending

e90e013f-36b5-4cd2-8a73-33bf62e87f90

Not even 'lesser' Hitch, but simply a bad movie. The cinematic equivalent of a dirty-old-man. Ugly in every way: unimaginative script, static point of view, putrid clothing, ghastly hair, unlikable actors, and one truly gratuitous rape-and-strangulation scene. The director's perverse sense of humor is present, but it is not applied consistently; the movie comes alive only in its cruelty. The women fare especially badly; 'Frenzy' could be used as proof the director was a misogynist, though a better explanation to me is that perhaps beginning with his TV series and 'Psycho'- which he himself described as an exercise in thrift, an experiment to see if a television crew could shoot a passable feature -Alfred Hitchcock had pretty much abandoned art and settled for commerce. In 'Frenzy' the great master seems to be bowing to convention, trying to go with the times and give audiences what he thinks they want- in the form of unappealing nudity, nudge-nudge winks, and general nastiness. I don't begrudge an old man his rest, but I don't want to remember him tired and lazy and pandering- time to watch 'Vertigo' again!

neg

test_9714

pending

471fd530-6578-47c0-bef8-9be28a34ed34

Greeted with derision by most critics when it first appeared, 'Frenzy' has recently done the rounds of UK TV. I remember seeing it on its original release, and thinking then that if Hitchcock wanted to parade some kind of screen confession about his ingrained misogynism, he couldn't have found a nastier little vehicle to do so.<br /><br />But Time alters perspective, and so what was nauseatingly bad in 1972 might, all these years later, be worthy of upward re-evaluation.<br /><br />Might. . . but not. 'Frenzy' is dross. The dross of an ageing director who desperately wanted to exploit the artistic freedom of 70s movie making without seeming to realise that freedom imposes its own obligations -- notably, the need to bring integrity to one's work.<br /><br />There's none here. And not much evidence of the earlier directorial brilliance, either -- the switch from spine-tingling implicit to odious explicit is neither shocking nor, for a supreme stylist, stylish: it's just banal (the prolonged murder scene is precisely that: prolonged, without pace, without reason, without purpose other than the cheapest of directorial desires to appear as contemporary an artiste as, say, that other acclaimed practitioner of cheap sleaze, Michael Winner).<br /><br />And it goes from bad to worse, with dialog that defies any human provenance (not least in the ludicrous diversion into the Home Life of Our Dear Wooden Inspector, and his wife's cooking).<br /><br />Perhaps the scene that best sums up 'Frenzy' (and endures as the most explicit indictment of Hitchcock's persona) is the clunking exchange between two lawyers in a bar, where they discuss the serial killings and then agree that at least the women had a good time first by being raped.<br /><br />I remember my revulsion at that scene back in '72, and it's still undimmed, because this wasn't Hitchcock being clever, or sardonic, or trying to make some universal point (big themes, big truths, were not Hitchcock's forte, nor personal preference.) It was just Hitchcock, allowing a reflection of his own distorted mirror on life to shine through the texture of the movie.<br /><br />Calling 'Frenzy' Hitchcock's last great masterpiece is to betray little if any understanding of just what Hitchcock actually achieved in the way of cinematic trickery, cinematic thrills, and dazzling cinematic mastery.<br /><br />'Frenzy' is therefore now what it always was: a cheap, nasty, and ham-fisted movie that did no service to any of those involved, or to the memory of a film-maker who really was, in his Hollywood days, one of the greatest there has ever been.

neg

test_9715

pending

e0f27f67-cdc6-47e4-be31-98d862463947

I won't be too hard on this show because I enjoyed the first season, but then, things got worse. The concept is nothing special, just about a girl named Casey who is trying to cope with a new step-brother, Derek, and his loud, crude family, while she gradually forces her princess standards onto each of them.<br /><br />In season 1, the story was actually interesting. I liked Casey back then because she was smart, strong, independent, and conservative. She was well-mannered and deep. I felt bad when she was being harassed at her new school by her new step-brother. She was a perfectionist, but not as annoying as the later episodes. Oh, and she dated a nice guy, who is now currently portrayed as one of Derek's idiot friends. The season grasped the true tension the title of the show was trying to capture.<br /><br />Now, I can't say the show has really gone downhill because the story is sometimes interesting, but I root for Derek now instead of Casey. Now, there is little, if any interaction, between the two siblings. If they interact, it's only briefly. Oh, and I don't want any Dasey fans in my face. People, that's called INCEST, even if they are step-siblings. My tolerance can only go so far, but that's not the point.<br /><br />It's strange. Derek, as the antagonist, has gotten more sensitive over time, while Casey, the supposed protagonist, is more neurotic and unlikeable than before. I like how the younger kids get more airtime, but the parents are even more clueless than before. But that's not the biggest problem...<br /><br />Unfortunately, we are forced to see everything from Casey's point of view, with lame, nauseating background music. She has gotten stupider and more shallow over time. In one episode, she got whiny and wanted her boyfriend to be more chivalrous, so she purposely dumped food on herself and blamed Derek. Now, what happened to being a strong, independent feminist? I haven't watched much of the fourth season, but I hear she is dating a guy named Truman, who is a jackass and is arrogant. Oh, I remember that fencing episode. She constantly reminds him she doesn't like him, freaks out over being "goosed" by a sword, and in the end, hooks up with him because she can "handle" him? What the hell? Why go with a guy like that in the first place. The 1st season Casey would have just punched him in his...never mind. Or, maybe that would have been my reaction. Oh, and she's a cheerleader. Not that that's a bad thing, but I think she fell on her head at one of her practices. And in a prom episode, she cried because she couldn't find the "dress in her dreams," and wasn't completely satisfied until she became prom queen. One thing I've noticed is that no matter how bad Casey tries to tell us her life is, thing's almost always go her way in the end (she gets the guy she wants, Derek gets some kind of revenge, people all love her, etc.) Derek is still quite immature, but I see that he really has matured. I don't see why many people hate Sally. She seems nice, and it's good to see Derek in a serious relationship with someone he cares about rather than "playing the field." He is also treating Edwin slightly better, and is a good brother to Marti.<br /><br />Really, the show is so-so, and I rated it low because despite some character development, the character I once admired has now become like any "fashionable teen queen" you can see anywhere on TV. But it was good while it lasted.

neg

test_9716

pending

feb27a7f-6965-4c61-b3df-621df8833ea0

What ever happened to shows with united parental figures? The parents in this show are nearly as irresponsible as the children. Instead of punishing the youngest child for being manipulative, they let her get away with murder. They can't ever agree on a course of action when it comes to dealing with the children, and instead they do nothing. Yeah, great plan. Just ignore their behavior because they're "cute." This show tells the already manipulative preteens that watch it that the "divide and conquer" technique is the best way to get their parents to "cave." The oldest children are constantly running amok and getting themselves into all sorts of impossible situations, but there are no consequences for their actions. Yeah, great television all right.

neg

test_9717

pending

281c4478-0891-45f6-aa47-cd0628bc1214

Based on what little i have seen of this show I don't think I will ever watch it again. Its not even remotely believable and frankly the Derek character just makes me angry.<br /><br />Sorry but seeing such a spoiled brat get his way time and again? Why would i want to watch that?!? No thanks, there are plenty of other shows that involve devious characters (Phil of the Future's Pim for example) where the evil one doesn't win or if they do not in the way they though.<br /><br />Not to mention that I think this is a terrible picture to paint about living with step-siblings. Yes life isn't rosy but one could attempt to portray a character that wasn't outright evil and wins.<br /><br />My suggestion is that you watch this only if you like seeing the villain win.

neg

test_9718

pending

c4060ee4-b0d4-44d2-b61a-82bff8723f42

There is so much not to like about this show it's hard to know where to start. Unlikeable characters, horrible plot lines, terrible writing, AND terrible acting. Don't even get me started on the obnoxious theme music.<br /><br />On top of all that the show is out of touch with U.S. audiences due to the heavy Canadian references all throughout it. "Oh say Derek, will you be going to Queens College in the Fall! How have you bean? We should go oot." <br /><br />Granted, other shows are filmed in Canada for financial reasons like Stargate: Atlantis, but while those shows may have suffered from some annoyances (like Rodney calling a Z-P-M a "Zed-P-M") the show didn't focus on life in Canada.<br /><br />MTV is running Degrassi (another show based on the experiences of the Canadian teenager) during daytime hours when no one is watching to fill time (most teens are at school when it airs). I'd wager it's for the same reason. Shows that focus on teenage life in Canada don't translate well to a U.S. audience.<br /><br />This show should be canceled and the remaining masters burned in a furnace.

neg

test_9719

pending

7f063914-5e6b-4b70-91b8-e8c8caa9ffb4

It is really a shame that IMDb doesn't let you give negative votes. This is the most hideously awful show ever foisted on the American public by our usually-likable neighbors to the north. The parents are a troglodyte and a neurotic hag. He is as charming as a well-used fire hydrant, with the same hygiene standards. She is a wax museum mannequin programmed with more neuroses than the entire cast of THE VIEW. The kids are non-entities if female and repulsive beyond belief if male, especially the title character. The boy is a serious contender for most insanely smug, self-satisfied, arrogant, and vain male character on Disney, which is saying something. This show was obviously conceived as the anti-BRADY BUNCH, but it comes off as the anti-Christ. And why is the photography so dark?

neg

test_9720

pending

2b991896-019c-457e-8050-14c3d5a8f8ad

As a parent of two girls(14 and 11) I have grave doubts about this show and all the shows aimed at tweens. First, I am always amazed that the living conditions of Drake/Josh, Zac/Cody, Hanna, Carly, Derek, Sunny etc. always make most houses look tiny and cramped. Most people work hard all day to pay for living quarters less than half the size yet on these shows nobody is going or coming from work, paying utility,rent, mortgage or insurance bills, mopping, sweeping, changing lightbulbs, fixing toilets,etc. Just walking in and out(and down the ubiquitous wide stairs that only exist on TV sets) cracking jokes(most of which involve lying and the hilarious results) and shirking work. I think kids watching these will have unrealistic expectations on how hard they will work and how luxurious their lives will be. Second, there is never an intact family, always a Mom or Dad but never both, who are always going on sexless dates but never seem to have any of the downside of divorce(alimony, support, arguments). Again, kids may get the impression that if mom/dad get divorced there will be fun fun fun(actually mom or dad are often not around if that helps the plot). Needless to say there is no mention of spirituality(forget specific religion). Finally there is a theme that troubles me. There are "nerds" that are good in school, "jocks" good in sports, "goody two shoes" as well. The protagonists are not good at school, sports, or charitable but make wisecracks about those who are. The message is don't be good at anything, just be one of the "nothings" who blend in cracking jokes. Needless to say I give all these shows a zero and turn them off all the time and am just short of forbidding them in my house.

neg

test_9721

pending

9439c40c-8486-4e11-a52e-a2b33a090e8b

I tried to give this show a chance, but it really doesn't sit well with me. Although the performances are good, the writing isn't. The two oldest step-siblings, Derek and Casey, are equally annoying; I get the impression that we're supposed to side with Casey, given that she's the protagonist, but I don't find her at all likable. The parents are continually portrayed as utterly clueless. The three younger children are the most watchable things on the show; Lizzie and Edwin are sweet the way they team up, and Marti is adorable. The plot lines are a bit far-fetched and the whole premise is mostly hard to swallow -- blended families are common, yes, but this family isn't really trying all that hard to blend. On the whole, I think it grades thumbs-down.

neg

test_9722

pending

5d0bf2bf-8b83-4a5a-b9af-17728ada8919

Normally I don't bother wasting my time writing comments for junk like this that I forget almost as soon as I see it, but since I saw this movie just yesterday on one of the comcast Showtime channels (346, I think) I decided to make an exception.<br /><br />Besides the fact that I enjoyed watching Carol Alt, I can't give any rational reason why I watched this movie through to the end. I'm always amazed that good-looking women are willing to appear in awful movies like this, but I suppose she thought this movie would lead to something better. I hope she was right, for her sake.<br /><br />Otherwise, this is an all-too-typical straight-to-video laugh riot, or just a piece of garbage, depending on your point of view. While there are a few decent moments of action in this movie, they don't really connect well with the story, such as it is.<br /><br />The setup, as I recall, involved Carol Alt as a depressed housewife who believes her husband, a cop, is cheating on her. There was also something about their child dying in an accident, and she blaming him for it, but before that storyline went anywhere she shot and killed him.<br /><br />On the same fateful night, a wounded stranger comes to her door and she tends to him, and almost immediately her house is under siege by government stooges and mercenaries intent on capturing the stranger, who appears to have almost superhuman fighting skills.<br /><br />This same kind of material has yielded decent entertainment plenty of times before, most notably in Matt Damon's The Bourne Identity, and could have done so this time as well but this particular movie was let down by poor production values and a lousy script.<br /><br />This movie really falls apart at the end, when the mysterious stranger turns out to be a cyborg (!) who was programmed to be a policeman, and after discovering that Carol Alt killed her husband he tries to kill her! The movie wasn't particularly good up until this point, but the ending really ruins it by trying to turn a modest action-thriller into a lumpy Terminator/Robocop wannabe.<br /><br />I also thought that the violence in the movie was a bit excessive at the end, with the demented cyborg gouging out poor Carol Alt's eye before it finally bit the dust. What was the point of that? For that matter, what was the point of anything in this movie? It held my attention and entertained me for about an hour, until the end, when it reminded me that I wasn't watching a first-rate movie. It wasn't even really a second-rate movie, for that matter.<br /><br />The final scenes seem to hint at a sequel, which I don't think ever happened, although I haven't carefully checked the web for it. Needless to say that I'm not in any hurry to see any sequel to this movie.

neg

test_9723

pending

896373d5-3d1d-432a-98c1-ea05ee26a1fb

Alright! A sci-fi/horror/action B-hybrid directed by Jim Wynorski and in the final scenes we get to see a cyborg with a defleshed metal head killing off multiple people! As with any Wynorski-flick, he throws in a whole bunch of crazy ideas and subplots that mostly don't lead to anywhere. But "Storm Trooper" is more like a two-movies-for-the-price-of-one kind of deal. On the one hand we got the drama/thriller part (as such the film opens) with Carol Alt killing her incredibly annoying & ungrateful husband (a plot that simply leads to nowhere). And on the other hand we got the 'escaped cyborg on a rampage' part, "Night of the Living Dead"-style. With Carol and the Cyborg being the ones trapped inside the house and a bunch of special OPs/bounty hunters playing the role of the zombies, trying to break into the house. Needless to say this flick is not up there with the greatest. Zach Galligan (of "Gremlins"-fame) especially is painfully bad and Corey Feldman (in a small supporting roll) is once again completely wasted on this movie. Wynorski even rips off one of his own movies here, since I am 99% sure he used some stock footage of his previous film "976 EVIL II" (the scene with the exploding truck and the motorcycle). Yes, it's so not good and so much fun. This is strictly for Wynorski-fans only. And I am one of them, in case you didn't know already.

neg

test_9724

pending

daaa2762-556e-4e1b-9d3d-1fa9d77263ca

Normally for movie reviews, I try to be constructive and objective, but there is only one word for this, uh, "film" : SUCKS!!!!!!! The dialogue, acting, special effects, plot, set, and characters all seem as if they were made up by, well, my potted plants. Don't see this, for the sake of all that is good and right in this world! :)

neg

test_9725

pending

61e23c4c-a305-4572-a626-cf0771d3bb1f

I think this is the worst movie I have seen since "Mortal Kombat 2". The action (including the effects) is like in a cheap Glen A. Larson TV show, the acting is terrible and the dialogs are even more stupid than in MK2. Avoid at all cost.

neg

test_9726

pending

e69f7f7b-4e2c-4e60-950a-70bd5864cf90

Anyone who thinks Kool Moe Dee, Carol Alt, and Corey Feldman comprise a list of good actors must be smoking something I'd love to try sometime. Where to begin: lousy soundtrack, hammy acting, "action" in places. This is the typical amateurishly written hack fodder that washed-up has-been and never-was's love to star in. I actually felt embarrassed for the "stars" in this "film". The only thespian missing to top this turd was Gary Coleman, who if he would have been in the movie, would have made it at least somewhat howlingly bad, rather than just plain bad.<br /><br />There was one part in the film where Carol Alt screamed, "DO YOU THINK I'M AN IDIOT?!?" Yes, Carol, I do, your agent does, and PLEASE for the love of all that is decent and holy... GO AWAY and stop degrading yourself like this! This film is something Anna Nicole Smith would take part in.<br /><br />I would tell you what the plot was, but that would be one more sentence fragment to this article, plus my mind drifted many times during the movie anyway, so I barely paid attention.

neg

test_9727

pending

15619c0f-ce3e-41dd-8bab-07952cf836d2

I am a lover of bad movies. I own "R.O.T.O.R." and "Boa vs. Python" and am working to build up my collection to such great titles as "Troll 2" and "What's up Superdoc?" But "Storm Trooper" is not even bad enough to make it to the list of wonderfully terrible movies. It's just lame. The guy who said he's had better dialogue with his potted plants has it right. Everything about this movie is stupid. When the robot guy runs into the car it seems almost as if he knew it was going to blow up, there was just no reason he would ever run in that direction. "Judge, Jury, and Executioner," "The perfect cop...but they went too far," I mean, come on, why do people bother making these movies anymore? R.O.T.O.R. makes it because it is hysterically awful, but Storm Trooper is just a waste of cinema because it isn't even bad enough to be so bad it's worth watching. This belongs in someone's home movies collection, something they can be sort of proud of, but that is all. I am p*ssed off it was on an HBO channel (with only 1-star, which is why I watched it) because it didn't belong there. Even if you love bad movies, do not watch this movie. It is shameful.

neg

test_9728

pending

ebcda221-9ae3-47fe-90db-5148f08e1de0

In watching Enterprise for the first time, as we all no doubt do with all shows, I went into it with an open mind, enjoying about half of the past Star Trek efforts and disliking the other half.<br /><br />Enterprise has fallen short, but this episode "A Night In Sickbay" made me seriously question why I bother tivoing the shows from Monday night on Sci Fi.<br /><br />Masking some idea that it is one of those 'A Day In The Life' episodes, in which we learn about what makes certain characters operate as humanoids, the writers seemed to forget that this was supposed to be a starship vessel, not the Ricardoes and the Mertzes.<br /><br />A planet, especially one whose people had been offended previously by the Enterprise crew (for eating in public), was no place for a dog. As an animal lover myself, I would have never taken one of my pets into an environment that had proved in the past to be tense.<br /><br />But what made this episode even more ridiculous was the endless problem with all of these ST shows, constantly depicting things that are sacred and insulting to other cultures, as tho they are offering some insight into American religious zealots.<br /><br />The aliens were now offended when the dog urinated on a sacred tree, yet the aliens were quite capable of taking the dog urinating as an insult.<br /><br />Strange how the dog's urinating wasn't regarded as some form of worship. I wonder how that one got by the show's writers.<br /><br />From there, we are subjected to a captain who was misguided by his duties. In watching the episode, I found it very easy to forget that Bakula was supposed to be the ship's captain.<br /><br />He chose to sleep in sickbay and from there we are given more inanities of behavior (sigh) that we aren't supposed to understand and that causes us to furrow brows.<br /><br />The doctor non-chalantly clips long, hairy toenails and feeds them to hungry caged animals. Ewwwwww! Then a white bat creature escapes.<br /><br />Oh, how is anyone supposed to sleep with all of this going on! Toenail clipping, for crying out loud! I was waiting for something that feeds on vomit to be presented.<br /><br />Then we were inexplicably given some idea that the captain was in love with T'pol, and that perhaps he was masking those feelings with his concern over the dog.<br /><br />Endless amounts of rubbish.<br /><br />"your dog is ill, so go have sex. You'll feel better." And of course, the captain had to apologize and we humans had to regard his apology as completely ridiculous, because we are so (everyone smile very sarcastically) narrow-minded! Saw depictions such as this endlessly droned out on TNG.<br /><br />Oddly enough, the only thing missing from this awful episode was that Trip person offering his smirks and downhome boyisms, tho Bakula seemed to be covering all of that with the silly dog.<br /><br />Oh, the dog survived, so now go play fetch.

neg

test_9729

pending

ebc26fad-0388-4ef2-b221-065ef239c049

I thought this series was going to be another fun, action series with some dynamic plots and great performances. I was wrong. While I like Jamie Denton, this show is hardly worth watching at all, unless you enjoy watching some people brutalized and the actions of the agents supposedly warranted under the theme of "national security." The show is great propaganda for the current government, and spews out jingoism as though we talk that way every day. After a couple of episodes, it was boring the hell out of me, and I started watching reruns of House Invaders on BBCAmerica instead. Rather watch CSI and Without a Trace, without a doubt.

neg

test_9730

pending

587772f4-d0bf-4080-a0d6-d36d9bea8265

Now we were chosen to be tortured with this disgusting piece of blatant American propaganda. It came no wonder for me that this is admired by most American viewers and hated by Europeans. This show is made for Americans - it is too stupid and full with hatred and clichés to be admitted elsewhere. Almost everyone involved must be return to school, acting is utterly predictable and bad, script is pile of garbage all round. operator work is ground zero etc. etc.<br /><br />You have been warned. It doesn't even have "guilty pleasure" entertainment for those brainwashed iq=0 human beings.<br /><br />I wish I could enter negative values, admins? Anyone?

neg

test_9731

pending

627a19ef-96ba-4053-a90b-d50ea4dae142

The TV show was slow moving and the 'offbeat' characters were sometimes irritating. Only through the miracle of fast forward was I able to make it through the first 2 hours. <br /><br />The write-up indicates that it's some kind of comedy/mystery but I didn't see much of either. <br /><br />If it really picks up after the first 2 hours, please let me know, because I doubt that I will watch the rest without a recommendation.<br /><br />This review is supposed to be without spoilers so I will continue in a vague, non-spoiler, fashion. I found the two main characters uninteresting and unsympathetic. I found myself asking 'Would a normal adult do that?' The man with the hedge trimmer looking out the window was irritating and when the male lead interacted with him, he looked pathetic. Would a normal adult put up with someone as irritating as him?

neg

test_9732

pending

db2c90ae-de19-48c1-9446-7c1aaea8e01f

Ah, the classic genre of 80s sex comedies. This is set on two beaches; one a nude beach featuring myriad (fully) unclothed women. The plot? Something about a bunch of dimwits attempting to get laid. The usual. Fans of gratuitous T&A (and P) should hunt this one down.

neg

test_9733

pending

3ce6c95f-b0e9-497e-851d-1a7db94349c8

This is one of a rarity of movies, where instead of a bowl of popcorn one should watch it with a bottle of vodka. To be completely honest we are a group of people who actually know the man, Mo Ogrodnik, and decided to drink ourselves stupid to this film.<br /><br />The cinematic aspect of Wolfgang Something's photography seems to have left out both close-ups and breasts. Mo and Wolfgang's collaborative effort revealed the passion of the two actresses, plastic peens holding passion. There's also beetle banging. As Violet would have put it: "This (plastic peen) goes up your butt". The rat porn and subsequent rat smashing is awesome. <br /><br />Alright. So if you are still reading, let us explain who we are. Mo Ogrodnik teaches at NYU and we are a group of her students, who, finishing a film class with her, decided to get poop- faced and watch here directorial debut. She also wrote Uptown Girls. I can't tell you how much that's been hammered into our skulls. So this movie is quite the experience. At the very bottom of this post will be a drinking game we created for this movie. <br /><br />About 13 minutes into this game, none of us could see straight. The sheer amount of Dido's in the first thirty minutes created enough reasons to drink to pacify an elephant.There was something secretly pleasurable about seeing two underage girls hit on a Kurt Cobain lookalike with absolutely no context, save for his mysterious scene at the convenience store where he was oh-so-naturally reading a local newspaper. Because that's what we all do. The heart-shaped glasses were delightfully derivative of Lolita. And something about that provocative scene of the nude chin-up boy suggests the director's history of homosexual pornographic experiments. We wish we were kidding.<br /><br />Enough intellectual contemplation. ON TO THE DRINKING GAME! This will ensure that the viewing experience is a positive one. It's very simple, and very likely to send at least one member of your party to immediate care.<br /><br />The Mo Ogrodnik/Ripe Drinking Game: 1. Every time you see anything related to pornography, take a drink. 2. Every time you see auteur Mo Ogrodnik's name appear, take a drink. 3. Sex. 4. (plastic peen) require two drinks. 5. Any time somebody points a gun at another character, take a drink. -At this point you will probably need to refill/pee pee any remaining sobriety from your body.- 6. Any time there is blood (INCLUDING "LADY BLOOD"), please take a sip! 7. The underused hula-hoop girl requires one drink per second. 8. Gratuitous use of the "magic black man" requires one drink. 9. If you can't figure out the through-line, KEEP DRINKING, Beyotch. 10. Whenever you are able to predict a line, take a drink. Trust us. It's easy. <br /><br />That's it, internet! Keep drinking, and try not to get riped.<br /><br />-Hawaiian Smirnoff Punch, Jr.

neg

test_9734

pending

7f36911f-8e81-45b9-b2b7-8a20e83671d2

There are so many things wrong with this movie I don't even know where to begin. The story is not cohesive AT ALL. I guarantee that five minutes into the movie the average viewer will be scratching his/her head in confusion.<br /><br />Here's what I remember of the movie before I was bored into unconsciousness: A quasi-abusive dad chases some pre-teen sisters through a house but turns out to be not that abusive after all. In the next scene, the girls are about 15. They're driving with their parents and hit a deer. The deer must have been explosive because their car blows up, one sister drags the other from the burning wreckage. Then, the girls are drifting in a boat on a lake and make a huge plan to go to Kentucky (??) and start a new life. In the very next scene, the girls are hitchhiking toward a military base. And what a military base it is. Actually, it's more like a hog farm converted to look like a military base with plenty of confused extras playing "soldiers." The base commander's office is particularly awesome because there are random things like an AK-47 hanging on the wall and a drill sergeant hat mounted to a plaque (????) so the audience is sure to know that this is a military guy's office. Then some random dude pushing a motorcycle shows up and the base commander orders him to go "into town" to buy some porn mags, and to make sure the soldiers don't think that he's on the "pink team." So our character takes a pickup converted to look like an army truck "to town" and loads up a box from a nondescript "book store" with a blowup doll by the front door. The girls hide in the guy's truck when he stops to gas up, and look through the porn stash to find items inside like the "anal invader." I guess that's enough of the plot to scare most people away. Plot aside, the sound quality is terrible and the movie is full of cheesy attempts at symbolism, like a radio preacher talking about forbidden fruit during the scene where the "slutty" sister meets the main character for the first time, or how the camera lingers way too long on certain shots to try to convey a "message".<br /><br />If you ever see this for sale or rent or whatever, stay away. It's not worth the money in either case.

neg

test_9735

pending

9c012398-4824-472e-9d1e-3784899ddb5d

Thinly-cloaked retelling of the Garden-of-Eden story -- nothing new, nothing shocking, although I feel that that is what the filmmakers were going for. The idea is trite. Strong performance from Daisy Eagan, that's about it. I believed she was 13, and I was interested in her character. The rest left me cold.

neg

test_9736

pending

4496f705-43b0-4817-b725-cf265149cf20

This movie did attempt to capture the naive idealism that many young teenaged girls have for fun, friendship, escape, danger, sex, maturity, etc. The problem was that it failed to establish these things on every single level; which is why it failed to build a decent story around them. I couldn't follow the point of any part of this story, nor any reason why I should care.<br /><br />This movie is not an exploration into pedophilia at all. It's basically about a girl being in love with her sister, and her sister being in love with the idea of "men". While the latter tries out her love of men, the former tries to win her sister back by "getting even".<br /><br />The plot is weak, the characters are weak, and the reality of it all was similar to an amateur porn filmmaker (without the sexual substance).

neg

test_9737

pending

548d89cc-a5e1-40d2-b8cf-bec8a25e09ba

This movie was, in one word, terrible. It was boring, predictable, and downright creepy. I kept waiting for it to end and when it did, I was horrified. The ending left a bad taste in my mouth, to say the least. My advice to anyone interested in movies about budding female sexuality: stay away from this movie. Movies like this give classics like Lolita a bad name.

neg

test_9738

pending

12a89299-299a-4be4-af73-837bd4cb9e48

"Ripe" is one of those awful indies which manages to get into circulation and give indies a bad name. Telling a stupidly incongruous tale of pubescent twin sisters who crawl from a firey car crash which kills their parents and then hit the road while happily shoplifting, making goo-goo eyes at some guy, and ending up on an Army post so dilapidated no Army would want it (yeah, right!). An apparent attempt at a coming of age flick, "Ripe" is an almost complete loser which wanders aimlessly as the players drift in and out of character finally ending clumsily with nary a shred of credibility to be found anywhere. Not recommended for anyone.

neg

test_9739

pending

a43284dd-8a9b-4422-b75f-8ad001fd767d

Uninspired, pretty much all around. The only exceptions were a couple emotional scenes with Keena (Violet), with whose performance I was pleasantly surprised and occasionally moved. Beyond that, it ended up being little more than a bad COA flick.

neg

test_9740

pending

3f69e897-5e86-4a23-859c-0a2dcb5d814d

If this movie had been directed by a man, he would have been jailed. While Adrian Lyne was shackled with a lawyer in the editing room to oversee the gutting of a classic piece of literature to appease the censors, and to avoid running afoul of the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996, a woman dumps Ripe on us and everyone applauds. Did I miss a meeting? In addition to the blatant pedophilia, this movie is utterly preposterous. Has this woman never set foot on an active military base? Has she never met a soldier? Whose army is this? The uniforms must have come from Uniforms-R-Us. Just throw on some patches, who cares? Just make sure each and every one of them has a Big Red One. There is a slight inside joke here that no doubt went over the auteur's head, but might possibly have been slipped in by whoever furnished the military vehicles. Certainly there were no military advisors. The U.S. Army does not operate slums. Temporary base camps in jungle war zones are cleaner than this. The U.S. Army does not put 14-year-old girls to work on military bases, nor allow them to use the firing ranges or training courses. There is much drama to be mined in the sexual coming-of-age of teenage girls. This movie has absolutely nothing to do with that whatsoever.

neg

test_9741

pending

01922084-7c62-46b3-8478-1ecedd4621f0

This film is terrible. Not only is the story unbelievable, the situations the characters put themselves in are so silly, to the point where it isn't shocking. I find it sad that Daisy Eagan, star of Broadway's The Secret Garden, decided that this would be a career step. The idea is interesting, two young girls coming of age very quickly. But the sex isn't even arousing. The film is silly, the story is silly, the performances are silly, and the whole concept while interesting falls flat. I'm sure all 14 year old girls make out with guys after they've had their first period and tried to flush their panties down the toilet. Better Luck next time guys. My Scale * T-Scale *

neg

test_9742

pending

eff28360-0722-4911-b743-0b0843b05467

"Stick Around" is one of the brief series of films that paired Bobby Ray with Oliver 'Babe' Hardy before Hardy's immortal teaming with Stan Laurel. Several critics have suggested that Ray and Hardy -- the gormless little man and the overbearing big man -- were a prototype for Laurel and Hardy, but that simply isn't true. Ray and Hardy play off each other well, but really aren't a team; in each of these films, Ray has more footage and is clearly meant to be the hero, while Hardy bullies him in a manner very much unlike his later "Ollie" character's treatment of "Stanley". It's very clear that the relationship between little Bobby and big Babe was inspired by earlier Chaplin films, in which the Little Tramp was bullied by huge Mack Swain or burly Eric Campbell.<br /><br />However, in "Stick Around", Hardy sports a bowler hat that's identical to his later "Ollie" titfer (although with a fuller moustache), and he and Bobby -- after spending most of this movie as adversaries -- end up as drunken comrades.<br /><br />Bobby is a paperhanger for the firm of Matz and Blatz, with Hardy as his boss. When the tardy Bobby tries to pretend he showed up promptly, there's some clever physical business between the two men that reminds me of a routine performed by Roscoe Arbuckle and Buster Keaton in 'The Garage'. A bit later, Bobby Ray -- whose brief acting career never firmly developed a screen persona -- performs an "impossible" gag that would have been inappropriate for Stan Laurel, when he pulls a long stepladder out of a much smaller toolkit.<br /><br />The paperhangers go to work in a sanitarium, and there are the usual unrealistic depictions of mental illness: one resident insists on sitting on a piece of toast because he thinks he's a poached egg! There are also some howlingly racist (and tastelessly unfunny) gags involving a black man who obligingly lets the inmates crack open walnuts on top of his head. When he sees a *picture* of a lion -- not even a photograph, mind you -- he goes all cowardly as if it were an actual wild animal.<br /><br />"Stick Around" is fairly dire. Most of the pantomime and acting is much broader than it needs to be for a slapstick comedy; even Hardy, already a very subtle actor by 1925, pongs badly with his over-acting here. There are several bad examples of shot-matching. I was impressed with one unusual camera set-up, when a fat pedestrian's face is dirtied and we see a close-up of his reflection in a hand mirror, rather than his actual face.<br /><br />SPOILERS COMING. During their brief pairing, Hardy typically played Ray's boss or adversary or both; here, for once, they end up as pals. It's a nice ending, but it doesn't make up for what's really a poor film. My rating for this one is only 4 out of 10.

neg

test_9743

pending

29319bf1-5e5f-4b1f-bf98-c3b36b191c2e

"Nicodemus" is almost a copy of "Red" in the odd behavior sense, but this episode focuses on other people in Clark Kent's unpredictable life. When a poisonous flower finds it's way into Smallville Jonathan Kent is the first to be effected by it. the flower causes people to reverse their behavior and when it effects Jonathan, he becomes short tempered and violent, however Clark manages to stop him from doing anything rash until his father finally passes out. okay. so far, so good. next up is Lana. the Episode was good up to that point, for the flower causes her to attempt seducing Clark. at the last moment, he refuses her but the damage has already been done. this episode causes the wrong impressions and isn't suitable for people under the age of twenty, due to it's adult content. the first part was good, the last part (focusing on the effect the flower has on Pete) was good, but the middle that was all about Lana's alternate personality, was most defiantly not, and that ruined what could have been a brilliant Episode. I give this Episode two.

neg

test_9744

pending

d7c82de4-c348-408b-8fb2-45b86fd9f75d

It is a shame that a movie with such a good cinematography as this one had no plot to be supported by the work of Sarah Cawley (cinematography) and Adam Lichtenstein (Film Editing), and above all, no sense of what goes on in Mexico City. The movie tries to be a very realistic depiction of life in city, but it is unable to do it. It is a shame, a lot of film wasted. An American woman tries to find her brother who has been kidnaped. The first account of the story is powerful and interesting, very realistic, but it seems that there was no effort to come with a better narrative of the ordeal, especially when it comes to the issue of the attitudes of the US embassy personnel in Mexico City, when dealing with an issue like this one. Compare, as an example, with Frantic(1988), which deals with a similar issue. Something similar can be said of the role of local authorities. Compare, as an example, with Todo el Poder (1999). The movie is worth watching if you want to get a sense of the looks of the City itself, paying little or no attention to the rather weak "plot" and the many twists that require a rather extensive suspension of disbelief. Who is going to believe that a Mexican patrol from Mexico City is going to go all the way to catch the main characters to the Mexico-US border? And that this policeman is going to be able to use its radio from the border to Mexico City! Only the producers of this movie. It is worth mentioning that unlike Frida and other movies about Mexico at least in these one Mexicans talk Spanish.

neg

test_9745

pending

5c5f69cc-57c1-4979-b9c7-42553a33b162

Here is a movie that was so pedestrian for 90% of it that it had no right to become so challenging and frustrating at the end. Did the director decide to become auteur suddenly, 80% through the making of this movie? Yeesh. SPOILER ALERT Thing start out typically enough for 50's youth-gone-wild; there are drifters, good girls, bad girls, gangs, the kindly old diner manager, and the town creep. Things follow the expected path until about 15 minutes before the end, when the only likable character is killed off and the anti-hero is blamed (this would not be so unexpected if this were the main plot of the movie... but all this stuff starts happening and unravelling during the final reel! Major curve ball). Then things get weird; the kindly old codger forms a mob and beats the hero to a bloody pulp. The mere presence of the hero's friend somehow drags a confession out of the real killer - the leering, creepy town nut (which in any real universe, he'd have been the prime suspect to begin with, even if the anti-hero was found with her body).<br /><br />We're left with a somewhat feeble "happy" ending, which is about as out of character with the rest of the movie as the events of the 10 minutes preceding it.<br /><br />Even more odd is this film's insistence on playing homosexual innuendo to the hilt, but constantly presenting the two male leads as straight. Maybe this was on purpose - perhaps Bix's resistance to settling down with the girl was more because of his sexuality (which in the 50s would have to be kept quite repressed, and thus not discussed or even admitted by him) than his need to be a "drifter". If the director's intent was to spin this as a sexual yarn - that the drifter drifts because he feels he's an outcast sexually; that his paternal regard towards Danny is not, in fact, paternal but spousal; that his inability to remain with Carrie is rooted in a sexual revulsion that even he does not quite understand - it could have been made more clear. Instead, we get this very bizarre alchemy of homoeroticism and behavior that is completely heterosexual.<br /><br />These young men sleep next to each other even when they can get some room to spread out. When Danny is propositioned (and once even in bed with a woman), Bix flips out and takes him away. Danny pays Bix's way (sure, there is another explanation for it, but it still strikes a chord every time you see Danny buy Bix's lunch). They end up living together at the end. Not since Hitchcock's "Rope" has homosexuality been so blatant but denied.<br /><br />MST3K did the right thing by taking this one on. Aside from Jack Elam, there is little to commend the film.

neg

test_9746

pending

9f1c56db-83c5-425e-b6bf-b93402aa5b42

This one is one of those classic B movie following the exploits of 2 hobos. It's done really cheesily and Big Stupid running off one-liners like a cardboard cassanova. But Jack Elam steals every scene he's in as the creepazoid Jesse (now Jerome!). My favorite scene is the lynch mob and the dad's voice going up 10 octaves ("You loved her?"). Danny, Big Stupid's protege, is surprisingly stupider, but not as loathsome as our lead star. There's also a quaint scene of a guy pimping at the diner. Joyce Meadows is the sweet, naive nice gal and probably the least annoying. And those yellow ruffles (RAWR!). Oh, and booze is evil according to Mr. Stupid.<br /><br />This movie's a hoot. Watch the MST cover of this and Crow's terrific Elam homage!

neg

test_9747

pending

3f9db0f8-7d0f-414c-8f8a-4510c7260edc

A young man, named Danny, has run away from home and meets a drifter, named Bix, who agrees to tag along with Danny and watch out for him... and his money. They end up in a small town where they meet Carrie - a shy, naive girl working in her father's diner. Bix starts seeing Carrie but he plans on leaving soon (because he's a drifter, see? He's no good! Understand?). Meanwhile, the town creep, Jesse (played by a perfectly casted Jack Elam), keeps showing up at the diner and bothering Carrie. Danny keeps inadvertently picking up whores left and right (because he's loaded with money – he has almost a hundred dollars!) whom Bix has to constantly chase away (there are a lot of ambiguously gay overtones between Danny and Bix in this flick). Eventually, Bix and Danny decide to leave town but trouble is a-brewing, due to Jesse the creep.<br /><br />My review of the movie itself: a terrible, dated "Troubled Youth" flick from the '50s.<br /><br />My review of the MST3K version of the movie: I've got to say that this is one of the best episodes of MST3K ever. The riffing is dead-on, all the time. Except for the somewhat downbeat ending, this movie is easy material for Joel and the Bots, especially Danny's constant screw-ups that Bix has to rescue him from. The host segments are pretty good too, especially the segment with the `Train Song.' Hopefully, Rhino releases this episode to home video one day.

neg

test_9748

pending

7ec86f07-1eaf-433d-886d-8d676d546ad9

The Girl in Lovers Lane is one strange little low-budget film. On its surface, the movie tells the story of a tough drifter named Bix (Brett Halsey) who spends his time looking out for a young kid named Danny (Lowell Brown) and the girl, Carrie (Joyce Meadows), that Bix meets who would like to look out for him. Nothing overly interesting happens (Bix goes out with Carrie, Bix gets Danny out of trouble, Carrie's father drinks a lot, etc.) until about 10 minutes to go in the movie when Carrie is murdered. Her father blames Bix, pulls him out of a jail cell, and just about beats him to death. Now their roles are reversed and Danny has to save Bix.<br /><br />Until I read the reviews on IMDb, I thought that maybe it was just me reading more into Bix and Danny's relationship than was really there, but I see now that I'm not alone. It was quite obvious to me early on that Bix and Danny had more of a relationship than you usually see in a movie from 1959. The homosexual nature of their relationship, while never openly expressed, is still quite obvious. Their living and sleeping arrangements, Bix's reaction to finding Danny in bed with a prostitute, Bix's inability to commit to Carrie, and that phone call at the end when Danny tells his parents he's "brining home a friend are a few examples of moments that lead to the inevitable conclusion that there's more to their relationship than initially meets the eye. I'm sure they exist, but I can't think of any movies I've seen from the 50s that scream homosexual quite as loudly as this one.<br /><br />As for the movie, I don't know any other way to put this – it's boring. As I wrote earlier, nothing much at all happens for 90% of the run time. The characters are dull and the actors aren't good enough to give The Girl in Lovers Lane much of a spark. The lone exception is Jack Elam. His crazy Jesse is the one character interesting enough to be worth watching. Elam had creepy down pat! But I guess the biggest problem I had with the movie was with character motivation and logic. Carrie is killed and Bix is immediately blamed? What about crazy Jesse who has been stalking Carrie for probably her whole life? Anyone think to ask Jesse where he was that night? Her father has seen him bother Carrie at the diner, yet he never considers that the leering Jesse might have something to do with his daughter's death? Not a lot of logic there. And what about Jesse's confession? Danny grabs Jesse by the lapel and this is all it takes to force a confession out of Jesse? Real tough guy, huh? Why would he confess so easily? And after he confesses, no one thinks to grab him? It's awfully nice of Jesse just to stay put and not run off. In any other reality, he would have never spilled his guts and would have run like a rabbit if he had been fingered for the murder. The fact that The Girl in Lovers Lane asks me to accept these ridiculous actions on the part of the characters is something I'm not willing to do. Overall, I'm giving The Girl in Lovers Lane a 4/10.

neg

test_9749

pending

cd4a95ed-4f3f-446e-9f59-8ea11efce118

Okay... for the most part, and all its cheesiness, this movie was actually pretty good for an MST3K flick... but then they decided to ruin what little goodness it had about fifteen minutes before the ending. *SPOILER ALERT* The film is very basic... a rich mama's boy named Danny meets a bum named Bix, and the two of them travel to a small town, where Bix meets a pretty girl named Carrie (who is so very.) Now, this film's basic premise seemed promising enough. All they needed to do was follow the simple chemistry of any romance movie... Carrie loves Bix... Bix loves Carrie... a creepy guy in town lusts for Carrie... Now, I know what you're thinking... Bix fights the creep and ultimately decides to settle down with Carrie, and Danny returns home, and they all live happily ever after... right? WRONG!! Because Carrie gets murdered by the town creep, because Bix is too gay to commit. (There are so many homosexual undertones between Danny and Bix.) And then, the whole town decides to lynch Bix, even though the town creep would've easily been the prime suspect. Then, the town creep confesses to killing Carrie without much hesitation... (must've felt bad, the poor dope.) Then, Danny brings Bix home with him... that's the film's "happily ever after." Sad, huh? All I can say is, thank God for Joel and the Bots. Because they turned this horse hockey into one of my favorite MST3K episodes.

neg

test_9750

pending

ace4b3e2-7452-4b8e-a33a-0c3fe157bbd2

I have noticed that a lot of films that have been featured on "Mystery Science Theater" have received a tons of low ratings on IMDb. However, a few of the films featured on the films weren't that bad and it's not fair to rate a film that's been given the "MST" treatment--with the hosts making funny comments during the film. Now I am NOT saying that "The Girl in Lover's Lane" is a great film, but it's not nearly bad enough to merit its current IMDb score of 2.1.<br /><br />The film begins with Bix and Danny meeting. Bix is a veteran drifter and Danny a younger guy who seems to have no particular reason to be wandering about the country. Once they blow into a small town, Bix needs to rescue Danny again and again because Danny is quite naive--a nice way of saying he has the intellect of a tomato.<br /><br />Along the way, something happens to the self-assured Bix--he finds a nice young lady and finds the lure of staying put pulling at him. And, in an odd subplot, Jack Elam plays a super-creepy sicko who wanders the town scaring the crap out of everyone--yet oddly, the police don't seem to take much notice nor does anyone on their own do anything about him. Ultimately, however, when Elam puts the moves on a girl who Bix is falling for, things come to a full boil.<br /><br />Overall, while not at all a great film, there were many interesting plot elements in this film--enough to merit a score higher than 2.1. The biggest negatives are a simplistic conclusion to the mystery that occurs near the end as well as the total stupidity of Danny one time too often. Considering the minuscule budget, however, it's a watchable little film.

neg

test_9751

pending

84b0a7e5-4cd3-4343-afa6-90c85f17beab

The Girl in Lovers' Lane: 3 out of 10: Homoerotic subtext in the movies is a well known phenomenon. Plenty of dissertations have come out of film schools about the hidden subtexts in such films as Top Gun and Spartacus. The Girl in Lover’s Lane certainly fits the homoerotic trope. In fact, it is so blatant and over the top even MST3K, whom rarely notes such things in their riffing, simply cannot avoid it.<br /><br />The film is about two drifters. One a rich kid (Lowell Brown) running away from home with a hundred dollars and no street smarts, the other is a professional hobo (Brett Halsey). The hobo saves the kid from a gang of thugs and they end up in a small town consisting of a diner, a pool hall and a whorehouse. Our drifter scholar gets a second look from the diner’s waitress (Joyce Meadows as the titular Girl in Lovers Lane) who clearly is past the age of being choosy and whose only other prospect is creepy Jack Elam doing a Steve Buscemi impression.<br /><br />On the surface, this seems like a strange film for the MST3K treatment. While the cast are to old for the characters they are playing, the acting is actually pretty good with both Brett Halsey and Jack Elam giving solid performances. The story is slight, but hardly The Robot vs. Aztec Mummy material and the production values are cheap back lot, but relatively competent.<br /><br />It is the strange Batman and his ward homosexual undercurrents that make this film both awful and hilarious. Halsey’s over the top objections to the kids attempts to get laid in the whorehouse are hilarious, his inability to commit to the waitress (or at the least get past first base) are telling, and the dozens of glances between him and the kid; a hand on shoulder, the sleeping arrangements, blowing off dates with the girl so he and the kid can shave each other. You don’t have to be Freud to figure out this undercurrent.

neg

test_9752

pending

9d38e8dc-f3d1-4a25-ab71-c96ab351ca4c

I don't know if I hate this movie as much as I did when I watched it two weeks ago, but if you're expecting the events described on the box, forget it... that would have been a good movie. The great descent described on the box is nothing compared to the descent into utter dispair that I took viewing this movie. If you've seen HBO's Taxi Cab Confessions, this is the same thing, only fictional, and not even remotely as interesting. If you really want to see something interesting about a cab driver, check out the 20 minute short they run on Encore from time to time... it is actually worth watching. I have never, ever asked for my money back for a movie until I saw this ... thing. Boring, Boring, Boring. It does offer one unique trait, which is this: It leaves you to decide what happens to each of the passengers, letting your imagination fill in the gaps. Which would be great, if you actually cared about any of these people. Instead I found myself yelling at the screen, weeping like a child, praying for either the end of the movie or my own death. The cab driver himself (though well played, considering) runs through emotions seemingly at random, from sarcastic to sympathetic to raging lunatic to apathetic. Sometimes it is appropriate, most of the time it's just a display for it's own sake. "Dammit, I learned all these emotions in acting class, and I'm gonna use them!" Now that I've been thinking about it again, I do hate this movie as much as I did!

neg

test_9753

pending

0bbb31ba-dc42-4874-b7ac-0237cca4f7a7

If you have ever wanted to know more about cab drivers, then this is an excellent movie to watch, for informational purposes only. I can just hear it now, "Wait, just wait a second! Why don't we follow a cab driver through his entire day! Cabbies are funny, and so are the people they meet, and they only talk to each other for just a couple of minutes, so the other actors should be cheap! Harry, you take care of production, Joan, you've got materials, Brian, you go round up some actors and we'll all meet back here tomorrow to start filming!"<br /><br />The first 90% of the movie could not have been any worse had that very thing happened. At least with no planning whatsoever, there is always the element of surprise to be found. Some of Jim Carrey's movies have stuff added as they go along and they always do well at the box offices. The problem here is that the first 90% is pretty well scripted out, and it pretty much sucks. Paul Dillon plays the cab driver in Chicago who is working all day. We pretty much see what he sees. People get in and out of his car and he drives all around town. He talks to those people for a few seconds and then we get some more people. <br /><br />I'll admit, there were a couple of funny bits here and there. A religious family tries to talk the cab driver into going to church with them, he takes a pregnant lady and her husband to the hospital, breaks up a rich businessman from his girlfriend, a poor girlfriend from her boyfriend and takes a rape victim home. I guess the moral of the movie is that a Cab Driver is more than a Cab Driver and has a larger sphere of influence over the lives of his passengers than you might originally think. For some people, he's just a means of getting from here to there, but for others, his very ordinary words help change the direction of their lives.<br /><br />The last passenger of the day is used to try make sense of the rest of the movie, and to a small extent it succeeds. It had a bit of that deathbed repentance feel to it where the good majority of the movie sucks and then at the very end, it tries to make it all better in just one or two changes. I wasn't too impressed with the movie as a whole, but there were a few bits and pieces worth watching again. As far as the actors go, Paul Dillon is it. John Cusack, Gillian Anderson and Julianne Moore are all in this, for about 30 seconds each, but don't watch this for any of them or you will most certainly be disappointed. I will give the other people invovled some credit that it's not your ordinary movie they have produced here, but it wasn't a very good one either. There just wasn't enough material to keep you going for an hour and a half. It was a decent effort, but it failed none the same.

neg

test_9754

pending

67895a72-978c-4ae8-9d5a-0369ea5d95e5

A day in the life of a dimwitted cab driver sometime around Christmas: The cab driver picks up a fare...they have a 'really insightful' interlude...he drops off the fare...he picks up another fare...another interlude...and so it goes on like this for 90 friggin' minutes...none of it convincing (or interesting) for even one minute...SKIP IT!

neg

test_9755

pending

6dbeab76-c94f-44fe-92d2-ea62a48a335f

The lavish production values that you generally find in a Merchant/Ivory film are all here, but this is an exceedingly dull take on what could have been a very lively affair. I agree with an earlier poster that it makes no sense for the story to be unfolding through the eyes of an African American family and yet their own ancestor, Sally Hemmings, has barely a role to play in the proceedings. There is not much clarity to be found in helping the audience understand the motivations of any of these historical figures. And I was very bothered by the accents of a number of the characters. Nancy Marchand sounded very British for what one assumes is a French nun. And both Gwyneth Paltrow and Greta Scacchi seemed to be trying out different accents in various scenes. In fact, Gwyneth is very poorly served in this biopic. Her role as Thomas Jefferson's daughter, Martha, is written in such a manner that we never get a handle on who she really is. One moment she is slapping a slave, and another moment, she's deploring the whole system of slavery. Nick Nolte performs the role well enough but doesn't ever make us truly care for Jefferson or any of his exploits. Very disappointing all in all.

neg

test_9756

pending

8d7a6cbd-e788-406f-bcce-8bcb0bb8dd3e

"Jefferson in Paris" is a truly confounding film. It presents Thomas Jefferson (Nick Nolte) in the most unflattering light possible, painting him as a liar, racist and pedophile, yet offers not a shred of condemnation for those sins. This is the way he was, the film seems to say. End of sentence, end of movie, the door's behind you.<br /><br />After arriving in Paris with his daughter Patsy (Gwenyth Paltrow), Jefferson proceeds to win the heart of Maria Cosway (Greta Scacchi), the wife of a homosexual English painter (the criminally underused Simon Callow). A turn of events sends Maria to England, however, and Jefferson proceeds to forget her with astonishing speed for a man who, mere minutes of screen time before, was asking her to live with him in America.<br /><br />He's been bewitched, you see, by Sally Hemmings (Thandie Newton), one of his slaves just arrived from America. Just why he's bewitched is hard to tell--although Sally is undeniably beautiful, she acts like a simple-minded child in front of Jefferson. When she isn't telling ghost stories in exaggerated "darky" speech patterns, she's slinking around his bedroom, practically oozing lust for her distinguished massa.<br /><br />If her behavior is an attempt to excuse Jefferson's, it doesn't work. Jefferson damns himself further when Maria, tired of waiting for his letters, travels from England to see him. I've not changed toward you, he insists, offering weak excuses for not writing. To her credit, Maria sees through his brazen lies immediately. When Sally appears, and she and Jefferson flirt openly (and cruelly, to my mind) in Maria's very presence, the illusion falls apart completely.<br /><br />No one today believes that Jefferson, Washington and the rest were utter paragons of virtue and morality. Yet, are we supposed to believe that the learned, distinguished Jefferson would be attracted to Sally, a woman whose most intelligent conversation is about how "massa's Frenchie friends don' unnastan' aw corn" and who rubs herself against his front as she passes, right before Maria's eyes?<br /><br />Even if we let that slide, it's followed by the horrifying revelation that Sally was only 15 when this affair took place (Jefferson was 41). Strangely, this fact comes out only toward the very end, when Sally's brother James is understandbly furious at her blase announcement that she is carrying Jefferson's child.<br /><br />Jefferson is equally blase when told that Sally is carrying his child, and patronizingly tells her that she'd be far better off under his protection than free and living in France with her brother. But, he promises, I'll free her when I die and our children (including any more that come, Jefferson says, in a chilling declaration of Sally as *his*) when they reach 21. Oh thank you, massa, you feel like telling the screen. Big deal.<br /><br />The worst scene is still to come, however, involving Jefferson's daughter Patsy. She is already angry at him, first for breaking his vow, made to her mother on her deathbed, not to marry again. (Obviously the woman wasn't just talking about matrimony.) Jefferson has also refused to allow Patsy to become a nun as she wishes, despite earlier moralizing about freedom of religion (that seems to mean freedom to agree with him).<br /><br />Having promised Sally and her brother their freedom, Jefferson calls in Patsy to witness the bargain and promise to fulfill it should anything happen to him. Sally's brother blurts out the impending birth of the child, and Jefferson asks, "do you swear?" Paltrow's performance in this scene is brilliant, although she has almost nothing to say. Her face nearly contorts in agonizing pain at this revelation, yet she controls her grief and whispers yes.<br /><br />If anything, and the filmmakers could have had something if they'd emphasized this point more, "Jefferson in Paris" is an indication of the status of woman in the late 18th century, viewed even by men like Jefferson as attractive property, pleasing but without true intellect or souls. We see Jefferson shed a few tears over a letter from Maria, obviously telling him where to get off, but he's soon laughing away at a wild dance from Sally, complete with tossed hair and heaving bosom.<br /><br />I don't know whether this is an accurate portrait of Jefferson or not. I don't care to watch it, however, just for the sake of watching it. This Jefferson is no hero or even an anti-hero. He's a selfish, lying child-molestor--and one who gets away with it--not the kind of man I want to see a movie about.

neg

test_9757

pending

627dd4d7-e3fc-495b-b4b8-f8c68ceb9eda

I looked forward to spending part of my Independence Day weekend watching a good film about Jefferson. This film was not it. It was rather long, drawn out, dull and unbalanced. Too much time was spent exploring Jefferson's relationship with Cosway and not enough time was spent on his relationship with Sally Hemmings. The lady who played Sally, Thandie Newton, was absolutely awful. Her acting was so bad it was like watching an A1 airhead trying to recite Shakespeare. Her constant whining voice grated the nerves! Nolte's accent made Jefferson sound like an ignorant man, rather than a genius. Jefferson's relationship with his daughters and their feelings on slavery was also underdeveloped, yet his eldest daughter's rebellion (Patsy)is a key event late in the film. The film was too long and the script lacked energy and excitement. On the positive side, the costumes were quite beautiful, and Greta Scacchi played the part of Cosway well. If you want to watch a film about the revolutionary era and/or Jefferson, then watch 1776, it's much better than Jefferson in Paris.

neg

test_9758

pending

0125d782-ffa7-4ece-a7fc-268557b64b2a

Even though this film's trailer and poster imply that Sally Hemmings was an important character, I might not have been as shocked to discover she was just a minor (and I do mean Minor) character if this movie was suppose to being told by Sally's very own family! I mean if you are going to tell the story of a member of your family that has been ignored by history, would you really tell it with the man who relegated her to obscurity at the main character? His other lover (who happens to be white) as the actual love interest? I know I wouldn't! I am as pale as they come and normally a big fan of Merchent~Ivory flicks, but I couldn't stomach this film's treatment of poor Sally Hemmings.

neg

test_9759

pending

4e415379-0882-4d82-b86b-f0c3bf40a90b

We sought out this hard-to-find VHS after watching two excellent Merchant-Ivory pictures back to back. Knowing it was an instant box office failure, a failure as a rental, I thought it might be worth seeing anyway based on M-I's reputation. Too bad! Nine years ago, it was very much a Liberal Agenda objective to trash the Founding Fathers and indeed they had some success in eradicating the Founding Fathers from many American classrooms including, for example, New Jersey; whose eradication of our great founders quickly ended when the Washington Times shone the spotlight of truth into the NJ School Board and their subversive deed. A small part of this was headlining the alleged Sally Hemmings-Thomas Jefferson connection, disregarding the inconvenient DNA findings which failed to support the wacky left's agenda. Never mind! They got James Ellis, an author of dubious reputation, to put it in a book, and Columbia University sealed the deal by giving Ellis a Pulitzer.<br /><br />As to Jefferson in Paris, the Liberal Agenda spin begins in the opening scene wherein James Earl Jones is claiming to be the son of Jefferson. The spin simply continues in flashback mode to Paris. The unmistakable truth is that even if a person assumes the lie is true the Hemmings allegation would be an insignificant detail into the larger matter of Jefferson's prolonged and vital diplomatic mission to Paris (as well as to the Netherlands where he secured crucial financial backing for America when our infant nation was without funds).<br /><br />Besides the Liberal Spin Job, there is nothing else of interest in this drab and tortuously dull movie. Some of the other history is indeed accurate --- adding credence to frame the lie --- but this movie takes one of the most interesting moments in American history and reduces it to a remedy for insomnia.<br /><br />Please do not ask me why Liberals set out to trash the Founding Fathers, because I don't waste time explaining the acts of such people. Don't ask them either; they usually respond to such questions with the same answer: "SHUT UP!"

neg

test_9760

pending

64af1f3a-88b2-41b6-ba20-ff2bf4eefeb9

Hellboy revolves around classic comic book/action/superhero genre story lines. Essentially Hellboy is a kind of demon who has found his way on earth. He is brought up from a child by a priest and within a government society and has chosen to protect the people of earth from the supernatural, rather then be a menace (the normal career route for a demon).<br /><br />The set up of the story involves creative uses of history, combining Nazi experiments with the occult. It's preposterous, but so is the whole idea of a demon roaming the streets. I find the explanations of the characters, who they are and how they came to be very well handled. The sequences are to the point and very entertaining. In fact the opening is the best part of the film, therein lays the problem….<br /><br />Essentially Del Toro who both writes and directs this piece bottles it. The film is absent of all tension or any major conflict. Hellboy is essentially established as invincible within the first act and so the rest of the film comprises of scenes in which any conflict is automatically rather crass because we know inevitably Hellboy will be OK and the bad guy will die. I hear you cry that this is the case for any action/hero film. Well yes it is, but once we are drawn into a well made action film we can't help but feel the hero may die. Die Hard works because John Mclane looks likely to die at all parts. He escapes death by the slimmest of margins. The stakes are raised as his wife is also in danger etc etc… Terminator and Terminator two work because in both cases the villain is far superior than the hero. The threat and tension is constant.<br /><br />Some of the other major weaknesses are: Del Toro is also guilty of employing deus ex machina. Characters generally disappear and reappear as their skills are needed within the story. The villain is featured in maybe three scenes. He has no motives. Turns up unexpectedly and inexplicably. In the one scene Hellboy looks to be up against a real threat (groups of monsters) a character unleashes her abilities - the screen fades to white and inexplicably the monsters are dead but everybody else lives. A minor character established in an irritating and undeveloped love story becomes the key to the conclusion of the film. Her character is so thin, the relationship so undeveloped. It is clear she is nothing more than a prop of sorts to push the plot along and to make it all make sense. I don't want to ruin the ending of the film but essentially a character that is dead is miraculously and unbelievably brought back to life….<br /><br />The film suffers from poor dialogue and one liners that just aren't smart or funny. After a while it all starts to grate.<br /><br />What's more Del Toro blows the action scenes with some uninspired visuals. And whoever made the creative decision to make hellboy's primary weapon a gun instead of his clunking arm should be fired. Essentially the use of the gun weakens the concept of the film, degrading the fights to nothing more than a one sided shoot out <br /><br />The few positives include: The cinematography is very good. At all times a sense of mood is established by the dark lighting and the darker colour palette. As well as the use of interesting locations. Yet perhaps it is all a bit samey as well.<br /><br />The use of cgi and Fx is well done. Never do we get an over load. When effects are used they are used well and the sense of realism is kept. Rather similar to how Nolan used FX in batman. I much prefer this method to the overtop effects we often see.<br /><br />All in all this is a pretty poor film. The real shame is that (despite not reading the comics) I found the film wasted a lot of potential. Hellboy as a character has a lot of instantly apparent fascinating dimensions which are completely unexplored. The film has watch-ability, in the sense that if it comes on TV and nothing else is on it might be worth a viewing. But in any other situation I wouldn't bother with it.

neg

test_9761

pending

5d19768b-d8e5-4cd7-a1d6-5074ac34384e

Where do we start with an offering like this? I nearly said film but that would be going a step too far. The only thing hellish about this film is that it is certainly a marriage made in hell, between nothing and nonsense, baloney and balderdash. These films should carry a physiological health warning so as not to damage one's spirit to the point where one might believe that all good film makers have left the planet and their resources have been handed to the dunderheads who have make this classic piece of trite garbage just like it's sister in arms "League of Extraordinary Twaddle". They are neither science fiction nor fact, entertaining nor thought provoking, humorous nor weighty but lay in a twilight zone devoid of any and all accoutrements that entice people to give up their valuable time, sit in a darkened room and generally be more enlightened, enlivened or happy at the end of it. If we could award "Turkey" points for films like this, this would be a turnip, as we would gone through the turkey, ham, potatoes, sprouts, gravy and all other embellishments before reaching rock bottom.

neg

test_9762

pending

538e3848-4e6c-4194-a784-ed28daa600bd

The Book gets 10 out of 10 stars...<br /><br />PROBABLY CONTAINS SPOILERS OF BOTH THE BOOK AND THE MOVIE!!!<br /><br />If you've never read Geoffrey Household's Rogue Male, the source material for Man Hunt, you'll likely enjoy Fritz Lang's treatment of the story. On the other hand, if you're in my camp and have practically memorized the book, the movie will be a crashing disappointment. I'll assume you've already read a synopsis of the story, and proceed to my complaints. Household's little novel is one of the all-time great suspense classics, taut and spare, with only a bare handful of characters to propel the action. Fritz Lang and his screen writer Dudley Nichols feel the need to throw in the protagonist's brother and a sympathetic floozy, the latter of which reduces the depth of the story by injecting an extrinsic motivation into the screenplay where the novel needed none. In fact, the true climax of the book was not the nameless narrator's escape from his underground lair, but rather his self-acceptance of his true motive for going on his hunt in the first place. And that's another thing: if David Fincher and Quentin Tarantino can get us all the way through Fight Club and Kill Bill 1 without revealing the names of their respective protagonists, why can't Lang? "Thorndyke?" What hat did they pull that out of? Which brings me to my bitterest complaint: Household's hunter is so quintessentially British,he would bleed a Union Jack if you cut him. But Walter Pigeon, who plays him, is Canadian! He can barely sustain the accent, which is only slightly deeper and more convincing that Kevin Costner's in Robin Hood. He looked about right in the role, and was a fine actor for the 1940s,but as Rogue Male's reluctant hero? Let's look to the Sceptered Isle itself for a more convincing version. Remake soon with subtlety and with, please! I'll direct it for free…

neg

test_9763

pending

30d9505f-53a3-4a78-9afd-8475907a83bb

I am assuming that the rave reviews on this page were from people who have never read the book - Unfortunately for those of us who love the text, Hollywood outdid itself on destroying this one.<br /><br />I am not sure where on earth the woman love-interest came from, except that she replaced the cat, nor why our Rogue Male acquired a helpful family back in Blighty - In fact the vast majority of the book has been cut out and replaced with your standard cruddy love story. The ambiguity about which world leader was in his sights was removed completely and our Rogue was given a name (neither of these appeared until the second book).<br /><br />I gave it a 2 rather than a 1 simply because of the wonderfully bad cockney accents. Joan Bennett outdoes Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins by miles and this goes a tiny way towards saving it.<br /><br />Ah well - Brits should probably avoid this. Trust me :)

neg

test_9764

pending

279f2645-cff1-460e-9810-84e90259e9e0

Disappointing film with Walter Pidgeon as a hunter who goes to Germany to assassinate Hitler. When he is discovered, he is coerced into signing a document stating that he acted on orders from England. His refusal to sign the document brings us to the plot of the film.<br /><br />Pidgeon is pursued back to England by the evil George Sanders and his cohort, John Carradine, who speaks little, but is again as always, the embodiment of wickedness personified.<br /><br />Along the way of being pursued, Pidgeon meets up with Joan Bennett, the latter displaying a wonderful cockney accent.<br /><br />The story gets bogged down somewhat as love develops between the two, but again as we approach World War 11, realism becomes the object of the day.<br /><br />The near-ending scene in the cave between Sanders and Pidgeon is nicely realized but we know where that arrow is going to go to.<br /><br />Very interesting that while Pidgeon is fleeing Nazi Germany, he meets up again with a young Roddy McDowall, one of Pidgeon's many co-stars that same year in the memorable "How Green Was My Valley." How green was "Man Hunt?"

neg

test_9765

pending

09248897-cb54-4d46-836e-3c429f993cb9

Essentially a undistinguished B-movie that mysteriously is directed by one of the golden era's major talents, Fritz Lang. Even with the stellar names of Lang, Walter Pidgeon, Joan Bennett and George Sanders, be prepared for a ludicrous storyline, bad acting, patently phony sets and miscasting. For transparency sake, I have to admit I am an ardent non-admirer of Walter Pidgeon, who was lucky to have found a niche at the artificial dream-factory of MGM, and somehow worked in secondary roles, supporting Greer Garson and others. He is wildly miscast, acting in a chipper, '30s-Ray Milland madcap comedy tone, in a role where his life is in danger, and he is in hiding. Joan Bennett's cockney accent is excessive, but her lacquered hair, perfect makeup and classy outfit belies a street-wise Cockney slum-girl. George Sanders is incapable of bad acting, but disappears after the preposterous opening finds Pidgeon somehow pretending to shoot Adolph Hitler. Surprising for Fritz Lang is the unevenness of tone. I found the film wavered uneasily between occasional moments of suspense-thriller surrounded by light-hearted comedic interplay. Hitchcock totally reversed the ratio, using comic relief to occasionally pace the suspense. There is a reason this film is unknown. It didn't serve or propel anybody's career or reputation, and is forgotten because it's a surprisingly bad film from such a pedigreed group.

neg

test_9766

pending

dfd5d3fd-3269-4756-9ca7-ad1f3df89fd1

Preposterous twaddle executed in a bewilderingly amateurish and inept way -- or perhaps several since the incredible lack of continuity, tone, realism, plausibility, suspense, and much more combine with Walter Pidgeon's bovine attempts at charm to produce a cinema curiosity to rank with some of Fritz Lang's other stupendous failures. (I thought the German ambassador was actually played by Lang but apparently not -- they could have been twins.) If you cannot predict the ending from several timezones away, you are not actually alive.<br /><br />I was eagerly awaiting this DVD and was totally surprised and disappointed by such dire crap (even with George Sanders and John Carradine -- maybe I can wash my mind out by watching Viaggio in Italia instead and for the umpteenth time).<br /><br />Anyone want a DVD used once? (There may be a movie to be made about the making of this atrocious film and how so many talented people could be wasted so completely.)

neg

test_9767

pending

47eed474-76e4-4840-bac5-aa88c1cd9026

A pig-tailed Linnea Quigley drinks milk, strips and kills her sister and her sister's boyfriend after they have sex. She goes to an asylum, makes a best friend out of Amy (Karen Russell) and the two blackmail their way out of a mental institution by sleeping with their psychologists (one is played by "Carol Burnett Show" regular Lyle Waggoner). On the outside, these two man-hating mafia princesses (!) stop taking their medication and invite six slimeball ex-boyfriends over to their large country home for a party where they're systematically slaughtered in very gory ways by a gloved, leather-clad mystery killer.<br /><br />The hideous David Barton FX are so bloody, but so unrealistic that they take on a sort-of surrealistic quality. Same goes for the movie. The dialogue is so strange and stilted, the film so ineptly paced and edited and the acting so other-worldly, you'll start to doubt your own sanity. This film actually attempts to have a plot and three-dimensional characters, but it's all so poorly handled it's almost like what would happen if Ed Wood did a rewrite of an Ingmar Bergman script! And like any good Bergman film, this has a mature moral to abide by--Any good party needs a proper guy/girl "ratio," so there will be enough chicks to "tickle your lizard." See it for yourself... or don't!<br /><br />Linnea (the only reason I was even interested in watching this to begin with) is very amusing in this one, has a lot more dialogue than usual and has several eye-popping nude scenes. Unfortunately, she also completely disappears from the final third of this film and the movie suffers because of it.<br /><br />Score: 3 out of 10

neg

test_9768

pending

b7dd32c5-b514-476c-9808-5cb31dd86b87

This movie is a bad movie. But after watching an endless series of bad horror movies, I can say that it is a little different from many I have seen. Not in the plot, which is a fairly regular slasher story, but more the way the scenes are cut. Murder Weapon gives us a lot of inane dialogue scenes, but they go on for a lot longer than in most movies of this type. Because of this some of the victims seem slightly less like cardboard cut-outs. Just slightly. I had a difficult time figuring out exactly what was happening at the beginning and kept wondering if certain events were dream sequences. My favorite scene is when two guys are on the run from the killer and take refuge in a car. In the glove compartment, they find a handgun. "Thank you, God!" one of them happily exclaims. That guy's head suddenly looks like a mannequin's head, and it went on for just enough time for me to wonder, "What is that? Where is that mannequin in relation to the two guys in the car?" Then BOOM! The head explodes and I figured out that it was supposed to be one of the guys in the car getting his head shot off with a shotgun. I love that scene, but the movie is a very bad movie. 3/10.

neg

test_9769

pending

ec8523b2-7357-4be2-ba6c-275c0a262034

I saw this movie years about 8 years ago when it first came out, and the only memories that I have about it are : 1. That it was awful. 2. That in one scene Linnea Quigley applies suntan lotion to her arms and legs repeatedly for about 15 minutes straight (it seemed that long anyways). 3. One scene where a character gets a sledgehammer rammed into his head. In this scene, when the hammer connects, the head smashes like glass. It's quite bad.

neg

test_9770

pending

71e1c551-b271-476e-91dd-4cc6528c943f

Anyone who knows anything about evolution wouldn't even need to see the film to say "fake". "it's never been disproved" also is a weak argument. Saying the universe was created by a giant hippo cannot be disproved. Although, to be fair, it does seem like the only people who do believe are the same people who open email attachments from people they don't know or give their bank details to a dude in Zambia. No bones of any primates are have been found in the United States or Canada. There is also a good reason why legitimate scientists don't bother studying this. The same argument goes for the Loch Ness monster, ghosts and god.

neg

test_9771

pending

23ec0ae8-54fb-4a34-9c6a-aa85f36cd1b7

Hilariously inept - like "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" remade by five-year-olds.<br /><br />Spoilers ahead: Despite its title, and the high bodycount, "Slaughter Trail" is in fact a musical with Injun battles instead of dance numbers.<br /><br />If you ever wondered what Ed Wood might have done with a B-movie budget, this film should answer your question. Some decisions may have been bad only in retrospect, such as filming in the short-lived Cinecolor process, which resulted in faces changing hue within the same shot. But there was definitely some ill-advised skimping on the film's main set, a cavalry fort that seems to be partly a Norman castle.<br /><br />Terry Gilkyson, who later wrote the 'The Bare Necessities' for Disney's "The Jungle Book", supplies a score full of original ditties which would have been wonderful for a cartoon but which fit Western action like a fuzzy slipper stuck in a stirrup. One song tells how "horse hooves pound, and their melody sounds, like the hoofbeat serenade"...during a dead-serious scene of a cavalry patrol. Other songs literally narrate the story shot by shot, introducing characters, describing their moods and gestures - as they happen on screen - and even stop to advertise the Cinecolor process(!) <br /><br />The script sends ferocious Navajos on the warpath to avenge the killing of two of their band by an outlaw trio. By the end of the film, what looks like a hundred Navajos and cavalrymen have bitten the dust (thanks to repeated footage of the same characters dying over and over.) But the chief is satisfied once he sees the trio of badguys have been slain. As the singer helpfully informs those of us who weren't paying attention, the Navajos ride away, their battle called off. The cavalry captain, surrounded by the corpses of his fallen comrades, cheerily waves his appreciation.<br /><br />The direction could most charitably be described as wooden, or more to the point, Wood-en. Navajos are consistently shot off their horses in pairs -- never just one. Virtually every red man on foot dies by throwing his hands in the air and keeling over. The film also employs the most cautious stuntmen in Hollywood, who crouch before dropping off a one-story roof (and still fail to stick the landing) or turn to look behind them as they slide, "dead", down a rocky slope.<br /><br />The star is Brian Donlevy, who surely deserves an Oscar for not blushing. After the endless final battle scene -- "climax" is scarcely the word -- he scans a list of the dozens of his troopers killed, and shrugs, "It could've been a LOT worse." Trooper Andy Devine gets to sing and robber/murderer Gig Young laughs at Andy's antics...which leads a character who had been held up by masked bandits to rat Gig out: "I'd know that laugh anywhere!" <br /><br />And lest anyone forget just what a nasty piece of work Howard Hughes could be, recall that as head of RKO, Hughes was first in line to blacklist original star Howard Da Silva when HUAC denounced him. It would take Hughes another six years to finish running that once-celebrated studio into the ground, but it didn't help things when he insisted on reshooting Da Silva's every scene for this film, substituting Donlevy.<br /><br />It was nearly a decade before Da Silva was able to work in Hollywood again. But all things considered, for getting him out of "Slaughter Trail", he should have sent Hughes a thank-you note.

neg

test_9772

pending

77ff1b35-b2b6-40e1-a2c6-5966edf3fed3

Slaughter Trail is a B western with some grand pretensions. But it's come down in Hollywood history for a most ignominious reason.<br /><br />Watching this film with it's musical score which can only be described as overbearing, I have a feeling what Howard Hughes was trying to do is recruit a singing cowboy for RKO films. They already had Tim Holt who was as reliable a B picture cowboy hero there ever was, but he was not a singer. I guess Hughes saw what money Herbert J. Yates was raking in with Roy Rogers over at Republic and decided he'd get one as well.<br /><br />So Terry Gilkyson who was a very good performer and much better song writer got recruited and sang some of his material which was not his best and worse, looked like they were shoehorned into the picture. But worse than that, there's this annoying chorus which sang a lot of the story and frankly overwhelmed the actors, extras, even the horses. Needless to say Terry never got to be a singing cowboy. But he did write such classics as The Bare Necessities and Dean Martin's great hit, Memories are Made of This.<br /><br />The plot concerns an inside woman on a stagecoach jewel robbery. That's right, the outlaws who are Gig Young, Myron Healey, and Ken Koutnik plant Virginia Grey in the coach as a passenger which they receive word is carrying some valuable jewels. <br /><br />It's a great act Grey and Young pull off. Young takes her away from the coach to presumably a fate worse than death and they do properly act out the scene within earshot of the passengers, but what he does is slip her the swag. Last place the authorities might look, if she doesn't run off with it.<br /><br />But when they flee the robbery it's on tired horses so they stop at a cabin to take some replacement mounts and shoot three Navajos who object. That puts the Navajos back on the warpath, didn't help that one of the casualties was Chief Ric Roman's brother.<br /><br />That's the situation that Captain Brian Donlevy at the fort has to deal with when the coach and the outlaws arrive there for protection. How it all works out is predictable, but in a gaudy sort of overproduced way.<br /><br />In fact that's the problem with Slaughter Trail. It's a simple no frills B western that got souped up into something almost grotesque.<br /><br />But the real reason Slaughter Trail entered into history is that this film apparently marks the official beginning of the blacklist. Originally Howard DaSilva was to play Donlevy's part and may have in fact completed his scenes, when Howard Hughes officially fired him for Communist sympathies. His scenes were completely re-shot with Brian Donlevy in the lead.<br /><br />Considering what a fiasco this film turned into, I'm not sure whether Donlevy or DaSilva ought to have thanked Hughes or kicked him in his private preserve.

neg

test_9773

pending

6d75e5cf-e930-4315-9fa3-c22e5cd6efb3

Intriguing premise should have been a 20 minute short. That's how long it would take his biological parents to think, "Hmm, we lost one son (and never found him) who is about his age, and he looks like our remaining son. Oh, yes, and he's a runaway. Hmm." But no, this is the most clueless family in history. And the conclusion, while trying to jerk tears, manages only to induce more groans of disbelief.

neg

test_9774

pending

01326b41-b18d-4d3b-bd3a-05e895d282d9

Pretty twisted Horror film, that has a few good moments here and there, with some creepy Blood transfusion scenes, however it's just too dull for it's own good. All the characters are OK, and the story while had a lot of potential is rather dull, however the blood transfusion scenes looked frighteningly real, and as a result they were extremely disturbing. It's well made and decently written, and it started out really interesting, but it just couldn't keep up the pace, plus I found the ending to be disappointing. Linnea Quigley has no more then a very small role in this so, I was also disappointed about that, and Stephen Knight does a good job as the lead, as he was pretty twisted, plus I got this in a DVD Horror set called A Taste Of Evil, along with a bunch of other Horror films. There is lots of blood,however it's not all that gory, and for it's low budget it was pretty well done, however as I said it just couldn't sustain it's interest. This is a pretty twisted Horror film, that has a few good moments here and there, with some creepy blood transfusion scenes, however it's just too dull for it's own good, I would pass,but I guess it's worth a watch if you have nothing better to do. The Direction is OK. Elly Kenner&Norman Thaddeus Vane do an OK job here with decent camera work, and doing a good job on it's low budget, however the pace is too inconsistent for my liking. The Acting is actually alright. Stephen Knight is great as the lead, he was creepy, twisted, sick, and gave a very creepy performance, the most creepy thing about it though was he seemed like a normal person. Linnea Quigley did well in her small role. Christopher McDonald is OK I guess sin his short time. Rest of the cast are OK as well. Overall I would pass, but I guess it's worth a watch if you have nothing absolutely better to do. *1/2 out of 5

neg

test_9775

pending

dbf5e089-e729-4d82-840a-a54f0eae45f0

During filming, was Vanessa Redgrave taking mogadon? It was like she was reading from an autocue. I've seen more life in a wooden spoon. Or perhaps that was all part of the character? whatever, it was very very annoying, I kept wanting to shake the screen to hurry her up. I read the book a long time ago & didn't like much about it except that Septimus's descent into madness was very well done - but I don't think Rupert Graves showed this very well, his acting was all on the surface. The connection between his life and Clarissa's is not very well done either but I suspect the attempt is to show the sacrifice soldiers made to enable people like Clarissa to continue their vapid lives. The film is very bitty and has no real unity to it. Hated it.

neg

test_9776

pending

1f2bb187-c7c2-4431-a219-fd1940466714

One of the most boring,pointless movies I have ever seen. The title character is self-centered, self-absorbed and wholly distasteful. The secondary plot line is incomprehensible and its relation to the primary plot line is mystifying. Hated it.

neg

test_9777

pending

a566d175-d118-45bd-93be-17338a11919d

I usually like period films but this one just seemed to drag and drag. I'd perk up during Rupert Graves' scenes, but Vanessa Redgrave just put me to sleep.<br /><br />I was disappointed in the film. It lacked a little "punch" at the end that I'd hoped it would have.

neg

test_9778

pending

f19be9fc-aa0b-43fd-af6a-fa6ee77faf2a

Can you say "Boring" with a capital B! It's slower than watching grass grow! It's more boring than watching paint dry! You'll sleep right through it.....we all did.....don't do it...you'll regret it!

neg

test_9779

pending

af991528-2fa2-4827-8ebf-4c38c257e787

I couldn't believe this was the same director as Antonia's Line.<br /><br />This film has it all, a boring plot, disjointed flashbacks, a subplot that has nothing to do with the main plot what so ever, and totally uninteresting characters. It was painful to watch. Soooo, painful.

neg

test_9780

pending

ea60b4c7-87e2-4c75-b702-5b366104f1d4

I kept waiting for the film to move me, inspire me, shock me, sadden me in some way but it stirred none of my emotions. It just meandered along to the end. None of the characters seemed very unique or complex, they just seemed like actors reciting their lines. I think it could have been a better movie if the characters expressed more emotion. The only one who did and was believable was the veteran and he probably committed suicide just to get out of the movie as soon as he could. It was a waste of talent, film, their time, and mine. If there is a message or meaning or genius in this story, it certainly is well-hidden or I am very dense, which I doubt.

neg

test_9781

pending

2ecc13b8-61cc-4e28-a827-783497df605f

Since I was just finishing the book, `Mrs. Dalloway' by Virginia Woolf, I was excited to see that it was on one of the movie channels last weekend. What I encountered, however, is a film that was boring, incomprehensible and non-sensical. One cannot entirely blame the film, it tried the best it could with the material it had, but when the source material is Virginia Woolf, and is almost entirely written in stream-of-conscience style with extended periods of internalizing and little actual dialogue, one would certainly think that there shouldn't be a film made from it just because a film can be made from it. <br /><br />Vanessa Redgrave, who plays the title character, does not deserve any blame for the failure of this film, nor do any of the other actors. It is just simply a film that could not intelligibly be made from the story that Woolfe wrote, and should not have even been attempted. Don't watch the movie, read the book. <br /><br />--Shelly

neg

test_9782

pending

611d5d9a-3b0b-4bb1-8e48-5df0b9a11b3f

In the 1940s, Veronica Lake made a meteoric rise to film stardom, thanks to her sultry beauty and, her highly exploited "peekaboo" hairstyle. She starred opposite big names like Alan Ladd and Fredric March, scoring screen successes in films like "This Gun For Hire" and "I Married A Witch". She held her own with female stars as well, and she surprised even her detractors with her performance as a bitter navy nurse in "So Proudly We Hail". But changing times and her own failings caught up with her, and by the end of the decade, her heyday was over. With two unsuccessful marriages behind her (and two more in her future) Veronica headed for New York City, where she made occasional television and summer stock appearances before dropping completely out of sight. It was briefly big news when she was found working as a barmaid in a second rate hotel in the early sixties. But by now, her longtime alcoholism and years of hard living had robbed her of her looks. Without them, public interest in her soon faded again. She did return to the stage in assorted vehicles, but her success was minimal. Eventually, she relocated to Miami, Florida, where she lived in relative obscurity. In 1966 she went to Canada for a part in an obscure movie called "Footsteps In The Snow" which had no U.S. release. The following year, she was discovered by some industrial filmmakers who had long wanted to produce a commercial feature. They approached her to star in their film "Time Is Terror" and convinced her to invest in the project. As one author put it, "If ever a movie queen suffered a terminal comedown, this was it". Surrounded by amateur performers and pathetic production values, she failed even to rise to a minimal level in this Miami, Florida shot quickie. Looking utterly ordinary in long shots, and luridly aged in close-ups, poor Veronica didn't act so much as walk through her part. As a deranged doctor, who has hit upon a successful youth restoration formula, using flesh-eating maggots!, she looks both bored and confused, her most unintentionally hilarious moment coming when she is forced to ad-lib while she struggles gamefully to don a pair of rubber gloves. The supporting cast is no help at all, merely advancing the plot by talking it to death. Director Brad Grinter apparently only required the actors to move while the camera was pointed at them, no need for anything resembling entertainment (There is, admittedly, one unintentionally hilarious scene involving a Private Detective/Nurse and a corpse in a wheelchair that predates ''Weekend At Bernie's'' by almost 20 years.) According to Veronica herself, the film was shelved for three years because no master shots were filmed. But in 1970, the production company scraped it together, changed the title to "Flesh Feast", and released it to cash in on Lake's just published biography. And, because former leading ladies such as Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Olivia De Havilland had unexpectedly revived their careers in horror movies, this travesty was promoted as Veronica's "comeback film". This seems a strange course of action for the filmmakers to pursue, though, because it's unlikely that the (young) audience for a horror film of this quality either knew or cared who Veronica Lake was. As expected, it did nothing for Veronica's career, and she died in poverty, three years later. A previous reviewer cites a scene in which the female detective working undercover as a nurse in the doctor's laboratory (overseeing the theft of bodies from a nearby morgue) enlists the help of a multi-talented chauffeur to cut up the body parts. "Poor Mrs. Lustig," she sighs, "I hope she doesn't mind leaving her body to science." "Try not to think about it," advises the chauffeur, sawing away. "I guess you are right, Hans." concludes the detective/nurse, "What is done is done." What a sad end to the career of a still fondly remembered star.

neg

test_9783

pending

eaea50a0-7159-4f2a-8753-7cc7645ab89f

Once upon a time, way back in the 1940's, there lived an actress named Veronica Lake. A beautiful, talented young woman who was once in high demand for many big-budget, Hollywood pictures. Fast Forward to the late 1960's, age, alcoholism, and all-around bad luck has tarnished everyones favorite actress. Now a hasbeen, Miss Lake decides the time has come to follow in the foot steps of her peers(?), Joan Crawford, and Bette Davis, and fall back on good ol' reliable Horror. But Flesh Feast? Really? She couldn't have possibly been that washed up. To put it delicately, Flesh Feast is a lifeless pile garbage, possibly one of the top 5 worst films I've ever seen, and I've seen them all. Lake plays a scientist, who is plotting, with Nazi's, to bring Hitler back to life, with youth restoration experiments involving maggots, that's right, maggots. Unless you're a huge fan of Heather Hughes, run away and never look back!! <br /><br />I know very little about this Veronica Lake person, as well as 40's flicks, but to think that such a successful career actually became that dismal, is actually pretty sad. Flesh Feast is almost impossible to get through, and by almost, I mean absolutely. Directed by Brad Grinter, director of Nudist Camp pictures, and the man who, coincidentally brought us the greatest B-movie ever made, Blood Freak, just a couple years later. One has to wonder, is this what Blood Freak would have been like if Grinter hadn't co-directed with Steve Hawkes? If so, then God bless Steve Hawkes. You wouldn't think that a Religious, dope-blood craving, Turkey Monster could be THAT much better than experiments involving Maggots and Hitler, but it really, really is. So forget you ever heard of this one and go find Blood Freak, it's just waiting to entertain you. Fast Forward a couple years later, Veronica Lake dies of Hepititas, broke, and forgotten. The End. I hate you, Flesh Feast. 1/10

neg

test_9784

pending

1c0da71a-190b-4c52-b2a6-cdaf777da0b6

Flesh Feast starts at Miami Airport, ace reporter Dan Carter (Harry Kerwin, he is also credited as production designer) phones his mate Ed Casey (Phil Philbin) to let him know that he has just returned from South America where he has been investigating Carl Schuman (Doug Foster) & that he was onto a big story but while still talking on the phone he is stabbed in the back & killed. Schuman meets Dr. Elaine Frederick (Veronica Lake, she also executive produced) who has recently been released from a mental institution, together they discuss their grisly plans. The news of Cater's death has reached Casey & he decides to take the story up himself & do some investigating, well actually he gets his secretary Viginia Day (Marth Mischon) to do most of the investigating & just report back to him, lazy bugger. Virginia informs Casey that they have someone on the inside named Kristine (Heather Hughes) since Dr. Frederick rents her spare rooms out to nurses, Kristine reports back to Casey about Schuman & Dr. Frederick's grotesque youth restoration experiments involving human flesh & specially cultivated maggots...<br /><br />Co written, co-produced & directed by Brad F. Grinter Flesh Feast is a pretty poor film on all accounts. First lets start with the script by Grinter & Thomas Casey who was also responsible for the cinematography (you get the feeling that most of the cast & crew had more than one job), basically it's terrible. The character's are one dimensional idiots & have no personality, I didn't like anyone in this film. For what it's worth I quite like some of the ideas here, the flesh-eating maggots, the basement laboratory, stealing bodies from a hospital & that unforgettable 'twist' ending that's almost worth sitting through the rest of the film for on it's own. Unfortunately the dialogue is so badly written, stiff & unnatural sounding it's untrue, I mean there is one scene in which a nurse says that they "won't let us out of the house" which is fine except for the fact that she is speaking OUTSIDE in the garden to someone. No thought has been put into the story as no explanation is ever given for why flesh-eating maggots are able to restore youth, in fact at one point near the end when questioned about this very thing Dr. Frederick claims there is no time to explain at that point which to me sounds like the people who wrote this didn't have a clue either! Even at an extremely short 68 minutes long Flesh Feast is very slow & dull, the poor editing doesn't help with scenes & shots lasting for far too long, for example there is a scene in which an Ambulance pulls up outside a Hospital, drives up to the doors, the guy gets out, he walks to the back doors & opens them etc. etc. did we really need to see every single detail? There is also another sequence in which Dr. Frederick enters room & puts some gloves on, then she takes them off walks into the opposite room & puts another pair on! I personally think that Grinter probably didn't shoot enough material so he stretches every scene out as much as he can to make the run time up. I do like that bizarre ending though, I really do. Technically Flesh feast is complete crap, I'm not sure what the budget was on this but it must have been small, very small. Just about the entire film takes place in one house, Dr. Frederick's laboratory consists of a table, some plastic beakers & test tubes, some ancient looking electronic medical equipment & a strange screen with funny colours on it (don't ask). The cinematography is poor, the music sucks & the entire film looks dubbed, badly dubbed too. The exploitation elements are also disappointing, there are a few maggot shots but they don't actually do anything other than wriggle a bit, there is a brief scene where a dead body has it's leg sawn off & a OK looking dismembered corpse & limbs hanging on hooks. The acting is awful from everyone concerned, & I mean really bad which makes the rubbishy dialogue even worse. Do yourself a favour & avoid Flesh Feast, yes there are one or two unintentionally funny moments & that ending is, well unique to say the least but for the most part this is real amateur film-making that quickly becomes painful to watch. I doubt most people will make it through this is one sitting, I can tolerate just about anything but even I considered switching it off. Definitely one to avoid, you'll be pleased you did & if you really have to see it don't say you weren't warned!

neg

test_9785

pending

787919c6-bb2b-4c96-8d87-147298fbe594

***BIG SPOILERS!*** "Flesh Feast" of 1970 is a more than unworthy conclusion to the great Veronica Lake's career. This has the wide reputation of being an awful stinker, and rightly so, I must say. As a huge fan of low-budget Horror/Exploitation, especially from the 70s, I nonetheless chose to watch this, mainly due to the cool camp-looking picture on this site, but after watching it I had to recognize that the picture actually has nothing to do with the film. The picture here on this site is the cover of a DVD collection entitled 'Flesh Feast' containing four films, including Sergio Martino's "Mountain Of The Cannibal God" and Dal Tenney's "I Eat Your Skin". What the collection does not include, however, is this boring turkey. "Flesh Feast" is not only camp and ridiculous, but mostly quite tedious, which is even more pathetic regarding that the film is only 70 minutes long. Also, don't get fooled by the title, the film is not gory at all. Yet it is watchable, if only for its trashiness and, especially, the extremely stupid, but therefore somewhat entertaining ending. The film follows a ridiculous plot about Dr. Elaine Frederick (Veronica Lake), an ingenious female scientist who can somehow rebuild youth with the help of flesh-eating maggots (don't ask how). A bunch of criminals (or terrorists, or whatever), who are paid by a radical political group assign the doctor to restore the youth of a 'mysterious' commander. After an endless hour of nonsensical drivel, it turns out that the mysterious commander is actually Hitler himself. It was quite obvious before, but I still had to burst out laughing because the film's finale was so unbelievably silly and unintentionally hilarious... This is a film that is very inadequate as the last film of a great actress and former beauty queen like Veronika Lake. Except for lake, the performances are ridiculously bad, even for a zero-budget production like this. Bad performances, however, are something I can easily forgive in films like this one. What I can not forgive, though, is extreme boredom. The final five minutes make this watchable for hardcore fans of camp stuff, but I would still recommend to skip it.

neg

test_9786

pending

1f7f9382-2cf3-4f76-a947-e2df9f1e131e

The plot here is simple. Country boy, Lem (Farrell) goes to the city to sell the wheat crop, falls in love with a waitress, Kate (Duncan) and marries her, bringing her home to a hostile father and a group of woman-hungry reapers. There are shades of THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WANTED and MICE AND MEN here. The courtship, taking place in two lengthy sequences set in the restaurant, consume the first half hour and are lethargically paced. Lem is so weak he allows his father to mistreat his wife, who is propositioned by Mac (Richard Alexander) , one of the reapers, to come away with him. Duncan and Alexander are the only good things in this tedious potboiler, which lacks the insights and the cinematic beauty we expect from Murnau. Farrell's character has no backbone so we wind up rooting for a "real man" (Mac) to take Kate away from it all. With audience sympathy skewed, the film loses its narrative progression. The father's conversion at film's end is unrealistic and unbelievable, making for a contrived denouement. This film is for fans of the stars and the director only - general audiences need not bother.

neg

test_9787

pending

feeac7ec-09b8-4cf9-8558-3c2a5f6ede02

...and I Bought A Vampire Motorcycle staggers all over that line like a drunk with his shoelaces tied together. Some 'bad' films are quite enjoyable (like Norman J.Warren's Inseminoid), some 'bad' films are just bad (like Kent Bateman's Headless Eyes), but 'bad' films that try and do the post-modernist thing of being knowingly bad should always be approached with extreme caution. A lot of people think Troma's Terror Firmer is a bad-taste masterpiece, for example, but I'm guessing anyone over the age of nineteen will shrug it off as worthless dreck. Then there's John Carpenter's Dark Star. Yes, it's quaint, and certainly a product of its time, but as a film it's only two notches above worthless. This no-budget British black comedy-horror outing tries to achieve a satirical tone, with its endless references to its fellow shoestring splatter flicks (among them Psychomania, Horror Hospital and pretty much anything by Pete Walker), but due to dismal performances by second-string TV actors (the leading lady looks like Amy Winehouse), a script that appears to have been written on the back of a peeled beermat by two 'lads' with no understanding of how film comedy works, Dean Friedman's (intentionally?) dire elevator-rock soundtrack and production values never rising above mediocre, the net result is a film that can only be laughed AT, rather than WITH. If your idea of whoopee is anthropomorphic turds, Chinese takeaways called Fu King and references to long-forgotten TV ads, you'll enjoy this one, but don't expect too much.

neg

test_9788

pending

7d3231a4-2c7f-4bf7-b7c8-45d52ddb7dd4

Dreadful! A friend of mine (who obviously thought I had an abysmal sense of humour) recommended this.<br /><br />It's bobbins. I almost switched it off. It is only my anal desire to not leave things unfinished that prevented me doing so.<br /><br />This was evidently a British attempt to make a movie with a bunch of also ran TV actors using some lame script from their mate in the business. I struggle to think of anything even approaching the paucity of this movie. Less funny than global warming.<br /><br />I'm not normally so vehement, but I watched this well over ten years ago and thought that I wasted an hour or so of my life on it is destructive.<br /><br />Puerile, plot less, useless tosh.<br /><br />I'd rather eat my feet than watch it again.

neg

test_9789

pending

9fd4347f-3b68-40b6-9b64-c34712a05ded

After his widower father dies in a horsing accident, young Tom Burlinson (as Jim Craig) is left to manage his Australian "Snowy River" farm, with only wizened, peg-legged prospector Kirk Douglas (as Spur) to help. Times are hard, so Mr. Burlinson goes to work for Mr. Douglas' wealthy, silver-haired brother rancher "Mr. Harrison" (also played by Kirk Douglas). When a big job comes up, the silver-haired (older?) Douglas feels Burlinson is too young and inexperienced to go along; so, Burlinson stays behind, and falls in love with the boss' daughter, Sigrid Thornton (as Jessica Harrison).<br /><br />The least satisfactory aspect of director George Miller's "The Man from Snowy River" is a weak storyline. Observe, for example, the "Jessica is lost" sequence of events. The damsel gets lost in one of those "freak" storms, while running away. Her worried father rounds up a posses of drunk men to find her, after predicting bad weather. Damsel "Jessica" rolls herself on to the edge of a conveniently appearing cliff. Father and the suddenly sober men don't check Burlinson's farm. Hero Burlinson discovers the damsel. After building a fire, he decides to kiss her.<br /><br />The "romance" is played too innocently for as obvious an attracted man and woman as Burlinson and Ms. Thornton. To make matters worse, the Douglas brothers have a "dark history" which is revealed before any mystery is built up regarding the matter. The main attraction, herein, is the Australian scenery.<br /><br />**** The Man from Snowy River (1982) George Miller ~ Tom Burlinson, Kirk Douglas, Sigrid Thornton

neg

test_9790

pending

1eefa442-96d0-47c2-8611-7ca27ae33da1

A tedious yawn of a film that retains nothing of the zing and raciness of its predecessor, "Gold Diggers of 1933." The Production Code was firmly in place by the time of this film's release, so the humour is all of the hokey, wocka-wocka variety and gone are the dry one-liners that sounded so cosmopolitan dripping off the lips of the gorgeous dames from the first film. A cast of second-tier stars and character actors go through the motions here, and the "puttin' on a show" motif seems awfully forced; instead of the make or break world of Broadway, the show here is a charity event hosted by a swanky hotel. Who really cares whether or not the show goes on? The score here is bland too. Of course the movie's big number is "Lullaby of Broadway," which accompanies a long fantasy dance number about a New York socialite's eventual demise from too much partying--doesn't exactly have the same effect as the searing "Forgotten Man" number used as the finale in '33. Busby Berkeley directs as well as choreographs this film, and whatever promise is built up in the film's fluid opening scenes quickly deteriorates. Unfortunately, no one learned any lessons from this, and there was yet another Gold Diggers movie two years later.<br /><br />Grade: C-

neg

test_9791

pending

5716ccd3-519a-4cb6-863f-e5961b65a694

It's impossible to make a film based on such a book as the "Brothers Karamzov" by F.M. Dostojevsky.<br /><br />Richard Brooks is a great director, but that film is on a very low level.<br /><br />The worst part of the film was the ending. Well, let's think of the book. In the end we have the "guilty" Dimitrij Karamazov. Afterwards they sent him to Siberia. In the end, the famous epilogues of Dostojevsky, the friends and family making a plan to save him. But that's it ... a nd now the film takes two steps more and shows us an illusion ending of the escape of Dimitry and Gruschenka(I think). just from the moral point I'm sure that Dostojevsky would finish the book with an open end because one the one hand he is not guilty(Smerdjakov is the real murderer) and so he have to be a free man. But on the other hand he goes to his father to kill him, so he has decided to commit the crime... that's a moral dilemma and so the following point is an open end...well, for real ,it's just not full open.<br /><br />William Shatner as Aljoscha Karamazov... I'm sorry! --> NO!!!<br /><br />The others characters playing in a good performance as we have to expect it from such great actors ... In front of course a superb performance of Yul Breynner as Dimitrij. I think that there are not many actors who can play this part in a better way.<br /><br />But as I said in the beginning: This book is unadaptable. It never should be film in two hours that's impossible. I think that there are some 'longer films, so maybe they could do the right thing... But I just keep the opinion that this book can't be adapted.<br /><br />So - 3 points:<br /><br />A point for the great director Richard Brooks <br /><br />A point for a superb performance of Yul Brynner<br /><br />Finally: A point for one of the greatest writers of all time: Dostojevsky

neg

test_9792

pending

4cd8bfee-e1a6-45de-a425-24cdc1e56d78

Apparently SHRUNKEN HEADS was the last movie that Julius Harris had a role in. I have not seen all of his movies, but Julius Harris was in many good movies, and I remember him best from "Live and Let Die" where he played Tee-Hee and which was full of Voodoo references, something that is common here in South Florida! I always thought LIVE AND LET DIE was a great movie because it had some atmosphere and mystique, unlike most of the 007 movies. In SHRUNKEN HEADS, Julius Harris is back in his Voodoo persona! He has a great style for mystery and the occult, and his part in this movie is excellent. Sadly, the rest of the movie is something of a comedy. SPOILERS: Three kids who look like they were fired from the cast of THE LITTLE RASCALS get killed by a neighborhood hoodlum who looks like he got fired from the cast of FAME! or as a dancer on DICK CLARK'S AMERICAN BANDSTAND. In other words, these kids give LOW BUDGET another dimension. Julius Harris goes to the mortuary-Funeral Home, cuts off the three kids' heads (and nobody notices) and then takes them to his Condominium Unit where he has a giant cauldron of boiling liquids. The three heads get tossed in, along with some herbs, spices, and Voodoo items. At some point Mr. Harris has the ugly little heads on a table and he spills his blood on them, and they come to life as talking heads! They can fly, make jokes, roll their eyes, and exact vengeance from the Evil-Doers. They usually look pretty funny flying around, but the effects are not bad. For some reason, one of the kids always has a switch-blade in his mouth, and he uses it to slice people's necks and to cut holes into tires. This movie is weird and funny, but only the first time you see it. Meg Foster is in this movie and she looks fatter than Rosie O'Donnell and Meg plays a masculine leader of the local gangsters. Strange movie.

neg

test_9793

pending

76843bda-1a56-4827-990f-859568e51a54

This is one odd film. It seems to be aimed at a younger audience, but is filled with sexual innuendos. The whole premise is rather absurd, not just the idea of some shrunken heads of three dead kids doing some crime fighting, but the same said kids taking on a gang of tough older guys is a little far-fetched, but then again, the parents are mainly absent in the film and there is a lack of authority figures to keep the kids in line.<br /><br />The cast are good though, Meg Foster plays a very butch mafia-like leader, with the handsome A.J. Damato as the leader of the bullies. Aerky Egan and Rebecca Herbst are well cast as the young lovers, though for a comic actress of her talent, Leigh Allyn Baker is notoriously wasted in this film.<br /><br />Overall, the film is unusual, but I don't think that is enough to make up for the poor quality and bumbling execution. The scenery is all rather dull and the "special effects" quite dismal. Sit this one out, unless your in the mood.

neg

test_9794

pending

aa28d6ab-5220-4b81-81a4-c28698b136a4

This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. I would think you could get that from the title. Also, there is a particular love scene that could be the strangest in the history of film. I can't even remember why I saw this film or when. Only that is an absolutely horrible movie-viewing experience. On the other hand, if you are looking for the absolute weirdest movie to waste two hours of your time, then by all means rent it. Good luck finding it at your local store though. I doubt this movie is in a very wide-distribution. And please do not show this to children by any means as it may warp their impressionable minds forever.

neg

test_9795

pending

a833774b-ca99-4094-8c95-44a1879b695f

Being a former MST3k watcher, even I found this movie unwatchable. The awful attempts at humor-heck the awful attempts at acting. Nobody needs to read a harangue on this piece of junk.<br /><br />I just like how all the positive reviews were clearly written by cast members or family friends. Just click on their other reviews and wow--they are all reviewing Modern Vampires. Give me a couple of bucks and I can make a movie better than this. One of the most incompetent pieces of film-making I've ever seen and that's saying something. Watch at your own risk.<br /><br />Rating: 0/10

neg

test_9796

pending

e5b4bd5a-80c3-4061-964b-3df00828915f

I am appalled to see that so many people have given positive reviews for this "film". This movie has no redeeming factors. The music is not good, the acting is pathetic, I have a difficult time understanding how someone could enjoy this movie, let alone sing its "praises". The idea is horrible, certain scenes linked to the plot (such as the continued love story even though the male romantic interest is a SHRUNKEN HEAD) are so bad that I wanted to do myself bodily harm while watching them. The fact that there is scene in which a shrunken head flies under a girls' shirt so he can "feel her up" AND she likes it is reason enough for everyone associated with this film to perish. The link to West Side Story can only be a mockery, since to reference such a great movie in such a horrible one is grounds alone to destroy all copies of this movie. To make a long story short, this film is horrible in every way. And if I had my way, everyone who likes it should go straight to hell....

neg

test_9797

pending

c2a0b6bc-690d-4864-91cb-ab0292d79920

Nine out of nine people who watched this have declared themselves to be mentally scarred for life. No-one should ever have to see this abomination. The English Language is poorly equipped to express how utterly, dreadfully atrocious this "film" is. It's really not worth the plastic it's made of. No greater crime has been committed by the human race in the entire history of creation; never is there likely to be anything worse.<br /><br />It was agreed unanimously that the scene involving the shrunken head of Tommy and the young girl's blouse was unbelievably sick and twisted; in fact many of us have not yet recovered from the ordeal and are currently sitting in the corner of the room rocking, sucking our thumbs and whimpering.<br /><br />The fundamental question on everyone's lips, however, has to be "Why???". How is it possible for anyone to create such a monstrosity and then subject it to so many innocent people? After viewing the trailer we thought that this film might be a laugh: how wrong we were.<br /><br />Please sign the petition to rid the world of "Shrunken Heads" so that no other poor civilians be exposed to it. Please, for the good of humanity.

neg

test_9798

pending

ad321834-f1f7-4520-95f4-321beafc04f4

This may just be the worst movie ever produced. Worst plot, worst acting, worst special effects...be prepared if you want to watch this. The only way to get enjoyment out of it is to light a match and burn the tape of it, knowing it will never fall into the hands of any sane person again.

neg

test_9799

pending

1350a722-5428-4c0b-858d-ba55e67fe0f1

My jaw fell so many times watching this flick, I have bruises. Okay, granted, I really wasn't expecting the quality of, say, The Others or even Thirteen Ghosts (the new one, which was just dreadful and is still head and shoulders above this insanity). Someone else noted the thin characters...I wouldn't call them "thin". "Thin" implies there might be something to them. How about almost non-existent? In no particular order we have: The Girl Who Will Scream; The American Who Will Figure It All Out; The Macho Guy Who Will Just Bull Through Everything Until He Gets Killed: The Wise Black Man Who Will Die Early; The Extra Guy Who Is There To Die First; The Extra Woman Who Is There To Play Tough. That's it. That's your character list and that is what they are and what they remain from beginning to end. If they were "thin" they might, at least, change a little bit from beginning to end. But they don't. Well, okay, the American guy decides he's going to stay with the fieldwork at the end and the Screaming Girl goes back to wherever she came from. That's the change. Other than that, they all act according to their assigned roles and rarely betray any real emotion when they finally meet up with the menace.<br /><br />Now, the producers get props for an original menace, I will say. I had understood the story was going to be "Tremors" but with ants instead of giant worms. I give the writer credit: these are very cool, very scary ants and what they do with bones is excellent. (The first time the "bone snatcher" appear, I admit I jumped a few feet.)Unfortunately, the very cool concept becomes Alien in the Desert very quickly. We get a lot of commentary on ants that may or may not be true, but we don't get much of the mythology on which the menace is based. And we get every monster movie cliché ever made. People go into places they know they shouldn't and when they have no compelling reason to. Moronic characters try to hinder our heroes and die for it. One character does double duty as "scientist who doesn't want to kill the monster but study it". A Very Cool Gadget is introduced only so the American can tell everyone something about ants that, gee, I hope everyone knows anyway. Then the gadget is broken. Our heroes run out of the one thing that can keep the menace at bay. And then there is that final, annoying moment when we know the menace is still with us--and wonder exactly what and how the hey the hero or heroine came by it. It completely renders everything that went before as useless and false.<br /><br />Three stars for the cool use of ants and bones. Nothing at all for clichés, clunky dialogue and dim bulb characters.

neg