Datasets:

jfcalvo

/

imdb-from-space-with-timestamp

like 0

train_8100

pending

4349ef97-734a-42cb-9fc2-4c1e9226195f

I actually prefer Robin Williams in his more serious roles (e.g. Good Will Hunting, The Fisher King, The World According to Garp). These are my favorite Robin Williams movies. But Seize the Day, although well-acted, is one of the worst movies I've ever seen and certainly the worst Robin Williams movie (even worse than Death to Smoochy, Club Paradise, and Alladin on Ice).<br /><br />Every good story is going to have its ups and downs. This movie, however, is one giant down. I don't need a feel-good Hollywood cheese-fest, but I've got to have something other than 90 minutes of complete and utter hopelessness. This movie reminds me of "Love Liza" (which is actually worse) because it seems that the only point of the movie is to see how far one person can fall. The answer? Who cares.

neg

train_8101

pending

798007b2-e36e-46bc-948a-eddafbd82bf5

The long list of "big" names in this flick (including the ubiquitous John Mills) didn't bowl me over to the extent that I couldn't judge the film on its actual merits. It is FULL of stereotypes, caricatures, and standard, set scenes, from the humble air-ace hero to the loud-mouthed yank flyer. The music track was such that at one point, about an hour before the end, I thought the film was over: loud, rising crescendo, grand flourish and finish then silence, but then the movie continued! I found no real storyline, haphazard writing, but smartly-pressed uniforms and the pretty Jean Simmons (pre-nose job) with a rousing little ditty. I cannot say that this picture has any of the ingredients which make a film great. I found it maudlin, mawkish and minor.

neg

train_8102

pending

2a412554-3531-4b98-93a3-85b612a4890c

THE TOY BOX (1971) BOMB<br /><br />Sure, I like looking at nude women. While I prefer hardcore porn flicks, I'll take softcore exploitation grindhouse junk like this too under the right circumstances. Well, these aren't the right circumstances. These aren't ANY circumstances. There's supposed to be a horrific subplot lurking in here somewhere, but I'll be damned if I can untangle it. This is another of those amateurish steaming piles of badly made manure that bores you to tears rather than stimulates you, despite all the simulated sex going on all over the place. Bah -- if I want to see good sex scenes, I'll watch the real stuff.

neg

train_8103

pending

da67f2ca-f439-4a0a-a173-64896b9364a5

"Don't Drink the Water" is an unbelievably bad film. It's based on a 1966 Broadway play by Woody Allen. It stars Jackie Gleason, the comic genius behind "The Honeymooners". The director, Howard Morris, has appeared in several Mel Brooks comedies (Life Stinks, High Anxiety, Silent Movie)and has made a mark in animation (characters he has voiced include Gopher from "Pooh", Jughead (Archie)and Beetle Bailey) What went wrong?<br /><br />I think the problem is that the premise is played out too seriously to work effectively. Allen's original play was tongue-in-cheek, which is why it worked on Broadway and in Allen's 1994 remake. The screenplay by R.S. Allen and Harvey Bullock beats the premise to death and makes too many changes from the original play. Making Gleason's wife an airhead in this version when she was a headstrong woman in the original is just one example of why this doesn't work.<br /><br />The acting isn't much better. Gleason does the best he can with the material, but he can't save this. Gleason was a comic genius , but also a fine actor as he demonstrated in "The Hustler" and "Soldier in the Rain". His abrasive personality could have worked here, but the lousy script doesn't even give him a chance. Too bad. Estelle Parsons' airhead wife will drive you nuts after 20 minutes. See how soon it'll take for YOU to want to strangle her. That is also a shame because she is also a fine actress, having turned in two exceptional performances in "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Rachel, Rachel" None of the other actors do particularly well either.<br /><br />Woody Allen hated this film so much that he remade the film in 1994 with himself and Julie Kavner (Marge Simpson) in the leads. They manage to hit all the right notes and the film itself is a comic masterpiece. It's finally on video after a long battle over rights. Do go out and find that version. All the 1969 original is good for is clearing out unwanted guests who overstay their welcome.<br /><br />1/2* out of 4 stars

neg

train_8104

pending

56d2e342-ff55-43bf-86bc-5a260a6f1cf5

Leslie Sands' stilted play "Deadlock" becomes a poor-choice vehicle for Bette Davis and Gary Merrill, just after their joint-success in "All About Eve". After killing her spouse, a scheming woman is visited by her husband's best friend, who passes himself off as her husband once others begin stopping by the house. Irving Rapper, one of Bette's best directors from her peak years, is sadly unable to elevate this ridiculous material, in which Davis is curiously aloof and restrained until the outrageous finale (where she thankfully pulls out all the stops). Production and supporting cast strictly second-rate; only for Bette Davis completists. *1/2 from ****

neg

train_8105

pending

8878cbce-f979-4dd3-b948-c9ce78584c76

If you want an undemanding and reasonably amusing hour or so, then it's OK to watch this. It's not all that bad, really. Yeah, it's got more lapses in logic than I care to describe here and might tax the patience of people - like myself, I have to admit - who are inclined to throw things at the TV on occasion, but it's funny at least. Just because it's not always INTENTIONALLY funny, there's no need to let that get you down.<br /><br />However, if you've read the book - or any of the other books by Brookmyre - then you'd probably best avoid it. I've read them all and when I first watched this film, I despised it. I've trashed it in detail and at great length on another site, in fact. The TV plot bears practically no relevance at all to that of the book and served only to outrage and infuriate many faithful (and admittedly rabid) Brookmyre fans.<br /><br />Best bit of advice..? Watch this, then read the book and only THEN make your comparisons and submit your judgement.

neg

train_8106

pending

ec8c906e-b29a-4351-8600-3b43ad9b8a5a

What an absolute pile of pants. Having read Chris Brookmyre's books religiously since I came across "Quite Ugly...", I was delighted to find out that this drama had been commissioned.<br /><br />I obviously had too much faith. <br /><br />Nesbitt is probably the best thing in this show - and even he doesn't quite fit. How anyone can read the book, and then adapt it to this piece of dross is beyond me.<br /><br />Entire characters are changed, situations are dropped, and to see Parlablane's dramatic break-in reduced to Nesbitt doing a quick chin up and sliding open a bay window... it brought tears to my eyes.<br /><br />I dread to think what's going to happen with "Country Of The Blind" if this is the benchmark...<br /><br />Please, just avoid it...

neg

train_8107

pending

d1e199b7-d7a8-4e11-9cd2-f7e14abbb039

Did I miss something here? This "adaptation" has everything that Brookmyres first novel had. Everything apart from the story, the laughs, the black humour, the political intrigue, the characterisations, the plot, and some semblance of sense.<br /><br />Spoilers;<br /><br />Godamnawful, from beginning to end. They made a mockery of the plot, they had a romance between Parablane and a cop, and what was that all about, Dr Slaughter was portrayed as a bystander, and who the hell was Annette Crosby supposed to be?<br /><br />It looked like they had made a three hour adaptation, then chopped it down to 90 minutes. (Even though the 90 minutes seemed to last forever.) Please, please, do not do this to any other of Brookmyres books, (especially "Country of the blind.)

neg

train_8108

pending

7bb0a1a1-0b09-4657-af66-202cef0d3326

This movie was a confusing piece of garbage. You never knew what was going on. The characters were poorly written and for the most part they were totally unsympathetic except for Gus (played masterfully by George Eads). I hate this movie but compared to others (Dark Harvest, Dracula's Curse) it should have won an academy award. It was particularly sad to see a talented actor like George Eads in such a disgraceful and tacky film. Lifetime you have sunken to whole new low. Someone needs to make sure that this director never works in movies again. Also was this supposed to be a horror film because it was a lot more funny than scary. For shame Lifetime, For shame.

neg

train_8109

pending

eed35294-e455-4497-b70a-29bebc27caee

1st watched 11/7/2002 - 2 out of 10(Dir-John Bianco): Pretty lame gangster movie about a Godfather-like family in Brooklyn who like to say four-letter words a lot and kill people. The only thing of interest here was their attempt to show the feds being a lot like the gang. This is the only attempt at good film-making. The rest of the movie was predictable, and cheaply-made. The quality of the photography on some of the scenes inside bars and floozy joints almost made you think there was a problem with your DVD player because of the bad contrasts and some of the actors were hard to hear at times because of the bad sound. The acting was pretty-much characatures of all your favorite gangsters from better movies with corny names like Vinnie `Knuckles' and Jimmie `Tattoos', and the plot pretty much followed those patterns as well. So, go see a better gangster movie before you put your money out for this one.

neg

train_8110

pending

2d946196-5d74-40fd-8f81-06d51cc4fa78

This film is so bad I can't believe it was actually shot. People who voted 10 or 9, 8 and even 7, are you insane? Did we really watch the same movie? Or the same sh** should I say. Everything is bad in this film. The story (is there a story?) is going nowhere, completely incoherent, the acting (some dialogs are simply just ridiculous), the music score (what the **** is that?), the editing, and especially the artistic direction, a pure disaster. Reminds me the old Macist movies... To give you an example of the amateurism of the production, the mermaid's costume is a sleeping bag with spangles sticked on it. I'm not joking, that's exactly what it is.<br /><br />Another example of the enormous mistakes we find here: you see in a scene an extra, a fat woman of about 200 pounds, who's talking on her cell phone. The next shot, which is in a complete different location, you can see this same woman, still talking on her cell phone (!) Yes, it goes that far. <br /><br />A big, huge, waste of money. Useless.

neg

train_8111

pending

552efea4-8071-40e6-82db-08eee66bece9

I just saw this at the 2006 Vancouver international film festival. The synopsis in the festival guide sounded pretty good so we decided to check this one out. I'm sorry to say I was very disappointed.<br /><br />Besides being poorly written, it was boring. I won't take away from the actors as there is not much they could do with this bad script.<br /><br />First bite was cliché without being ironic, over the top seriousness without being funny. The movie would have been better had Hunt Hoe went with a campy horror feel. Instead he took himself to seriously and this resulted with a boring film. I can't recommend this film. It felt too long and all in all just plain weak.

neg

train_8112

pending

e2373591-51c8-432f-b4d4-4ff1ee2c3dc3

I had the distinct displeasure of seeing this movie at the 2006 Vancouver International Film Festival. I have been attending this festival for over 5 years, and I have certainly seen some poor movies on occasion. However, 'First Bite' has reached a brand new low in film. In spite of being shot in beautiful locations, with the occasional, exquisite close up of fabulous food, the movie contorts an excessive number of plot twists and stilted characters until I was practically begging for it to end.<br /><br />The lead actor, David La Haye, completely failed to show any character development throughout the movie, portraying a pompous chef from beginning to end. Additional sub-plots, such as eating disorders, were developed so poorly and completely did not fit within any context that the movie had shown up to that point.<br /><br />A theme of mysticism was used as a poor attempt to conceal a movie that achieves nothing, goes nowhere, and completely disappoints.

neg

train_8113

pending

3244aafd-1c46-49a9-9be5-84efbdd1e9fd

After being bitten by a bat in a cave,a doctor named John Beck undergoes an accelerating transformation into a man-bat creature.His wife assures him that there's nothing wrong with him,it's all just due to rabies or the anti-rabies drugs he's taking.The local cop thinks that John is responsible for several gruesome murders."The Bat People" by Jerry Jameson is one hell of a horrible film.The script is deadly dull and there is no gore nor nudity.This pointless piece of crap is so mind-numbingly boring that you'll scratch your head in a total disbelief after suffering through it.Even the design of a man-bat creature by a young Stan Winston is completely pathetic and unmemorable.Avoid this stinker like the plague.2 out of 10.

neg

train_8114

pending

18ec9910-7a5f-4ba4-9408-b52536734def

Watching It Lives By Night makes you wonder, just who in the world greenlit this crap. A newlywed couple go spelunking on their honeymoon, get attacked by bats and the husband starts to run around in his pajamas attacking various people. And where exactly are they? They're in the desert, then they're skiing, then they're in a small town that looks like it has mountains nearby. The town is run by a sheriff who likes to watch and has a personal vendetta against whiny doctor boy. The ski hospital is run by a really groovy guy with a nice thick mustache and the wife looks like Mary Tyler Moore or Marilyn Quayle. There's no dramatic tension and the ending will leave you filled with anger. Special effects and makeup guru Stan Winston did the effects for this movie. I guess you have to start somewhere.

neg

train_8115

pending

ab424d46-02b3-4eaf-a542-7629f6495212

I saw this movie on mystery science theater when it was called "It lives by night". That title is much less misleading than "Batpeople". In fact it would more accurately be called Batperson. This movie is about a doctor who studies bats I am thinking because he wants to make a better cure for rabies. This is not really clear. What is clear is that he and his wife take a tour of a cave and he gets bitten by a bat. Why a scientist needs to take a tour to study bats is beyond me. Shouldn't he be able to go in by himself. Well after being bitten he and his wife go on their honeymoon where he starts having fits. They go to the worst doctor ever. The guy stays in the hospital and kills a nurse. In the end the guy kills 3-4 people and his wife stands by him and you are supposed to be rooting for him instead of the sheriff investigating the murders.

neg

train_8116

pending

50040468-1445-44ef-9a63-2306f757cf32

Or maybe that's what it feels like. Anyway, "The Bat People" is about as flat as a rug, bland as a sack of flour and as exciting as a rock...and as intelligent as all three combined.<br /><br />Okay, plot in a nutshell (fitting vessel, that...): a doctor (Moss) gets bitten by a bat while checking out a cave with his wife (McAndrew) and subsequently turns into a bat - well, not exactly a bat but a bat-like creature that looks more like a werewolf who kills his victims in a first-person camera viewpoint....<br /><br />But then there's the business of the sheriff (Pataki), who is about the WORST kind of sheriff: the hick kind. He hassles people, he leers at married women, he steals handkerchiefs from haberdasheries (the FIEND!), he smokes with one of those cigarette holders in his mouth and talks at the same time, making him look and sound like Buford T. Justice in "Smokey and the Bandit" and (this is the worst part)... HE'S THE MOST LIKEABLE CHARACTER IN THE WHOLE FILM!<br /><br />The whole film, though, is just TV movie-of-the-week-like crapola (guano, in this case). It's an AIP, for crying out loud! What did you expect, Oscar caliber stuff?<br /><br />And what else can you say about a film that not even MST3K can save?<br /><br />How about...no stars for "The Bat People", full version OR MST3K version!<br /><br />By the way, if there's ever a sequel for this movie, I'm burying my TV.

neg

train_8117

pending

17dcac5b-0ec9-4031-a5a9-6df8ab6a9427

"The Bat People" is a proud resident of the IMDb Bottom 100. Every once and a while the movie suddenly vanishes from the infamous list, depending on whether there are new movies with Paris Hilton in the lead or documentaries about American Idol stars, but it always reliably returns sooner or later. And why? Because, unlike the majority of crap in that list, "The Bat People" is a legitimate bad film and it deserves to be on there regardless of any media influences or internet buzz! This nearly isn't the worst film ever made, since the basic concept definitely has a certain charm and ingenuity, but it's still indescribably difficult to sit through the whole thing. The script is incredibly boring, with absolutely unnecessary padding footage and gigantic gaps in continuity, and yet the main characters still remain total strangers throughout the entire film. Other than a sensible screenplay, the film also lacks spectacular killing sequences and the make-up effects – although courtesy of a young Stan Winston – are ludicrously inept and remain largely unseen until the end of the film. The film's title is inaccurate, as "people" refers to a number in plural whereas the story actually just revolves on one Bat Person. Much more than Bruce Wayne, the real Batman plays in this movie and he as well has a genuine Bat-cave and a Bat-mobile (a stolen ambulance)! The plot introduces a young couple on their honeymoon-weekend exploring caves. They wander off from a guided tour group and he gets bitten by a bat whilst trying to protect his wife from the animal's vicious attack. Worried that he might be infected with rabies, he undergoes an intense treatment at the local hospital, but still this doesn't prevent him from slowly transforming into a bloodthirsty bat creature. He kills random people at night and toys around with the suspicious police sergeant whilst his loving wife is still vastly convinced the awkward behavior is exclusively due to allergic reactions to the rabies treatment. Sure, honey! The script never explains why a bat would attack people and how come John always changes back into a normal human being at the dawn of a new day instead of gradually turning into a permanent state of bat-guano. So basically, "The Bat People" is a variation on the good old werewolf-theme, but obviously not a very interesting one. The concept showed a lot of potential, but somehow the sub plots center on whiny drunks and perverted Sheriffs instead of on ghastly monsters. Some of the settings and exterior filming locations look impressive, the misfit song playing during the credits is strangely catchy, there's a nice bit of gore during the climax (finally!) and main actress Marianne McAndrew is ravishing to look at (though not to listen to). This truly bad and boring film's current listing in the bottom 100 is spot number 80, and personally I hope it sticks somewhere in that region. The list simply wouldn't feel and traditional without "The Bat People".

neg

train_8118

pending

86785d76-8ded-4f88-a2d7-8abd30cbd57b

Stewart Moss stars as a scientist who is on a working trip with his wife, and one gets the feeling that he was picked for this role for his ability to roll his eyes back in his head...imagine the auditions for this.."can you...no, that's not quite it, thank you, next!". Anyway, he's bitten by a bat, and then, he's either changing into some kind of bat creature and killing people or....he's not. For no one else sees his strange transformations, but he himself seems to think that he's changing because his wedding ring pops off when his hands turn into claws, etc. To its credit the movie does kind of hold back on whether he's just nuts or whether he's actually transforming into something until almost the very end. This has some good locations & sort of a decent atmosphere at times but unfortunately none of that can make up for the somewhat lame story and the wonderfully bad acting. Kind of fun in a "so bad it's good" way, but leans more towards just plain bad. 4 out of 10.

neg

train_8119

pending

975c46da-4e64-4751-a69e-f62b0d2a5deb

Ok,so.....guy gets bitten by a bat and then turns into a bat (well,sorta). I can only assume this made sense to SOMEONE at the time! Aren't bats supposed to fly, use radar, and eat bugs instead of attacking humans tho?

neg

train_8120

pending

c26520aa-69c5-4beb-8369-ab67e35ac341

This movie promised bat people. It didn't deliver. There was a guy who got bit by a bat, but what was with the seizures? And the stupid transformation? Where was the plot? Where was the acting? Who came up with the idea to make this? Why was it allowed to be made? Why? Why? I guess we'll never know.

neg

train_8121

pending

0b396562-4470-4090-b425-fcb054b8fc0a

A man wakes from a nightmare about bats. He and his wife go out into the desert for a picnic on their honeymoon. He seems to hear a strange noise, and she is disturbed by the sight of a bat crawling across their picnic blanket. He wants to go on a tour of a cave, which has something to do with some kind of work he is doing, but she wants to enjoy their honeymoon. She relents. They go on the tour, but leave the group to make out. She falls down a slope, where she is disturbed by insects. He follows her. He hears the strange noise again, and seems to know a bat is approaching; one does, and gets in her hair. He fights it off her, and it attacks him, biting his forehead.<br /><br />They get out of the cave, but when they are in a gondola at a ski resort, he starts having seizures in which he has hallucinations or visions of bats attacking people. He becomes angry when this happens. He's unable to drink alcohol without spitting it out. His wife worries about rabies, and he starts a Pasteur treatment for that, but reacts violently to the injection.<br /><br />And then some people are killed. We see parts of the man's transformation into a bat person. It seems it is not just in his mind. Whether the bat bite causes these transformations is not clear, since he already was having some symptoms prior to the bite.<br /><br />While the title seems inappropriate, the implication at the end is that the same thing is happening to another person. Not a very good movie, but I liked the variety of the desert, cave, and ski-slope locations, and some of the weirder scenes. I didn't think this was as bad as other people do, and I didn't think the 1999 movie Bats was as bad as others think either (I rated that one a 5/10).

neg

train_8122

pending

cf228a20-353b-47b7-90df-5ca57c015790

The movie is just as fun as staring at the sun.Sheriff Pataki is a total retard that loves nothing better to do than sit on his fat rear making a smoke ring from his puffy cigars and drinking booze while the doctor acts like a zombie version of Nicholas Cage sucking up all that so called "Blood" which in reality seemed like Fruit Punch.<br /><br />Most of all the plotting seemed very horrid to even call this piece of crap a movie.The rest of the characters in this movie are total wastes of time, the ending was awful, the outlines were cheesy, and the scenes were terrible. What else more should I say to you viewers out there? My advice would be to get your Rabies shot if you've already watched the movie. This movie may give you the foam in the mouth if you didn't get your up-to-date shots.

neg

train_8123

pending

63ea5597-f532-4e1b-80a3-7d427f049113

Really, the use of stock nature documentary of swarming bats employed by THE BAT PEOPLE is some of the most effective ever. There are shots of teeming bats hanging from the ceilings of caves, swarming bats flying out of caves or swirling about near the mouths of caves. That alone is enough to be unsettling: Imagine all of them swarming after you? And they do indeed swarm in what should have been a show-stopper sequence that happened at about the forty minute mark, a downright inappropriately hilarious sequence where a teeming swarm of bats seem to attack a police car, splattering across the windshield like bloody broken eggs. The problem is that this sequence happens about fifty minutes too late to save the film, most of which consists of one or more people running around, screaming, waving their arms about at jabbering excitedly about some poor goofball who managed to get bitten by a bat during his vacation.<br /><br />The fear is that he is coming down with rabies, which does indeed suck, so their vacation is ruined, as the plot synopsis on the top of THE BAT PEOPLE's reference page does indeed point out. So here is an effective summary of the movie: A young couple goes on a romantic getaway which is ruined when the guy is bitten by a bat. They bravely try to stick it out but he starts raving, trying to convince those around him that it's a bit more involved than rabies, that he can't control himself, and they everyone should KEEP AWAY.<br /><br />Now, when some one is frothing at the mouth, covered with sweat, eyes boggling about like one of the cheaper Muppets and screaming at you to GET AWAY FROM ME, you get away from him. You don't try to give him drugs, you don't try to tell him you love him, you give the guy his space, go home, and try that scenic getaway next year.<br /><br />But no, the people in this movie all behave like morons, insist on pushing the guy to his brink, and he flips out, mutates into a part man part bat type creature, and kills a bunch of non-essential secondary characters. Nothing wrong with that, but the movie forgets that it's a low budget Creature Feature and tries to be some sort of psychological study. Instead of a monster movie, we get lots of people running around trying to get this guy to take a chill pill, and eventually he runs off into the hills looking very much more human than he should have, people insist on trying to chase him down and pay the expected price.<br /><br />The main thing wrong with the movie is that this should have happened in the first fifteen or twenty minutes, thirty tops, and the movie should have been about the guy AFTER he had turned into a Bat Person, rather than about the journey there. It takes a good eighty minutes to really pick up steam on that front, with some interesting character sketches along the way involving the always entertaining Michael Pataki as a small town cop who's lost his moral edge, and the late Paul Carr as a physician friend who doesn't quite get the message.<br /><br />The movie is dreadfully boring, about fifteen minutes too long and missed the opportunity to be a nice, forgettable little Creature Feature about a mutant run amok like the Italian horror favorite RATMAN, which I watched today and was sadly inspired to try this one after seeing. Me and my bright ideas, though the scene with the cop car was a howler: Too bad we couldn't have had another twenty minutes of that.<br /><br />3/10

neg

train_8124

pending

70dab4fe-387f-4371-8a8a-31348fb15818

Unless the title is supposed to be some kind of spoiler for the wife's transformation (the fiends! ruining it for us). Anycase, if this movie wasn't Made-For-TV, it should have been, it's so remarkably low-budget, underscripted, underacted, and hits every 70's cliche except disco. Nobody is likeable, and you could careless what happens to anyone in this one. Eminently forgetable except for the bad, bad performances.

neg

train_8125

pending

08f2a8ca-67b1-44e6-9240-6cde371158db

While exploring some caves with his wife, a doctor is bitten by a bat which causes some alarming side effects...<br /><br />Occasionally creepy atmosphere and some decent (though under used) makeup effects don't save this B horror flick from being a sub-par tale of man-becomes-creature. The Bat People aka It Lives By Night suffers from its senseless story that's awkwardly plotted and lackluster in pacing. The plot never seems to go anywhere much and the movie never offers an explanation for what happens, or even a satisfying conclusion for it all. The cast is fairly mediocre in their performances.<br /><br />Still I give the film some points for its haunting theme song and nice filming locations. The makeup work of the late Stan Winston is pretty good too, but it doesn't get much of a showcase here. A missed opportunity for sure. <br /><br />Definitely one of the lesser man-creature flicks out there.<br /><br />* 1/2 out of ****

neg

train_8126

pending

2d17f0e6-e2f5-4bcd-949c-a02d0eca57eb

I dunno sometimes...you try and try and try to be charitable towards all the B thru Z grade movies out there, but once in a while a particular movie just tests your patience until you want to slap everyone involved. "Bat People" (which I saw under the title "It Lives By Night") is just such a movie. You can't watch this without thinking that it really should have been an episode on "Night Gallery", and not one of the better ones, either. <br /><br />The movie has something to do with a doctor who gets bitten by a bat and consequently starts to morph into a Were-Bat who drinks human blood. (Actually, you'd think if he was turning into a real bat, he'd be eating mosquitoes by the gallon bucket, but because this is a cheap, lurid horror movie, blood's the word.) In spite of the fact that he has grand-mal seizures at the drop of a hat, and black-out episodes almost every night, his friend and fellow physician, Dr. Mustache Aspen-Extreme, insists that he's just having an 'allergic reaction' to the rabies shots. Meanwhile, the world's most obnoxious and stereotyped county sheriff suspects the doc of being responsible for the brutal murder and exsanguination of several local girls (and one wino). Also meanwhile, the doctor's wife decides that denial IS a river in Egypt and alternately patronizes him and nags him to distraction. <br /><br />It's not so much that the acting is bad - you can tell that the actors are making professional level choices, and are trying to bring some juice and life to the script, even the guy who plays the sheriff. (Okay, it IS pretty bad, but it's bad in a clichéd, wooden, professional way). It's just that everything about the acting, the way the scenes are paced, the costumes, the dialog, the script and the story line in general sets your teeth on edge and makes you want to, well, slap everyone involved.<br /><br />I think the movie had an outside chance at being a spooky, unsettling little cult favorite, BUT:<br /><br />1)The director needed to beat Michael Pataki, an experienced character actor, with a chair until Pataki agreed to ACT, and not just channel Dennis Weaver. <br /><br />2)He also needed to find a script that made a little more sense with regard to the whole "Bat Bites Human, Who Then Turns Into A Bat" scenario. <br /><br />3) He also needed the actor who played the doctor to find a little more physically believable bit of stage business for his 'episodes', instead of resorting to "Man Has A Seizure" page from the Little Golden Book of Clichéd Acting Mannerisms. <br /><br />4) He needed to rework the whole 'wife' character, make her both more intelligent, less shrill and waaaaay more observant. <br /><br />I would never voluntarily watch this film again, except with the help of Mike and the Bots. It's bad, but it isn't bad in a silly, humorous or interesting way. Still better than "Battlefield Earth" or "Waterworld", though.

neg

train_8127

pending

c002cb70-d210-48a1-ae2e-a32ac1d1e1af

OK, don't let my summary fool you. This movie SUCKS HARD. But the worst movie ever? This movie was terrible in ways people shouldn't have to rack their brains to describe. But it is in no way worse than Manos: the hands of fate, hobgobblins, horrors of spider island, or a small handful of movies. As a review the movie sucks, it's terrible. Don't see it with out MST or you may develop health problems. But there are worse movies.

neg

train_8128

pending

6ca0f2bd-4846-40c0-8dda-7e6a1971c256

Currently, this film is listed on IMDb as the 42nd worst film ever made--which is exactly why I rented it from NetFlix. However, I am saddened to report that the film, while bad, is no where near bad enough to merit being in the bottom 100 films ever made list. I have personally seen at least 100 films worse than this one. Hardly a glowing endorsement, but it just didn't meet the expected level of awfulness to be included on this infamous list.<br /><br />The film begin with Stewart Moss and Marianne McAndrew on their belated honeymoon (by the way, they are married in real life as well). He's a doctor who is obsessed with bats and insists they go to a nearby cave. Once there, they behave very, very, very stupidly (hallmark of a bad film) and are soon bitten by a bat. According to this film, bats love to attack people and there are vampire bats in the US--both of which are not true at all.<br /><br />Oddly, after being bitten, the man doesn't even bother going to the hospital!! The first thing on anyone's mind (especially a doctor) is to get medical help immediately, but not this boob. Soon, he's having seizures--yet he STILL isn't interested in seeking help! Again and again you keep thinking that this must be the stupidest couple in film history!! <br /><br />After a while, he eventually goes to see a doctor and is sent to the hospital. But, by then it's too late and his attacks become more violent and he begins killing people to suck their blood. When it's totally obvious to everyone that the man is a crazed killing machine, the wife (who, like her husband, has a grapefruit for a brain) refuses to believe he's dangerous--even after he attacks people, steals an ambulance and runs a police car off the road!! <br /><br />Now most of the time Moss is going through these episodes, his eyes roll back and he looks like a normal person. Oddly, however, a couple times he develops bat-like hands and towards the end they used some nice prosthetics on him to make him look quite bat-like. Had this been really cheesy, the film would have merited a 1.<br /><br />In the very end, in a twist that hardly made any sense at all, the wife inexplicably turned into a crazed bat lady and had a swarm of bats kill the evil sheriff. How all this was arranged was a mystery as was Moss' and McAndrew's belief that this film would somehow help their careers--though they both have had reasonably long careers on TV playing bit roles since 1974.<br /><br />Overall, very dumb. The plot is silly and makes no sense and strongly relies on people acting way too dumb to be real. Not a good film at all, but not among the worst films of all time either.<br /><br />NOTE: For some reason, IMDb shows the graphic for the three DVD set for IT'S ALIVE and it's two sequels of the web page for THE BAT PEOPLE. While THE BAT PEOPLE has been seen with the title "It's Alive", the two movies are not at all related. It's easy to understand the mistake--especially since they both came out in 1974, but the movie I just reviewed starred Stewart Moss and Marianne McAndrew and the other film starred John Ryan and Sharon Farrell.

neg

train_8129

pending

8141c4f3-f394-4e25-9a43-7cf60ddbfd2e

I didn't think this was as absolutely horrible as some people apparently do. It passes as one of those cheesy horror movies you might waste time with in the middle of the night when you can't sleep, although admittedly it's no better quality than that. It's true that the acting isn't great - I thought Marianne McAndrew as Cathy Beck, for example, came across as completely passionless - but the main problem is that several aspects of the plot didn't really make sense to me. The Becks are on a trip described by John (Stewart Moss) as part work and partly the honeymoon they never had (now that's romantic!) The work part has something to do with touring caves, which in itself sounds strange (how does being part of a tour group through a cave relate to anyone's work?) but it gets stranger when we find out that he's a doctor doing research in the area of preventative medicine (huh? That connection completely lost me.) Bitten by a bat while he's in the cave, he begins to transform into what I guess was supposed to be a human-bat hybrid (although when we finally see him in makeup he looks a lot more like an ape-man of some sort) and a killing spree starts. Here's another problem. The first killing is a nurse in a hospital. At first, everyone thinks her death was an accident. The second murder is of a young girl, who is described as having her throat ripped out. The sheriff (Michael Pataki) then tells us that her death was similar to the nurse's (meaning throat ripped out? - How could anyone think that was an accident?) And what's with the sheriff? He seems pretty no-nonsense until the scene in Cathy's hotel room when he takes a swig of liquor and then almost rapes her, after which everything seems to go back to normal. It's saddled with an ending that left almost everything unresolved, and also with one of the most irritating theme songs I've ever heard in a movie. Even for all that, there was something here that kept me watching. Sometimes pure cheesiness can get you through an hour and a half. Pretty bad, yeah - but not as awful as some people say.

neg

train_8130

pending

2666e1b6-a024-4a6f-ad3c-677900874b89

"The Bat People" is a really bad film that deserved the MST3K treatment just as well like that other film "The Creeping Terror."<br /><br />In it, we are in some sort of mountainous terrain full of bats. We see many things happen, like bats flying out and attacking and stuff, station wagon chases, mishaps at the emergency room, and much more! All this, plus the cheesy mediocrity of the 1970s (hey, think "Mitchell" here!), making "The Bat People" actually one of the very best of the last "Mystery Science Theater 3000" episodes made in the series! Moviewise, it's awful. It should be avoided like the plague, unless Tom Servo and Crow are watching with you.<br /><br />"The Bat People" - more like "The Bad People!!!!!" LOL<br /><br />1/10 of course!!!!!

neg

train_8131

pending

de0855e6-7635-468e-aa4e-9709f580df84

The movie that shoots scenes of a scenic caverns tour.<br /><br />Remember no one from this movie except for Michael Pataki who dished out extreme pain as JC in "Five the Hard Way". He's the really annoying sheriff who I did applaud when he practices nightstick on our rabid doctor. Probably the most laughs you will have is with Dr. Beck's epileptic seizures out of nowhere. Could Mrs. Beck be anymore wooden? Seriously, if you took a 4 foot branch, stuck it in a hot tub, you wouldn't be able to notice a difference. The dread and suspense is looking over at the clock wondering when the credits will roll.<br /><br />Watch it as a late night movie, MSTified, but don't go out of your way.

neg

train_8132

pending

07067d51-743a-4225-a5db-f92f45c566dd

(spoilers)Wow, this is a bad one. I did a double take when watching an old Star Trek episode the other day-it was the one where everyone gets infected with that space sickness and then go a bit nuts-and there was Stewart Moss, a.k.a the unlikable 'hero' of It Lives by Night! He played the first crewmember infected, who dies from terminal depression. All I could think was that he'd watched his own movie too many times, that's what caused the depression. This movie is full of truly unlikable people. There is no redeeming character in the film, not one. It's very hard to feel bad about Dr. Beck's turning into a bat(or whatever he actually turned into), because you just don't like him. And you don't like his shrill, bony wife, or the nasty sleazy Sgt. Ward, or Dr. Mustache Love...So why would you invest any time or energy in this movie? Where there is no empathy with the characters, there is no reason to bother caring about it. Not to mention the horrible cinematography, which made it look like they'd filmed the movie through urine, and the five cent bat special effects, many of which appeared to be pieces of paper thrown into a fan to simulate hordes of bats flying. Not the worst film I've ever seen on MST3K, but down there in the bottom ranks, definitely.

neg

train_8133

pending

e48ce28c-475c-4662-b8b7-cf5909b8c87e

Painful to watch, and not entirely for empathy with the struggles of the characters. Two of the main characters, Cynthia the mother and Monica the acknowledged daughter, spend the great bulk of the film pathetically mewling and bitterly bitching respectively. Their characters are so firmly established that their redemption into tolerable personalities after a quick family catharsis is unbelievable. It wasn't worth the wait. I wish a worthy pitch for honesty among families was less of a headache to view.

neg

train_8134

pending

8fde64ff-2863-4e75-bb39-fa77a964d98a

Time is precious. This film isn't. I must learn to ignore critics who rave about small films like Fargo and this complete waste of time.<br /><br />The theater was packed and everyone left with the same reaction: Is this the film the critics are raving about? What a piece of crap!<br /><br />The hook of this film is the upwardly mobile black daughter seeking out and finding her white trash family. Get it?<br /><br />The acting is superb.<br /><br />The production (lighting, sets, editing, sound) is about 2 steps above a 60 minutes story. The characters are shallow and unintelligent. I was insulted by the fact that these people could not figure out about each other what was blatantly obvious to the audience; the audience was murmuring to the movie screen what the characters should say next.<br /><br />I have had more fun doing the laundry.

neg

train_8135

pending

532b1441-8544-4072-a4fc-ca3b6a94ce4a

At least among those movies with 100 votes or more. Nominated for best screenplay written directly for the screen? Brenda Blethyn nominated for best actress in a leading role?? Nominated for best picture?? I always disagree with many of the Oscar picks, but this movie might very well be the worst movie of all time to be honored by the Academy. The writing and acting were both horrible. Blethyn's perfomance in particular was one of the worst I've ever seen, and probably the most over-rated acting performance of all time. Awful movie, not worthy of the big screen and not worthy of any cable or television channel that has ever played it, including HBO(where I saw it). I am only thankful I didn't actually pay to see one of the most over-rated movies of all time.

neg

train_8136

pending

9b39887f-ec2f-48ca-9c45-183aedd41f13

First of all there wasn't really anything in this movie that grabbed me really. It wasn't a bad movie, just another movie where I said "Well, that wasn't anything special" after I'd seen it. There was probably drama and stuff, but it simply didn't grab me, but more seamed semi-dull. As I said in the headline it seamed very cheap in a way. The quality of the film itself (the images) seamed like a low quality and reminded me more of some cheap made for TV-movie than a well respected English film-maker. The camera angles and shots were very amateur like in my opinion. Didn't really have any close up shots or similar effects to produce interesting scenes. I haven't seen many English films and the ones I've seen didn't really impress me more than this and they seamed kind of similar done with the camera work, colors and such. "Game" tried to be more cool, hip & smart (see my review of "Lola Rennt" about this if you wish), but didn't succeed for me either. Overall just a little indifferent movie that wasn't anything special (at best, I'm afraid) and basically unfortunately over two hours wasted.

neg

train_8137

pending

74a56719-e7ae-491d-bbbb-55cd2ae7b942

Well, EYEboy, I must say that it pleases me to no end when someone singles me out and tries to make fun of me, especially when it is someone who seems as intelligent as you do. My favorite part of your post was "But no big bang-bang good-guy bad-guy here, kimosabe. Me suggest you stick to movie with lotsa bang bang."<br /><br />Well said! I do like action movies, especially if they are well done, but I also like movies that don't have a whole lot of action, as long as THEY are well done. I'm sorry, but Secret's and Lies does not fit into that category and is simply a very bad movie. I really don't see very many non-American films, so maybe I was spoiled, and didn't realize how bad foreign films really were when I saw Secrets and Lies. Perhaps if I judge foreign movies by a different standard I could some day see how Secrets and Lies could possibly be one of the highest rated movies on the IMDB. Hmm... If true, that is very scary.<br /><br />Jeremy Barger bits@midohio.net(new e-mail)

neg

train_8138

pending

f6cd2aef-048a-465d-af73-579cfea08346

"Horrible People" ought to be the subtitle of this horrible film. If you want to see ordinary people doing ordinary things, then look out of your window at real life. But if you want to see unpleasant people doing dull things, you'll have to watch this horrible film by Mike Leigh. The characters talk at length, but never actually manage to communicate with each other. Why not? Presumably because Leigh things that all of us are as ineffective and pathetic as his actors, and he wants to film real life. But we're not, and he failed.

neg

train_8139

pending

4c104371-8947-459a-a4c4-150a4d408ed6

I have seen a lot of movies...this is the first one I ever walked out of the theater on. Don't even bother renting it. This is about as boring a soap opera as one can see...at least you don't have to pay to watch a soap opera, though.

neg

train_8140

pending

20cae611-d3a2-43f1-bacf-514d8557dc5d

This movie was the most horrible movie watching experience i have ever had to endure, and what is worse is the fact that i had to watch it, and didn't have the opportunity to stop it because it was for school! Admittedly, the storyline was decent...but i found the acting terrible! The exception was Marianne Jean-Baptiste, i thought her performance was wonderful. She was the only highlight, without her, i doubt i would have been able to bear watching the film. Every time i hear somebody say "daarling" i cringe! i nearly attacked a customer the other day because they said "it". It made me remember one of the worst one and a half hours of my life!<br /><br />(i apologise if this has offended anybody, i am only expressing my opinion)

neg

train_8141

pending

8f5b4012-3220-4ada-8f8a-777612ed3498

... mainly because Ju-on 2 boasts an outrageous FORTY minutes' worth of material literally taken straight out of the first Ju-on - and when you consider that the sequel only runs for 76 minutes, that leaves you with 36 original minutes' worth of film. Ho-hum. I found that deeply irritating - as if viewers simply wouldn't remember the same stuff! - not to mention dull, having to watch it all over again.<br /><br />OK, that complaint aside, the byline for Ju-on 2 was that it was supposed to explain a lot of the unanswered questions from the first movie, which frankly, over 36 minutes, simply doesn't go far enough to making any kind of sense of the original's highly convoluted storyline.<br /><br />There are, however, some really nice new horror sequences which show how good the film might have been, had it had some time to develop; and some of the questions raised by the original - some, but not all - are answered.<br /><br />So in conclusion - if you loved the first original movie and want to see some further developments on the story, go for it - but just remember to keep your remote control to hand with your finger on the fast-forward button for forty minutes.

neg

train_8142

pending

57fa4a9a-35dc-4383-b99f-5f49e89b0e0a

POPEYE AND BIG FOOT **; POPEYE'S ENGINE COMPANY **; GETTING POPEYE'S GOAT **1/2<br /><br />I used to lap these up as a kid but, catching an episode of the series comprising three cartoons back-to-back now i.e. several years later (they preceded the theatrical screening of the pirate yarn RAIDERS OF THE SEVEN SEAS [1953]), I can see how they don't hold up all that well! The character of Popeye isn't exactly sympathetic to begin with, Olive Oyl distinctly overbearing and Bluto's antics failed to elicit much interest either – in short, the scripts were alarmingly thin, fairly awful and generally unfunny to boot. They're strictly juvenile fare, yet I doubt today's kids would even have the patience to stick with them!; furthermore, the animation style is unattractive.<br /><br />Taking each short per se, I guess they improved from one to the other: after the initial shock, one adapted to its mediocre quality as it were, so that the third cartoon easily results in being the most enjoyable of the lot – Popeye is entrusted with a mascot army goat whose immense appetite causes him no end of mischief (hardly original, I know, but always an amusing ploy). One interesting element here was that the shorts were bookended with Popeye delivering moralistic bits of wisdom to the kids in the audience.

neg

train_8143

pending

4a9097ad-d0b2-44b8-a381-9bed2ef83ced

Hanna-Barbera sucks the life out of another famous property. The violence is watered down, the stories are formulaic, the animation is bad, the music is obnoxious and repetitive, and frankly, the show just isn't funny.<br /><br />At the time, H-B put every one of its series through the same clichéd situations, regardless if it fit the world of the cartoon or not. Thus, Popeye and Bluto appear in a recurring segment as cavemen ("Hey! Popeye is popular, and the Flinstones are popular. Put 'em together, and you can't miss!"). Also, in an apparent ripoff of "Private Benjamin," Olive Oyl and the Goon have a regular segment that features them as new army recruits. Seriously! Why? <br /><br />Adding to the annoyance factor are the public service announcements in every episode (standard practice at the time for cartoons, but still annoying). Popeye lectures his nephews on crossing the street safely, recycling, and - are you ready for this? - the dangers of smoking! (I swear I'm not making that up.)<br /><br />The only charm remaining from the original cartoons is that Jack Mercer, the voice of Popeye from the early days, continues the role here.<br /><br />Worth checking out once just to get a new appreciation for the old Fleischer shorts. Otherwise, avoid at all costs.

neg

train_8144

pending

981089bd-131b-4e5c-8c17-177c4b1f9afa

Another great movie by Costa-Gavras. It's a great presentation of the situation is Latin America and the US involvement in Latin American politics. The facts might or might not be accurate but it is a fact that the US was deeply involved in coups and support of Latin American dictatorships.<br /><br />Despite this though the spirit of the movie follows the typical leftist/communist propaganda of the Cold War era. Costa-Gavras is a well-known communist sympathizer and his movies are always biased. For example he presents the US actions as brutal and inhumane, while representing Tupamaros' extremist activities as something positive.<br /><br />As it turned out it was a blessing for Uruguay and the rest of the Latin America that the US got involved. Europe is filled with poor East European prostitutes. I never heard of poor Uruguayan or Chilean girls prostituting themselves en masse as it happens in most East European countries. The US was fighting a dirty war and god bless us all the monster of Soviet Communism was defeated. It is unfortunate the US had to do what it did in Latin America (and elsewhere) but sometimes you need to play dirty. This is not an idealistic world as Costa-Gavras and Matamoros like to believe. Had Matamoros come to power in Uruguay, we would've had another Ukraine in Latin America.<br /><br />All in all this movie follows corrupt and bankrupt leftist ideology of times past and tries to pass it as idealistic and morally correct.

neg

train_8145

pending

c195032d-a2a2-467a-946a-c42d89a8ce47

I think Phillip Kaufman read the cliff's Notes version of the Kundera novel and then set about making this film. Okay, of course it won't have the punch of the original. Kundera's novels are great because of his manipulation of the narrative concept, his ability to step in and out of stories he constructs. This film does not even try! The one dream sequence of Tereza's, so vital to the atmosphere of the book, is reworked and makes no sense whatsoever. Also, and this is perhaps a lesser point, Daniel Day-Lewis looks a lot like Ben Stiller in this (I know it's not really a valid complaint, but hey). A perfect example of the Hollywood-izing of otherwise fine literature.

neg

train_8146

pending

0d2b21b7-21a5-421e-b658-7356626864e9

*** Contains Spoilers ***<br /><br />I did not like this movie at all.<br /><br />I found it amazingly boring and rather superficially made, irrespective of the importance and depth of the proposed themes: given that eventually we have to die, how should we approach life? In a "light" way, like Tomas; in a "heavy" way like Tereza; or should we find ways not to face that question, like Sabina? How much is fidelity important in a relationship? How much of the professional life can be mutilated for the sake of our loved ones? How much do we have to be involved in the political life and the social issues of our Country?<br /><br />Unfortunately, I haven't read Kundera's novel but after having being let down by the movie I certainly will: I want to understand if the story was ruined by the movie adaptation (which is my guess) or if it was dull from the beginning.<br /><br />I disagree with most of the positive comments that defined the movie as a masterpiece. I simply don't see the reasons why. What I see are many flaws, and a sample of them follows.<br /><br />1) The three main characters are thrown at you and it's very hard to understand what drives them when making their choices.<br /><br />2) The "secondary" characters are there just to fill the gaps but they don't add nothing to the story and you wonder if they are really necessary.<br /><br />3) I did not like how Tomas was impersonated. Nothing is good for him. He is so self-centered and selfish. He is not human, in some sense. But when his self-confidence fails and he realizes that he depends on others and is emotionally linked to someone, I did not find the interpretation credible.<br /><br />4) It's very unlikely that an artist like Sabina could afford her lifestyle in a communist country in 1968. On top of that, the three main characters are all very successful in their respective professions, which sounds strange to me. a) how can Tereza become effortlessly such a good photographer? b) how can they do so well in a country lacking all the economic incentives that usually motivate people to succeed?<br /><br />5) The fake accents of the English spoken by the actors are laughable. And I am not even mother tongue. Moreover, the letter that Sabina receives while in the US is written in Czech, which I found very inconsistent.<br /><br />6) Many comments praised the movie saying that Prague was beautifully rendered: I guess that most of the movie was shot on location, so it's not difficult to give the movie a Eastern European feeling, and given the intrinsic beauty of Prague is not even difficult to make it look good.<br /><br />7) I found the ending sort of trivial. Tereza and Tomas, finally happy in the countryside, far away from the temptations of the "metropoly", distant from the social struggles their fellow citizens are living, detached from their professional lives, die in a car accident. But they die after having realized that they are happy, indeed. So what? Had they died unhappy, would the message of the movie have been different? I don't think so. I considered it sort of a cheap trick to please the audience.<br /><br />8) The only thing in the movie which is unbearably light is the way the director has portrayed the characters. You see them for almost three hours, but in the end you are left with nothing. You don't feel empathy, you don't relate to them, you are left there in your couch watching a sequence of events and scenes that have very little to say.<br /><br />9) I hated the "stop the music in the restaurant" scene (which some comments praised a lot). Why Sabina has got such a strong reaction? Why Franz agrees with her? I really don't see the point. The only thing you learn is that Sabina has got a very bad temper and quite a strong personality. That's it. What's so special and unique about it?<br /><br />After all these negative comments, let me point tout that there are two scenes that I liked a lot (that's why I gave it a two).<br /><br />The "Naked women Photoshoot", where the envy, the jealousy, and the insecurities of Sabina and Tereza are beautifully presented.<br /><br />The other scene is the one representing the investigations after the occupation of Prague by the Russians. Tereza pictures, taken to let the world know about what is going on in Prague, are used to identify the people taking part to the riots. I found it quite original and Tereza's sense of despair and guilt are nicely portrayed.<br /><br />Finally, there is a tiny possibility that the movie was intentionally "designed" in such a way that "Tomas types" are going to like it and "Tereza ones" are going to hate it. If this is the case (I strongly doubt it, though) then my comment should be revised drastically.

neg

train_8147

pending

9e686a01-48f8-4ab6-833d-113f4a50e32b

After reading the book, which had a lot of meaning for me, the movie didn't give me any of the feeling which the book conveyed. This makes me wonder if Kaufman even liked this book for he successfully made it into something else.Either that or he is simply bad. Most importantly where is the lightness?! From the very first scene, music drownes out most of the dialogue and feeling, and this continues right through the movie. I think the makers thought that by having upbeat music playing right through the movie, this would make the story feel light- however they have completely failed here. Instead the music manages to give everything that 'movie feel', in a way dramatising events so that we linger on them, so that everything actually feels heavy.<br /><br />Another example of the how this adaptation fails is by embellishing the story line making it more dramatic. In the movie we see Franz passing Tomas on the street, who is on his way to see Sabina. The introduction of this chance meeting/passing, which im sure didn't happen in the book, gives Tomas' story more significance than it does make it light.<br /><br />There are many other examples where the continuity of the story has been changed, imo for the worst, however this might have been done because the book simply doesn't convert well into a movie, such is Kundera's style. This makes we wonder if all the generous reviewers on this site were writing with their book AND movie experience in mind rather than writing about just the film. A film which is as long as it is uncompelling. For those who haven't read the book yet I recommend just reading that. For those who have, I have to say you will just be wasting your time and probably end up here writing similar stay-clear warnings.

neg

train_8148

pending

40d74f78-04af-4f2f-8f94-5cec84067945

This film is quite boring. There are snippets of naked flesh tossed around in a lame attempt to keep the viewer awake but they don't succeed.<br /><br />The best thing about the movie is Lena Olin--she does a masterful job handling her character, but Day-Lewis garbles most of his lines.<br /><br />Kaufman clearly had no idea how to film this. The incongruities in bouncing between domestic household/marriage issues and political crises are badly matched. Character attitudes change without explanation throughout. Badly disjointed.

neg

train_8149

pending

006e19e4-9097-49d1-af42-116b1c7ac2c6

Seriously, Why do American and Frech actors pretending to be Czechs need to speak perfect English with a fake Russian accent? I am a man, so i enjoyed the gratuitous nudity--but a soft porn flick would have more of that, and at least wouldn't pretend it's artistic.<br /><br />All the political statements where painfully didactic- has the director heard of subtlety? The acting was also woody and melodramatic, and the comic relief was never funny. The characters were very shallow, and I just couldn't identify with them at all.<br /><br />The bit where I did laugh was when they cut the actors into archival footage of the demonstrations in Prague - and they were black and white and then sepia to match the footage-just ludicrous.<br /><br />I read many of Kundera's short stories (not The Unbearable Lightness of Being), and there are good things about his style of writing (although his themes are one big male fantasy)-and I have to say, the film did NOT convey any of the goodness of Kunderas style.

neg

train_8150

pending

5d882144-d2d2-4453-817b-3f41736aae98

Harsh, yes, but I call 'em like I see 'em.<br /><br />I saw this in the late 80's, and it was truly one of the most awful, boring films I've ever forced myself to watch.<br /><br />Yes, the cinematography is lovely. The Czech settings are truly stunning. The political backdrop is enticing, but unlike similar "historically set" stories (e.g. _Dr. Zhivago_ (qv)), this one failed to make the politics relevant to the story, or even interesting.<br /><br />Sure, Olin and Binoche are beautiful. But this film manages to make even "erotic" scenes plodding and slow. I'm all for romance, but this movie was so boring, I started hoping the Russians would shoot them all and put an end to my misery.<br /><br />I'm sure if I'd read the book, the story would have made a bit more sense. However, life's too short to expend any more time on this one.

neg

train_8151

pending

9e6782ce-8c61-4a11-bdd7-754dfcc6fcfa

yeah cheap shot i know, but this movie is a great example of how a collection of signifiers of 'deepness' (political turmoil, love/lust) can be combined haphazardly to great critical acclaim (see also 'american beauty'). kaufman's movie plods along with gratuitous sex scenes interspersed with often painful dialog sequences (in one scene i counted three different 'generic European' accents affected by the actors) and displays of state might run amok, yet fails to tie them together into the coherent meditation kundera offered. and in its over-long three hours it manages almost completely to gloss over franz,the missing fourth piece in the love triangle that lies at the heart of the plot, and in this manner sacrifices the novel's central mechanism of displaying the spectrum of emotions and of power relations that obtain in love affairs. it also fails to even include token screen time for tomas' son, used in the novel to exemplify some of the political points kundera was making in the novel. combined with the overweening soundtrack, these flaws make this movie's three hours unbearably weighty in tone yet light in content.

neg

train_8152

pending

d556bf38-b10f-4b60-afb2-7d5613082731

This is possibly one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I don't care what the critics say, it's bad. I think the problem is with Kundera's novel. It's not that it's unfilmable; it's just that like 99% of his work, it's pretentious and overdrawn. He seems to be enamored with himself,his characters come off as navel-gazing, and his novels as a whole are misogynistic. I have read many of his works (even his Socialist Realist poetry. That was truly awful) -- I just don't understand what the fuss is about. Characteristics (like the self-absorption) in his novels make for infuriating reading. In a movie, all the things that I dislike about Kundera were magnified. Maybe I just missed something, but I don't think so. On a side note, I cannot believe that this is a Criterion Collection DVD. No way is this movie THAT essential.

neg

train_8153

pending

80e1a31c-8bf3-4821-890d-f68e8c22c350

Oh, I heard so much good about this movie. Went to see it with my best friend (she's female, I'm male). Now please allow me a divergent opinion from the mainstream. After the first couple of dozen "take off your clothes," we both felt a very strange combination of silliness and boredom. We laughed (at it, not with it), we dozed (and would have been better off staying in bed), we were convinced we had spent money in vain. And we had. The plot was incoherent, and the characters were a group of people about whom it was impossible to care. A waste of money, a waste of celluloid. This movie doesn't even deserve one out of ten votes, but that's the lowest available. I'm not sure why this movie has the reputation that it does of being excellent; I don't recommend it to anyone who has even a modicum of taste or intelligence.

neg

train_8154

pending

3d35a80b-9d18-45a9-8157-18544228aabe

It's frequently said that movies can never equal the original book. Well, in this case, not only the movie is not "as good" as the book, but is an insult to the book. I'd rather see Milan Kundera's novel turned on fire than into this "something," which the director probably calls "adaptation."<br /><br />All the beautiful philosophy that asks "is it better to carry a heavy load on your shoulders, or cope with the unbearable lightness of being?" is put aside, and instead, all the movie deals with is Daniel Day Lewis' (I cannot say Tomas) sexual adventures with his dumb wife, his mistress, and his other mistresses. François Truffaut already said it: bad directors make bad movies. Don't waste your time and money. Read the book instead, it's really worth it.

neg

train_8155

pending

2eb93180-da83-4857-b224-cd4546e46f77

Bonfires of the Vanities is a film drenched in flop sweat. I can recall no film that has tried so hard to be so unrelentingly outrageous, provocative and important, yet failed so consistently across the board. It is like a stand up comic who's not getting laughs, but can't leave the stage. The harder the film tries, the louder each attempt at a laugh results in a resounding thud. The desperation the film displays is so glaring it almost rouses pity for all those involved.<br /><br />The film achieves laugh-out-loud status only twice. Once is in the sight of Geraldo Rivera playing an obnoxious, arrogant and amoral TV tabloid journalist -- which is funny only because he apparently doesn't realize he is playing himself. The other scene that deserves to be laughed at is the film's final "big moment," wherein the judge played by Morgan Freeman delivers the sanctimonious lecture about what morality is ("it's what your mama taught ya!"). The pomposity of the moment is insulting to the point of being absurd. <br /><br />Yet, one must admit it is a noble effort. It does have a good, if poorly cast, band of actors, who try to make characters out of cardboard thin caricatures. The film looks professionally made and the little cinematic flourishes that director Brian DePalma just loves are apparent, if not particularly effective. But the film, which apparently wishes to be a commentary on modern morals and ethics, never arises above the level of cartoon. Satire requires style. Farce requires energy. Even sitcom requires timing. But the best Bonfires can muster is desperation. In the end, you don't want to laugh, you just want to turn away.

neg

train_8156

pending

6986267a-0699-4ecf-9def-0f38c411a528

This was a great book and the possibilities for a truly great film were definitely there. But the casting decisions completely wrecked the movie. Hanks is a great actor to be sure, but lacks the smarmy, morally ambivalent characteristics needed for the lead role. Jeff Daniels would have been my choice.<br /><br />Putting Melanie Griffiths in, for eye candy reasons, is understandable, but again, she did not portray the depth or ambivalence, so need to pull this off.<br /><br />This movie is a great example of how every decision, even those early on in the movie production can make or break a file.

neg

train_8157

pending

b5a16946-b6d1-46cf-bd6d-63063d8a936b

This is one of the most atrocious rewrites I've ever viewed. If they want to make a movie with a lousy story, they should refrain from giving it a title of a fine book. There is hardly a relation between Wolfe's book and this movie other than the title. I don't mind changes if they help a story flow on screen. At least the changes shouldn't hurt the final product. The last scene in the movie is painfully unconvincing. The actors are miscast. The director and/or screen writer obviously could not decide whether to make a lame comedy or preach an unconvincing sermon.<br /><br />If you've seen this movie and disliked it, try the book. If you've seen this movie and liked it, read the book.

neg

train_8158

pending

e37d622e-4301-41de-afcc-28c88ac2f382

Regarded by many critics as one of the biggest stinkers of all time (certainly the biggest stinker of director Brian De Palma's career).<br /><br />Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks) is a smug rich boy whose life goes to pieces when he and his lover Maria Ruskin (Melanie Griffith) are involved in a hit-and-run. His story is chronicled by another smug guy, reporter Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis).<br /><br />Well, as I said in my summary...<br /><br />What is this movie supposed to be? It seems to combine comedy, drama, and satire, but it sure doesn't add up to much. It's undermined by unimaginably loathsome, one-dimensional characters who you'd never want to have the displeasure of meeting in real life.<br /><br />I'm no big fan of the novel (I started reading it once, but couldn't finish it because it wasn't to my liking) but it's obvious to me that those who did / do enjoy the novel consider this film to be a complete travesty.<br /><br />I've never seen so many talented actors strive to hard to give a below-average movie some semblance of quality and fail. What a waste.<br /><br />The problems start with casting nice guy Tom Hanks in a role that is clearly supposed to be UNsympathetic. And the role of Peter Fallow in the novel was that of a Brit. Bruce Willis is badly, BADLY miscast in the role. What was the thinking there.<br /><br />Alas, not even Morgan Freeman can escape the film with his dignity intact, being obliged to deliver a lame, heavy-handed lecture on 'decency' after the climax.<br /><br />This movie ends up turning into an absurd farce.<br /><br />I liked the assemblage of talent; for that I will give it four out of ten, but I'm sure some people will say a MUCH better movie could have been made from the source material.

neg

train_8159

pending

4c38c703-20e5-4b26-aa7a-ea17bddcad80

Most book adaptations are bad but this film left out key parts of the storyline and changed the description and some characters. They rewired the storyline and combined scenes and changed the order. They added ridiculous things into it that never happened in the book and would never happen.<br /><br />If i hadn't read the book beforehand it would have been an incredibly dull film, it didn't make you care about the characters, like them or dislike them. It turns the characters into jokes.<br /><br />Awful.<br /><br />Ridiculous.<br /><br />Waste of two hours of my life.

neg

train_8160

pending

9b5a359a-a602-4b7b-8200-03b165842799

The point of Wolfe's original novel -- indeed the point of the whole story -- is that things take place because of a carefully calculated sense of expediency. The goal is survival within a particular kind of life style. The novel is full of malice. The only relationship that rings emotionally true is that between Sherman and his daughter, Campbell, and that's only touched upon. That aside, everyone is out for what he can get in the way of publicity, power, money or self aggrandizement.<br /><br />Wolfe was criticized for hitting every character and every social segment of New York City over the head. His response was a denial. After all, he lived in New York himself and belonged to a neighborhood improvement committee and other admirable organizations, exactly the qualifications one would want on his resume in order to deny that he disliked New Yorkers. (Wolfe has a PhD in American Studies from Yale and is no dummy.) Those supposed weaknesses are what made the novel memorable. Nobody was any good. And Sherman McCoy wound up broke, a professional protester for social justice. The movie throws all of that away and imposes a moral frame on the story that simply doesn't fit. Wolfe did his homework. The novel was rooted in reality. Every event was not only possible but thoroughly believable. Wolfe might have made a great cultural anthropologist -- he knows how to get inside a system and record its details.<br /><br />Yes, any of us might have found ourselves, as Sherman and his mistress do, stuck in the South Bronx, threatened by a couple of black kids, and making a getaway after bumping into one of them. That scene is transferred neatly from print to celluloid. <br /><br />But after that scene the movie seems not to trust its audience and at times become frantic in its attempt to spell out its message, however nebulous the message is. <br /><br />Sherman might accidentally hit some kid and be arrested for it as he is in the novel, but he would not immediately upon his release from jail go back to his phenomenally expensive condo, take out a shotgun, and start shooting into the ceiling with it, as he does in the movee. In what's supposed to be a funny scene, ceiling plaster falls all over the party guests and they scurry away, shrieking. It simply would not have happened. The movie has left the novel's unspeakably detailed reality in the dust. Wolfe's sensibility, the work he put into capturing the real, has been lost. What we get instead is a noisy, fantastic, and silly scene that doesn't do anything except wake the audience up. Similar empty scenes follow, screaming out for Wolfe's verisimilitude.<br /><br />The movie also fails because it thrusts a lot of sin and redemption into an entertaining story of moral nihilism. Here we see "Don Juan in Hell" at the opera. We get lectures on redemption from a poet with AIDs. We see a lot of guilt in Sherman. A black judge who preaches from the bench and gives one of those final speeches about how we all have to start behaving nicely again. A reporter who feels sorry for Sherman after turning him into a sacrificial lamb. And a happy ending in which Sherman gets off by breaking the law with an idiotic grin. The scene sits on the movie like a jester's cap on a circus elephant's head. <br /><br />The movie not only makes points that are already trite and unoriginal, it overstates them, as if the audience were incapable of absorbing any subtleties.<br /><br />It's not the acting or the direction that's poor. The film's not bad in those respects. And the photography is pretty good too, including two rather spectacular shots -- the gargoyles of the Chrysler building and the landing of the Concorde. It's the script that is thoroughly botched.<br /><br />The first half of the movie, roughly, is okay in conception and execution. It keeps some of the little details from the novel. Sherman and Judy's dog is named Marshall. Who the hell would name a dog Marshall? It loses its focus almost completely in the second half and on the whole is barely worth watching.<br /><br />Wolfe's cynical redneck right-wingism may be offensive to a lot of people, but he's got the cojones to lay his percepts out. Alas the writers and producers did not have the courage to pick them up and thus blew the chance to make a fascinating study of New Yorkers.

neg

train_8161

pending

4d9e2abb-86e6-4dce-b5dc-599339d0bd5d

As someone who has both read the novel and seen the film, I have a different take on why the film was such a flop. First, any comparisons between novel and film are purely superficial. They are two different animals.<br /><br />The novel is probably intended as a satire, but it arrives as a cross between tragedy and polemic instead. Any comedic elements such as those which later formed the stylistic basis of the film version are merely incidental to the author's uniformly cynical thrust. And lest the omnipresent white suit of the author fool you into thinking this is another Mark Twain, think again. A more apt literary precedent would be the spectre of Ambrose Bierce in a top hat and tails. Tom Wolfe is equal parts clown and hack, more celebrity than author, always looking for new grist for his self-absorbed mill. <br /><br />It is therefore no wonder that the excellent production skills and direction lavished on the making of the film were doomed from the start. Unlike true satire, which translates very well into film, polemics are grounded not in universally accessible observations on some form or other of human behavior, but in a single-minded attack on specific people -- whether real or fictional straw men -- who have somehow earned the wrath of the writer. Any effort to create a successful filmed story or narrative from such a beginning must have a clean start, free of the writer's influence or interference.<br /><br />Having said that, I too find fault with the casting. It is not merely that incompetents like Bruce Willis and Melanie Griffith fail to measure up, but that real talents like Tom Hanks, F. Murray Abraham, and Morgan Freeman are either totally wasted or given roles that are mere caricatures.<br /><br />There is enough topical material here for a truly great film satire, but it fails to come even close.

neg

train_8162

pending

efc89845-8c96-4c6d-a268-0fc8a60ad5cd

Based on Tom Wolfe's satirical novel that was praised by all (i have not read it yet) Tom Hanks stars as a wall streeter who accidentally kills a black boy while lost in a bad part of NYC Willis stars as the reporter who starts Hanks on his downward spiral.. The characters are very thin and there seems to be no empathy for anyone in this movie and for a comedy or a satire there arent a lot of laughs either..Melanie Griffith had her breasts done during filming so a fun thing to do is to see if her boobs change size during different parts of the film..This will keep your mind off other things like the lack of script or humor.. On a scale of one to ten..3

neg

train_8163

pending

838f016b-b232-4111-9088-86ba3803c701

Tom Wolfe's sprawling, brilliantly observed satiric novel of life among New York snobbery gets a glossy look here but is nevertheless not well served. The film suffers not merely from the miscasting of everyman Tom Hanks as an uncaring Yuppie, Kewpie-doll Melanie Griffith as a manipulative southern belle and Bruce Willis (?!) as the darling of New York's literati. The most serious miscasting was in the director's chair. Robert Altman might have breathed life into these unlikeable characters and made them interesting, but Brian De Palma, for all of his visual sophistication, has never had an eye for the nuances of the human experience. The resulting film looks good but seems blah toward its subject of dehumanization in favor of status. Honestly, if a satire does not make the viewer angry, what is the point?

neg

train_8164

pending

09148a2e-eeb7-45da-982a-86f4a1d4e034

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

neg

train_8165

pending

1dbfd857-db9c-4c1e-8447-b87a22d30212

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

neg

train_8166

pending

84b79544-9e1a-4fa2-9a63-bd2f6016d5dc

I don't know what it is about Donald Sutherland's acting style, or vocal style, but he always seems to be acting from behind a massive wad of soggy Kleenex. He's just...I don't know, THICK? Somnambulistic? On meds? Weird.<br /><br />That said, I just saw the flick again for the first time since its original release, and frankly, I don't remember it ending anything LIKE that. A bad ending, too, because nothing gets tied off. What about the dead husband? The annoying child (and was the kid dubbed?)? The Scotland Yard and military pursuers? I would have liked something wrapping things up and giving some dramatic closure to it all, not just the big panoramic pull-away.<br /><br />And what woman sleeps with the man she knows just killed her husband? Even if she was trying to allay Needle's suspicions to protect her kid, she could always have had a headache. That last encounter made me feel way too itchy and uncomfortable...

neg

train_8167

pending

4e4664d9-19b8-4537-b9be-3ad430fa7cc2

To make a good movie you either need excellent actors or an excellent director. You need at least one of the two. In this Eye of the Needle we have none.<br /><br />I don't even remember the name of the director. He mustn't have done much in his career. I like very much Donald Sutherland but he absolutely cannot be the main actor in a movie. He falls short. Sutherland is excellent in a movie when he appears for not more than 15 minutes. I would say for instance that Sutherland was excellent in JFK of Oliver Stone when he talked to Kevin Costner on the bench of a park for 10 minutes non-stop without even taking a breath. Wonderful. But Sutherland being the principal actor in a movie is no good.<br /><br />Kate Nelligan? She is probably good for TV series. The DVD is awful. Terrible colors. Terrible light. I couldn't even appreciate the scenery of Storm Island for how lousy the photography was.<br /><br />This Ken Follett story was good but it's a pity they turned it into an uninteresting movie.

neg

train_8168

pending

59a9c030-ed54-47e1-a685-73a9fc1ecda7

The movie lacks credence with the helicopters which didn't exist until the 1950s. But no woman would do what was done here, even a woman before the women's movement of the 60s and 70s. About the only portion of the movie that you could believe in was that Germany would want to know where the landing would be. Ignore for the moment that the British had captured all the spies but even if they had not, they wouldn't have let one roam around like this just to reassure the Germans that the landing would be at Calais. It isn't one major thing that makes the movie not work. It is the culmination of all the things wrong that makes the movie fail. Bad directing, bad scripts, no attempt at authenticity (at all) all combine to just make the movie fall flat. Generally speaking spies should fade into the woodwork. The suspense comes in with the spy wondering if the information they have is valid or not and worrying about being detected. On this one that game was over from the start. This spy was doing anything but spying. Your only chance at getting something that has some credibility and instills some suspense may be to read the book.

neg

train_8169

pending

25b7a70a-5713-417b-9c67-b8dea681d842

When I had first heard of "Solar Crisis" then got a load of the cast, I wondered why I had never heard of a movie with such a big cast before. Then I saw it.<br /><br />Now I know.<br /><br />For a movie that encompasses outer space, the sun, vast deserts and sprawling metropolises, this is an awfully cramped and claustrophobic feature; it feels like everyone is hunkered close together so the camera won't have to pull too far back.<br /><br />And the effects, while good, are pretty underwhelming; we're talking about the imminent destruction of the planet Earth if a team of scientists and soldiers cannot deflect a deadly solar flare. But other than shouting, sweating and a red glow about everything, there's no real feel of emergency.<br /><br />Don't get me started about the cast. What Heston, Palance, Matheson, Boyle, et al are doing in this movie without even bothering to act with any feel for the material is anyone's guess. Makes you wonder who else's condos aren't paid for in Hollywood....<br /><br />And as far as the end goes.... Well, let's just say it's tense and intriguing but it's too little too late in an effort like this. If it had kept up that kind of pace all through the film, maybe I would have heard of "Solar Crisis" sooner.<br /><br />Two stars. Mostly for lost opportunities and bad career moves. <br /><br />I wonder how Alan Smithee keeps his job doing junk like this?

neg

train_8170

pending

cb8e7711-14da-4020-b017-c79d8df98483

Oh the hilarity! Oh the joy! Another film that is so bad it's good! Or, so I thought. In actual fact, this one misses the "so bad its good" phase and goes, sadly, straight to the "could have been so bad its good, but they screwed it up and made it plain bad".<br /><br />For a start its way too long. Cut half an hour and it might have been more endurable. Then put in such ludicrous plots as "the man who is sabotaging the mission to save the Earth, because he has all the food stockpiled and he'll be rich if the mission fails!". Duh!. Or the "talking bomb" plot device last seen in Dark Star. Guess what....just like in Dark Star, the bomb has a malfunction.....hmmmm. Add in a dash of "we can't act our way out of a kindergarten play" and you have Solar Crisis in a nutshell.<br /><br />Light relief is to be had in the form of Jack Palance (or Jack Pants, as we called him in this flick), whose sole purpose in the film is to drive a kid around the desert and telephone the kid's dad to come pick him up....eventually. Between driving and phoning, Jack dispenses pointless drivel and leers and cackles a lot, but contributes little to the story, such as it is. In short, he's the best bit of the movie.<br /><br />My award for "The Most Ironic Line Delivered Straight-Faced" goes to Charlton Heston, who, when meeting his eldest son for the first time in ages, comments that his son looks a little "out of shape" whilst he himself is standing there with his gut bulging over his waistband and in dire need of a Captain Kirk Corset.<br /><br />Also amusing is the bad guy's top henchman, who has a bright white hairstyle that kept making me think of Andy Warhol, for some reason.<br /><br />Apart from these hilarities, there's little to recommend this movie. The ending is a sequence copied from (but mercifully shorter than) the end sequence from 2001.<br /><br />Tips for enjoying this movie more, if you are foolish enough to watch it, like I did:<br /><br />1. Any time the bomb speaks, imagine it's called Tarquin (Trust me, it works!)<br /><br />2. Whenever Chuck Heston is on screen and about to speak, pre-empt him by reciting a line from Planet of the Apes such as "Get your filthy paws off me!" or similar.<br /><br />3. Whenever the female lead is looking stressed (this is most of the time) keep hoping against hope that she's having an aneurism and will die soon.<br /><br />4. During the interminable "the ship's broke again" scenes, keep hoping the tech/engineer guys will spout a Scotty-ism like "You cannae change the laws of physics!" or some such crap.<br /><br />Other than that, do what it takes to get you through this one. I dozed off half way through and woke to realise I hadn't missed anything, nor had the plot (laughable though it is) advanced any. So don't worry about tuning out for a few, you won't miss anything.

neg

train_8171

pending

28c8ea58-ffef-4f4f-bbac-c24f5753db04

I picked this title up from a friend who had it sitting in his exhaustive DVD/Video/Laserdisc collection, so luckily I didn't personally have to pay for it. I had an inkling that it would be a bad film, but I KNOW what a truly bad film is after watching greats like Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things and The Incredibly Strange Creatures Who Stopped Living and Became Mixed-Up Zombies, and now there is truly nothing that fazes me unless it is astoundingly bad.<br /><br />Solar Crisis is bad, but it doesn't reach that sweet spot of absolute pain that some movies are at.<br /><br />Anyway, the general plot is that the sun is about to unleash a huge solar flare towards the earth that will essentially destroy it. In order to counter-act this imminent threat, humanity has assembled a spaceship and crew whose duty it is to fire an antimatter bomb (which the opening describes as "the biggest explosive ever") into the sun, which through some convoluted sci-fi logic will cause the flare to shoot out at a different angle, leaving earth unharmed.<br /><br />Never mind that what I have just described to you sounds like a bad episode of the original Star Trek. Even with an ensemble cast (Charlton Heston, Peter Boyle, and Jack Palance), Solar Crisis can barely manage that level of mediocrity, thanks to a plot that starts simple, yet becomes increasingly nonsensical as time wears on.<br /><br />The crowning achievement of this debacle of a movie is the addition of a villain character (played by Boyle) who insists on sabotaging the mission. Through means that are never explained, he sends an evil minion with an embarrassingly bad haircut to exercise some sort of vague electronic mind control over the space crew's genetically engineered scientist, played by female lead Annabel Schofield. Why is he sabotaging the mission? Because by his moronic viewpoint, he believes the flare won't happen and that when it doesn't, he will become fabulously wealthy because he has dug his evil claws into the stock market. In effect, you have a villain with the most absurdly stupid motivation imaginable.<br /><br />The film's plot becomes amazingly convoluted and develops very slowly, in time tapping the use of characters who have only vague or uselessly brief roles in the storyline. I could sit here and explain in detail precisely what happens to demonstrate the sheer inability of the screenwriter to make a plot that actually clicks or holds your attention, but I am sitting here writing this review on Microsoft Word and I know for a fact that this would take three pages, and I would only succeed in losing your interest. But then again, you would probably get the same effect from watching the film.<br /><br />Anyway, the film is miserably bogged down with exceedingly poor dialogue. Imagine if all that ever happened on the Star Trek Enterprise was that the characters spewed sci-fi jargon back and forth at each-other. Yes, I know, they already do that, but imagine if that's ALL they did, and that they used said jargon to set up vague and near-nonsensical scenes that produce no excitement, tension, or interest in the viewer whatsoever.<br /><br />This is best exemplified at the point when a character in a Zero-G environment screws a bolt back onto a metal box before proceeding to cry in agony for a couple of minutes before suddenly exploding. The script alludes previously to the character risking an explosion, but doesn't bother to give any solid answer as to why or how this occurs, nor why he can't really escape. In totality, you have a sorry cross between the bizarre and the laughable.<br /><br />Then we have several scenes where dramatic build-up leads to nothing. Jack Palance's performance is wasted on a character that serves only to drive the boy hero (don't ask) around the desert, before getting roughed up and killed by a bunch of suits. On his death-bed, Palance finally tells our boy hero his last name (while wearing a horrible bruised makeup job that makes it look like somebody put a balloon under his eyeball), which he kept quiet about before. Colonel Travis J. Richards. The boy repeats it quietly after he expires, giving viewers the impression that the name is of some significance later on in the film. Perhaps Charlton Heston's grizzled admiral character knows him and the plot will advance thereby once his name is repeated. Something. Anything.<br /><br />Nope. Sorry. Any hopes you have will be dashed when this moment turns out only to be another of many pathetic, failed attempts at creating drama—for a character so flat and hackneyed that it will forever be a stain on Palance's career, just as those of the rest of the cast are similarly marred.<br /><br />Completing the film is a painfully abrupt ending featuring Schofield piloting the bomb into the center of the sun in an effort to redeem her deeds while under the villain's spell, a climax which features another of the film's considerably well-done visual effects sequences that, even for the visibly elaborate care put into them, still always manage to make the film look just as chintzy as it really is. The saddest part about this film is the obviously large budget, tragically wasted on a stinker of a script and a supporting cast behind Boyle, Heston, and Palance that manage to nail the coffin shut with pure over-acting.<br /><br />Grade: D-

neg

train_8172

pending

665e1c8f-361b-487f-b31d-04f65594aa26

Disowned by Richard C. Sarafian, this disaster stunk up Japanese theaters before coming to the States and going immediately to video, where it was not seen again until the Turner networks needed something other than infomercials to fill their 3am-6am time slots and found this tape at the bottom of their bin. The Smithee name is supposed to be used when the studio hacks the movie so badly that the director no longer wants his name attached to it. But I'm afraid that Sarafian can not blame the studio entirely on this one. The actors, mostly recent graduates of "Overacting 101", deliver one cornball line after another. The plot is convoluted. The special effects are unimpressive. The parts that aren't laughable are just plain boring. The script or the book must have been good - why else would Palance, Matheson, Boyle, or Heston agree to appear in this dud? But something went horribly wrong from the page to the screen. Summary: Avoid. Not even bad enough to be so-bad-it's-good.

neg

train_8173

pending

3eff35e2-27f3-4626-941a-0232afa5b77b

It was one of those late night "It's there" I saw it things. Sometimes they are great. This one was awful, but it really shouldn't have been.<br /><br />The movie had a really good cast. How can you fail when you have Charlsten Heston and Jack Pallance? We're talking Oscar winner turf here. It had good special effects. It even had some really good tits! And I mean nicely shown, full breast with full nipple and at one point even some beaver. But it didn't compensate for the one missing ingredient - a story! The plot was ludicrous. I don't mean the "solar crisis" sun exploding stuff, but that was bad enough. It was the rest of the stuff - the oh so stupid and totally predictable evil corporation stuff. Man that just STANK! No amount of good acting or cool space ships or fight scenes could get around that one.<br /><br />I have seen the same cast members be incredibly good. I have seen wonderful science fiction movies that had miniscule casts and budgets. All the difference is in the writing.

neg

train_8174

pending

1c6d69df-3322-4dba-8d5d-a677e2986708

One of the requirements of science fiction, at least before it starts to become satire, is that it be somewhat plausible. I would think that an anti-matter bomb would do considerably more damage than for what it was intended. But I'll leave that to the physicists who might have seen Solar Crisis.<br /><br />It is a crisis the earth is facing because solar flares are getting totally out of hand. They're getting close to Earth, so much so that it's become unseasonably hot, as if the entire Earth were Death Valley. The answer is an anti-matter bomb which a space ship will have to take to the sun and explode it there. That will divert the flares off in say the direction of say Mercury providing it's not in direct alignment with the Earth. <br /><br />Who to deliver it, but captain Tim Matheson and his crew. That is if he can keep his mind on the business at hand and not on runaway son, Corin Nemec. Taking care of the personal side of the family problems is admiral Charlton Heston, Matheson's father, and Nemec's grandfather.<br /><br />There's a villain here too, Peter Boyle who is the CEO of a multi-national corporation which in this crisis is trying to control the world's food supply for the survivors. The idea he might not survive doesn't enter into his thinking. He's doing his best to sabotage Matheson's mission.<br /><br />Solar Crisis seems like a bad mix of 2001, A Space Odyssey and Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. Boyle seems to be taking his cue from Gene Hackman as Lex Luthor in Superman, apparently he's the only one in the cast who realizes he's in a turkey and overacts accordingly.<br /><br />The rest of the cast are stalwart, true blue and dull. Except possibly desert rat Jack Palance who finds Nemec and cares for him. <br /><br />The key here is that the film was directed by that noted Hollywood purveyor of flop films, Allen Smithee. The film gets as much as four stars for the cast involved and it was out in time for a Thanksgiving carving.

neg

train_8175

pending

0e3b6ac9-4013-41b7-8a65-5c02754fbef9

I had high hopes for this film, since it has Charlton Heston and Jack Palance. But those hopes came crashing to earth in the first 20 minutes or so. Palance was ridiculous. Not even Heston's acting or Annabel Schofield's beauty (or brief nude scenes) could save this film. Some of the space effects were quite good, but others were cheesy. The plot was ludicrous. Even sci-fi fans should skip this one. Grade F

neg

train_8176

pending

4e4965c4-4da2-4dab-8c39-36417994164a

Yet another movie with an interesting premise and some wondrous special effects falling right into the trash can.<br /><br />Boring direction and performances (with the exception of the lovely Annabel Schofield who is much cuter as a brunette and probably deserves better material, and the ever earnest Charlton Heston) earn the rating of a real stinker.<br /><br />It's amazing to watch Heston perform up to his usual par and display how really bad this movie is. He even plays in a sub-plot that kept me interested just to see how it tied back into the main line of the movie. The way they ended up resolving it was that they didn't. It simply falls off the end.<br /><br />Really. Don't waste your time on this one.

neg

train_8177

pending

c028eea8-df8e-418b-aa12-2b76d8fd9227

The world is facing imminent destruction and a suicide mission is sent to the Sun to avert catastrophe by firing a bomb into its fiery heart: yes, it's Solar Crisis, aka Crisis 2050, which burned up a huge chunk of change that's never apparent on screen back in 1990 and returned barely enough to buy a Happy Meal for each of the cast in Japan before going straight to video (remember them?) in a re-edited version credited to one Alan Smithee. The plot hook's pretty much the same as Sunshine - suicide mission to the Sun, saboteur on board, logic cast adrift - except that this time they're not trying to reignite the sun but to prematurely detonate a solar flare before it can reach Earth. With a talking bomb. Voiced by Paul Williams. Who wants to be promoted so the crew will take him more seriously… Given that the cast also includes Jack Palance at his most dementedly OTT, Charlton Heston at his most rigid, top-liner Tim Matheson at his most anonymous, the original Hills Have Eyes' unforgettable Michael Berryman (you may not remember the name, but you DO remember that face) and Peter Boyle as the industrialist out to sabotage the mission because, er, if it succeeds the world will be saved but his share price will go down, you'd expect if not a laugh-a-minute at least a laugh every reel. No joy. This is the worst kind of bad movie: a boring one. The fate of the world may be hanging in the balance but the whole film is shot with a complete lack of urgency or momentum at the same unvarying deadly slow pace. There's low-key and there's walking through it, but here the cast don't even do that. Instead, they just stand still looking at screens in near darkness for most of the time. You keep on hoping for Paul Williams' talking bomb to suffer an existential crisis, but instead the film just... stands there, doing next to nothing. Literally. This is one of the most inert movies ever made – so inert that if Clive Owen had been cast, he'd almost have looked lively by comparison. Even a poorly explained suicidal repair attempt fails to raise a fritter of interest since it mostly involves, yep, the cast just standing still looking at screens in near darkness. Even when the bomb prematurely goes into countdown before being launched they deal with the new crisis by… standing still looking at screens in near darkness as if they had all the time in the world. Merchant-Ivory films have better action scenes.<br /><br />Things aren't much livelier down on Earth where the movie spends most of it's running time with Matheson's son/Chuck's grandson Corin Nemec trying to hitch a ride to the spaceport across an arid landscape with Palance's insane desert artist "looking for that note out there while the chicks still dig me" while waylaid by rejects from a Mad Max ripoff and evil corporate suits who track him down so they can… release him on a nice beach. Just don't expect logic, if you haven't already guessed that much. Best moment? A ditzy girl in a bar describing Jack Palance as "An old guy with white hair and a face like rotting leather," though Chucky Baby taking out the villain's aircraft with a bazooka fired from the hip from an office window or beating up a barfly who likes his beret are welcome morsels of camp in a film that for 99% of it's running time offers a whole lot of nuttin'. Richard C. Sarafian's slightly longer original cut that played in Japan offers an additional six minutes but cries out to be cut down to a more manageable 17 minutes: the director of Vanishing Point must have thanked his lucky stars when the re-edit gave him an excuse to take his name off the film. A film so bad it's not good, and painfully unfunny with it

neg

train_8178

pending

5c0f83d4-54b4-4a96-bc82-7a2db48ef389

I saw this movie a long time ago... luckily it was for free. I have to be one of the maybe twenty people who saw this movie in the theater. I don't remember a whole bunch of it, but I do remember I was incredibly bored, the plot made no sense and when I came out of the theater the only thing I could say was at least now I know what the worst movie I ever saw was. I just was incredibly bothered by one thing: if they can make the temperature as they approach the sun low enough for humans to survive, why can't they turn it down to a comfortable temperature instead of being all hot and sweaty? How stupid do they think we are?

neg

train_8179

pending

b5b1bf63-dc11-4907-8ccf-e20c0f5077f0

This su*k! Why do they have to make movies that they must know su*k from the beginning? I mean, look at Alien from 1977. If the movie you´r about to make is not better than anything made billions of years before, why make it? I had problems with the plot and who the main character was. That's not good either.

neg

train_8180

pending

67b53e6f-6fb5-45b9-b101-c0ad50223a21

Final Score: 1.8 (out of 10)<br /><br />After seeing 'Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back' I must have been on a big Eliza Dushku kick when I rented this movie. 'Soul Survivors' is a junk "psychological thriller" dressed up like a trashy teen slasher flick - even to the point of having a masked killer stalk a cast of young up-and-comers like Dushku, Wes Bentley (American Beauty), Casey Affleck (Drowning Mona) and likable star Melissa Sagemiller. Luke Wilson is also in there, ridiculously miscast as a priest. The movie, the brainchild of writer/director Stephen Carpenter, seems like a mutant offspring of 'Open Your Eyes' or 'Vanilla Sky' and movies where a character (and the audience) is caught in a world of dillusion caused by an accident/death. The movie keeps churning out perplexing images and leaves us in a state of confusion the entire running time until this alternate reality is finally resolved. I don't think these movies are that entertaining- by their very nature- to begin with, but 'SS' is rock-bottom cheap trash cinema any way you slice it. The visuals, the script, the acting and the attempt at any originality all are throwaway afterthoughts to movies like this. Plus, it's PG-13 so it doesn't even deliver the gore or T&A to sustain it as a guilty pleasure (even the unrated version is tame). I had heard that the movie contained some "hot" shower scene between Dushku & Sagemiller. As the movie fell apart in front of me and all other entertainment seemed to be lost I found myself waiting patiently for the shower scene - at least I would get something out of this. Then it comes: the two girls get paint on their shirts, they jump in the shower fully clothed and scrub it off. That's it. People thought this was hot? 'Soul Survivors' is one of those drop-dead boring movies that is so weak and inept that it is hard to have ANY feelings at all toward it. It puts out nothing and is hardly worth writing about. In the end it leaves us empty. Carpenter's finale is a mess of flashing light and pounding sound and that's probably the most lively part. It will no doubt be making the rounds as a late night staple on USA or the Sci-Fi Channel, due to it's low cost and PG-13 rating - and that's probably best for it.

neg

train_8181

pending

6ec5f131-c702-4b3e-9930-995e53da23c8

Like a relative that gives you a bad gift, Soul Survivors has its heart in the right place but trips up with a bad execution. Stephen Carpenter's writing/directing effort borrows freely from other, better films, such as Jacob's Ladder and Abre Los Ojos (Open Your Eyes). For those who haven't seen either of these films, I won't give the premise away; suffice to say it's not nearly as well handled here than in those two superior films.<br /><br />Melissa Sagemiller stars as Cassie, about to go away to college. Her current boyfriend Sean (Ben Affleck) and ex-boyfriend Matt (Wes Bentley), both friends, and Annabel (acerbic Eliza Dushku) are in a car accident after being pursued by two killers (?) in transparent masks. She survives the wreck, but while attending college has visions of the hospital ordeal and dead people reappear and disappear, leaving her in a state of total confusion: who is dead? Who's alive? What's real?<br /><br />Soul Survivors has the look of a bad been-there, done-that, gore-filled, blood-splattered, body-stacking teen exploitation flick. True, it has its share of killer-stalking-the-victim scenes (plentiful, repetitive, and mind-numbing), but at least it attempts to build suspense through ideas rather than cliches, unfortunately rather unsuccessfully. It breeds confusion much more often than cohesion, as the story becomes jumbled, messy and incoherent near key points of the mystery (predictable as it is.)<br /><br />Horror fans who pick up a copy will have no idea they are in for a film that is more concerned with building an uneasy facade of reality than delivering a body count. Credit goes to Carpenter for attempting to create something beyond a derivative teen horror flick; too bad he's created a derivative psychological thriller. Sagemiller also deserves kudos for showing strength in the central performance, actually developing her character and evoking some sense of emotion as the unraveling Cassie. It's great the filmmakers try something different, but the film ends up a mixed bag and failed experiment.<br /><br />4 out of 10

neg

train_8182

pending

72eb2069-3b6f-4001-8abf-5bc432c5d4fa

If the writer/director is reading this (and I imagine you are since you should now be out of work) then I must tell you - I have seen some bad movies in my time but this one gets the distinction of having the worst premise I've ever heard.<br /><br />SPOILERS - Nothing happens! <br /><br />A total waste of time. I laughed out loud at the end. <br /><br />SIDE NOTE - (if the whole movie was her in a coma then does the scene where she sleeps with that guy mean someone raped her while she was knocked out?)<br /><br />Utter rubbish.

neg

train_8183

pending

bcd58dae-c382-4aa2-89a9-4cd056bcd59c

(A possible spoiler or two) <br /><br /> "Soul Survivors" is quite possibly the worst theatrical released movie ever. Nothing makes sense at all, there's some plot about a girl who has strange visions of people who may or may not be dead. The entire movie is just a bunch of random shots of things that don't really tie together, by the end of the film. <br /><br /> Tha acting is non-existent, the camera work is jerky and the script is so confusing, it just makes the movie even harder to watch.<br /><br /> I kept waiting for something to tie the movie together but nothing came. Definitely the worst film of the year. -****1/2 stars.

neg

train_8184

pending

b1becb84-92de-4564-affa-26fe20efd530

I wanted to watch this movie because of Eliza Dushku, but she only has a smaller part in it, and her character isn't very likable. However, the main character, played by Melissa Sagemiller, is extremely beautiful and a perfect delight to look at throughout the movie. This is really nothing but a showcase for her looks and talent. She does a very good job.<br /><br />The story itself is, on the face of it, pretty nonsensical. After a car crash, some friends are possibly dead, but keeps on living their previous lives, while all sorts of mysterious things happen. Some bad guys are after them, but we never really find out who they are (possibly they were the ones in the other car, but we certainly don't hear anything about why they are after them). The final scenes especially seem filmically ambitious, but I can't get anything coherent out of it. The opening scene, where the bad guys (who wear some strange masks) cut a blond girl's wrist and gather up some of her blood is never explained or followed up on. Unless the bad guys are supposed to be a representation of the surgeons who're trying to pull Cassie (Sagemiller) back from the dead... but no, that doesn't seem to work. The bad guys are just bad guys; they really just mess up a story that might otherwise have been interesting. In a supernatural story about death and love and sacrifice, who the hell needs bad guys?<br /><br />3 out of 10.

neg

train_8185

pending

790b97d3-30a2-46a5-91b0-d16d09a5ed35

This is not a very good movie, but it's not a stinker either. It is very confusing and unnecessarily long so rent it at your own risk.<br /><br />My GF and I have figured this movie out (we think) so here it is:<br /><br />***MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW***<br /><br />Firstly, this movie is actually quite simple after you remove all of the confusing unconscious-dream-state junk (95% of the movie.)<br /><br />Ignoring the junk, what REALLY happened is this: A group of school friends go to a rave one night. They leave and get into a car accident where everyone but Cassie and Sean die. That's the simple cut down version. (That's right, I said Sean, bear with me)<br /><br />Right after the accident, Cassie lays in the hospital stuck in between life & death right up until the very end of the movie. This is where the dream part starts.<br /><br />The movie is called SOUL Survivors, right? Cassie's mind and soul carries on after the accident interacting with the other souls (Annie, Matt, Raven, the 2 weirdos and Jude) along with images conjured up by her mind (Sean, school and everything else around her). The souls continue doing what they were defined as: Annie the rave-going chick, the 2 weirdo-killers (from opening scene), Father Jude still helping people etc.<br /><br />We are then taken on a very long ride, shown lots of images (many of which my GF and I still can't tie in) but it all boils down to it not being Cassie's time to die.<br /><br />At the end, Cassie wakes up in the hospital after being "dead" for a while. Her family and Sean are there. This is reality again. She's OK.<br /><br />Then the director adds a little extra spice by trying to confuse us again by showing a little dream snippet of her in the wheelchair being strangled. But this part is really just a nightmare, and she wakes up beside Sean, obviously still dealing with her traumatic experience.<br /><br />Due to space restrictions, we didn't cover every little thing, but feel free to drop us an e-mail if you want to.<br /><br />

neg

train_8186

pending

668b8ae3-698e-4855-996b-baa854db6516

An incoherent mess with a gratingly deafening sound track, "Soul Survivors" is the latest entry in the "who's dead and who's alive" genre of horror films. Two teenaged couples, Sean and Cassie and Matt and Annabel, prepare to go off to different colleges, but before they part until Thanksgiving Break, they attend one last fling at a rave-type party in some burnt-out church at the suggestion of lusciously slutty Annabel (Eliza Dushku, a.k.a. Faith, the other vampire slayer). Motiveless creepy guys start paying far too much attention to Cassie (the generic Melissa Sagemiller) for reasons that are never explained, and before long, the quartet leave the party. Driving away in their SUV, they are pursued and then passed by the motiveless creepy guys, who promptly and inexplicably do an intentional 180 in the middle of the highway, causing a nasty and fatal accident as the SUV flips over an embankment and plunges into a river. Sean is killed (or is he?), and Cassie spends the rest of the movie coping with loneliness and guilt (she was driving) when she's not being haunted by Sean's ghost or chased by those motiveless creepy guys. Much unexplained incoherence follows as Cassie's mental state degenerates further, until we reach the predictable conclusion. So, who is dead and who is alive? After ninety minutes of this purgatory, who actually cares?

neg

train_8187

pending

4d83ee23-34fe-4710-b86d-62be9748c9cc

I didn't have HUGE expectations for this film when renting it for $1 at the video store, but the box at least showed a little promise with its "killer cut" of "more gore! more sex!" Can't go wrong there! Well... needless to say, the box is a fraud. How in the hades did actors and actresses of this caliber sign on for a film this low?<br /><br />It all opens with a drunken college girl walking out of a frat house or some other building like that and saying some useless crap to her boyfriend (?) as a camera on a bad steadicam follows her. Then she gets chased by some dude in a clear plastic mask and grabbed by another. They slit her wrists for no real reason and you can see when they "cut" her that someone drew the cuts with what looks like a crayon.<br /><br />From there, repeat the same theme of the girl getting chased/killed unbrutally by two guys for about 84 more minutes. Add in one tit shot. That is Soul Survivors.<br /><br />I wouldn't have had a problem with this film had the box not frauded me into renting the flick. If I rent a bad film that claims to have more violence and sex.... I want more violence and sex! One full frontal shot in 85 minutes from a chick who is clearly androginous and gore that would not scare a child does not cut it. If this is the Killer Cut, what is the Theatrical Cut?! Of course, I doubt this garbage was actually put into theaters in the first place. Shame on the actors in this film. I could see them making their screen debuts in here because they have not done anything before, but they were all established before this was released. I don't know if it was filmed before they had all been established and the studio sat on the film until they were semi-big names or not. But what i want to know is.... they really spent $14 million on this film?!

neg

train_8188

pending

e1afb565-07a2-49ad-9957-3c3a9ccbb410

First off let me say that this has to be on the top of my list of boring movies. Nothing, and I mean nothing in this movie is even remotely thrilling. Most of it is very confusing and as it progresses you just wish it would end!! Some people want a movie that makes them "think" through the entire thing, to which I say..."More power to you"!! I on the other hand just want to be entertained. Which brings me back to this stinker, entertainment it is not. This movie is stupid and a complete waste of time. Seems that most here agree also. Most of this didn't make any sense, and by the time you think you have one scene figured out another lame scene comes around and....well I guess you see where this is going. Avoid, this one sucks....bad!!

neg

train_8189

pending

47036808-b73a-4cb7-9e7b-117d5b490038

Melissa Sagemiller,Wes Bentley,Eliza Dushku and Casey Affleck play young students at Middleton College in the town of Middleton.The four teenagers form two love triangles.One night during an ominous full moon they drive and argue along a slippery and twisting mountain road.Not looking properly they careen into another car and one or more of them are killed.The ghostly nightmare begins...Pretty lousy and politically correct horror flick without gore and nudity.It's obviously influenced by "Carnival of Souls".The cinematography is decent,unfortunately there is zero suspense.4 out of 10-just another instantly forgettable teeny-bopper trash.

neg

train_8190

pending

f580448d-bcea-4274-bba7-ef34aa91c1fb

Steve Carpenter cannot make horror movies. First of all, the casting was very wrong for this movie. The only decent part was the hot brown haired girl from Buffy the Vampire Slayer. This movies has no gore(usually a key ingredient to a horror movie), no action, no acting, and no suspense(also a key ingredient). Wes Bentley is a good actor but he is so dry and plain in this that it's sad. There were a few parts that were supposed to be funny(continuing the teen horror/comedy movies) and no one laughed in the audience. I thought that this movie was rated R, and I didn't pay attention and realized it had been changed to PG-13. Anyway, see this movie if you liked I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. That's the only type of person who would find this movie even remotely scary. And seriously, this is to you Steve Carpenter, stop making horror movies. This movie makes Scream look like Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

neg

train_8191

pending

4ef829e0-2d9d-478f-b2eb-5d75e2e17cc5

...had I watched it in my teenage years. This movie was mildly entertaining. What I liked about Soul Survivors were the gothic atmosphere during the party scenes, and the constant flips between 'dream' and 'reality.<br /><br />Had there not been movies like 'The 6th Sense' and 'Don't Look Now' I would have been surprised by the ending.

neg

train_8192

pending

32a6a06b-3119-4a67-a44d-0da2e3cb28ff

Quite unimpressive. The 'twists' are all pretty predictable, if you've seen any movies within the last ten years, and the few somewhat interesting parts (wherein someone utilizes context clues to make a decision) are few and lack much punch, since the 'secret' has already been shown before these clues are explained.<br /><br />(spoilers, sorta)<br /><br />The acting is decent enough. The story simply isn't very interesting. The whole 'still awake' premise becomes nullified by the astral projection stuff(not kidding). <br /><br />The surgery scene is initially tense, a bit discomforting, but then becomes utterly banal.<br /><br />Not horrible, but not memorable. Terrence Howard's least interesting role to date, so far as I've seen. <br /><br />Kind of boring, overall.

neg

train_8193

pending

afa4a3a2-f1f0-42f3-8716-4259cc92780d

I have seen already fantastic stories, but the premises of this one are so unbelievable that it comes very close to being ridiculous. A rich and young guy undergoes a heart transplant the day after his marriage, and he is somehow witnessing his own surgery and the plot of his surgeons to kill him. Even if there is a medical explanation to such a phenomenon what next happens is a mixture of dialog among ... say ... souls? ... maybe and real life where the dedicated mother will do everything to save the life of her son. There is no shade of suspense or thrill, just a combination of a bad and simplistic plot with a series of coincidences that can never happen in life.<br /><br />This is not to say that the film is completely lacking quality - actually first time director Joby Harold does a decent job in directing a good team of actors that includes Hayden Christensen at his first major role after having taken off the Anakin Skywalker costume, fabulous Jessica Alba and super-gifted Lena Olin. All would have deserved a better story.

neg

train_8194

pending

a35a6cb6-dcb0-49e0-a2d8-8eea3444440e

For a film about a killer this is surprisingly dull.<br /><br />Nothing much happens and even when things do happen they don't generate any real excitement or interest.<br /><br />The acting is good from the two leads, Cassetti in particular delivers a great performance combining the certainty and stupidity of Succo but the rest of the cast also do what they need to.<br /><br />The problem is that there is poor writing and direction and the fact that as a true story it isn't interesting, Succo is not a unique character, he isn't interesting or exciting.<br /><br />Films of this sort normally try to generate tension or empathy or outrage and this generates nothing except a feeling of regret that you wasted your time watching it.

neg

train_8195

pending

ba40e66e-801e-4731-91c4-bd74eda197e5

Cedric Kahn's films have been character-based, rather than action-based (I'm thinking of L'Ennui and Feux rouges) so it is jarring to see this series of really expert car chases interspersed with some plodding attempts to give character to Succo. I don't find Stefano Cassetti to be an interesting actor; he reminds me of pro athletes who are coaxed into movies, like Bret Favre. That blank stare looks like a really vicious deer caught in the headlights. A real actor would have forced us to reflect more on Succo's personality, rather than admiring his skill at carjacking.<br /><br />The little acting there is comes mainly from Isild le Besco as the needy schoolgirl Succo takes by storm. The interview at the police office is a marvel of bland obstinacy with a little fear of the future blended in. Le Besco apart, there is little to recommend this film.

neg

train_8196

pending

f7e52c9f-8cd7-486f-99cb-c0f71eba0f63

What a wasted opportunity to actually make an interesting film about a complicated subject. There is very little exploration about what it really feels like to be a straight (or gay) man working in a gay sexual environment.The dancers keep talking about their art as if it has no erotic component. They may not all be prostitutes for hire, but they are indeed sex workers playing out fantasies and selling private sessions where more than dancing is offered. From the film one would get the impression that they mainly appeal to the women who go to the gay clubs and then end up hiring the "dancers" for private sessions. Even the shots in the club only show women in front of the stage and the "dancers" only playing to the women in the audience. This just isn't the reality of these clubs. It would be pretty hard to make a living doing private dances for straight women and couples. So what do they really feel about their gay admirers and clients? We learn very little. Instead we get filler. A gay activist who adds nothing to the study of straight dancers. A manager who tells us about the costumes for the drag acts but offers no insight into the dancers' lives and attitudes.<br /><br />The pictures of Mexico City are generic. The phallic montage showing sausages roasting is ridiculous.<br /><br />This is a totally simplistic film which should be of interest only to those who want to see a few pictures of pretty boys dancing. The rest of the movie is an insult to gay men.

neg

train_8197

pending

7e9215ea-7bb8-4e47-850f-44dd62fe6c61

I saw Chan Is Missing when it first came out, about four years after moving from San Francisco to New York. Maybe it was the perspective of a few years away, but this movie seemed to capture the essence of the city and its people better than anything else I'd ever seen (still does). It concentrates on one particular community - the Chinese - but that's fine, because so much of the city's soul is refracted through the settings, the faces, and the maybe above all the voices of the characters.<br /><br />This isn't the tourists' San Francisco. The settings are humble and everyday: a taxi cab, the kitchen of a Chinese restaurant, Richmond District row houses, little Chinatown apartments and small-business offices, the piers, a Philippine elder center. This is what the city looks and feels like day to day to the people who live there - even now, in the era of Silicon Gulch urban redevelopment. Unlike, say, Dirty Harry (in its own way an excellent San Francisco movie as well), everything is filmed at street level: We come to understand the characters' points of view from the perspective their surroundings give them, not from some fancy vertiginous shooting.<br /><br />Wang apparently filmed in B&W because he didn't have the money to do otherwise, yet one of the strongest visual elements of the movie is the natural light he achieves. The often harsh, pervasive quality of the sunlight is one of my closest associations with San Francisco: It seems to expose everything, bringing the buildings, the hills, the other landmarks down in scale and, in a funny way, making the people you pass on the streets seem more individual and potentially closer to you than they might in another place. Wang's photography perfectly conveys this, and even helps the story along at points.<br /><br />Wang captures the speech and conversational style of Chinese and other San Franciscans better than anyone ever has, I think. If there's such thing as a true San Francisco "accent," it's what you hear from the balding taxi medallion broker (I think) who appears talking on the phone in one scene (listen to the way he calls the person on the other end "ya dingaling!").<br /><br />The story is poignant and, despite a few very small missteps, makes its points beautifully about the longings that pull at the hearts of people living in old immigrant communities - including the justified political and ethnic resentments, and little ironic amusements, that help to fuel them. All this is communicated delicately - perhaps why some respondents here think the film meanders. It doesn't - suffice it to say that the two cab drivers' quest for Chan becomes a quest for something more personal.<br /><br />Chan Is Missing finishes up with a Chinatown travelogue sequence backed by a goofy novelty song from the 1930s (I guess) about San Francisco and all its crazy diversity. An American caricature, yes, but somehow not entirely off the mark either.

neg

train_8198

pending

48851af7-2022-43cd-8fa1-41b625320f51

I watched this on a whim because it was available and I'd heard the Thumb movies were funny. This one was not. The majority of the jokes were based around "Geranium's" physique and, in turn, Kate Winslet's. I think it's really pathetic of the the "Thumbtanic" creators to stoop so low to make jabs at a respected actress just because she (heaven forbid) doesn't starve herself into the model of ideal modern beauty.<br /><br />My favorite part was the line that goes something like, "Hey, I have a great idea! Let's swim over to this makeshift raft that no one else seems to see!" Thirty seconds of amusement out of a 26 minute movie does not redeem its value.

neg

train_8199

pending

4594c7c6-4f55-4cee-98b3-7f5f93261ab8

The Thumb idea isn't such a winner the second time round. ThumbTanic wasn't as good as Thumb Wars for a number of reasons. Primarily, I think, Mr Oedekerk had far less to work with in the Titanic send-up. Unlike Star Wars, the movie Titanic hasn't (yet?) become a cultural myth and there are far fewer references to be made which will resonate with the audience.<br /><br />In ThumbTanic, the holes are filled by one-off jokes which don't really seem related to anything. For example, the hero's insinuation that the heroine isn't clean during the "jump off end of ship" scene - it's not funny. Rather, you just think to yourself, "Did I miss something in the original movie?". There were too many of these type of baseless jokes (cf. arachnid).<br /><br />By contrast, the send-up of the smarmy ship's designer had meaning and was funny. Also very funny was the send up of the bloke in the movie who wanted to go "faster" as a maniac running around demanding *everything* be "faster" including the sinking of the ship and himself being the first to die. These sort of jokes meant something in the Titanic context and lent meaningful humour to Thumbtanic.<br /><br />The thumb "media", the faces and the voices, are still amusing. The props and sets and the CG animation are worthy of appreciation. Overall, although ThumbTanic proves that quirkiness alone won't work, this filmette still keeps you amused and chuckling to the end.

neg