Datasets:

jfcalvo

/

imdb-from-space-with-timestamp

like 0

train_8300

pending

638fb21e-9390-4423-886b-8b693b17e5ef

i read the book "7 years in Tibet" from Heinrich Harrer and was fascinated of it. then i immediately grabbed the DVD and started to watch the movie. i remember the first time i saw it back in 98, i kinda liked it. well, now i watched it again in full knowledge of the book it is based on. and soon i realized how WRONG it all was told:<br /><br />when they enter Lhasa the people start to stick their tongues out of their mouths and Thewlis and Pitt have the impression that its the way to say hello in Tibet, so they greet back... in the book Harrer explains, that sticking the tongue out is a sign of absolute humbleness and loyalty in Tibet and they may do it in front of the Dalai Lama but certainly not for these two europeans! not only the mother but even the Dalai Lama himself was wearing glasses in the public. in the book Harrer mentions, that no one in Tibet wore glasses to that time(sorry forgot the reason, but its explained in the book too).the young Dalai Lama did, but only when he was alone and nobody could see him! and what about that Mao tse tung lookalike, destroying the mandala in front of the young "living buddha"?? childish... and the tailor made Harrer and Aufschnaiter tibetan clothes not European designer suits! why are so many events that really happened eliminated from the story, just to fill the time with a fictional love interest (the female tailor...)that is completely unimportant? just like the whole story about harrers son, rolf. not one word is mentioned about him or even any family member of harrer in the book. but that was OK for me because "7 years in Tibet" is not a book about harrers person. its about tibet. I'm very disappointed by this "adaption" of the famous book. and i bet heinrich harrer was, too... 3 stars, just for the cinematography.

neg

train_8301

pending

573e060c-d8aa-470d-8069-c6f48bf46ff9

OK, here it is: "Nazi mountaineer befriends the Dalai Lama." What we do is, first we get a major star with no idea whatsoever how to do a Germanic accent, and we let him flounder around between French, German, American, and British for over 2 hours. Then we concoct a series of wildly improbable events and space them apart very widely, so that the plot inches along almost imperceptibly. But just to make sure the viewer doesn´t fall asleep, we throw in details which are shockingly absurd, such as our hero smoking a cigarette at an altitude of 22,000 feet. Naturally, we must also remember that our target audience does not want to read too many subtitles, so we have every character, even the lowliest peasant in the forbidden closed-off city of Lhasa in 1943, speak perfect English, also with dubious accents. Of course, the trickiest part is how to handle the spiritual and political aspects of the story, so what we do is this: we have the Dalai Lama befriend the now-reformed Nazi because the latter is so good at fiddling with film projectors, radios, antique cars, and any other devices with represent the freedom of the capitalist west. In return, our hero learns from his young protegé a kind of vague, undefined Buddhism which is never really brought out or treated in a serious fashion. We also have lots of scenes with the hero flaunting all the marks of respects and protocol which the rest of the Tibetan society accords the Dalai Lama, even as we pretend that the hero has deep and profound reverence for these people and their spiritual leader. In other words, we just expect the audience to believe that this guy is now a Buddhist, sort of, in his own way, even though we ourselves don´t seem to know what his transformation entails or how far we want it to go. And last but not least, we hang a statistic onto the end of the film about how appallingly the Chinese have treated the Tibetans (which is certainly true), thus opening ourselves up to charges that we have made a "political" movie, even though it is nothing of the sort. So, zat ist my idea. Vat do you zink? Can ve make zis movie?

neg

train_8302

pending

f98fc0a6-ae0a-488d-ba80-9e67fa256bb6

The acting, other reviews notwithstanding, was remarkably well-done. Brad Pitt handles the role of an annoying, obnoxious Austrian climber quite well. Other acting is fine. The story could have been riveting, but somehow, it misses - one never really understands or cares for the characters shown, and so the story, which could have been quite dramatic, fails to draw in this audience.<br /><br />Beautiful scenery and cinematography, a remarkably dramatic true story, important events that shaped the world that we live in - but I could not, try as I might, involve myself in this story. As an unabashed Brad Pitt fan (I consider him one of the top 5 actors of his generation), I expected to *love* this flick - and yet, it left me cold.<br /><br />It could be a failing within myself, but I tend to point toward the creative end of this movie - direction, scriptwriting, production, editing - somehow, they lost me. It's a shame, because it could have been wonderful.<br /><br />Good acting, dramatic story, beautifully shot - it should have been magnificent. It wasn't. Probably worth watching, just to make your own mind up on it - but don't expect too much, and perhaps you won't be as disappointed as I was. Mostly, it bored me.

neg

train_8303

pending

57603dd3-98bb-4092-af9d-89e75dd4a393

"Hey everybody! I've got an idea, we found this egg-shaped thingie from outer space so why don't we thaw it out and open it up?" "Yes, I know that would be the dumbest thing a scientist could do, and it could be filled with contaminating bacteria or viruses unknown to earth and could potentially wipe out the human race, but hey, I want to know what's in it". "And nobody tell NASA, they might take it away from us". "Wow this thingie gives off vibes!" "Yes,really strong ones on contact so don't touch it but it's okay to cut it open". "Hi there handsome, check out my nips". (Later that day); "DO NOT OPEN"!!!!! Uh oh, we have to run all the way to the lab and tell them not to open it because we don't have phones or radios or intercoms even though we have a gazillion dollars worth of other equipment here. "I've never seen such organic technology!" "Yeah, lemme take this stick and stab it.". "I'm getting out of here, I don't care if I do kill the other 6 billion people on Earth, nobody's nukkin' me!" "Look! it's the friendly aliens from "The Abyss"! They want us to come with them". THE END

neg

train_8304

pending

431b94a6-246d-4f88-a88f-d493333b8778

Recap: Something mysteriously dense that transmits radio signals is discovered in the ice of Antarctica. The mysterious block is dug out and brought to a research station on Antarctica. Julian Rome, a former SETI-worker, is brought in to decipher the message. Problem is that one of the researchers is a old girlfriend of his, and the situation quickly turns awkward, especially since the other female researchers practically throw themselves at him. And the block of ice with the thing inside is melting unnaturally quickly. Soon the object is in the open. The mystery continues though as the object generates a huge amount of electricity. It is decided to open the object, but just before that is done, Julian decodes the signal. "Do not open". But too late, and the object explodes as it is finally breached, and two things unleashed on earth. The first is an alien, that had been dormant in the object, and the other is a virus that instantly kills the research staff. And Washington, that is suspiciously updated on this historic event, decides that those things can not be unleashed upon the earth. So a Russian nuclear submarine, carrying nuclear weapons is sent to Antarctica.<br /><br />Comments: The movie holds a few surprises. One is Carl Lewis who surprisingly puts in a good acting performance, and the other is that the special effects that are beautiful, well worked through and a lot better than expected. Unfortunately the story holds a lot of surprises of its own, and this time not in a good way. Actually it is so full of plot holes that sometimes the movies seem to consist of almost randomly connected scenes. It is never really explained why Washington know so much, why Washington is able to command Russian submarines, why the object is in the Antarctic and has woken up now. It is really puzzling that the alien pod is transmitting in understandable English. Some might want to explain this with that the alien had been to Earth before and knew the language (and obviously chose English, why?). But then it is very confusing why the nice aliens that apparently want to save the Earth from the virus, send their "Do not open" message encoded! And finally the end is as open as an end can be.<br /><br />The movie is a little entertaining but too much energy (from me) must be diverted to fill in the voids in the plot. Therefore the total impression of the movie is not too good.<br /><br />3/10

neg

train_8305

pending

4f67c493-2d57-4fc3-891a-1dc1259d9a40

With one of my very favorite actors, James Spader, I expected this film to be at least tolerable. It wasn't. After the first half hour I watched the rest of it with the remote control in my hand so the fast forward was at the ready. So trite, so standard, one knows what's going to happen in each scene. One can even predict the dialogue word for word. This is one of those movies that makes one scratch ones head and say, "How did this movie ever get made?" In an effort to say something positive, I'll add that there are some mildly entertaining special effects. But, on the whole, if you've seen 5 Sci/fi movies, or you are over 9 years old, do yourself a favor and skip this one.

neg

train_8306

pending

779fb21d-da0d-458c-8ede-48b01112e823

Very bad acting, and a very shallow story. Not even a decent B-Movie<br /><br />Events that were suposed to be shocking like humans geting on board an alien ship were boring and very lame.<br /><br />This is one of the worst sci-fi I've ever seen. I saw the 5.0 stars and decided to watch it since i like the genre, but it sucked so bad.<br /><br />Now there's really very few good movies on ALIEN subject, I think because most of them are low budget<br /><br />I give it 3/10

neg

train_8307

pending

8f5cf71b-92a1-4ce5-b0e4-775eaa5e2134

An unoriginal, overly predictable and only mildly entertaining low budget rehash of a sci-fi formula that we've all seen a hundred times before - a group of scientists in isolation confronting some unknown alien something, and in of all places (surprise, surprise) Antarctica!<br /><br />The film features James Spader and an almost nameless supporting cast (with the exception of Carl Lewis, who's actually not that bad for a non-actor) - who deliver ho-hum performances that do little to invigorate the script's unimaginative dialogue. To make things worse the film's pace is slow, there's almost no subplot, and the few action sequences are stereotypical and not that exciting. Its little wonder that this thing went straight to DVD. What is a wonder is why Spader - an excellent actor at times, who won the Cannes Best Actor award for `Sex, Lies and Videotape', and did a splendid job in the innovative sci-fi flick `Stargate' - chose to sign onto this lackluster project. Or maybe not, if you look at his career, for it seems he has invested his talents in more misses than hits.<br /><br />The most remarkable thing about `Alien Hunter' is how they managed to cram in so many elements from so many great sci-fi films, and still have the thing turn out so listless and contrived. There are huge borrowed bits from `The Thing' (both Howard Hawks' original and John Carpenter's excellent 1982 remake), `Contact' and `Outbreak'; a few hints of `Alien', CE3K', `The Andromeda Strain', `Kubrick's `2001' (i.e. the `alien black box') and `Mission To Mars' (i.e. the mystery message); and even a little dash of `Sneakers' and `A Remarkable Mind' (although not sci-fi films, they share a `cryptology' connection). Hell, there's even cornfields and Antarctica, just like the recent `X Files Movie'. And the luminous translucent spaceship at the end looks exactly like something that was plucked from an outtake from `The Abyss'.<br /><br />Its all been done before and done a whole lot better, although I will admit there were a few mild surprises towards the end. I could say a little bit more about the plot, but there's absolutely no need. You already know over half this movie without ever seeing it. (5 out of 10)

neg

train_8308

pending

a16401c9-7f2d-461b-8c50-7a169cbb93f3

Begins better than it ends. Funny that the russian submarine crew outperforms all other actors. It's like those scenes where documentary shots...<br /><br />--- SPOILER PART ---- The message dechifered was contrary to the whole story. It just does not mesh.<br /><br />

neg

train_8309

pending

576ef2d3-5c1f-41bd-9326-ea70a3e732d4

Is it a remake og the Thing (1982/1951), i think it is, there are so many factors from det previous movies do deny it.<br /><br />So the acting is bad, James Spader does a superlow stargate re-enactment of himself, with his coffy mug and his somwhat strange thinking/movements but that's about it, the other actors i did't even notise. You don't get the feeling of getting to know anyone of the main characters. And the plot evolvement is slow, boring and, yah i know what is about to happend in 30mins. Score/music is ultraboring, imean there are alot of ubertallented people out there that would make scores for a coke and a credit, but this is major crap. Some of the special effects are nice, if it was made in early 90's. If you like Slimy Aliens, chills and thrills, don't whatch this movie. its a dull combination of the Thing, Alien 3, Outbreak and some Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay production gone really really bad. Now this combination would be cool if somone knew what they where doing, and the only ones on this production that knew that was, no one.<br /><br />Though i have seen far worse, i would not recomend this movie to anyone, but if you are up one cold night, and just wanna glanse at something, it will pass the time, slowly.

neg

train_8310

pending

81854341-04f8-4245-b32d-bdf7667d4958

Snuggle down in your favourite chair and switch on the play-station, as you toss this into the waste disposal unit. Spend a useful 90 min. living your favourite game. Disjointed - poorly filmed - non directed junk. It takes a bits from several other "science fiction" movies and badly attempts to join the parts into a pathetically weak story. There's nothing new here, the filmmakers do not seem to realise that providing simple entertainment would achieve a monetary game, but a touch of skill ingenuity and flair is required to turn it into a good film. Any money spent watching this is a waste, and personally i would like my 90 min of life back.

neg

train_8311

pending

1d54b68a-8a80-4202-9a8b-ced2f00363ec

This movie couldn't decide what it wanted to be. There were a couple of sub-plots that for awhile made you think these items would all come together in the end... but they didn't. If you want a "alien in the frozen waste" story, stick with the 1950's version of THE THING (not the abomination that was remade in gore-o-vision 20+ years later).<br /><br />I couldn't get over the fact that the "alien" looked pretty much recycled from INDEPENDENCE DAY. <br /><br />The "bare minimum" sets would have been more effective if they had hired actors who could actually act and carry off the intended mood.<br /><br />Lots of scenery chewing with little payoff.

neg

train_8312

pending

8c24e3b6-83ad-4bc9-8021-db9440f8658a

I am oh soooo glad I have not spent money to go to the cinema on it :-). It is nothing more than compilation of elements of few other classic titles like The Thing, Final Fantasy, The Abyss etc. framed in rather dull and meaningless scenario. I really can not figure out what was the purpose of creating this movie - it has absolutely nothing new to offer in its storyline which additionally is also senseless. Moreover there is nothing to watch - the FX'es look like there were taken from a second hand store, you generally saw all of them in other movies. But it is definitely a good lullaby.

neg

train_8313

pending

03a36fad-78ce-4070-b471-7089cd706d39

Alien Hunter: 5 out of 10: Is it me or does every movie that starts in Roswell, New Mexico suck. Take Alien mixed with The Thing, mixed with Contact, mixed with of all things On the Beach, The Andromeda Strain, the classroom scene from Raiders of the Lost Ark and a throw in a little Stargate to boot. <br /><br />Derivative doesn't even begin to describe this movie. Of course with nothing original plot wise they amp up the gore and sex right? Nope gore is a blink and you miss it affair and sex is all tease. (James Spader causally mentions he needs a shower and the delectable Leslie Stefanson asks to join him…. he turns her down. AGGH!) <br /><br />In fact if a movie ever needed a shower scene to liven things up this is it. I mean if your going to have impossibly good-looking women in white bathing suits wandering around an Antarctica research base why not go for broke.<br /><br />With about 30 seconds of actual thrill in the entire movie Alien Hunter is remarkable serious and slow going for a sci-fi adventure. Needed a much better plot twist to liven it up and by the way the Alien itself is a horribly clichéd artifice and has virtually no screen time for someone who shares half the title. <br /><br />I also inquired during viewing what is with the Children of the Corn in space motif. (Note that since Jason of Friday the 13th fame, Pinhead from Hellraiser and that Leprechaun have all traveled to space to slay nubile teenagers why not the cornfield?) The characters in the cornfield dress like Logan's Run extras and I was just waiting for the stalks to come alive and attack them.<br /><br />That however would have been exciting and apparently against this movies covenant. The acting is mostly fine as Spader reprises his Stargate role while Stefanson and Janine Eser model the latest in Antarctic beachwear. John Lynch however read the whole script and acts the like the insane bad guy well before the story would indicate it.<br /><br />Alien Hunter is a disappointing derivative slog that makes me pine for a proper Children of The Corn in Space movie.

neg

train_8314

pending

3411b872-1f32-4220-80d3-a0f2e3b40c75

I just saw this film tonight and I have to say that it's a mess. I love Vince Vaughn but he ends up more annoying that funny here and the film is more than less a remake of the crappy 80's classic " Santa Claus the movie" but with out the camp or the bad Sheena Easton song at the end. .The story is your run of the mill black sheep in the family who comes back to face his family for the holidays kind of thing but with North Pole as its setting. Of course Fred (Vince Vaughn) is the family screw up who comes home after a series of set backs that include his girlfriend (Rachel Weisz in a cameo role) dumping him, so he comes home to face his parents and his more successful brother Santa Claus (Paul Giamatti) and wacky high jinks follow with a bit of sibling rivalry and a bit of anarky as well that threatens all of Christmas. Now if you think you know the ending of this film, I think you would be right because it's predicable to the hill. As for the acting, Vince Vaughn plays the same lovable loser he always plays but this time he ends up more annoying than likable, Miranda Richardson plays Mrs. Claus but the role is more than less one note, Elizabeth Banks plays Santa's assistant but she's not much of a character at all other than a neurotic joke and poor Kevin Spacey ends up basically playing the same person he plays in the film "Glengarry Glen Ross" but a little more anal. The only two actors who come out of this film with their dignity intact is Paul Giamatti, who brings a real sincerity and warmed to his role as Santa Claus but he looks somewhat embarrass to be in the movie and you can't blame him and Rachel Weisz, who manages to do a lot more with a very small role than most of the main actors do with theirs, which is a shame because both Rachel Weisz and Paul Giamatti deserved a lot better than what this script gave them.<br /><br />To put it in a nutshell, a major disappointment.

neg

train_8315

pending

d680b24a-b8a7-45b5-9004-8a685b45933a

Painfully bad Christmas film that has an equally painfully bad performance by Vince Vaughn, who is paying his usual frat boy self but this time for a children's movie but with out the wit or charm that is in his R rated films. Vaughn seems like he's on autopilot though most of the film and he keeps running into walls with his lackluster performance. After 30 minutes into the film, you would be in touch your inner scourge and say "Bahumbag" at how unfunny this film is and after another 30 minutes, you will want to walk out over how unbearable the film has gotten during that point. Out of all the actors involved in this mess, only Paul Giamatti and Rachel Weisz brings some life to there perspective paper thin roles and that's manly because they are both way too good of actors to be in this film. Paul Giamatti brings some depth and warmth to the character of Saint Nick himself but he's forced to Vaughn's level of juvenile behavior when they are doing their sad sibling infighting. You can see in Giamatti face that he's not having fun with his role and it painfully shows in certain parts of the film. Rachel Weisz brings a sense of fun and spirit to her role but she really does not have much of a character to work with and you can see in her face that she's well aware of that, so much so that she seems irritated in certain parts of the film. Fortunately for her, she's not in the film much at all and is able to save some face, unlike Giamatti, who looks like he's about to fire his agent by the end of the movie. The direction also feels uninspiring, like there is no feeling or flow to be had and this is a supposed to be a holiday movie but it ends up feeling like you are just staring at a fancy widow display that is being torn down.<br /><br />I don't know what went wrong here but with only two actors involved (Giamatti and Weisz) trying their best to at least bring something to the table with a unfunny script they had to work with, spotty direction with no feeling for the subject at hand ( and this is a Christmas movie of all things) and a actor who just does not care about his performance (Vaughn), you have a very unevenly bad film that is very painful to watch.

neg

train_8316

pending

db4d0f72-af42-4cc9-b088-0729b8e285c3

Every Christmas eve I make my kids endure yet another showing of It's A Wonderful Life. I also thoroughly enjoyed Bad Santa. So sue me. I admit it. I like cheesy, schmaltzy movies. I like excellent, intelligent ones too, but as with so many things, variety is a good thing. What would the Christmas season be without the annual cinematic ka-ching ka-ching of Santa in all his guises, from Edmund Gwenn to Billy Bob Thornton? Fred Claus will make no one forget Bedford Falls, but I do not believe a Christmas film should have to reach iconic stature to succeed. "Fred" is a perfectly OK holiday movie, with enough humor for the adults and sufficient charm for the kids. My wife and I laughed a lot, even if most of the humor was obvious and Vince was just being Vince. Paul Giamatti was a top-notch Santa, which helped a lot. Not a great flick, and unlikely to become must-viewing for anyone's annual Christmas traditions. But my wife and daughter and I enjoyed it for what it was, holiday schmaltz with a small dash of spice. There's nothing wrong with that.

neg

train_8317

pending

e5e341e7-32ae-4096-ae41-b64206d8dea8

How hard is it to write a watchable film with Vince Vaughn, Paul Giamatti and Kevin Spacey? Apparently VERY difficult for the writers here.<br /><br />I still have no idea how Santa is younger and looks 20 years older than Vince (who plays the BIG brother). I must have missed that part of the story but in reality, it really didn't matter. Many scenes seemed out of place and contrived; the kind of "funny notion" scenes that are drug out WAY too far to where any sense of comedy is lost.<br /><br />The director/producer tried to go "tear jerker" at the end, which would have been suitable if ANYTHING leading up that point had been worth following.<br /><br />Ugh, major disappointment. I can see how some people might enjoy this OK, since many people will take any garbage they're fed, but I would strongly encourage waiting for DVD on this one. NOT worth the $23,978 it takes to get your family to the movies these days.

neg

train_8318

pending

b9c5bf2b-0c09-4846-b1ed-9103dbab3e00

Okay, during this past thanksgiving break, whilst having the whole family together everybody decided to go see a movie, and since Fred clause was voted majority, thats what we went and say. <br /><br />To start off the movie had so many plot holes it was pathetic. Simple explanations of why a certain event was happening was void. example; who the heck is trying to 'shut down' Santa clause? Is it some sort of corporation? A little explanation would of been lovely. <br /><br />Second: The movie tossed you flimsy characters that evoked no sympathy from you about their feelings or actions. example: the little elf named Willie and the only tall girl in the elf village. they see each other twice and then they are a couple and i could of cared less because this movie didn't make me care. <br /><br />Third: I suppose this was suppose to be a family film? Its rating was low at just PG. For a family film there were several articles of suggestive conversation. It didn't bother me, but if i were a parent i could see a problem. <br /><br />Through the whole movie Paul Giamatti looked extremely bored with his role, but honestly he was the only one worth watching in the movie. Vaughn had a few funny moments but played the same character he has for the last two movies. mouthy frat boy. (nothing against Vaughn, he's been good in other movies)<br /><br />so this movie gets a 3 out of 10 stars from me, just because somebody had to put in the effort to produce, film and release this flick. <br /><br />In my opinion i would definitely pass on this flick, or if you HAVE to see it save it for a rainy day rental.

neg

train_8319

pending

57ebe1ee-bce8-4068-8b71-f5bef8f29b44

Well, I have to say, this movie was so bad that I would have walked out if i didn't have to review it for work. ANd the worst part is, I wanted to see it so badly that I drove all over the city, paid $10 parking two times because the newspaper listings were wrong. Vince Vaughn plays the guy he always does -- the only time I've seen him play someone else was in that movie with John Travolta. Anyways, the plot has potential -- it sounded great in the preview, but it is filled with totally ridiculous, predictable, weak plot turn points. And I was hoping that this would be one Christmas movie where Christmas DIDN"t have to be saved, and that Santa didn't need a replacdmetn, but nope. The only cool part was the sleigh rides, and the little bladck kid was the best character. I'm sure this movie would be great for young kids, but for adults it's so lame that it's chore to sit through.

neg

train_8320

pending

07540752-411a-4e33-8d3f-4796d3744ca2

I don't know what I missed here, but I can't believe all these positive comments by so many people on this film. I thought it was silly, and a bit over the top. I did like the performances of Gregg Henry and Michael Rooker, however the others were just... boring.<br /><br />Now I like B movies, I really do, but this was a bit further down the alphabet for me. I saw someone compare the humor and horror in this to "Army Of Darkness" and "Shaun of the Dead", as well as "On par with The Re-Animator". You must be joking. I didn't find this film funny, it tried, it did make an effort, (possibly too much of an effort), but it failed in my opinion. By the time I was hit with the 3rd or 4th one-liner I was rolling my eyes and checking my watch.<br /><br />There were definitely homages made to several other films, which is always cool, kind of like an inside joke for us horror fans. But here it may have just been a lack of original thought. Admittedly there were some nice special effects, good gore, but that can't carry an entire movie. The mutated Grant looked like a cross between Jabba the Hut, and in the early stages of mutation- Chet from "Weird Science" (after he was turned into the monster) and one of the alien creature/children from "The Explorers". It just didn't work. I thought it looked like something some kid from Grade 5 art class could have designed. Then there was Brenda, the woman that Grant impregnated and chained up in the barn. When help finally arrived she looked like a giant tick waiting to be popped. The design once again was totally unimaginative. A round flesh colored balloon with a face in the middle. *yawn* <br /><br />Now about the zombies- The more movies I see with zombies in them these days the more I wish George A. Romero had a patent on them and was the only writer/director allowed to make movies about them. He's the only person so far to do it right, with the exception of Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg (but that was a comedy). Oh, and Danny Boyle, but they were a different style of Zombie. Maybe Mr. Romero has ruined any zombie film for me due to his ingenious ability to get his actors to moan, groan and shamble about as if their joints are dried up and lacking even a drop of synovial fluid, and their muscles are fighting the effects caused by rigor mortis that had started to set in right before they were re-animated. The people of "Wheelsy" just didn't have the proper motivation... they were horrible zombies.<br /><br />So in the end I give "Slither" a 3, for a couple of laughs and a few nice gore scenes.

neg

train_8321

pending

505a52b0-b56d-4d47-a73b-68c7dcc228b6

Definitely the worst movie I have ever seen... Can somebody tell me where should have I laughed? There's not a single hint or shadow of an idea. The three leading actors are pestilential, especially the one (I think it's Aldo) from Sicily who _can't_ make a Sicilian accent!!! Not to say about the dream-like insertion about Dracula... just another expedient, drawn from the worst cabaret tradition, to make this "film" last a little longer. Massironi and Littizzetto do what they can, but this so-called movie was really too, too hard to rescue. I would have given it "0"/10, but the lowest mark was 1/10 and so I had to overestimate it by one mark.

neg

train_8322

pending

8eace337-68be-4dbd-816f-afc91bdfad3b

For me every piece of art is to be judged by these criteria: Form, Function and Meaning. Guernsey seems to be dedicated to forms: nice shots and sometimes interesting acting. The long close ups suggest a function that the viewer may fill in by himself. Because of lacking texts the story becomes a quiz. An introvert person suggests to have depth, but sometimes it turns out he has nothing to say. This film acts like an introvert person. If you have not read the synopsis you cannot see that it was the suicide (and the unanswered question Why?) that changes Anna's view on life and makes her suspicious. 'Why don't you speak to me?' asks Sebastiaan. Anna doesn't answer, she only starts looking a long time at him without saying a word. What is the function of that shot? What does it mean? My question is like Sebastiaans: What has this film to say? What is meant by this movie? The answer for me: It shows us a handful of persons with the passion of a glass of water. The story of their lives is simple and boring. Motives behind their actions are not shown. The rest is: skins, residences, landscapes. Nice and artistic done, but meaningless without having disposal of 'instructions for use'. In my opinion this film is made for fellow artists, not for the common viewer.

neg

train_8323

pending

81f8a2d8-1ffa-4e9a-978f-217e11947245

This film uses all art-house clichés (slow pace, long static shots, minimal amount of dialog) to try to hide the fact that there really is nothing worth watching here: There is no plot to speak of, the characters are dreary (female lead) or cliché (Tersteeghe's character), and they do not ever talk to each other about anything that concerns their rather uneventful lives. The film is centered around a woman who finds out about her husbands adultery. Instead of confronting him, she half-heartedly takes revenge by committing adultery herself. After a fight and a reconciliation with her sister - who knew about the adultery without telling her - she asks her husband to stop cheating on her. They seem to be re-united as a family. Two other story lines - the planned move of the woman's elderly father with his young wife to Guernsey and the rivalry with the woman's sister - do not offer any interesting developments. The suicide of a colleague of the woman that seems to set off events in the film is not a subject in itself. For 2005 - or any other year for that matter - this is not enough to make an interesting film.<br /><br />Moreover, what little possibilities for dramatic development there are in the script are not used or are consciously avoided, as when both the woman and her sister mark a particular piece of furniture from their fathers house which is going to be sold because of his planned move. Both sisters want this particular piece and given their rivalry in the past - over much more important things than furniture: men - this could in theory lead to a confrontation. Or the matter could be resolved by one sister giving way to the other. Either way, this would not be a very interesting or original development of the story but at least it would constitute some development. The film clearly sets this situation up (with both sisters looking intently at each other during the marking and one sister having mentioned she does not want to draw straws) but it cheats us out of any resolution: the scene simply ends and how this - in itself rather dreary and materialistic - issue is solved, is not shown. <br /><br />Although almost completely absent, the dialog that is in the film is excruciatingly flat and tepid. For example, when during a visit to Guernsey, the 2 sisters address their rivalry it is in a three line dialog that has a childish "yes it is - no it isn't" ring to it. The fight and reconciliation scene with the 2 sisters is completely without dialog - giving a highly artificial, overly stylised and unrealistic impression and considerably reducing its impact. The way the woman finally - finally! - addresses her husbands adultery in a single line of dialog has to be seen to be believed - and is at the same time completely unbelievable. The husband does not seem to have any noticeable reaction or if he has any, it is not shown. The woman does not mention her own adultery to her husband. The scene showing the woman, husband and their young son asleep on an airliner, watched by the sister is possibly meant as a happy end, but the way the characters addressed the issues of their lives in what went before makes this unlikely.<br /><br />Because of its slow pace, uninteresting story, leaden direction and absurd lack of dialog, I found this film an example of everything that can be wrong with an art-house movie and a complete waste of time.

neg

train_8324

pending

2dec7ba6-311b-4974-a892-7e783f8b2647

Anna lives with her family in a new housing estate just outside the city. She has been with her husband Sebastiaan for years and they don't talk so much anymore. While on a working visit abroad, a female colleague commits suicide. Anna is deeply impressed by her death, even though she hardly knew her. Nobody seems to know why she took her own life. For the first time Anna realizes that one can be an unknown among your most dearest. Anna doesn't mention the incident back home and starts observing her husband and child. Guernsey is the story of a woman who suddenly starts looking at her own life. And she wonders how she got so drifted apart from the people closest to her.<br /><br />(This is my translation of the DVD cover text synopsis. I hope you find it useful, as this movie doesn't have an IMDb Plot Summary yet at this date.)

neg

train_8325

pending

8abd0d43-9396-4b5a-a852-0420e9efa807

GUERNSEY (Maria Kraakman - Belgium/Netherlands 2005).<br /><br />The mousy Maria Kraakman plays Anna, a woman in her thirties, who finds out her husband (Fedja van Huet) is cheating on her but she doesn't dare to confront him. She painfully avoids any confrontation with human beings, her parents as well as her sister, so we have a main character in a feature film that doesn't do much at all. We barely know anything about her background or her motivations. Just a woman who seems to be stuck in a blind alley, not just during this difficult episode of her life. She obviously suffers from something, but why do we in the audience have to suffer as well?<br /><br />I almost gave up on cinema after seeing this unwatchable mess. These were a very dull and painful 90 minutes. Normally I try to avoid wasting energy on bad film making. I'll take the beating and roll with the punches, but in this case a fair warning is in place. How on earth did Nanouk Leopold get funding (in large part from publicly financed funds) for this turkey? Obviously, there was no script to speak off. It could be compensated by an ingenious filmmaker with cinematographic ideas or a cast with only a little more appeal. None whatsoever, just a vaguely defined concept, "I want to do something from a woman's point of view". The result is an insult rather than a tribute to a female perspective on life.<br /><br />To make things worse, there's not an interesting shot to be found in the entire film. I cannot think of a cast who could have spiced this one up, but Johanna ter Steege is a (small) light in the dark, if possible with this dire lack of material. I'm trying to imagine how Leopold tried directing Maria Kraakman: "Maria, look at the horizon, we'll film you for three minutes, just express sadness". A perfect cure for insomnia. Get a copy and watch this late at night, guaranteed too put you to sleep.<br /><br />Camera Obscura --- 1/10

neg

train_8326

pending

a4a1794a-3c86-4c08-ac5c-834038f5249c

This movie was long and boring. Surprising that it was selected for Cannes, although they tend to like pretentiousness. Point is that contrary to other Dutch stars of the arty genre like Kerkhof and Kruishoop, Guernsey feels utterly empty. Even more so it has no cinematic quality whatsoever. A long opening shot doesn't mean cinematic depth, it's just a long boring shot. The story wasn't interesting and the characters had problems I couldn't identify with at all. The actors didn't shine under her direction and seemed lost at times. Leopold tried, but she is not the talent I hoped she would be. Where are Kerkhof and Kruishoop? They really made some waves in Dutch cinema. Leopold just made another attempt.

neg

train_8327

pending

66e65282-a386-4305-b3f8-1fc2a187d8fb

For those fans of Laurel and Hardy, the 1940s and beyond were a very sad time for the team. Their contracts with Hal Roach Studios had expired and now they were "free agents"--able to work for any studio who offered them a job. Unfortunately, Fox, RKO, MGM (without Roach) and even a French film company who hired the boys had absolutely no touch for their comedic talents. Plus, Stan and Ollie were a lot older and seeing these geriatric men taking pratfalls seemed sad, not particularly funny. Stan looked very ragged and Ollie's weight had ballooned up to the point where he could barely walk--and so it made me feel uncomfortable laughing at their very, very sedate antics.<br /><br />In addition to their age, this particular film suffers because Fox Studios oddly cast them in a supporting role and created a parallel plot involving a young couple--something that reduced their time on screen AND turned them into insipid "hangers on" instead of just being themselves. A cute and cuddly Stan and Ollie is very foreign to the old Laurel and Hardy of the 20s and 30s--and just seemed awfully strange and suited them poorly.<br /><br />Now even with their age, this COULD have been a decent movie if it had been given decent writing and if it appeared the studio cared--and it's quite obvious they were using the "B unit" here--with, at best, second class support. In particular, there are very few laughs and the last 10 minutes of the film is simply dreadful--relying exclusively on a sloppy rear-projected screen for the stupid chase scene--which might just rank as one of the worst of its kind in film history.<br /><br />For mind-numbed zombie lovers of Laurel and Hardy, it's probably a film they will love. But, for lovers of the team who are willing to honestly evaluate this film relative to their amazing earlier films, it simply comes up wanting indeed. In fact, of all their full-length films pre-1940, I can't think of one I liked less than DANCING MASTERS. Unfortunately, of the post-1940 films, this might just be one of their better ones. Sadly, it got a lot worse--with wretched films like THE BIG NOISE and NOTHING BUT TROUBLE. I just wish the boys had just retired after SAPS AT SEA.<br /><br />Finally, I wonder if all the generally positive reviews for this film on IMDb might reflect the reviewers' love of the team more than it's an indication that this is a good film? For an audience who are NOT already in love with the team, I don't know HOW this film will do anything but bore the audience--it certainly WON'T convince anyone that Laurel and Hardy were comedic geniuses. But even comedic geniuses need material worthy of their talents.

neg

train_8328

pending

f3e01f1d-9661-4e98-981d-5a37f687e986

I can understand after watching this again for the first time in many years how it is considered one of the worst Laurel & Hardy's. For me, it isn't as close to as bad as "Air Raid Wardens" and "The Bullfighters", but there are some definite huge flaws in it. The film is set up to show Laurel and Hardy as the owners and instructors of the dance studio. Hardy is funny as the prancing lead of a "London Bridge" dance, surrounded by 20th Century Fox starlets, while in the next room, Laurel teaches the beginners ballet while wearing a ballerina outfit. A clumsy carpenter spills glue on the floor, leading to a predicable gag where Hardy ends up the looser. Then, in come the racketeers, now selling insurance covering up their protection racket. One of them is a very young and handsome Robert Mitchum. But no sooner do they bully the boys into buying insurance, they are arrested.<br /><br />This is the end of the gangsters and the last time we see the dance studio. The rest of the film is devoted to Laurel and Hardy's support of wealthy patron Trudy Marshall and her inventor boyfriend, Robert Bailey. They first try to help them hide their relationship from her disapproving parents (Matt Briggs and Margaret Dumont) and hopeful suitor Allan Lane, whom we can tell right off is a no-good swine. This leads to Briggs' hidden bar being revealed to tea-totaling Dumont, and a gag where a rug is literally pulled out from the wealthy patriarch which crashes his bed into a pond below. When Bailey uses the boys to help display his ray gun, pandemonium ensues. The dead-pan butler announces to Case and Dumont that their house is on fire.<br /><br />Later, Hardy wants to use the insurance policy to gain money to pay their dance studio rent and hopes to get Laurel to break a leg to do so. There is no reference to the fact that the insurance salesmen were gangsters and that the policy would probably be invalid. (Even if they were to have become legitimate insurance salesman, after being arrested, their licenses would have been revoked). Laurel ends up getting off a bus which had been abandoned by the driver over a supposedly rabid dog (only a frosting covered, cake devouring Toto look-alike, or possibly the actual pooch), causing Oliver to end up on a huge beach roller-coaster that somehow the bus has ended up on, perfectly fitting its wheels onto the tracks. Roller-coaster gags can be exciting, as evidenced in "Abbott and Costello Go to Hollywood", and this one is amusing but anticlimactic.<br /><br />As the story wraps up, all of these gags seem to have no point, giving the impression that this was simply a series of one-reelers put together to make a full-length feature, hopefully part of a double bill. L&H, as I've mentioned in other reviews of their later films, had lost much of their luster after leaving Hal Roach's employ, but surprisingly here, they do not come off as old and tired looking as they had in films made in the same year. Had the gags not been as amusing, as was the case with some of their other films, this surely would have ranked a "2" as opposed to a "3".

neg

train_8329

pending

5e5172ab-0fd0-4bd1-b77f-20fa228d394b

I suppose bad Laurel and Hardy is better than no Laurel and Hardy at all, but just barely. It's sad that the Fox films are the ones getting a big release on DVD, exposing people who may not be too familiar with L&H to their WORST stuff rather than their classic comedies.<br /><br />Once again the boys are saddled with a dumb romantic plot about a guy who's invented an invisible ray. He's in love with the bosses' daughter, who hates him and prefers some slick guy. It's incredible to think the geniuses at Fox thought THIS is what L&H needed in their films.<br /><br />Without their pancake makeup the boys look tired and old. The only scenes that work for them in this picture is when they try to sneak out of a bedroom window at night and the rather bizarre scene where Robert Mitchum, being a classic noir bad guy tries to sell Oliver Hardy "insurance" on Stan.<br /><br />Otherwise, this script is just a mess. Forget this and see if you can find a copy of "A Chump at Oxford" or "Bohemian Girl" or "Sons of the Desert" instead.

neg

train_8330

pending

a6087ab5-af17-4394-a972-bc02f5190825

As a big fan of David Mamet's films and plays, especially his first film House of Games that also starred Joe Mantegna, I was expecting great things from this film. Instead, I found myself annoyed by the film's superficiality and lack of credibility. Racial slurs are thrown about without any feeling or meaning behind them, in the hopes of setting up a racial tension that for me never materialized. Identity is totally reevaluated and men become "heroes" for no apparent reason. Because of his oaths taken as a cop, the lead character adamantly refuses to perform one relatively small action that would harm no one and could possibly save lives, and yet performs another action which is very violent and VERY illegal, but then still refuses the minor action. In addition, a highly unbelievable subplot involving a man who has killed his family is introduced just for the sake of a plot point that was all but advertised with skywriting, and the cop's reaction to that occurrence stretch credulity way beyond all reasonable limits. Needless to say, after expecting another exciting thriller from David Mamet, I was extremely disappointed to say the least. 3 out of 10.

neg

train_8331

pending

0f70a1f7-7633-4095-a6d6-bd6fc125a08b

David Mamet is a very interesting and a very un-equal director. His first movie 'House of Games' was the one I liked best, and it set a series of films with characters whose perspective of life changes as they get into complicated situations, and so does the perspective of the viewer.<br /><br />So is 'Homicide' which from the title tries to set the mind of the viewer to the usual crime drama. The principal characters are two cops, one Jewish and one Irish who deal with a racially charged area. The murder of an old Jewish shop owner who proves to be an ancient veteran of the Israeli Independence war triggers the Jewish identity in the mind and heart of the Jewish detective.<br /><br />This is were the flaws of the film are the more obvious. The process of awakening is theatrical and hard to believe, the group of Jewish militants is operatic, and the way the detective eventually walks to the final violent confrontation is pathetic. The end of the film itself is Mamet-like smart, but disappoints from a human emotional perspective.<br /><br />Joe Mantegna and William Macy give strong performances, but the flaws of the story are too evident to be easily compensated.

neg

train_8332

pending

b0ca559b-cb9e-4ff9-8b16-3e1f9cc25f5f

Very disappointing film. By the end I no longer cared for any of the characters. I did enjoy seeing Ving Rhames in a very small part, and William Macy was good as always, still not worth watching. It starts out strong and just keeps getting weaker and weaker. Insomniacs will like it as I am sure it will put them to sleep.

neg

train_8333

pending

92e06f2f-85e0-448e-8767-6f01ed5864da

This movie displayed more racial hatred of Jews by David Mamet than I have<br /><br />have ever encountered in an American film. The sterotypes are so over the top that my ability to continue watching died. I was so disappointed at Joe<br /><br />Mantegna calling a bunch of men ,sitting in a New York Jewish center cleaning weapons ,heros that common sense prevailed and I stopped. I am deeply<br /><br />disturbed at the concept that Jews are not Americans and "different". I suggest that Mr. Mamet is one of the causes of hatred not a healer of same.

neg

train_8334

pending

37fb8179-36e0-49ba-8237-d01a94e69acd

Pere is an idiot, but he is aware about it and acts in consequence. His life is totally boring and he doesn't know how to change it. When his last friend, Nicco, dies. He feels totally empty and he decides to go out to become drunk. When he is returning home, he crashes with a girl that puts advertisements. Although she ignores him, he fells in love and starts to follow her, obsessively. Well the beginning of the film is a bit slow, and can result boring for most people. However, as action begins, it is a little better (not much!, maybe, the best part is the 5 minutes of sex (almost 30 different scenes about it) that you can see in the middle of the movie; it is not good for the erothism, but for the funny and unexpected that is the scene. Probably it is the best of the film. Neither the actors nor the directing is good, and the results is a boring film that that can result funny for some people (not for me). All the film is based on absurd situations (idiot, as the film says), that have anything interesting. I like Ventura Pons, but I have to admit that this is not one of his best films (maybe his worst!), he knows to do it better.

neg

train_8335

pending

43f038e4-7e31-40b4-80e3-c775e1ae3002

Leave it to geniuses like Ventura Pons, the Spanish director, to convince the higher ups in his country to subsidize this misguided attempt of a film. The sad state of the film industry in that country is a product of trying to make a film out of such thin material. Most of the pictures that are made in Spain fall under two categories: those about the Spanish Civil War, that love to present past history as the writers deem fit. The other type of films show the viewer with a lot of gratuitous sex because the 'creators' don't have anything interest to say. <br /><br />As the film opens we get to watch Pere's penis as he attempts to cut it off and place it in one of the platters at a party. Later on, Sandra will show all she has been given for the audience to admire. The story of Pere's attraction to Sandra, a married woman that seems to be happily married, is false from the start.<br /><br />Our only interest in watching the film centered on an earlier, better made picture by Mr. Pons, "Amic/Amat", but alas, it has nothing to do with the mess we are punished to watch in this venture. As far as the comments submitted in IMDb, all the negative votes come from Spanish viewers, which speaks volumes coming from them!

neg

train_8336

pending

197eb6d3-4bde-4918-9af2-3ae2d1957326

Although the actors do a convincing job playing the losers that parade across the screen, the fact that these characters are impossible to identify with had me looking at my watch a mere 20 minutes into the film (and more than once after that). The plot development is disjointed and slow, the verbal diarrhoea of the main character's only friend is practically insufferable, the base quality of most of the characters actions and the cavalier way in which they are treating is annoying.<br /><br />It is typical of Ventura Pons to put forth crass psychologically handicapped characters. However, this faux sociological analysis is a big step down from CARICIAS or Caresses, where the characters maltreat and despise each other for well founded reasons that play out during that film. In AMOR IDIOTA we are forced to follow the meanderings of a truly subnormal intelligence as he stalks a severely depressed and detached woman. Supposedly this is due to his own depression but the script doesn't support that. I won't give away the rest of the story just in case there are any masochists out there… Is he cured through his obsession or is the woman shocked out of her own depression through his unwavering attention? Even though I watched the whole thing I wasn't made to care even for a moment about either of them.<br /><br />If you can sit through all this prejudice, ignorance, betrayal, BAD dialogue, flimsy philosophy, etc… the camera-work was pretty good and seems to be something inspired by the DOGMA group. The makeup also seemed to aim at showing these players in a raw and gritty light as it is the worst I've seen Cayetana Guillen Cuervo in any of her movies (while in person she is actually attractive).<br /><br />I suppose if the idea is that we should be forced to see the lower strata of society so we can be grateful we are not part of it then Pons has achieved his objective. The barrage of nearly identical sex scenes was a proper waste of film (if the actors had been filmed but once in blue green clothing the background behind them could have been changed in the special effects studio for a pittance). True that I heard much of the male audience squirm in their seats during this but an objective viewing proves that was not the real aim of those scenes.<br /><br />Save yourselves and watch something else.

neg

train_8337

pending

d9165383-9c49-4288-b2f8-f62e847f4b4a

OK, let me again admit that I haven't seen any other Merchant Ivory (the distributor) films. Nor have I seen more celebrated works by the director, so my capacity to discuss Before the Rains outside of analysis of the film itself is mitigated. With that admittance, let me begin.<br /><br />Before the Rains is a different kind of movie that doesn't know which genre it wants to be. At first, it pretends to be a romance. In most romances, the protagonist falls in love with a supporting character, is separated from the supporting character, and is (sometimes) united with his or her partner. This movie's hero has already won the heart of his lover but cannot be with her. His name is Henry Moores and her name is Sajani, and they reside in southern India during the waning days of the Raj (British imperial rule). Henry has been away from London for a long time and has fallen in love with his married Indian maid, despite his legal marriage and child overseas. What could be better than that? They often sneak away for intimate afternoons until some children notice them. Word spreads to Sajani's husband who questions her involvement with Moores. She denies any contact with him, but Moores asks her to leave the area. Sajani refuses because of her devotion to him and commits suicide. Please take note that these events occur in the opening third of the film. The film changes tone and becomes a crime-drama in its final portions.<br /><br />Sajani's body is discovered right as Moores' family comes to visit. The alleged perpetrator is Moores's English-educated assistant T.K. T.K. knows of his master's affair but keeps silent until his life becomes threatened. Once he is declared innocent, he attempts to regain his honor by killing Moores. T.K. is too squeamish and leaves him in a dirt path as the rains fall.<br /><br />I want to warn you, this isn't a romance film. The DVD cover and theatrical posters show an Indian woman and Caucasian man embracing in an idealized tropic setting. This image is captured directly from the film's opening, but quickly disappears. Then it's over. It seems like an effort to capitalize on Western fixation on forbidden love. It isn't effective, at all. Not only is the movie not a romance, but its characters lack any personality. They are bundles of walking clichés. Moores is an arrogant white man who doesn't recognize his Indian friend, T.K.'s intelligence. T.K. is torn between his own heritage and his educative background. Sajani is a woman incapable of having a choice in her romantic life. Oh, and, of course, Moores' family is inquisitive into Sajani's death but still slightly racist to Indians. If the tone wasn't so serious, I would be willing to overlook these problems, but it isn't. The film is presented with a didactic overtone which highlights its poor character development.<br /><br />No, this film isn't terrible. Other than the laughable screenplay, it isn't poor. The actors are all experienced and perform well here. Nandita Das, who plays Sajani, was part of wonderful Indian drama Water. Even director Sivan has an impressive resume. He recently oversaw The Terrorist, which is part of Roger Ebert's "Great Movies" collection. What happened here? Why is this movie so bad? Well, Sivan mentioned how he was inspired to direct this film because of a short he viewed in Israel called Red Roofs. Apparently, the story was "timeless," and Sivan sought to create a similar experience set in 1930's India. I don't have any problem with that approach, but I think Sivan may have been too motivated this time. The actors, cinematography, and set design are acceptable but unless you share Sivan's aura, you'll probably not enjoy it. My recommendation is that you presume you aren't in accordance with him and watch something else. Final Consensus: *and ½ out of *****

neg

train_8338

pending

13274060-2814-477e-a355-f1ff3f63bc0d

This movie fails to offer anything new to a genre that has traditionally shown the cross cultural love story underpinned by the politics mid 20th century / pre-WWII India, where the British and their modern ways are bad and the primitive but honest and true Indians are good. Surely such clichéd depictions of the British are rather passé now.<br /><br />Apart from the drama that fuels the second part of the movie the narrative is predictable, the acting is pedestrian and two-dimensional, and the directing obvious and unimaginative.<br /><br />The story really needed to be fleshed out and would certainly have benefited from another half an hour of screen time to give the characters and narrative more depth and give the viewer something to feel some investment in.<br /><br />All in all, rather uninspiring. Oh and Linus Roache just cannot do tragedy - going cross-eyed with emotional pain just doesn't work for me!

neg

train_8339

pending

9eec24e5-4cfc-490d-a4a2-e7bd3bfb22d1

Despite the mysteriously positive reviews and high rating, this is an awful movie. Awful enough, that l feel obligated to warn you how bad it is. <br /><br />The movie is set in the final period of the Raj, during the time of India's fight for independence. What follows in the ridiculous plot just fills me with disbelief. What the characters do and how they behave just does not persuade me that the characters exist in that era. <br /><br />For instance, would the young married Hindu housemaid from the local village have an affair with her married Englishman Master, knowing full well that discovery of the affair would likely mean utter social ostracization and shame if not mortal punishment? Unlikely, but still maybe. However, would the same young Hindu housemaid, in the conservative society of India of that era carry on like a half naked Britney Spears in heat, partake in hot outdoor sex during daylight in open view where they might be discovered at any moment? That is not only bloody unlikely, that is a retarded plot line.<br /><br />Such idiocies combined with the poor acting, drove me to leave the cinema an hour into the movie, so i did not watch the second half of the movie. One could only hope the ending is of more intelligence than what i saw in the first half.

neg

train_8340

pending

0b62ac6e-8da8-4825-950b-915b2745d503

Let me start by saying how much I love the TV series. Despite the tragic nature of a middle-aged man seemingly unable to pursue his dreams because of his overbearing, manipulative father, it was incredibly light-hearted and fun to watch in practice. In my opinion, it is without doubt one of the greatest British sitcoms of all time. The TV series has my 10 out of 10 rating without reservation.<br /><br />This movie spin-off on the other hand is a true tragedy in every sense of the word. Hardly any of the essence of the TV show is transferred successfully onto film. This movie has a very dreary, depressing tone that almost moved me to tears on several occasions. Seeing Harold being beaten up in a pub (and not in a comical way) is not my idea of comedy but is most definitely one reason why fans of the TV series will not like this movie. The movie was painfully unfunny except for the scene where Albert bathes in the sink and is seen by a neighbour.<br /><br />The romance between Harold and Zita is completely out of tone and it makes me wonder whether the producers of this movie ever bothered to watch the TV series. In the TV series, Harold always went after respectable girls, not strippers.<br /><br />Albert's reactions to the remarks made against him by Harold's girlfriends were absolutely priceless in the TV series. In the movie, Albert says virtually nothing when such an opportunity rises.<br /><br />Most movie spin-offs of British sitcoms tend to be quite dull, with the notable exception of the ON THE BUSES films (which in some respects were actually better than the TV series itself!). But, STEPTOE AND SON has to rank right at the very bottom of the pile, even below GEORGE AND MILDRED.<br /><br />My advice - skip this one and see the second spin-off, STEPTOE AND SON RIDE AGAIN instead. It has a much lighter tone, is more faithful to the TV series, and is actually very funny.

neg

train_8341

pending

16bbf2f5-8e6e-47c4-b54b-2b9ce1d4257d

"Women? They're all scrubbers...!" <br /><br />No, not a good translation; not at all! This lags behind the previous year's "Dad's Army", entirely missing the special, small-screen magic of the seminal television sitcom original, and failing to play interestingly at all with the big screen... you could just about say that this film well represents a Britain entering decline, and more precisely even than that, a *British film industry* entering decline. And that is hardly a recommendation, is it? To be an exemplar of saddening folly...<br /><br />All that remains after the subtlety of the TV original has been surgically stripped away, by Cliff Owen, Galton and Simpson are: endless, dilapidated musical cues, yawn, from the Ron Grainer theme... bolstered sentimentality (that shoddy, thick-eared ending... how much bolder does the second Steptoe film seem in comparison) an increased seediness - with director and writers seemingly detaching themselves completely - fully applicable to something like the 'misbegotten monstrosity' (yours truly on this site) from 1973, "The Mutations". There is a strangely botched, cut-adrift tone about the scene where Harold is beaten up in a rugby club, that I partly hate and recoil it (so far, as a friend intimated, from the mood of the TV series...), but this at least seems an original slant, and emblematic of tensions just rising to the boil in the Britain of 1972... There is, however, an implied prostitute, aye of a 'heart-of-gold' who turns loose woman-traitor 'pon poor auld 'Arold - and beyond-caricature writing of the 'class' element; not to mention, surprisingly misjudged performances from the usually redoubtable leads. Brambell and Corbett collude with the script, and indeed fail to cure it of an essential ham. What would Anthony Aloysius Hancock have made of it all...? I will merely concede that a few moments just about work - chiefly those where G & S play things a little more carefully and B & C touch tenderer nerves - and it is not on the whole an unwatchable affair. <br /><br />But, and oh, how this pains me to say it: it is tiresome, boring, both wilfully detached from reality and what made the TV series great, and also fully in tune with the lazy, tawdry, misogynist 'fuck it, that'll do...' actuality of much of what was allowed to pass for mainstream film-making in the Britain of the time.

neg

train_8342

pending

7f8060b3-7006-4052-8053-cf2b8c43d3c9

Truly a disgusting, vile film, with only a small amount of real humour.<br /><br />The character of the father in particular is vulgar in the extreme (intentionally so, obviously), and portrayed in the most pathetic, seedy manner.<br /><br />My wife and I found this film horribly upsetting, with absolutely no redeeming features at all. Frankly, I wish I had never seen it.<br /><br />I consider this British effort to be a sick and gross embarrassment.<br /><br />Those who enjoyed this film have an ability I totally lack: that of rejoicing in a display of deep depravity and squalor.<br /><br />The producers should be ashamed of themselves.

neg

train_8343

pending

018dd0b8-d595-451f-93e2-df5c714677b0

This film can be judged from three viewpoints: as history, as a profile of Amin, as a fictional thriller. <br /><br />It fails as history, it mentions in passing the coup that threw out Obote, the expulsion of the Asians, and has the Entebbe hi-jack as background, but not in any chronologically consistent time frame. <br /><br />As a profile of Amin it may have been interesting, because Forest Whitaker is incredibly good, and if this was a better film, he would get an Oscar. (He got it - which proves the Oscar voters don't watch the films they vote on.) It ignores relevant historical episodes in the novel, which observed Amin and the history of Uganda from the point of view of the doctor. It tells instead the fictitious story of the Scots doctor and his impossible love life from the point of view of Amin. But the story told is the one incident that Amin was probably innocent of. <br /><br />As a fictional thriller, there is no plot to hold it together. The beginning is taut - it takes cinematic liberties with the novel, but sets up the story. The character of the doctor is well-defined, but becomes lost in the second half of the film which suffers as a result.<br /><br />Why the doctor decides to stay in Kampala is badly explained - seduced by power? Why he befriends no-one is strange. The character of the friend in the novel has been lost because the Scotsman has the affair instead of the black doctor - a ludicrous entanglement which does not seem even faintly believable, but allows the writers of the film to show the ferocity of Amin close at hand. The Man called Horse bit at the end is risible. <br /><br />Finally in 1971, Uganda drove on the left, not right, the number plates were three letters and two or three numbers - and where are the Equator tusks?! <br /><br />In short - if you've never heard of Amin, you may want to spend two hours watching this film to appreciate Forest Whitaker's acting, but the last hour will bore you to confusion. If you know Uganda or have read the book - don't see the film - it will only depress you. And if you want to know why the doctor was so foolhardy - he wasn't.

neg

train_8344

pending

3bac8a8b-1845-47c0-9376-dcd19cc08e12

Forest Whitaker's performance is all the more impressive for making it almost worthwhile to sit through this dreck. "Historical fiction" does not justify changing history. The absurdity begins from the ground up with the imaginary lead character played by James McAvoy. To create a fictional observer for the purpose of giving the reader a point of connection in the book is regrettable, regrettable that white people can't just read a book without a white protagonist to connect to, but at least he was placed in a somewhat passive role. Making up a fake historical actor and crediting this fiction with exposing Amin to the world is irresponsible, lazy and stupid. Not making the actions of this creation believable or even sane is just criminal, and has opened the door for movies like the one they're planning to make with Leonardo DiCaprio as a heroic Enron whistleblower who NEVER EXISTED. The logic of the world does not apply in this film where some Scottish kid thinks its okay to sleep with the wife of a murderous dictator. It doesn't apply where the wife of the dictator desires to sleep with some stupid scrawny irresponsible white boy. For that matter EVERYBODY is lined up to sleep with this scrawny, irresponsible, arrogant white boy, he even has Gillian Anderson licking her comely chops.<br /><br />Let me declare, I do not like James McAvoy. I'm not sure what it is about him, but I thought his Mr. Tumnus in Narnia was creepy and pervy. I think that Kerry Washington would never look twice at him so I can't believe that the wife of a powerful dangerous man like Amin would risk and lose her life for him. I don't believe him as a Doctor, and I just don't see the appeal. His character seems to have far more arrogance than would make sense, and trying to make him look like a badass in shooting the cow was just...there's that word again...absurd. Think about it, you are watching all of these characters bend themselves into knots in order to accommodate this unbelievable main character and there never was such a guy.<br /><br />Gillian Anderson looks incredible and sounds more British than most Brits. Whitaker gives a great expansive magnetic performance, and highlighted, with his incomprehensible pre-Oscar speeches, just how much he was acting. It's a shame the film around him had no reason to exist.

neg

train_8345

pending

e67e937d-508b-4f9d-a718-49fcde0da6b4

Before I begin, I want to briefly say that this movie in and of itself is very well made and well acted by all involved, including Whittaker, who indeed deserves his nomination. It is highly entertaining, and . . . taken in the right context as a work of FICTION, it is a very good movie. For that, I give it the two stars.<br /><br />However, rather than wasting your time with what you can read a hundred times elsewhere, I want instead to point out the absolute fictional nature of this film and how dangerous it is to sell people a work of fiction as if it is truth. I stress that this film nowhere in the credits lets us know that the main character, Dr. Nicholas Garrigan, is a complete invention of fiction. Rather, it presents this character into a real historical setting, and allows the uninformed viewer to assume he was in fact real, and what they are seeing is the truth. I have no problem with the blending of fact and fiction - but to do so in such a dishonest matter is, in a word, reprehensible.<br /><br />There can be no doubt that Africa, along with most Third World Countries is rife with human misery and suffering. Hollywood has long attempted to capture the suffering of people in these countries on film. But Hollywood also has its eye toward making money. The only true way to capture the suffering that seems to happen everywhere but the West is to either experience it for yourself, or to at least have it captured in an honest documentary.<br /><br />But these depictions of fictional characters in real historical settings can only do so much. At the end of the day, they become less about presenting the facts for the viewer to decide for himself, and more about leading you from image to image and hitting you over the head screaming, "SEE, WE TOLD YOU IT WAS BAD!" The seminal example of this can be found by anyone willing to watch the documentary on the DVD after sitting through the movie. Arguably the most shocking image of the film is the viewing of the body of Kay Amin, Idi's second wife, whom he killed when he discovered her infidelity. In the film, we see that her limbs have been severed and reattached in reverse (arms for legs and vice-versa). This is the director making sure you understand that Amin is, as the Gungans say, Bom-bad! But watching the documentary, we learn that this is in fact nothing more than a myth, which the sitting Minister of Health at the time himself tells us is not true.<br /><br />So . . . what . . . they just MAKE UP these things? Why? Because Hollywood has a low opinion of our intelligence, that's why! They don't trust us to come to the right conclusion ourselves. Look, that she was murdered and dismembered is in itself enough for us to conclude that Amin was not the likable guy he portrayed to the media - we don't need this Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE inspired imagery to reinforce that! And this is just the tip of the iceberg. What is also not explained to the casual viewer is that lead character Garrigan is himself fictional. There was no young Scottish doctor taken under Amin's wing. As such, Garrigan is clearly present only for the sake of helping us dumb Westerners understand the African world. The producers seem to thing we won't be interested in a film about Africa unless there is a white face in it. (Ironically, even the titular character is portrayed by an American black actor!) The problem with this is that the movie is no longer an expose of Amin and his regime, but instead an exploitative thriller about a white Westerner coming to Africa for all the wrong reasons, making several horrible mistakes, and then "redeeming" himself, even at the cost of three other innocent lives. Honestly, I have to say it is nearly reprehensible to suggest that the real tragic death of Mrs. Amin was the result of a tryst with a fictional Scottish doctor - it almost seems to become a morbid joke for the sake of entertainment! I really wish Hollywood would stop jerking us around for our money. I first realized its propensity to do this with the woefully manipulative A BEAUTIFUL MIND, Ron Howard and Akiva Goldsman's sugary-sweet adaptation of the life of John Nash, which deleted the darker side of the man to present only the tortured hero that America just can't get enough of. The sad truth is that Hollywood has been selling us these fakes for years, and viewers, who are predictably and understandably too lazy or uncaring to investigate for themselves, buy these fake portraits hook, line, and sinker.<br /><br />Look, I'm certainly not suggesting Amin is being turned into a villain he wasn't. My point is, with the truth being so shocking enough to convince us of the brutality of the man, why must Hollywood then go to such fictional lengths? Why must Hollywood continue to insult us by holding our hands through these films? Why can they not trust us to think for ourselves!? Can we not just put the honest portrayals on screen and let the audience decide for themselves? I urge all who continue to watch Hollywood's purportedly "true" movies to do yourself the favor of ALWAYS investigating for yourself, and to NEVER assume that what is on screen is even close to the truth!

neg

train_8346

pending

e5867b93-6ef1-4d86-897a-a318d9412b33

Funny that I find myself forced to review this movie, but here I am.<br /><br />I am reviewing it, because just recently, I have had the chance to witness the revival of R.C. Sheriff's play "Journey's End" on stage in New York, at the Belasco Theatre, starring Hugh Darcy, Boyd Gaines, Jefferson Mays and others, as well as being masterfully directed by David Grindley.<br /><br />I left the theater shattered. I am not exaggerating, I was flabbergasted. After almost two and a half hours of a recreated and very claustrophobic depiction of soldier's life in the trenches of the Somme (I speculate), during World War One, brought to life vividly, by everyone involved, I came out of the theater with the shakes.<br /><br />Mind you, I am not easily shocked, nor am I too sensitive. I am a stage actor and a director myself, so I know the buttons being pressed to achieve certain effects, both emotionally, as well as psychologically.<br /><br />But what I had just witnessed, came so much to life, that I had chills in my spine as I left.<br /><br />None of these emotions came to life, while watching "Aces High", the movie based on this play and even adapted for the screen, in cooperation with R.C. Sheriff himself, shortly before he died.<br /><br />The screen adaptation takes place in the skies over France. So, gone is the claustrophobic ambiance to start with.<br /><br />The only plus of the movie, are the aerial battle scenes, which look dated in their special effects, compared to today's standards, but still very valid in the flying tactics adopted on screen.<br /><br />Granted there had been a couple of screen adaptations of "All Quiet on the Western Front" by Erich Maria Remarque, which takes place in trenches, and not in the sky, but that was the "German" vision on things, if one would like to be picky on such things.<br /><br />"Journey's End" is just the other side of the medal, and would have made it into a great movie, if they had left it alone and intact.<br /><br />The transfer on DVD is poor, even though in Widescreen and adapted for 16:9 TV screens, the quality of the film itself is that of a movie theater. Nothing more, nothing less. It sports various defects, such as minor scratches and dots, although the copy, for the rest, is clean.<br /><br />If you want another WWI movie in your collection, especially for those who love and enjoy to see aerial battles among old-timers, then this is a picture for you. But I rather would suggest "Von Richthofen and Brown" as an alternative, although that too, is a movie filled with inaccuracies.<br /><br />For the rest of you, who love good acting and drama, I would leave this one out. Buy the play. Go watch the play, if you have the chance to get a decent revival of it near you, but keep off this would-be adaptation.<br /><br />It is an anti-war movie, granted, but the weakest I have ever seen in my lifetime ever.<br /><br />The presence of actors such as Trevor Howard, Ray Milland, Richard Johnson and John Gielgud, is just a bluff, since they are just seen in very weak and very brief cameo roles throughout the movie.<br /><br />McDowell, the very talented Christopher Plummer, Simon Ward and Peter Firth, all deliver very weak performances, not due to their lack of skills, but rather due to lack of true and solid direction.<br /><br />There are too many gaps in it, and as said before, it drags itself to the dubious end. Dubious because in the original play, none of the men we come to know and sympathize with, stay alive. They are all killed in a fatal and futile mission. In the movie they all die, except Malcolm McDowell, who manages somehow to stay alive another day, being the wing commander of the unlucky bunch, just to receive another three pilots to fly and die for another lost cause.<br /><br />The end of the play leaves a bare stage in total darkness. You just hear the cannons roar, the machine guns rattle, and grenade impacts throughout the theater. Then, suddenly, total peace and silence. The curtain comes up. Lights. And here they all are. Lined up, standing straight and rigid. Obedient corpses...<br /><br />Far more interesting and far more shocking than "Aces High" finale, which is also dragged by the hair.<br /><br />It is up to you to judge.<br /><br />For me, if I had the money and the contacts to do so, I would take the play and develop it, the way it was meant. Adding here and there some action scene in the field, just to visualize the "outer" horror and slaughter going on in the "vasty fields of France", around the men involved, but then, just strictly concentrating on what is going on, in that tiny "shack" at the edge of sanity and the world...<br /><br />Want such a movie?<br /><br />Then ask for it.<br /><br />This is not it.

neg

train_8347

pending

b6166c60-1bf2-4e21-9d90-a6a4288e4c31

Despite the excellent cast, this is an unremarkable film, especially from the aviation perspective. It may be somewhat better than the egregious "von Richthofen and Brown" but not by much. "Blue Max" remains the best of a small market over the last 35 years while "Darling Lilli" is fun if not taken seriously. It's interesting to speculate what ILM could do with Zeppelins and Gothas in a new, high-quality WW I aero film.

neg

train_8348

pending

201e793d-5d3e-4ce0-910b-629a1190e48f

I had been looking forward to seeing Dreamgirls for quite a while...what with all it's raving reviews, nominations and media attention. And I must say, the first quarter of the movie was good! It really portrayed the black music scene back then. However, as the movie wore on, me and my whole family were bored out of our wits. The singing just kept coming, one after the other. I mean seriously, just one more music number and it would have broke even with RENT.<br /><br />Furthermore, I noticed hardly any character development in any of the characters; I just didn't care what happened to them! Even when Eddie Murphy's character died of a drug overdose, I knew I should have been sad, but I just couldn't feel any emotion for that character. The characters were given a flimsy background about singing in their childhood and whatnot, but there personalities were not revealed enough to draw me in.<br /><br />Finally, the conflict was simply not significant enough to make the viewer care, which goes along with the lack of character development. This movie reminded me of a copy-cat movie based on Ray, Chicago, and Rent (Ray and Chicago were wonderful movies in my opinion). Overall I think this movie would best suit someone who doesn't really care about an overall story, yet would enjoy two hours of entertaining and fun singing performances.

neg

train_8349

pending

d22d892c-5ece-426c-9d75-c512455816da

Yes there are great performances here. Unfortunately, they happen in the context of a movie that doesn't seem to have a clue what it's doing. During the first 45-60 minutes of this all the music takes place as realistic performance. Suddenly, about an hour in, the characters who, until this point, had always spoken to each other, suddenly start singing to each other. To further confuse things, a little further in, out of nowhere, they actually do about 15 minutes of sung-through dialog, then seem to drop that idea and move on to other things, such as a number that begins in a jazz club with a drummer and two electric guitars suddenly turning into a fully orchestrated piece with a massive unseen string section. On top of all this inconsistency in how the music is used, is the composers' clear inability to actually write music in the style that is supposedly being portrayed. While the first couple of pieces do sort of mimic the 1950s Motown sound, the rest of the film is just (bad) Broadway show music. Then there's the pure silliness of snippets of a group doing a bad Jackson family imitation and Eddie Murphy morphing from Little Richard to James Brown to Lionel Richie. When he started channeling Stevie Wonder I couldn't help laughing out loud. This was clearly one of those films that make me appreciate how little time I have on earth and resent that I wasted two hours of it watching this film.

neg

train_8350

pending

9823cc6b-ef02-4480-8ea7-90c03cf82aae

I anticipated the release of the film as much as any fan of the Broadway play. I waited and read reviews for months about the award winning performances. I mean with the star power of Eddie Murphy, Jamie Foxx, Beyonce Knowles, Danny Glover... the movie couldn't be less than 4 out of 4 stars, right? WRONG! I was definitely disappointed by the finished product. The film did not match up to the publicity hype it was given and the only saving graces were Eddie Murphy, Anika Noni Rose and Jennifer Hudson.<br /><br />Eddie Murphy's James Brownesque performance rescues the movie just when it hits its multiple lulls and Jennifer Hudson's performance compels you to pay attention each time she's on screen. Her performance of "And I Am Telling You" was the only time that I felt the hype was deserved. You cringed as she begged her no good man to let her stay in the group and in his life. As many reviewers have stated, she steals the movie from the more experienced actors and deserves all the accolades she's receiving for this performance. Anika Noni Rose was also a strong presence with a great voice and comedic talent. <br /><br />Jamie Foxx and Beyonce Knowles, on the other hand, cruised through their performances. Foxx's acting skills for this film seemed to predate his extraordinary "Ray" performance and Beyonce Knowles was on an extended fashion photo shoot or video taping, posing and shimmying her way through the movie. Her performance wasn't strong enough to make you care about her character at any point in the film.<br /><br />The movie was too hyped, 30 minutes and 1 song (Beyonce's "heartfelt" solo to Jamie Foxx) too long.<br /><br />DH -- Vancouver, WA

neg

train_8351

pending

bd2011b9-5aab-4387-8a93-89cfd4e5cd2f

It makes sense to me that this film is getting raves from Hollywood because oftentimes in Hollywood it's all just a popularity contest. It also makes sense when you think that people who are liking the film may just be reacting to the countless songs being spit out at you rather than story content. Yet, this film is overrated and overblown. Eddie Murphy looks just ridiculous. No way do Jeniffer Hudson and Beyonce Knowles give the Oscar rated performance so many have raved over BEFORE the film was even out. I can't even believe that Condon is being set up to be nominated for a Directing Oscar when all he did was put together an album. Glitz does not replace a nothing storyline. A bunch of songs does not a movie make.

neg

train_8352

pending

f2a75efd-17e1-439a-89ac-e694249bd5c5

This was longer than the Ten Commandments, All Lord of the Rings and the Matrix Trilogy combined. My oh My, what a nightmare. This is the single biggest over-hype of 2006. THere is not a moment that is not scripted and clichéd. Movie Musicals can be done brilliantly and bring genuine excitement to the viewer. Dreamgirls takes the route of Chinese Water Torture, in the form of endless music montages, shoddy acting, and poor directing choices (Seriously, Mr. Condon, did you HAVE to do the old Billboard countdown shots? It's at #58! No wait, look its rising up the charts and here is the passing Billboard notice to show you again....and again....and again)

neg

train_8353

pending

acde0e3c-57e5-45ec-bcc1-388b67c9f920

Yeah. Pretty sure I saw this movie years ago when it was about the Supremes.<br /><br />Another recycled storyline glitzed up Hollywood-style, borrowing scripts from better making-it-in-the-music-industry films.<br /><br />Nothing original here.<br /><br />More make-up, glammier costumes and choreography = more money for the questionably "talented" Beyonce draw.<br /><br />If you like the throwback style, you should appreciate actual groups who struggled (without having digitized voices and a Hollywood empire).<br /><br />Beyonce's involvement makes this hypocritical garbage.

neg

train_8354

pending

f9c737b7-0358-4f0b-b5d4-b3cbfc93bc2e

Dreamgirls, despite its fistful of Tony wins in an incredibly weak year on Broadway, has never been what one would call a jewel in the crown of stage musicals. However, that is not to say that in the right cinematic hands it could not be fleshed out and polished into something worthwhile on-screen. Unfortunately, what transfers to the screen is basically a slavishly faithful version of the stage hit with all of its inherent weaknesses intact. First, the score has never been one of the strong points of this production and the film does not change that factor. There are lots of songs (perhaps too many?), but few of them are especially memorable. The closest any come to catchy tunes are the title song and One Night Only - the much acclaimed And I Am Telling You That I Am Not Going is less a great song than it is a dramatic set piece for the character of Effie (Jennifer Hudson). The film is slick and technically well-produced, but the story and characters are surprisingly thin and lacking in any resonance. There is some interest in the opening moments, watching Jamie Foxx's Svengali-like manager manipulate his acts to the top, but that takes a back seat in the latter portion of the film, when the story conveniently tries to cast him as a villain, despite his having been right from a business stand-point for a good majority of the film. Beyonce Knowles is lovely and sings her songs perfectly well, but is stuck with a character who is basically all surface glitz. Anika Noni Rose as the third member of the Dreamgirls trio literally has nothing to do for the entire film. Eddie Murphy acquits himself well as a singer obviously based on James Brown, but the role is not especially meaty and ultimately has little impact. Foxx would seem ideal casting, but he seems oddly withdrawn and bored. The film's biggest selling point is surely former American Idol contestant/Oscar winner Jennifer Hudson in the central role of Effie White, the temperamental singer who gets booted from the group and makes a triumphant closing act return. For me, Effie has always been a big problem in both the show and the movie. The film obviously wants you to feel sorry for her and rather ham-handedly takes her side, but I have never been sure that this character deserves that kind of devotion. From the start, Effie conducts herself for the most part like an obnoxious, egotistical, self-centered diva, who is more interested in what everyone else can do for her rather than having much vested interest in the group of which she is a part. When she is booted from the group for her unprofessionalism and bad attitude, the charges are more than well-founded, but the stage show/film seem to think Effie should be cut unlimited slack simply because she has a great voice. Even though the film tries to soften some of Effie's harder edges to make her more likable, the charges still stand. Her story becomes more manipulative by suggesting she should have our further sympathy because she is an unwed mother struggling to raise her daughter - using the implication that (much like the talent card) motherhood immediately makes any behavior excusable. Indeed the only big effort the film makes to show Effie's mothering is to tell us about it and then include a scene where she barks at her daughter in the unemployment office, insists that the girl has "no father" and then refuse to look for gainful employment to support them since singing is all she knows. In the hands of a skillful actress, the gaps could perhaps have been remedied with technique and charisma. Unfortunately, Hudson is not that actress. She sings well, but the dialog-driven moments do not come naturally to her nor do high emotional moments. Effie's signature moment (the aforementioned And I Am Telling You... number) is well-sung by Hudson, but emotionally flat in the acting department. Effie is supposed to expressing her rage and desperation at her predicament, but Hudson comes off as a cabaret performer belting out a hot number. All in all, not quite the emotional highlight one expects. The latter portion of the film is basically a predictable melange of events that maneuver Foxx into Hudson's earlier position and allow her to strut back in and lord it over everyone. Foxx's criminal offenses in the film are undoubtedly par for the course of many struggling record producers, but the film's seeming implication that he has it coming because he helped usher in the disco era is rather ridiculous, not to mention pretentious and condescending, particularly coming from a film with all of the depth of a puddle. The end result is a faithful rendition of the stage hit, drained of emotion, energy or anything that can be described as dynamic.

neg

train_8355

pending

212d2556-d8a7-42bf-9117-a47d143e9c96

I just saw DreamGirls yesterday, and I was REALLY underimpressed. Despite all the Oscar buzz, this is nothing special. Anyone who was really impressed by this film has never bothered to see any of the true movie musical classics. Except for Eddie Murphy's great musical and dramatic performance, Dreamgirls is just a glorified TV movie with no style or flair. Just a bunch of amateurs singing AT each other!<br /><br />Now, the first half hour was good, but I was irritated at how Eddie Murphy's terrific raveup performances were truncated and interrupted by montages. Those were easily the best songs and best performances in the film. And the "rise to the top" portion of the film was the only part of the film that had a consistent point of view or any momentum. The remaining hour and 45 minutes was a formless, rambling mess that was neither realistic nor fantastic enough to be interesting. It was also visually dull and included too many sound-alike tunes.<br /><br />Condon didn't try to turn any of the tunes into big show pieces as I'd expected they would. Each number in the 2nd half was just one closeup after another of people "singing" AT each other. And the way they shot Hudson's big "love me" number was criminal! Condon just shot her stomping around the stage--no drama at all! God it sucked!<br /><br />AND note to all involved--that "sing-talking dialog" stuff might work on stage, but it DOES NOT WORK IN MOVIES (see embarrassing failures of Evita and Phantom). All that "I'll teeeell youuuu something Efff-ieeee!" crap should have been left on the editing room floor. Those aren't "songs."<br /><br />Again, the film--except for Eddie Murphy's amazing performance--was nothing more than a glorified TV movie. There must have been megabucks behind the PR work for this film! I wonder how much money was spent to give it that pre-release "one to beat" Oscar buzz? As a whole this film was, except for Eddie, NOWHERE NEAR an Oscar caliber movie! (except for Eddie) I'd rank it right up there with Grease 2. BIG disappointment, especially after all the (very expen$I've) hype!

neg

train_8356

pending

925efc85-4c76-4ae8-98a7-33cb945ff8ae

We expected something great when we went to see this bomb. It is basically a Broadway play put on film. The music is plain terrible. There isn't one memorable song in the movie -- heard any hits from this movie? You won't because there aren't any. Some of the musical numbers go on so long that I got up to go to the restroom and get some pop corn and it was still going when I got back! If they were good songs well -- but they suck. The pace is slow, terrible character development. The lead was praised for her singing but sounded like she screamed every song -- it was almost impossible to stand. This movie has NOTHING to offer anyone but die-hard Broadway enthusiasts. This is without a doubt the most over rated movie I've seen in my entire life. A complete waist of time and money. There is nothing memorable about this movie except Danny Glover -- who wasn't on screen enough and whose character wasn't developed enough. Rent the video and you'll agree -- this movie was an expensive, over produced, polished dog do.

neg

train_8357

pending

fc16a8dd-0abd-43bc-8f37-7ab32c8d31db

This movie is all flash and no soul. The actors put a lot of passion into the numbers, but these numbers often didn't connect with the film and felt like stand-alone music videos. And no effort was made to make the numbers sound as if they were happening right there in front of you, every single one sounds like its coming from a studio, essentially sucking all the life from the songs. Off the stage the performances were all dull and unrealized, especially Hudson, who essentially plays the same angry, "strong" (she's stubborn and selfish) black woman we've seen before. There was absolutely no depth to her character, nor any of the other female leads. Though I think the movie wants us to believe that Hudson's character faces hardship because of her weight, it is really her own refusal to do what's best for the team that lands her in trouble, making the end of the film totally meaningless. Hudson's Academy Award is a joke, there was no justification. When she sang, she put forth emotion (though it was often misplaced, but this was the writer/director's fault), but when she was just acting, she did nothing to flesh out an already underwritten character. Eddie Murphy's character is the only one with an arc, and he did a fine job, but still not Oscar worthy. The only actor who really brought something to the roll was Danny Glover, who took a small, relatively unimportant character and made something real out of it. There is nothing here to sink your teeth into, no drama or heart, or even laughs. The placement of the musical numbers was so bad that at times the movie almost seemed to be making fun of musicals instead of being one; the number when Hudson is arguing with the other girls is so long-winded if it had been any longer it could pass for a Family Guy skit. The movie has no idea what it's about, and I felt insulted by the last few minutes. It's a big, boring waste of time, and really is the worst film I saw in '06, and nothing last year was really stellar to begin with.

neg

train_8358

pending

c7233686-4f85-41fe-8ae0-395545195904

Eddie Murphy for best supporting actor??? What an insult to Alan Arkin and Djimon Hounsou. <br /><br />Jamie Foxx (who can act) walks through this film like a zombie. <br /><br />Beyonce ??? That was acting??? <br /><br />This movie pales in comparison to CHICAGO or just about any other recent musical. <br /><br />If it were not for the great singing and performance of Jennifer Hudson I would have given this a ZERO.<br /><br />And no I never saw the stage play so I am not making the typical Broadway vs. Hollywood rap.

neg

train_8359

pending

1c664195-fa79-4371-92d1-52ca41ca08a1

Wow, this is very unusual in one regard: usually the first movie in a long string of sequels is the best of the bunch. People are surprised when a sequel is actually better. With Tarzan, I thought this movie was the worst of the bunch, or at least the first six which comprise my Tarzan Collection DVD package. I will gladly watch the sequels multiple times but I am through sitting through this turkey, thanks to several characters.<br /><br />Well, let's start with the good news first:<br /><br />THE GOOD - Plenty of action with a lot of wild animals on display, even if they are just stock footage. You see lion attacks, crocodiles, hippos, panthers, you name it, and you see several of the different tribes of all kinds, including pygmies (called "dwarfs" in the movie.) Since this movie was made almost 75 years ago, I can't knock any of the realism because they didn't have it in the movies that long ago. They do the best they can so you put up with actors talking in front of fake backgrounds. However, Weissmuller did a lot of action scenes and was in great shape. He and O'Sullivan make a well-built handsome couple, if there ever was one in those Golden Years of cinema.<br /><br />The film has historical value (with so many sequels) in that it shows how Tarzan acquired Jane and his beginnings of learning the English language.<br /><br />The BAD - From the moment "Jane Parker" is taken by Tarzan almost every scene with her is Maureen O'Sullivan in hysterics, shrieking and screaming scene after scene. It's enough to give you a headache and it ruins the film. Thankfully, she calmed down in the sequels, but not in this movie. The movie also does no favors for "The Great White Hunter" image as C. Aubrey Smith, playing Jane's father, and Neil Hamilton, as "Harry Holt," the safari guide, shoot at every animal within sight, whether the beasts is threatening or not. These people are kill- happy, particularly Smith. On another note, it's too bad there isn't anything in here explaining how Tarzan got to be in the jungle in the first place. There is no history of him in here or footage of his growing up. He's just there when Jane and the group get to a certain point in Africa.

neg

train_8360

pending

976af851-1ea7-4c90-8ead-1619c01417a9

From the stupid "quaint African natives" travelogue footage with our badly-superimposed principals acting as narrators, to the horrible fake ears which transform docile Indian elephants into African elephants, to the utter lack of any logic at all, to Maureen O'Sullivan's incessant whining of "Tarzan! Tarzan!", there is nothing about this movie which deserves classic status.<br /><br />4/10

neg

train_8361

pending

38462294-8efb-495d-af3e-99e37570d3bd

A memorable line from a short lived show. After viewing the episode where that line was introduced my fraternity intramural flag football team started using the line to break our huddles on offense. Instead of Ready / Break, our quarter back said FOOTBALL and the rest of the squad responded YOU BET! A fun way to break the huddle that had our opponents scratching their heads as very few of them had watched the show. Using this line added a unique element to our season that I'll never forget. We had our best season during my time in college that year and in a small way it was due to the fun that we had using this line. The show was pretty much a stinker but it lives on in the memories of the 1977 Pi Kappa Phi intramural flag football squad at West Virginia Tech.

neg

train_8362

pending

7c49b440-8550-4d88-b46a-4c2eb510826e

Before seeing this movie, I was expecting a fictional drama based loosely on ideas from the book; instead, it's the book, interrupted with dramatic scenes illustrating the different "illnesses." That didn't bother me much, but it hindered my enjoyment of the film. One story or even two or three long stories with excerpts from the book interspersed through the movie would have been preferable, in my opinion. If you're going to base a movie on a psychology text, you've got to find a more interesting (and preferably accurate) text than this one. The film drags during parts where it's little more than a video encyclopedia of 19th century sexual psychology and would be utterly intolerable if it weren't sexual in nature (because "sex = interesting" for most of us, even me). Luckily, there are several stories with actual character development that pull us in.<br /><br />But, disappointingly, Krafft-Ebing's theories of sexuality went unchallenged, for the most part. I was hoping it would use stories to show how the imperfections of his archaic view of psychology which is still held by many to this day.<br /><br />So, in the end, what do you have? A detailed catalog of a few fetishes and orientations, with some mildly interesting stories showing the trials and tribulations of a few "sexual deviants" before they are cured. For most of the film, the film moves with the crawling speed (and mood) of a wake. And, as an obviously low budget film, the cinematography and acting are not exactly top tier. Although I *was* pleased with the music, costume and interior design.<br /><br />I felt this film's subject was right up my alley, and I still feel it's a below average film. It deserves a 3/10; a 4/10 if I were feeling extremely generous. I can't imagine anyone enjoying this if they didn't already have an interest in sexual fetishism.

neg

train_8363

pending

a34cfc6d-8b42-40db-b8b9-cce6f1d5881e

I have three comments to make about this film, which I discovered hanging out forlornly in a lower shelf at Blockbuster. First off, it is interesting to see the approaches film makers take in trying to film essentially unfilmable works. Some have, as Kubrick did with "Lolita", gotten the original author to write a screenplay that is something like the original work. Of course that can't happen here; Kraft-Ebing is long dead. Some have used the premises of the original work as a launch point to go in a completely new, unrelated direction (the recent adaptation of "Tristram Shandy" comes to mind here). You can dumb it down - the film of "Slaughterhouse Five" is to my mind an example of that. Or you can simply take the format of the original and try to render it in cinematic vignettes. That would be the approach of Woody Allen's "Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex", and, arguably, this film. Upon consideration, it is probably the only thing one can do with a scholarly work like "Psychopathia Sexualis". The potential loss is that whatever cumulative point the original work had is obscured or destroyed. And so it is here.<br /><br />Point two is the cinematic style. Some would call it an "homage" to Murnau, Pabst, Carl Dreyer, etc., but I think it more crude than that. Its far too heavy handed and self-conscious to be effective for long. It is eventually just annoying.<br /><br />Point three is perhaps a less intellectual observation. How did the people responsible for this manage to make a film about wild sexual deviations and perversion that is so incredibly boring? I found the film impossible to pay attention to, and anyone who is not automatically drawn to depictions of sexual deviance will find it so as well. I don't want to be completely uncharitable and say the film is pointless, but I have to say that whatever point the film makers had is rather obscured by the nature of the source material, the overt copying of filmic styles, and the stubborn refusal to engage the audience on an emotional level (possibly for fear of being accused of titillation).<br /><br />The film is a dubious exercise from the start and doesn't really work for me, I'm sorry to say.

neg

train_8364

pending

320c31dc-7fbe-4902-854e-1ea3bddbcc72

I gave this a four purely out of its historical context. It was considered lost for many years until it popped up out of the blue on Showtime in the early nineties.<br /><br />Moe is the straight man and Larry and Curly act as a duo. Spade Cooley has a couple of numbers. I guess it had something to do with working on a ranch. I'm not quite sure because the plot was so minimal nothing really sticks in my memory. I vaguely remember it being a western musical comedy. Even the Stooge's seem to be going through the motions. Overall there's nothing much really to recommend here.<br /><br />If you're not a Stooge fan then don't bother. If you are a Stooge fan, then stick with the shorts.

neg

train_8365

pending

3064ce14-0d42-4d04-91df-6facd0e8a515

The Three Stooges in a feature length western comedy-musical? Perhaps "Rockin' in the Rockies" was meant to combine the Stooges comedy short with the western musical, in a matinée; if so, this was a pleasant way to break up a Saturday afternoon. Jay Kirby (as Rusty) is a handsome young hero; and, Mary Beth Hughes (as the blonde June) and Gladys Blake (as the brunette Betty) are pretty women. The Hoosier Hotshots are a harmonious group; their songs are quite tuneful; however, this is the 1940s, not the 1950s, so the film doesn't exactly "rock". There are a few laughs; but the Stooges' brand of humor is more subdued than usual. The talking horse is also underutilized. <br /><br />**** Rockin' in the Rockies (4/17/45) Vernon Keays ~ Moe Howard, Larry Fine, Curly Howard, Mary Beth Hughes

neg

train_8366

pending

800d0cf2-ed20-4696-b349-c45bfcfdb7a9

Having just seen this on TMC, it's fresh in my mind. It's obvious that while the stooges are featured stars, they don't really run the show. First, they're broken into 2 groups - Moe, as "Shorty" and Larry and Curly as a pair of vagrants, so there's not a whole lot of full team work. The love story that fuels the plot is uninteresting, the two ladies are the only ones with any acting ability, there's another group of musical stooges that are unfunny, unless you consider their attempts at being funny to be sadly buffoonish. The music is tiresome, they drive cars to the ranch and then depend on horses, the dorky western wear is silly, and there's an awful lot of the movie with no stooges on camera. By the way, this is obviously after Curley's first stroke, and his reduced energy level is clear. Vernon Dent appears early on in an uncredited role. I loved everything these guys ever did, including all the non-Curley stuff, but this little dogie is pretty lousy.

neg

train_8367

pending

bfd1370a-e2fa-4032-b8e0-ed3e1b3c6180

Not even the most ardent stooge fan could possibly like the movie, (I one of them) the stooges just aren't given any material to work with. It is really a shame too because this is the only feature length movie the stooges did with Curly, and this one effort by them is painfully unfunny, when it could have had great potential. Awful musical numbers don't help any either. The short they did with the same title has more laughs.

neg

train_8368

pending

02cda7f0-c6d8-4454-8357-68089c58c545

I am a huge Stooges fan but the one and only redeeming quality this movie has is that Curley is in it. Done long before he started drinking heavily he is his classic self in this (and Larry's not bad either). Moe's character is a straight part (mostly) and this movie would be better named "The Curley and Larry Movie". Not that any of the Stooges movies were very good (in my opinion), but as one commenter here said, how sad it is that this movie had real potential. The casting was good, it was well directed, filmed, and edited, but the story line tried to be about something serious with just some Stooges antics and musical numbers (which I guess were good back then) thrown in. The best thing you can do for yourself during this movie should you actually believe that it has to be better than mowing the lawn and taking out the trash (which is subject to debate) is to wait for Curley/Larry scenes and sleep or find something in the kitchen to eat during the rest of it.

neg

train_8369

pending

def336f6-87df-428b-8b33-998344f1767c

Schlocky '70s horror films...ya gotta love 'em. In contrast to today's boring slasher flicks, these K-tel specials actually do something scary and do not resort to a tired formula.<br /><br />This is a B movie about the making of a B movie...that went horribly wrong. Faith Domergue (This Island Earth) stars as an over-the-hill, B movie queen making a movie about a series of grisly murders that befell a family in their home. Her boyfriend/director, who looks and acts like Gordon Jump with an attitude, is filming on location and on a tight schedule. The Ken doll co-star discovers a book of Tibetian chants that they work into the script to add "realism". Unfortunately, "realism" is something they could have done without.<br /><br />John Carradine, having long since given up looking for the 17th gland (The Unearthly), now eeks out a humble existence as the caretaker for the estate. He goes about his daily work, but always seems to run afoul of the director.<br /><br />The horror builds slowly; a dead cat here, John Carradine entering a grave there, finally culminating in seven, yes seven murders. (At least there's truth in advertising.) It's just sad that the ghoul didn't understand that there was a movie being made above him. How was poor Faith to know that those darn Tibetian chants would actually work? Face it, you just can't go around tugging on Satan's coat and expect him to take it lying down.<br /><br />Sterno says perform an autopsy on The House of Seven Corpses.

neg

train_8370

pending

af0190aa-632a-48fc-b4e0-1049f0412e0d

After reading the previous comments, I'm just glad that I wasn't the only person left confused, especially by the last 20 minutes. John Carradine is shown twice walking down into a grave and pulling the lid shut after him. I anxiously awaited some kind of explanation for this odd behavior...naturally I assumed he had something to do with the evil goings-on at the house, but since he got killed off by the first rising corpse (hereafter referred to as Zombie #1), these scenes made absolutely no sense. Please, if someone out there knows why Carradine kept climbing down into graves -- let the rest of us in on it!! <br /><br />All the action is confined to the last 20 minutes so I'll attempt a synopsis. John Carradine comes out to the cemetery to investigate, and is throttled by Zombie #1. So far, so good. But then we get the confusing scene where John Ireland and Jerry Strickler, out for a little moonlight filming in the graveyard, discover Carradine's dead body. Strickler repeatedly tries to push Ireland into the open grave from whence Zombie #1 had emerged, but Ireland succeeds in flipping him into the open grave instead, and PRESTO! Strickler comes out as Zombie #2! Yeah, I guess we can infer that Strickler was dead all-along (a witch?), but why he changed from normal appearance into rotting-flesh version by flying into Zombie #1's grave is never explained. (Considering how excruciatingly slow-moving these zombies are, I'd of thought he would have preferred to stay in his "normal" form until his business was concluded). This scene also brings a question to mind -- just who the heck IS Zombie #1 ??? We can only assume Zombie #1 is one of the original murder victims shown during the movie's opening credits, but who knows which one, nor why he has a particular grudge against the film crew.<br /><br />Anyway, after Ireland sees this transformation and runs away, we see the EXACT SAME SHOT of Zombie #2 shambling through the trees as we saw for Zombie #1. (This leads to momentary confusion over just how MANY zombies there really are). Then in best 1950's horror-movie fashion Ireland manages to trip while fleeing. He conveniently knocks his head on the small headstone of Faith Domergue's dead cat (wasn't that nice of John Carradine to chisel a tombstone for a cat that he barely knew?)<br /><br />Meanwhile, Zombie #1 has been wrecking havoc up at the house. He easily dispatches three film-crew members, then starts up the stairs. Faith Domergue hears him, and thinking it's lover John Ireland back from his night-shoot, goes out. Upon seeing it's only Zombie #1, she lets out a scream and retreats into a bedroom where she retrieves Ireland's revolver. While starlet Carole Wells is showering at this point and can't hear the scream, her co-star Charles Macauley (who's boozing and hamming it up at a mirror in his bedroom) does. Taking his sweet time (and only after some more swigs from his hip-flask) he finally decides to investigate. (One thing that strikes the viewer during the last quarter of this movie is how SLOW TO REACT the stars are to screams and gunshots). Domergue comes back out into the hallway armed and ready, but mistakes Macauley for Zombie #1 and shoots him six times! He does a nice acrobatic flip over the railing, then a horrified Domergue backs up, right into the waiting arms of Zombie #1.<br /><br />Carole Wells is by now out of her shower and drying off when she hears gunshots and Domergue's screams; she too feels no great urgency in running out to investigate. So during this time Zombie #1 has time to string Domergue up from the neck with a rope. Wells sees Domergue's hanging corpse and faints dead-away. The next time we see her is in a stream outside the house (???) -- but more on that later. Meantime, Ireland has recovered his senses and stumbles into the house where he discovers Zombie #1's bloody carnage. Though Ireland has just stumbled upon 3 murdered people he's more concerned that his film has been exposed and ruined! Mercifully for him (and the audience), Zombie #1 throws some movie equipment down on his head from the 2nd floor. That's the last we see of Zombie #1. At this point the audience is treated to a montage of all the deaths, showing that the new ones "mirror" the old ones. How profound.<br /><br />Zombie #2, meanwhile, has gotten near the house (remember, these zombies move as slow as molasses in January) where he happens to see Carole Wells floating by in a stream, and fishes her out. How did she get there? Did Zombie #1 carry her down, throw her in, then zoom back upstairs just in time to crush John Ireland? Apparently one of the original victims was drowned in the tub, so Wells has to drown too (but why outside in a stream, instead of in the tub, is never explained). Zombie #2 never makes it into the house himself (everyone's dead by now, anyways, thanks to Zombie #1) but instead he carries Carol Wells back to the graveyard. As the end credits flash on screen, we see Zombie #2 with his dead love still in his arms, descending into the open grave.<br /><br />The viewer is left wondering: Yes, but wasn't this Zombie #1's grave? Why is Zombie #2 taking up residence? And what if Zombie #1 comes along and wants to climb back in -- is Zombie #2 gonna let him, or will there be a zombie fight? Will the zombies share both the grave and the newly deceased Carole Wells? And what about now-dead John Carradine -- where's he gonna stay? After all, from the earlier scenes we know he's clearly at home in the grave... If this plot synopsis of the finale has left you confused, don't worry cause you're not alone.

neg

train_8371

pending

61e2aafd-873a-4e8f-80c0-55bae96ec441

...but I've seen better too.<br /><br />The story here is predictable--a film crew trying to film a horror movie in a place where murders occurred. Three guesses what happens. This isn't a total bomb--the cast is fairly good with pros John Ireland, Faith Domergue and John Carradine giving the best performances. It's reasonably well-made--for a low budget film. Just don't expect any nudity, swearing, blood OR gore (the film has a very mild PG rating). I was never totally bored--it's OK viewing on a quiet night. I saw it on video--it was a HORRIBLE print--very dark and some scenes were impossible to see. Still I didn't hate it and it does have a cool ending which surprised me--basically nothing happens up till then so it catches you off guard. Worth seeing but only if you're a horror film completest.

neg

train_8372

pending

223a659f-860d-4457-923d-581f9b4618f1

- A film crew is shooting a horror movie in an old, supposedly cursed house where over the years, seven people have mysteriously died. One of the crew finds an old book of spells and it looks like it would be perfect to use in some of the ritual scenes in their movie. It is reasoned that the spells in the book are better written than the script they are using. But as the book is read, the graveyard outside suddenly comes to life. Now the cast and crew are faced with real danger .<br /><br />- IMDb lists a running time of 90 minutes. For the first 60 of those minutes, nothing happens. Far too much time is spent on the movie within a movie. Are we supposed to be frightened by the horror movie that they are shooting? We already know that their movie isn't "real". These scares just don't work.<br /><br />- There are very few things to enjoy about The House of Seven Corpses. The acting is atrocious. Most of these "actors" would have trouble making a elementary school play. The score is terrible. It is very reminiscent of a 70s television series and provides no atmosphere. Speaking of atmosphere, other than a few moments at the end of the movie, there is none to speak of. Character logic is all but non-existent. Even in a movie, you expect characters to behave in a certain way. Here, I don't think I remember one scene where a character didn't choose the most illogical avenue available to them. And finally, there's those first 60 minutes of the movie that I've already mentioned. Can you say BORING? <br /><br />- I haven't rated The House of Seven Corpses any lower because of instances where the movie (probably by accident) actually works. My two favorite are the beginning and ending. The opening title sequence presents the deaths of the seven previous owners and may be the highlight of the movie. And, the ending scenes on the massive staircase as the zombie menaces the film crew are somewhat effective (what a ringing endorsement). Overall though, these moments aren't enough to make this a good movie.

neg

train_8373

pending

84fee741-4cbc-4be7-a48a-9e9ed9a0b15f

Ostensibly this is a Z-grade DTV horror film.<br /><br />But with lines like :<br /><br />"It's easy to die, I have, many times"<br /><br />and<br /><br />"Why are you reading that book ?" "Because it makes the plot more interesting"<br /><br />and<br /><br />"You made your way in here, now you can make your way out again !" (after he leads a man into the basement)<br /><br />(and take a listen to what they chant)<br /><br />- it's not that clear what this film, made in the era known for post-structuralism, is actually about, or whether its just bad film-making. The acting is atrocious, but some actors I know, so are they hamming it up ?<br /><br />An old house, cut obviously with a contemporary dwelling, is the site of murders. A (bad) film is made in the grounds and the story replays again.

neg

train_8374

pending

23bab625-411d-4cc8-8d6f-0919b6bdf7a6

John Carradine, John Ireland, and Faith Domergue who as players all saw better days in better films got together for this Grade G horror film about life imitating art in a mysterious mansion.<br /><br />For Carradine it was in those last two decades of his career that he appeared in anything on the theory it was better to keep working no matter what you did and get those paychecks coming in. With that magnificent sonorous voice of his, Carradine was always in great demand for horror pictures and the man did not discriminate in the least in what he appeared in.<br /><br />He plays the caretaker of an old Gothic mansion who movie director John Ireland has rented for his latest low budget slasher film. It's even got a graveyard, but with a missing occupant. Faith Domergue is Ireland's aging star and Carole Wells is the young ingenue.<br /><br />In the last twenty minutes or so most of the cast winds up dead that aren't dead already. The script is so incoherent I'm still trying to figure out the point. I won't waste any more gray matter on it.

neg

train_8375

pending

8696b6cd-86ea-48ee-a0a8-077d0bb65305

This is the type of movie where it actually hurts to acknowledge that it really, really sucks. I normally sanctify stuff like this! Early 70's grindhouse flicks with scrumptious sounding titles and a schlocky low-budget atmosphere usually ROCK. "House of Seven Corpses" appeared to dispose of even more trumps, since the cast is a gathering of great genre veterans (including John Carradine, John Ireland and Faith Domergue) and the filming locations (the titular house, the graveyard) are obviously very expedient for a gloomy tale of terror. The film opens with its absolute greatest and most hauntingly memorable sequences, though sadly enough they're the only ones that qualify as such. The credits are a splendid montage, complete with freakish color-effects and eerie freeze-frames, illustrating how the titular house received its notorious reputation. The last seven owners were mysteriously murdered here and the credits montage gleefully exhibits their final moments. Someone falls down the balcony screaming, a lady drowns in her bathtub, and another female body hangs dangling from the ceiling and four more macabre tableaux. Needless to say the house is cursed and the awkward behavior of t caretaker Mr. Price (Carradine) only fortify this reputation. In other words, the house forms the ideal turf for the acclaimed director Eric Hartman (John Ireland) to shoot his satanic horror film project. The film-within-film structure is what mainly causes "House of Seven Corpses" to be so boring and uneventful. A lot of movie-material is wasted on crew members putting films spools in the camera and dragging around cables or – even worse – Faith Domergue and Charles Macaulay portraying horridly intolerable actor stereotypes. The plot finally gets a little interesting (only a little, mind you) when one of the characters reads some lines from an occult book and accidentally awakes a rotting corpse in the backyard. The asthmatic (judging by the noises he produces) zombie slowly heads for the house and kills the entire movie crew, reminiscent of how the previous seven turned into corpses. After a running time of approximately 60 minutes, the film suddenly turns from humdrum into just plain weird and confusing. I'm still unsure whether the final twist has to do with the concept of reincarnation or just coincidence and all the remaining characters suddenly seem to go undergo vast mental transformations shortly before they die, for some reason. I honestly regret confirming "House of Seven Corpses" is a pretty dreadful movie. The locations and scenery are gloomy chilling, but not nearly used to full effect and there's a serious lack of gruesome bloodshed. Numerous low-budgeted 70's gems were stunningly gross, so the lack of financial means is no excuse and the film-within-film murders really don't count. Even the always-reliable veteran stars deliver hammy performances and Harrison's direction is completely uninspired. Not recommended, unless you think the zero cool four-and-a-half minute playing opening credits montage is worth the effort of purchasing a copy.

neg

train_8376

pending

3d8eaddb-8834-4a34-a0c8-22e2e0ff5f44

Well...now that I know where Rob Zombie stole the title for his "House of 1,000 Corpses" crapfest, I can now rest in peace. Nothing about the somnambulant performances or trite script would raise the dead in "The House of Seven Corpses," but a groovie ghoulie comes up from his plot (ha!) anyway, to kill the bloody amateurs making a low-rent horror flick in his former abode! In Hell House (sorry, I don't remember the actual name of the residence), a bunch of mysterious, unexplained deaths took place long ago; some, like arthritic Lurch stand-in John Carradine (whose small role provides the film's only worthwhile moments), attribute it to the supernatural; bellowing film director John Ireland dismisses it as superstitious hokum. The result comes across like "Satan's School for Girls" (catchy title; made-for-TV production values; intriguing plot) crossed with "Children Shouldn't Play With Dead Things" (low-rent movie about low-rent movie makers who wake the dead); trouble is, it's nowhere near as entertaining or fun. "The House of Seven Corpses" is dead at frame one, and spends the rest of its 89 minutes going through rigor mortis, dragging us along for every aching second...

neg

train_8377

pending

0d44ebbd-281b-416f-a930-e32ebe52f5aa

A director and his crew head out to the isolated Beal mansion, to make a low-budget horror film about the seven mysterious deaths of the Beal family that have occurred there in the last century. Even with warnings by the caretaker, the director pays no attention to the supposedly cursed house. One of the crew find a book titled Tibetan Book of the Dead, and use some of the passages from it for their script. But in doing so, when red they raise a ghoul from its grave.<br /><br />Boring, confusing and tacky all rolled up into one, equals this penniless midnight horror production. What feels like an eternity, it just never seems to get going or demonstrate anything effective from somewhat decent ideas. Even though director Paul Harrison's clunky, tensionless direction did construct a couple eerie, moody and atmospheric set-pieces. But laziness did set it early. The whole film within a film structure takes up most of the movie and in this time little to nothing happens of great interest. Nor is it fun. Think of Bob Clark's "Children Shouldn't Play with Dead Things (1972)", and now we've got older actors in the part. However I found "Seven Corpses" to be inferior. The script early on has some cutting wit abound, before it ends up being drab, predictable and left with many unfulfilled possibilities. The cheap foundation involving limited sets didn't help matters either, but the mansion's dreary, dark appearance had a creepy air to it. Performances from a recognizable b-cast is mainly rigid. John Carradine in small part mainly lurks about. John Ireland plays a hot-headed director, Faith Domergue's washed-up actress demands attention and Charles Macaulay hams it up. The slow grinding premise is crossed between "Ten Little Indians" and your usual zombie set-up. However its not all that engaging, even with its occult and supernatural edge. Hell they even throw in some graveyard action, with no prevail. When the rotting ghoul makes its appearance… finally, but a bit late. It does get a little better, if very baffling. Just like the inspired opening, the ending is deliciously downbeat. To bad in between, it constantly drags. Continuity in many scenes comes across non-existent, and the death scenes are more exciting and bloodier (but indeed poorly executed) in the movie they're making, then what actually happens to them when the zombie appears. The generic music score flounders on with its shuddery, but frank Gothic cues, and the camera-work is blandly staged with a lack of imagination. Shoot and frame. Shoot and frame. Job done. That's a wrap.

neg

train_8378

pending

1ead9eca-8661-42fb-8aad-cea9c9dc733b

So that´s what I called a bad, bad film... Poor acting, poor directing, terrible writing!!!! I just can´t stop laughing at some scenes, because the story is meaningless!!! Don´t waste your time watching this film... Well, I must recognize it has one or two good ideas but it´s sooooo badly writen...

neg

train_8379

pending

4ab8b174-5462-4c72-95d1-7882cfc5ef89

Comes this heartwarming tale of hope. Hope that you'll never have to endure anything this awful again. *cough* Razzie award *cough*<br /><br />I disliked this movie because it was unfunny, predictable and inane. While watching I felt like I was in a psychology experiment to determine how low movie standards could get before people complained. When I requested my money back at the end of the movie I was informed that because I watched the whole thing 'I wasn't entitled to reimbursement'. I was told by the assistant manager that several people had complained and gotten refunds already though.<br /><br />The movie summary is pretty basic. The midget thief steals a diamond and the poses as a baby to elude police. Underneath this clever outline however, lies a repertoire of original, fresh and hilarious skits. Or not.<br /><br />Ask yourself the following: Do you like to see people getting hit by pans? Do you like fart jokes? Do you like to see midgets posing as babies threatened with a thermometer in the anus? Do you like tired racial jokes? Do you think babies say 'goo goo goo goo goo gaa gaa'? Do you drool?<br /><br />If you answered 'yes' to any of the above then this movie is definitely for you. Although it has been billed in some places as 'The Worst Movie of the Decade', there is probably a movie or 2 that are worse...somewhere. I can't say for sure. I gave this movie 2 stars because we all know a review with only one star would indicate bias on the part of the reviewer and then the review wouldn't be taken seriously. <br /><br />This lowbrow comedy is intended for a less intelligent audience and I cannot in good conscience recommend it to anyone. Save your money for something funny.<br /><br />Respect

neg

train_8380

pending

d9777ea1-87d7-4c3c-8090-d00d5c8e4060

This was the worst movie I've ever seen in theaters. It was just a compilation of recycled material. People getting hit in the head is not funny. People getting kicked is not funny. After the third time a guy got kicked in the balls not even the youngest audience member was laughing anymore. It just got tired fast.<br /><br />I went with my younger sister. She actually laughs out loud at King of the Hill but this cinematic masterpiece bored her. I'm not surprised. The story is pretty lame. A midget thief steals a big diamond in what was definitely the easiest heist in Hollywood history. Then he hides out with a family pretending to be a baby. I know it sounds exciting but that's the whole story. Say those two lines over and over for 1.5 hours and you'll get the picture There were predictable jokes galore. I really felt ripped off after seeing this. I wasn't expecting much and I was still disappointed. I wish Keenan would just hire some decent writers to write jokes and/or his next script. This was even worse than White Chicks if that is possible. I've seen high school plays that were better, and cheaper.<br /><br />There wasn't anything positive about this movie. I don't like my entertainment to be dumbed down.

neg

train_8381

pending

013dc862-9a2b-4ad7-a9ae-c06e28c7e017

Ripping this movie apart is like shooting fish in a barrel. It's too easy. So I'm going to challenge myself to acknowledge the positive aspects of Little Man. First, I'm impressed with the special effects. It really did look like Marlon Wayans' head was attached to the body of a little person. I never doubted it for a minute.<br /><br />Secondly, I loved some of the unexpected cameos. David Alan Grier played an annoying restaurant singer, and his renditions of "Havin' My Baby" and "Movin' On Up" were priceless. John Witherspoon, who, coincidentally, played Grier's father in 1992's Boomerang (if you remember, he "coordinated" the mushroom belt with the mushroom jacket) now plays Vanessa's father in Little Man. So that was fun.<br /><br />Beyond that, this movie is about as believable as White Chicks. How dumb is it when even the doctor can't tell that it's a 40-year-old man and not a baby? He's got a full set of teeth!!! How is it possible that no one seems to notice that it's not a baby? Little Man is so bad that there's a Rob Schneider cameo. And please, if you're stupid enough to waste $8 on this movie, at least do me a favor and DO NOT bring your children. This movie is way too sexual for small children (lots of jokes and innuendo about sex, going down, eating out, etc.), and I felt embarrassed for the parents who brought their kids to the screening I was forced to endure. If you insist on seeing an idiotic film, as least spare your children the pain and suffering.

neg

train_8382

pending

81fa0816-b2a5-4267-8d66-1a96b6ae1aad

I've now just realised that by watching this film I have lost valuable precious moments of my life I will never get back. Thsi film isn't just poor its dire. It reminded me of every stereotypical black sitcom ever made.<br /><br />I regret watching this film.<br /><br />Flixmedia reckons its a race issue, apparently "White" people don't like it because it doesn't have white actors. Mate, I think you'll find the reason why no one liked this was because watching paint dry is far more entertaining and funnier then this pile of drivel.<br /><br />Please stop making crap films

neg

train_8383

pending

feb61583-f74f-41a0-bba3-8fd884253f98

When I saw that IMDb users rated this movie the bottom 250 movies, I thought it was too harsh but little did I know that the low rating was absolutely correct.<br /><br />I am a big fan of the Wayans brothers. I loved their Scary Movie 2 and even enjoyed White Chicks. Little Man, however, had very few laughs and the jokes were stale.<br /><br />Obviously, the joke will revolve around Marlon Wayans, who plays a grown midget that was recently let out of prison. He and his partner, Tracy Morgan, steal a diamond meant for a gangster. Things go awry and the midget has to place the diamond with an unsuspecting couple played by Shawn Wayans and Kerry Washington. In order to get the diamond back, the midget pretends to be an abandoned baby left on the unsuspecting couples doorstep. Of course, he is taken in and the drama begins on quest for the diamond.<br /><br />The movie has some actors and actresses from Saturday Night Live like Molly Shannon and Rob Schneider as well from In Living Colour. All these talents, however, cannot help the poor script and the jokes which simply was not funny.<br /><br />The special effects to make Marlon Wayans to look like a midget was OK. I mean, it was not 100% believable but it was OK...nothing great. I just wish that the Wayans brothers had put more effort into developing a script with good jokes rather than trying to shore up their poor script with cameos from their famous comedic actors and actresses.<br /><br />Wait for it on cable or television. It really is not worth any amount of money.

neg

train_8384

pending

64d6cdfd-2f74-42a9-8e81-3882c87a0cf0

...Ever. This is the bottom. I am not joking. The theater should've had a warning of some kind. 'Abandon all hope ye who enter here' would've been fitting.<br /><br />I don't have the words to describe accurately the hell that this movie is. Its debilitating stupidity even fails to amuse. This movie is definitely aimed at some of the slower turtles in the sandbox. The story was blatantly stolen from a 10 minute Bugs Bunny cartoon and then stretched like Mr. Fantastic to 90 excruciatingly painful minutes.<br /><br />I remember when the Wayans's were funny. I guess the pressures of Hollywood for them to produce produce produce are to blame for the poop that churns out at a consistent rate. I'm sad and offended that they think we are stupid enough to enjoy 90 minutes of kick-in-the-balls jokes with a thin plot based on a cartoon.<br /><br />I disliked nearly everything about this movie. I won't spoil anything but the baby is actually a midget with Marlon Wayans's face poorly superimposed over the midget's body. What I DID like was the ending. Not the movie's resolution, but the actual end where we all stood up and walked out.<br /><br />I gave this movie one star, but it clearly deserves less. I don't feel that the six minutes they spent writing the script is worth a star. This does deserve a Razzie and I pray to God it gets it.<br /><br />When are people going to learn; if you stop paying to see this idiocy they will stop pooping it out. Seppuku is a reasonable alternative to this film. Avoid it at all costs. You have been warned.

neg

train_8385

pending

4ddd2005-c8ee-48b6-96b7-3fab2e04647a

There was a Bugs Bunny cartoon titled "Baby Buggy Bunny" that was EXACTLY this plot. Baby-faced Finster robbed a bank and the money in the carriage rolled away and fell into Bug's rabbit hole. He dressed up as a baby to get into Bugg's hole to retrieve the money. The scene in "Little Man" where he's looking in the bathroom mirror shaving with a cigar in his mouth is straight from the cartoon. This was a hilarious 5-minute cartoon; not so much an entire movie. If you are really interested in this, buy the Bugs Bunny DVD. It's was much more original the first time (1954). Plus you'll get a lot more classic Bugs Bunny cartoons to boot!

neg

train_8386

pending

9930763e-e9a1-43e6-a873-15ae659165a0

There are some extremely talented black directors Spike Lee,Carl Franklin,Billy Dukes,Denzel and a host of others who bring well deserved credit to the film industry . Then there are the Wayans Brothers who at one time(15,years ago) had an extremely funny television show'In Living Colour' that launched the career of Jim Carrey amongst others . Now we have stupidity substituting for humour and gross out gags(toilet humour) as the standard operating procedure . People are not as stupid as those portrayed in 'Little Man' they couldn't possibly be . A baby with a full set of teeth and a tattoo is accepted as being only months old ? Baby comes with a five o'clock shadow that he shaves off . It is intimated that the baby has sex with his foster mother behind her husbands,Darryl's, back .Oh, yea that is just hilarious . As a master criminal 'Little Man' is the stupidest on planet earth . He stashes a stolen rock that is just huge in a woman's purse and then has to pursue her . Co-star Chazz Palminteri,why Chazz, offers the best line: "I'm surrounded by morons." Based, without credit, on a Chuck Jones cartoon, Baby Buggy Bunny . This is far too stupid to be even remotely funny . A clue as to how bad this film is Damon Wayans appeared on Jay Leno the other night,prior to the BAT awards and he did not,even mention this dreadful movie . When will Hollywood stop green lighting trash from the Wayans Brothers . When they get over their white mans guilt in all likelihood .

neg

train_8387

pending

9a29dc73-927e-4d8c-891e-0f2e09bd8e97

It's here. finally a movie comes out that I can honestly say is worse than Larry the cable guy: health inspector. Yet I'm willing to bet the the wayan's brothers(hilarious) will make more money than I ever make in my whole life on what is sure to be one of the top five worst films of all time, outside of my fifth grade outside the class re-enactment of romeo and Juliet. I mean really WHY would anyone ever ever see this movie unless they were paid to. The comedy is weak and all even remotely funny jokes from the flimsy plot were surely revealed in commercials. Final word is this movie was a terrible letdown for me. And the commercials looked so promising...

neg

train_8388

pending

f52542c5-cae2-4ac5-91fb-e152f9cc712c

Like some of the other reviewers have alluded to previously, I'd like to know what moron actually read the script and went', "Yea!!! This is it. This is the next film we are going to green light!!" And whoever that person is, should have his or her head examined for actual brain activity. Because whoever is responsible for actually dishing out money to have this made after reading the script, well, I'd love to give you my email address and maybe you'd like to just give away some more money. This film is atrocious in every way.<br /><br />The Wayans are funny, at least they can be. They have made some good films and had some incredibly funny performances along the way. But in here, not only does the premise defy all logic, not only is the acting terrible, not only is the entire movie offensive from start to finish, not only is the direction as amateurish as you can find, but they actually want you to pay to see this film. Maybe if it was free...naaah, it would still be a waste of time.<br /><br />Usually I'd be inclined to write some long winded, detailed review about why this film is so bad, but just suffice to say that let my brevity do the talking. This is the lowest common denominator film making and it is about as unfunny as a heart attack.<br /><br />0/10..makes my top ten list of worst films of all time!

neg

train_8389

pending

60156d4a-14a3-40bd-83e3-1e531ab88fd6

This movie is most possibly the worst movie I have ever see in my entire life! The plot is ridiculous and the whole "Little Man" crap is just so stupid. The entire movie is unrealistic and dumb. Let's face it, It's just a "Black Comedy". This is just a pointless horrible piece that should have never made it to theaters. The jokes are not funny and the acting is horrendous. Please, I beg of to you save your money than see this worthless piece of crap. I had to endure sitting through Little Man for an hour and a half wishing my eyes would bleed. I am disgusted that something like this would even be thought of! Who writes this crap? The actors have NO talent what so ever, how do these people get into Hollywood? They are making money off this junk!

neg

train_8390

pending

98b8422e-f3a4-4796-ac3f-4cd5024bc20e

This is exactly the reason why many people remain homeless . . . because stupid producers pay their money to make awful films like this instead of donating if they can bother!<br /><br />This film is even worse than white chicks! Little Man has a lame excuse for posing a character midget as a baby. Story is awful considering it was written by six people. The idea still wouldn't be too bad though, if it was original and not a rip-off of a cartoon episode. it has funny moments but some of them are way over-done and some are just stupid. The acting was very, very bad. So was the directing. Anyone involved in this film should be ashamed of themselves. it is racist and very offensive to midgets. I mean, instead of showing sympathy to them, the film-makers make fun of them! It really disgusts me how they do it. They see midgets being just like babies. And for a character who is a midget, pretending to be an abandoned baby just to get a diamond from a certain family. That is its lame excuse for showing something like that. It just was not worth it. Don't watch this film. It is a huge waste of time and money.

neg

train_8391

pending

17fe5aad-7868-4d60-af7b-7697d5ba167b

"Little Man", now on DVD, is a Wayans Brothers flop. It's the tale of a smaller than a midget criminal played by Marlon Wayans, who hides a diamond in a lady's purse after a heist. He and his partner Tracy Morgan cook up the genius plan to disguise Marlon as a baby and plant him at the lady's home. He then goes through all sorts of "Home Alone" or "Child's Play" like mayhem to get the jewel back and be treated like a baby. I was surprised by how low the humor was in this film. The jokes have been done in other places so many times, that they aren't cute or funny. I almost think the movie might have been funnier if they didn't use CGI and used the small actor who Marlon's face was pasted over. In watching the deleted scenes (minus CGI) this actor was funny in a Mini-me like way, but they chose a different route. A few cameos and Tracy Morgan make some funny scenes..Spend your rental fee $ on Borat if you want some real laughs these days.<br /><br />http://mcmusicnotes.blogspot.com

neg

train_8392

pending

6b658d36-b86c-406f-96ee-6752c6f9eef8

America. A land of freedom, of hope and of dreams. This is the nation that, since its independence, has striven to bring democracy, prosperity, and peace to the entire world, for the good of all mankind. There are times, however, when one cannot help but wish that the American's would just stay on their side of the Atlantic. <br /><br />This 'movie' (and I use that word with some reservations) evokes these feelings with an intense purity. This vision of hell follows the adventures of Calvin, a freakish jewel thief who was created by attaching the severed head of Marlon Wayan onto the body of a two foot-high dwarf. After inadvertently dropping a large diamond into the handbag of Vanessa, a career-woman who is reluctant to have children, Calvin realises that in order to recover the diamond he must ingratiate himself with her. So, as any normal man would, Calvin dresses himself up as a 2 year-old and parks himself upon the poor woman's doorstep, where he is discovered by Darryl, the broody husband of Vanessa. <br /><br />Darryl incongruously falls for Calvin's disguise despite the fact that the 'baby' has a full set of teeth, stubble, a tattoo, a knife-scar, and the sex-drive of a 16-year-old. Even more absurdly, Vanessa doesn't see past Calvin's baby-wear either and actually attempts to breastfeed the diminutive pervert. This wretched assault upon the soul of mankind attempts, and fails, to find humour in rape, scatology, sexual assault, and paedophilia, however, in a dishonest attempt to transform itself into a piece of 'family-entertainment' the Wayan brothers stir in a sickening amount of sentiment and flawed morality. <br /><br />The brothers dim attempt a Freudian rehabilitation of their thieving rapist by revealing that he "had a bad father". Repeatedly hitting Darryl in the crotch enables Calvin to develop the loving father-son relationship that both he and Darryl have always wished for. As if this wasn't ridiculous enough, Calvin's attempts to sexually assault Vanessa somehow convince her that it is selfish for a woman to indulge herself with a successful career, and that instead she should spend her life playing the role of the housebound little-woman, who spends her time alternatively squeezing out babies and cooking for her husband. <br /><br />In this movie the Wayan brothers have mixed their crass and twisted form of humour together with the clichéd sentimentality that has infected much of Hollywood's recent body of work. Additionally, they are endemic of the current generation of black comedians who are responsible for transforming African-American humour into a poor and wretched shadow of itself that over-indulges in fart-jokes and crude sexual gags. By rights these two should be legally barred from picking up anything even remotely resembling a camera ever again. <br /><br />Unfortunately the current artistic and moral bankruptcy of American cinema means that by this time next month they will undoubtedly have filmed two sequels and be making millions of dollars from tacky merchandising deals.

neg

train_8393

pending

6ea52e72-2f59-41be-a98b-6e70a1b0cfb2

What's the point of reviewing a movie like this? It's painfully and embarrassingly bad, not even in a way that allows you to make fun of it.<br /><br />Movies like "Little Man" depress me. They represent film at its most disposable. This movie was made for a bunch of 18-24 year old dipsh*t frat boys who the studio was hoping would come out and see it on opening night before word leaked out about how bad it was, so that the film could quickly recoup its investment.<br /><br />A hundred other filmmakers with great ideas probably couldn't get their films made because resources were going toward making this puddle of vomit.<br /><br />Grade: F

neg

train_8394

pending

7eb6e660-1db7-4b1e-9b11-81e1d6032067

I was not impressed about this film especially for the fact that I went to the cinema with my family in good faith to see a film which was certificate rated 12A here in the UK. To my dismay, this film was full of embarrassing sexual jokes. (Which is not a problem to me as an adult, but not good for watching with children). This film at times was very crude at times with fart jokes, getting hit in the groin etc... and for the most part of the film not very funny.<br /><br />The premise of the film is that Calvin Sims who is a 2inch midget, gets out of jail and steals a giant sized diamond but is then forced to put it in a womens handbag. So the rest of the movie sees him passing himself off as an abandoned baby, getting into this womens house so he can get this diamond back.<br /><br />Up until now, I have enjoyed most of the output from the Wayans Brothers - but this film is certainly taking the biscuit.<br /><br />A Bit of good advice - wait till it comes on TV or Cable

neg

train_8395

pending

8d169270-5e5a-498a-b2fa-9e77903becb7

I can catogoricaly and unequivocally say that in all my 51 years on this planet that is the worse (supposibly children's) film i have ever seen in my life.<br /><br />I took my three grand children to see it and even they were struggling to raise a smile during the all tortuous 90 mins. The sexual indendoes i will leave for another day but they were as tasteless as the film. They should pay YOU to watch it not you pay them. It's truly truly awful, there is no other way to describe it. The people that made this film should be brought to task for taking money under false pretences.<br /><br />Aplogise for my spelling mistakes but i am so upset that it spoilt the time i had with my grandchildren Regards, Stephen

neg

train_8396

pending

8b496d11-66e5-49e9-a455-a1521b56e6be

I think its pretty safe to say that this is the worst film ever made, When I saw the trailer on TV i knew right from second 1 that this would be a piece of **** and it would be best to avoid it, but I somehow got dragged into seeing this by some friends, I walked into the cinema with low expectations but i was hoping there would be a couple of cheap laughs to keep me awake during this film. The so-called "jokes" in this film bring a cringe to the face, they are mostly comprised of people taking hits to the face and balls, the baby looking weird and acting like a horny gangsta and the typical race jokes we see so often in todays garbage comedies. The film is obvious and the story is not only impossible to believe but also predictable and dull. The characters are extremely annoying and heavily stereotyped. I never want to have to see this **** film again, I'd rather take a bullet to the foot than be exposed to this piece of fuckwood ever again. If anyone I see says they liked it i will physically punch them in the face

neg

train_8397

pending

adff67ca-edcb-4792-bfc1-d7bb23c6e08e

So, has it really come to this? Are we, as consenting adults, to blame for the next generation of cinema-goers lack of cinematic understanding and celluloid capability? Concerning the Wayans and Co. latest addition to the moving pictures scenario; Little Man. This United Kingdom P.G. (Parental Guidance), anyone under the age of twelve must be accompanied by a responsible adult, certificated movie, is the epitome of what has now developed into the worse case of dumbing down since cigarettes were "wiped out" from pictures of movie icons of the 1950's.<br /><br />The predominantly under twelve's audience here who, some without grown up supervision too, sat there, obediently, taking it all in, oblivious to their subject and the partly grown up features that Little Man portrays, in part at least too. Movies, in general, can do better than this poor attempt, while this nonsense is getting them in while they are still young and fresh, the biggest fear for the future of Cinema is that a child's ignorance just might carry on through to a grown up bliss. Cinema deserves more than this, and so do its ever growing, and in the literal sense too, audiences, this blatant cash cow feeds on the ever-impressionable minds of the young.<br /><br />There is no Cinema experience here, no open eyed wonder, no awe-inspiring respect to the magic of movies'. There is nothing but bewilderment and contempt, for the lack of substance, originality and its delivery of mind less tedium and parody of everything that is so now ultimately wrong with the Hollywood machine, for the sake of a quick buck, we must endure our future cinema audiences to the likes of this archetypal disaster movie.<br /><br />Will this have the likes of Hitchcock, Fassbinder, Leone, Kubrick and Schaffner reeling in their graves? Money they all liked, no doubt, but talent and exuberance for perfection and quality, and to a vast degree, respect for their profession and audience, they were never short off. We are seeing, once again, with the works of the Wayans clan another cliché of bad taste, while the likes of White Chicks (2004) were in no doubt a stab at the bourgeoisie of American society. The irony here is that the two leading protagonists, played yet again, by the Wayans brothers, are so much undercover, that all recognition is non-existent, this makes for a better movie too, and it is the actor Terry Crews that gives White Chicks its substance and personality, not the Wayans.<br /><br />Yet again, with their pastiche of 1970's Blaxploitation movies, as with the 1988 movie I'm Gonna Git You Sucka, this to can be seen as a comical and amusing movie, with heavy weights as Isaac Hayes, Jim Brown, Bernie Casey and the gorgeous actress Ja'net Du Bois. The point being, that Little Man has absolutely no persona of any kind what so ever, he is shallow and narcissistic, with no appreciation or value toward his followers, he quickly dives in takes your money and before we know it, has hidden himself within the cogs of commercialism. There is no recognisable effort as to where our money has been spent, after Scary Movie (2000), things could only have gone up, but alas they did not, no great pondering of artistic value and no doubt that the instalment from these intrepid movie moguls' next movies shall be straight to video, one can only hope.<br /><br />The Wayans seem to have created a movie genre all by themselves, to a certain extent; they have bludgeoned to death the movie parody, they have watered down each and every avenue and with their inevitable style. They have slowly destroyed the reputation of the last one hundred years that Cinema have given us, may the ghosts of movies past be ever so humble in their judgement, as their growing audiences, so far, seem to be, for when the bubble bursts, may they be as understanding too.

neg

train_8398

pending

2a9a21b3-c0bc-4a3f-878b-13058943c3e5

Since this picture is classified a "pure entertainment" work and since there are already many comments on it, I'd like hereby to address something relevant to the abuse of humour. We can see that Marlon Wayans is playing the joker role in this film. Certainly as long as he has been involved in the casting job, he has always been acting as a little man-an actor can change his customary dress but can hardly change his physical appearance-and the latter one can be an advantage when necessary. However far away from what I expected, I saw an image very disguising, pretending to expose different aspects of the baby life by mistake of a forty-year- old criminal. And with a ridiculous happy ending. So what is the point? Many elements are mixed up, some principal ones are violence, sex and criminal activities, amongst which the story is badly composed and to some extent, lack common sense: where is Vanessa when the peace of her house is violated and her husband's life being pursued? In addition the diamond is even bigger than the world's No.1 Cullinan! But the most sickening facet is the continuous attempt to make up the little man as a superman by showing his physical weak points. And they call it humour. A diamond is precious, hard and fragile; it cannot be cut by any other material but only be conquered by the hot blood of a male goat. Hence it's no more a diamond but pieces of debris.

neg

train_8399

pending

a4d9d476-020d-4856-acdf-8cc3ddafc89c

When watching little man , you'll spend its running time trying to figure out its many plot holes . And thats not a good sign because this film is supposed to be a comedy ! Your supposed to be laughing at it !! But will you ? Probably not. <br /><br />The main problem with little man is its concept- its far too ridiculous to accept (even as a cartoonish comedy ), so when the loud , laboured and over the top jokes kick in , they make the whole thing seem ten times stupider than it already is.<br /><br />"But its a comedy " some of you might be screaming. Thats true but thats no excuse for such a dumb plot.I mean come on , think about it if you saw a baby with A GROWN MANS FACE , wouldn't you be the least bit suspicious? And if calvin wanted to hide the diamond so badly, why didn't he put it in a nearby shelf instead of a random womans hand bag? And how can a qualified doctor NOT recognise that calvin is a grown man ? i mean seriously...what ? <br /><br />"Its not about the plot , its about the laughs" you might be screaming . Well heres the thing see, there are hardly any laughs in little man and that just make the dumb ass plot stand out all the more. <br /><br />If you really want to watch a wayans brothers comedy with a belief suspending plot, stick to white chicks because at least that had a few decent laughs.What ever you do steer clear of little man.

neg