Datasets:

jfcalvo

/

imdb-from-space-with-timestamp

like 0

train_9100

pending

8ae0ebda-dc84-4cac-85ae-f75521ff892d

Many people like to point to this TV movie when arguing with the vast legions of Hanks-philes out there that Tom did in fact make crappy films (I think "Bachelor Party" was great, but that's another story). The movie focuses on a "Dungeons and Dragons-style game" that eventually drives our young Gump to hallucinatory madness. The story is charmingly early 1980s, focusing as it does on the imminent threat to our youth posed by those evil role-playing games.<br /><br />I, however, prefer to view "Mazes and Monsters" as the turning point in the "Whatever Happened to Chris Makepeace?" story. we all remember him as 'Rudy the Rabbit' in "Meatballs" and as the hapless Clifford in "My Bodyguard", where he gave us all a vicarious thrill by beating the crap out of Matt Dillon. Few could argue (especially those of us who read "Dynamite!" on a regular basis) that great things were in store for him.<br /><br />And then came Rona Jaffe. The line between bad acting and bad writing is razor thin, so I leave it to you to decide whose fault Makepeace's performance in this is. All I know is that the last major release I saw him in was "Vamp", and that was 1986. He had a small role as Sean Penn's brother in "Falcon and the Snowman", but by that time the Brat Pack torch had been passed to others with straighter hair and flashier resumes.<br /><br />I can't in good conscience recommend this movie. Watch it if only to see a younger, more idealistic Chris Makepeace, before Rona Jaffe feasted on his soul.

neg

train_9101

pending

e39275e1-02eb-4615-a527-2ac21bc03e34

I own this movie. Not by choice, I do. I was really bored the other day and the box intrigued me. So i popped it in the old VCR and spent the next hour and a half of my life crying "why God why?". The story-line was not that bad, as an gamer I could appreciate bits of it. I think that maybe if you're into super geeky-cheese romantic scenes you'll enjoy this film. "I always thought of myself as a Vulcan you know like Dr.Spock...unable to love" There is very few good things to say about this film, truly it is awful. But if you're up to really badly made film this is the one for you!!! The real story's much more interesting though ;)<br /><br />If I had to sum up this film in one word it would be:<br /><br />LAME

neg

train_9102

pending

a046af06-8b19-47d9-a0b6-bc756bd0f375

This is the movie that epitomizes the D&D fear of the 80s (and even today). The fear being that people who play D&D (or any other role-playing game for that matter) will be "sucked in" and lose their ability to distinguish reality from fantasy (and go on killing sprees, child sacrifices, suicide, etc). Great movie for anyone who likes to blame the problems of society on inanimate objects, but anyone who has played a role-playing game, a video game, or even acted in a play will see this as an insult to their intelligence. It is to D&D what Wargames was to computers. Plus as a movie, it just kinda sucks.

neg

train_9103

pending

17948b6e-d613-41d8-89ea-ee0a0c3435bc

One wonders how the script came to be written.<br /><br />Wayne and the other performers do an OK job but as it is neither comedy, romantic thriller or anything else it is all rather disappointing.<br /><br />One feels as if one of the threads had been pursued it could have been something worthwhile. It is nonetheless interesting to see a real turkey of a story made just before the USA became directly involved with the war. I wonder if the surrounding politics had something to do with trying to make a movie for all tastes but ending up with something that pleases no one.<br /><br />Nonetheless it has historical value.

neg

train_9104

pending

b33c5910-418c-46d2-b89d-592d86bd9334

Lynn Hollister, a small-town lawyer, travels to the nearby big city on business connected with the death of his friend Johnny. (Yes, Lynn is a man despite the feminine-sounding Christian name. Were the scriptwriters trying to make a snide reference to the fact that John Wayne's birth name was "Marion"?) Hollister at first believes Johnny's death to have been an accident, but soon realises that Johnny was murdered. Further investigations reveal a web of corruption, criminality and election rigging connected to Boss Cameron, the leading light in city 's political machine.<br /><br />That sounds like the plot of a gritty crime thriller, possibly made in the film noir style which was starting to become popular in 1941. It isn't. "A Man Betrayed", despite its theme, is more like a light romantic comedy than a crime drama. Hollister falls in love with Cameron's attractive daughter Sabra, and the film then concentrates as much on their resulting romance as on the suspense elements.<br /><br />This film might just have worked if it had been made as a straightforward serious drama. One reviewer states that John Wayne is not at all believable as a lawyer, but he couldn't play a cowboy in every movie, and a tough crusading lawyer taking on the forces of organised crime would probably have been well within his compass. Where I do agree with that reviewer is when he says that Wayne was no Cary Grant impersonator. Romantic comedy just wasn't up his street. One of the weaknesses of the studio system is that actors could be required to play any part their bosses demanded of them, regardless of whether it was up their street or not, and as Wayne was one of the few major stars working for Republic Pictures they doubtless wanted to get as much mileage out of him as they could.<br /><br />That said, not even Cary Grant himself could have made "A Man Betrayed" work as a comedy. That's not a reflection on his comic talents; it's a reflection on the total lack of amusing material in this film. I doubt if anyone, no matter how well developed their sense of humour might be, could find anything to laugh at in it. The film's light-hearted tone doesn't make it a successful comedy; it just prevents it from being taken seriously as anything else. This is one of those films that are neither fish nor flesh nor fowl nor good red herring. 3/10

neg

train_9105

pending

0e270247-661c-4678-b3e9-a2549394b01c

There are people out there who will greenlight anything! That is the only explanation I can offer as to why the House of the Dead movie exists. And that's only scary part to the whole movie. It's so bad you'll go off movies forever. I seriously wanted to switch this off and turn the TV over to the Paint Drying channel but I was bound by my word to suffer the whole thing. I don't know why I do these bad things to myself.<br /><br />As if it matters, here's the basic jist of the 'story'. A group of twenty-somethings are so desperate to go out to some island in the Pacific Northwest (Canada actually, because it's cheap) for the 'Rave of the Century' (which consists of about 8 people and un-raving music) that they pay some craggy old fisherman $1000 to take them there after they miss the main ferry. That's gotta be some rave to be worth all that dough! The fisherman warns them that the island is also known as the Island of the Dead (hang on-I thought this was HOUSE of the Dead?) and that they are all doomed yadda yadda yadda.<br /><br />First faults here. Why would a tiny little rave (of the Century my foot!) be held on some remote island? Why would anyone willingly pay loads of money to get it? Why pay even more to the craggy old fisherman to take them back when they could just come back with the others?<br /><br />Once they arrive they discover that the rave (which consists of about 2 tents, a small stage and a port-a-john) has been smashed, there's blood everywhere and no one is around. What would any rationally thinking person do? Run for their lives of course. But no, these clueless, obviously blind people decide to go look for them. Soon enough they discover an old ramshackle house that's 50 times as big on the inside as it is on the outside. Another half hour of stumbling around in the forest follows, as an excuse to kill of some of the lesser characters, and after much tedium they arrive back at the house again. The characters, like the movie, go nowhere.<br /><br />Jammed into this ghastly disaster is a superabundance of gibberish dialogue, heinous acting, mumbo-jumbo exposition and zillions of clips from the once-popular arcade game of the same name. Why this was universally accepted as a good idea with the filmmakers I'll never know. The clips have no reference to any of the scenes and only degrade this trash even further, if that is at all possible.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with the game save for some cheap, throwaway line at the end. It makes Resident Evil look like cinematic glory. Hell, even the Double Dragon movie seems multi-Oscar worthy in comparison to this junk. The only one who comes out of this with his dignity still intact is Jurgen Prochnow. He could have just taken his money and ran but he tries his best with the awful script and brings a tiny bit of pathos to his character. The rest of the cast suck I'm afraid. The characters are idiots and deserve to die.<br /><br />Plus, if you cut out the swearing and pointless nudity, I see no reason why this film cannot be shown on Saturday morning TV. It's not frightening in the slightest. Pirates of the Caribbean is more scary than the skeletal bad guys in this film. And where did all those bad guys come from anyway? There were only a few people on the island to begin with. I guess this justifies the reason they chose to reuse footage over and over. I kid you not, you'll see the same zombie die a dozen times.<br /><br />Who's ultimately to blame for that scandalous waste of celluloid? None other than director Uwe Boll. His control over the movie is non-existent. You can clearly the see actors have no idea what they should be doing and that the zombies aren't really taking it all seriously. The actors seem like they're reading off cue cards as they constantly pause in the middle of long sentences and carry on talking as soon as they see the next card. It all feels very unnatural.<br /><br />Plus the film is shot like a two-part mini-series. I have indeed seen better TV productions. And don't get me started on the editing. The film is an incoherent babble with thousands upon thousands of pointless shots and dozens of meaningless camera pans. No real skill or talent was put into making this at all. It truly baffles and boggles the mind how movies this unfathomably bad can get made and George A. Romero can't even get anyone to take his calls. House of the Dead makes some idiotic reference to Romero in a lazy attempt to be 'post-modern' but it only irritates that they think THIS is in the same league as a REAL zombie movie.<br /><br />For what it's worth, the 1.85:1 anamorphic picture looks great and the Dolby 5.1 soundtrack is clean but very unimpressive and only serves to pronounce the heavily over-used ADR even more. The DVD comes with extras but why torture yourself. Isn't this review warning enough? Stay away! You are all doomed I tell you! Doomed! Doomed!!!

neg

train_9106

pending

556871d7-1fbe-4c53-a583-860e2bdc7a69

There are some movies you just know they are going to be bad from frame one. Even if you were totally oblivious of Ed Wood's work, one look at that commentator from "Plan 9 from outer space" and you just KNOW you are not gonna see the next cinematic masterpiece. Just like that, when I saw the first shot of Uwe Bolls masterpiece "House of Dead", with that guy sitting at the front of the house starting his introduction while trying desperately to sound like he just arrived from Sin City, I knew I'm in for a helluva ride.<br /><br />So, the movie starts like this - first the lead character says that everybody else is going to die. You know, to keep you wandering. Then he starts introducing the rest of the characters with lines like "Karma..thinks she's Foxy Brown" or "Alicia..my ex.. we broke up recently.. I had to study and she had to fence". No, I'm not kidding.<br /><br />Anyway, this bunch of 20-somethings who couldn't act their way out of a wet paper-bag are going to the "Rave of the century", rave in question being a few tents, a port-a-potty and a shoddy stage located on small island in the middle of the Pacific. Our gang missed the ferry, but thankfully will find a way to get there, the way being a fisher-boat ran by Kirk (Cpt Kirk? Get it? Man, whoever wrote this script is a genius) and his sidekick who is a bastard child of Simpsons' Cpt McAllister and that hook killer who knows what you did last summer.<br /><br />To make the long story short, the gang gets to the island, finds nobody there except some bloody T-shirts and then decide to run the hell away from there. No wait, they do not, they actually get all happy and like cos there's free booze.<br /><br />With that scene the movie hits rock bottom and then against all odds proceeds to go further downhill. Some guys in rubber suits start running around, there is some screaming and shooting, our gang goes to some house to meet some other gang, they go out of the house, meet Cpt Kirk and some police woman (who between them have about 500 pounds of weapons) and then decide to go back to the house. Somewhere along the line they transform into a S.W.A.T. team, enter the Matrix, the rubber-suit guys start multiplying like bacteria and I start to cry because I actually paid to see this. To add insult to the injury, every few minutes there are shots from the video game this crap is based on and there is a cute game-over cut-scene for a few characters when they die.<br /><br />I seriously hate this movie. It doesn't even fit in that famed "So bad it's good" category. It's just plain bad. The script is bad, the zombies are awful, there is no tension, lines are bad, actors are bad.. the list just goes on.<br /><br />You will probably want to see this movie just because of its reputation of being awful. Don't. There are bad movies that deserve to be watched. This is not one of them.

neg

train_9107

pending

23a6e5fe-1536-453b-bdb8-68df4d2d1cbb

This is one of the worst films I've seen. The only positive thing I can say is it was so bad that is seemed comical. First off, there's no plot. The actors appear to be reading off cue cards and do the dumbest things. Such as being chased by dead people but yet wanting to go out and look for their friends. Also the zombies were terrible, no where near as fun as any of Romero's work, who gets s plug in the movie. And the dumbest part of all was they kept showing flashes of the video game in the action sequences. Like we don't get the video game is about shooting zombies. Also, all the 20 somethings some how know how to use automatic weapons and hit a target without even aiming the gun. And the way the people die is so stupid. It's like they run out of ammo so stand around waiting to be jumped on. And when cornered in front of the house they run out of ammo instead of shooting the door open, So dumb.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: If any of these actors appear in another film, then they've been blessed with a second chance. Definitely the worst film I've seen in years. A B-movie on cinemax is better.

neg

train_9108

pending

6768cc15-bba3-432a-87bd-dbb39837657d

Laid up and drugged out, as a kidney stone wended its merry way through my scarred urinary tract, with absolutely nothing better to do than let the painkillers swoon me into semi-oblivion, I happened to catch this movie on cable. I wouldn't want anyone to think that I paid to view it in a cinema, or rented it, or – heaven forfend! – that I watched it STRAIGHT.<br /><br />Having played this sensationally gruesome video game and avidly trod the doomed rooms and dread passageways of The House, battling Chariot (Type 27), The Hanged Man (Type 041), and other impossible sentinels, my curiosity was piqued as to how the game would transfer to the movie screen.<br /><br />It doesn't.<br /><br />The banal plot revolves around a group of "crazy kids" – a la Scooby Doo – attending a remote island for a world-shaking "rave" – whatever that is. (You kids today with your hula-hoops and your mini-skirts and your Pat Boone…) After bribing a boat captain thousands in cash to ferry them there (a stupidity which begs its own network of rhetoric), they find the "rave" deserted.<br /><br />Passing mention is made of a "house" – presumably the titular House Of The Dead – but most of the action takes place on fake outdoor sets and other locales divorced from any semblance of haunted residence.<br /><br />A fallen video camera acts as flashback filler, showing the island in the throes of a – party?! Is that it? Oh, so this "rave" thingy is just a "party"? In the grand tradition of re-euphemizing "used cars" as "pre-owned", or "shell shock" as "post-traumatic stress disorder", the word "party" is now too square for you drug-addled, silicone-implanted, metrosexual jagoffs? <br /><br />It is learned that the party was broken up by rampaging zombies. Intelligent thought stops here…<br /><br />I don't think the pinheads who call themselves screenwriters and directors understand the mythos behind zombie re-animation. Zombies can't die – they're already UN-DEAD. They do not bleed, they know no pain. Unless their bodies are completely annihilated, they will continue being animated. At least, that's what my Jamaican witch priestess tells me.<br /><br />Which means that a .45 shot into their "hearts" is not going to stop them, nor will a machete to the torso. And a shotgun blast to the chest will certainly NOT bring forth gouts of blood. At least in the video game's logic, the shooter pumps so many rounds into each monster that it is completely decimated, leaving a fetid mush that cannot re-animate itself.<br /><br />Yet each actor-slash-model gets their Matrix-circular-camera moment, slaying zombies on all fronts with single bullets and karate chops to the sternum. Seriously, these zombies are more ineffective than the Stormtroopers from "Return Of The Jedi", who get knocked out when Ewoks trip them.<br /><br />I suppose the film's writer, Mark Altman, having penned the not-too-shabby "Free Enterprise", felt compelled to insert a Captain Kirk reference, in the character of Jurgen Prochnow, who must have needed milk money desperately to have succumbed to appearing in this aromatic dung-swill. There is also a reference to Prochnow's primo role in the magnificent "Das Boot", when one of the untrained B-actors mentions that he "looks like a U-Boat Captain". ". I wonder how many of this movie's target audience of square-eyed swine picked up on ANY of the snide references to other films, as when Prochnow declares, "Say hello to my little friend", presaging his machine gun moment. <br /><br />Aimed at a demographic who have not the wherewithal to comprehend the Sisyphean futility of the video-game concept (i.e. the game ends when you die – you cannot win), this is merely a slasher film for the mindless and mindless at heart. Accordingly, everyone dies in due course, except for a heterosexual pair of Attractive White People.<br /><br />A better use for this film's scant yet misused budget might have been to send the cast through Acting School, although Ona Grauer's left breast did a good job, as did her right breast – and those slomo running scenes: priceless! I especially liked the final scene with Ona trying to act like she's been stabbed, but looking like she's just eaten ice cream too fast.<br /><br />Attempting to do something more constructive with my time, I pulled out my Digitally-Restored, 35th Anniversary, Special Edition, Widescreen Anamorphic DVD of "Manos: The Hands Of Fate." Ah, yes! – the drugs were suitably brain-numbing - now HERE was some quality film-making…<br /><br />(Movie Maniacs, visit: www.poffysmoviemania.com)

neg

train_9109

pending

5c984c38-c9ea-4693-902c-14652cb0e1ec

Ok, first of all, I am a huge zombie movie fan. I loved all of Romero's flicks and thoroughly enjoyed the re-make of Dawn of the Dead. So when I had heard every single critic railing this movie I was still optimistic. I mean, critics hated Resident Evil, and while it may not be a particularly great film, I enjoyed it if not for the fact that it was just a fun zombie shoot-em up with a half decent plot. This however, is pure crap. Terrible dialogue, half-assed plot, and video game scenes inserted into the film. Who in their right mind thought that was a good idea. The only thing about this movie (I use the term loosely) that I enjoyed was Jurgen Prochnow as Captain Kirk (Ugh). While his name throws originality out the window, you can see in his performance that he knows he's in a god awful film and he might as well make the best of it. Everyone else acts as if they're doing Shakespeare. And very badly I might add. Basically the only reason anyone should see this monstrosity is if you a.) Are a huge zombie buff and must see every zombie flick made or b.) Like to play MST3K, the home game. See it with friends and be prepared for tons of unintentional laughs.<br /><br />

neg

train_9110

pending

a28d3951-8659-4f1a-8c46-e35815822f3a

Okay, so I'm not a big video game buff, but was the game House of the Dead really famous enough to make a movie from? Sure, they went as far as to actually put in quick video game clips throughout the movie, as though justifying any particular scene of violence, but there are dozens and dozens of games that look exactly the same, with the hand in the bottom on the screen, supposedly your own, holding whatever weapon and goo-ing all kinds of aliens or walking dead or snipers or whatever the case may be.<br /><br />It's an interesting premise in House of the Dead, with a lot of college kids (LOADED college kids, as it were, kids who are able to pay some fisherman something like $1,500 just for a ride after they miss their boat) trying to get out to this island for what is supposed to be the rave of the year. The first thing that comes to mind about House of the Dead after watching it is that it has become increasingly clear that modern horror movies have become nothing more than an exercise in coming up with creative ways to get a lot of scantily clad teenagers into exactly the same situations. At least in this case, the fact that they were on their way to a rave excuses the way the girls are dressed. They look badly out of place running around the woods in cute little halter-tops, but at least they THOUGHT they were dressed for the occasion.<br /><br />Clint Howard, tellingly the most interesting character in the film by far, delivers an absolutely awful performance, the greatness of which overshadows every other actor in the movie. I can't stand it when well-known actors change their accents in movies, it is so rarely effective, and Howard here shows that it is equally flat to have an well-known actor pretend that he's this hardened fisherman with a raspy voice from years of breathing salty air. He didn't even rasp well. It sounded like he was eating a cinnamon roll before shooting and accidentally inhaled some powdered sugar or something. Real tough there, Clint! I expected more from him, but then again, he did agree to a part in this mess.<br /><br />Once we get to the island, the movie temporarily turns into any one of the Friday the 13th movies that took place at Camp Crystal Lake. Lots of teenagers played by actors who were way too old for their parts getting naked and then killed. The nudity was impressive, I guess, but let's consider something for a minute. These kids pay almost two grand to get out to this island to go to the Rave Of The Year, find NO ONE, and say, well, who wants a beer! Even the guy who pulled that stack of hundreds out of his wallet to get them all over there didn't think anything of it that they found a full bar and not a single solitary person in sight. Here you have the input from director Uwe Boll - There's alcohol! They won't notice that the party they came for consists of no one but themselves!<br /><br />So not only do they start drinking, not minding the fact that the whole party seems to have vacated the island, but when one of the girls goes off into the dark woods to find out where everyone is (dragging one other girl and one of the guys reluctantly along), the guy and the girl who stay behind to get smashed decide that it would be a great idea to strip down for a quickie now that they're alone. It's like they expected to find the island empty, and now that they rest of the people that they came over with were gone for a little while, they would have some privacy since there's no one else around. Brilliant!<br /><br />Now for the things that everyone hated, judging by the reviews that I've read about the movie. Yes, intersplicing shots from the video game into the movie, mostly in order to show that, yes, the movie was being faithful to/directly copying the video game. Sure, it was a stupid idea. I can't imagine who thought up that little nugget, but worse than that is the Matrix-style bullet time scenes that were thrown in over and over and over and over. After the first time (at which point I found it pretentious and cheesy for a movie like this to have a shot like that as though it was something original) it is noticeable more for the technique of the shot itself rather than any dramatic meaning or creation of any kind of tension for the film.<br /><br />One of the things that makes a zombie film scary and gets you on the edge of your seat is to have them slowly but relentlessly coming after the living humans, who are much faster but getting tired, running out of places to run, and with a terrifying shortage of things with which to fight the zombies off with. The first two are done right in the movie, the kids are terrified and don't have a lot of places to run since they're on an island, but since they caught a ride over with a smuggler, they find themselves heavily armed. And I mean that very strongly. I mean, these people have everything from machine guns to hand grenades, which removes most of the tension of the impending walking dead.<br /><br />Then you have what I call the techno-slasher scene. Since the rave never happened, and I guess since Uwe Boll thought people were going to be disappointed at not hearing any techno music in the movie, there's one scene right in the middle where all the humans are fighting off the living dead, and amazingly enough it turns into something of a music video. There's techno music blasting as the shots are edited together faster and faster until it's nothing but a blur of gory shot, mostly only about 5 frames long (which is about 1/6 of a second) flashing across the screen in time with the speed techno music. Clever, I guess, but it has no place in a horror movie because it completely removes any sense of scariness or tension of even the gross-out effect because you can't see any one thing for long enough to react to it. You're just watching these shots fly across the screen and wondering what the hell the director was thinking when he decided that it would be a good idea to put something like this in the movie.<br /><br />I've seen a lot of people compare this movie to Resident Evil, mostly claiming that it copies the premise of it, and they're exactly right. I appreciate that at least here, as was not the case in Resident Evil, it wasn't some man-made virus that turned people into walking dead that were able to infect other people, changing them the way vampires turn others into vampires. 28 Days Later was also clearly an inspiration for this movie, it's just too bad that House of the Dead didn't do a single original thing, except for the somewhat moronic idea of putting in quick shots of the video game on which it is based, just in case you forget. I really think that this should have been a much better movie. While obviously I can't say that I know much about the game it's based on, just the title and the movie poster deserve a much better movie, but unfortunately I think that's more often the case than not with horror movies. It's really kind of sad when a movie comes out that is so obviously advertised as a no-holds-barred horror film, and the scariest thing in the entire movie is the closing shot, which suggests the possibility of a sequel.

neg

train_9111

pending

8f59a303-98aa-4420-887f-af73bfc80c40

I found this movie in the 'horror' section of my video store. That seems to make sense as most zombie movies have their place there. From Romero's 'Dead' trilogy to '28 days later.' However upon watching it, you can quickly see what this movie really is.<br /><br />It is actually a music video that goes progressively faster and gets more and more and more gory. There is no horror here folks. Just some half-way decently staged action scenes which soon grow tiresome because they last... and last... and last... and soon you get the feeling maybe you're DVD player accidentally skipped back 3 minutes, but no, this is how they actually made the movie. It's a pity. I think anyone could find a better use for $7 million dollars in the movie industry than make this lump o' crud. Though some of the 360 effects were cool, but once again, they were over used and grew tedious since it was the same stunt over and over again each time, just with a different character.<br /><br />Also what is ROYALLY annoying is the splicing on of footage from the arcade game. I've played the game. It sucks. So why did they put it in here? Oh that's right, this isn't a movie but a music video, and it's a poor one at that. 3/10<br /><br />Rated R: a lot of violence/gore, and profanity

neg

train_9112

pending

967ac4b9-4714-4507-99c6-c9e416518e40

Well, I had to sit down at the computer and write down the review immediately after watching this puddle of ooze. Why? Because I have to let it be known to all of you just how bad this movie is. It's unbelievably bad. Just to let you in on how bad it is, I'll offer this little detail about the movie. During scenes of mayhem, which usually consists of people shooting or kicking zombies, they intercut scenes from the video game. Yes, you heard me right. This movie really sucks. In fact, it makes me think about the fact that it costs ten dollars these days just to get into the theaters these days. And to see corn filled crap like this? There is no story to speak of and the movie basically has nothing to offer other than the occasional boob shot and really cheap kills. I'm really disappointed with this, knowing that I watched it. OK, I'm dumbstruck. It's so bad I can't even find the words. RATING: ZERO out of *****.

neg

train_9113

pending

1b2b1e5f-c922-46be-af77-39ae13b9eb41

This is by far THE WORST movie i have ever watched. I've seen some pretty awful movies in my time but this ones takes the cake, no, wait, i mean the the whole damn bakery. It is so bad that i believe a word to describe the way you will feel after watching this atrocity has yet to be created. Please just do yourself a favor, if you ever get the urge to watch this and watch thirty minutes of that annoying purple dinosaur Barney, then multiply that thirty times fold and you would still only get a small fraction of the horror you would be in store for. In summation, i guess you really can call it a horror movie, but only if you're willing to be scared senseless by the worst acting in the business and utterly pointless story.<br /><br />Real Rating, -10 Disgusting

neg

train_9114

pending

fbf60a3e-9433-4d84-9719-baacbceb6b18

This movie has received a lot of bad press from people who don't understand what it was meant to be. One must understand that this movie was never meant to be taken seriously. It's camp, along the same lines as "Army of Darkness." AoD was silly, but funny and bad in a good way. "House of the Dead" fails to be "good bad.".<br /><br />There are qualities inherent in good campy movies, most important of those being believable fantasy. One needs to believe what's happening in a movie to see the humor when a situation goes incredibly wrong. Without boundaries, the movie becomes absurd. HotD lacks any believability.<br /><br />Worse still, HotD brings nothing new to the genre, and repeats the same plot twists and character reactions that many horror movies inevitably start to exhibit. For example, all too often, horror movies fall into the trap where the main characters find love amongst the gore and destruction. I don't know about you, but when I'm being chased by zombies, I wanna make out with a hot chick. Believe it? No? Then, you probably won't believe it when the characters start sucking each other's faces in this movie.<br /><br />Beyond the obvious issues that plague this movie like so many other horror movies, Uwe Boll elected to add scenes from the video game of zombies being shot, randomly whenever a character shoots a zombie in the movie. Not only is there no clear rationale for this artistic choice, but it distracts one from an already unbelievable plot. Further, there are frequent and numerous examples of bad acting, and seemingly no attempts by the director to guide the actors' reactions to events... leaving the movie with no redeeming qualities. Avoid...

neg

train_9115

pending

2eb4bfd1-8fc3-4333-8dae-0787ac0a70e5

This is the only film I've seen that is made by Uwe Boll, I knew that he is probably the worst director ever who always makes films based on video games also that "House of the Dead" is one of IMDb bottom 100. But I still wanted to watch it because I'm a huge fan of the game and I wanted to see what doe's the film have that makes it so bad. After watching it I do agree that it is crap, the movie had no story. In the first 15-20 minutes there was nothing but topless teenage girls with no brains running about (for a moment there I was wondering are the zombies brain-dead? or the girls are?) then at night time the zombies popped out of nowhere & started attacking people later a woman started shooting them I mean it takes you one place then the other every 5 minutes. Is it supposed to be a comedy?, or horror? or both? Before I knew it I fell asleep at the second half & woke up during the end credits so I did not manage to watch all of it, which is a good thing! The film is a true insult to the classic game, Uwe Boll please do not make any more films. Thank you!

neg

train_9116

pending

3933805a-cb27-447e-aa29-e2821beba86f

I have watched some pretty poor films in the past, but what the hell were they thinking of when they made this movie. Had the production crew turned into zombies when they came up with the idea of making it, because you sure have to be brain dead to find any enjoyment in it.<br /><br />I am a fan of most genres and enjoy "shoot 'em up" games, but merging the daft scenes from the game just made this ridiculous and unwatchable.<br /><br />As most have already said, there was hardly any script and the acting was weak. I won't waste my time describing it.<br /><br />Anyone who rates this film above 4 has to be part of the production company or Sega, or else they have a very warped concept of entertainment.<br /><br />I must say, I was more annoyed with the video shop, who gave this a thumbs up, which led me to rent it. Thank god I had a second film to watch to restore some of my faith in movies.<br /><br />Comic book guy would be right if he said "Worst movie ever"!

neg

train_9117

pending

493488d2-3a71-4917-8d42-71542c9efa3b

You know that feeling of hilarity you get when you watch a film that's trying so hard to be a serious, thought provoking piece of cinema and fails miserably? When you can't help but bust out laughing at the sheer terrible nature of the trash littering your screen? "House of the Dead" struggles to achieve even this low graded level of cinema.<br /><br />From start to end "House of the Dead" manages to recreate the feeling like you've just woken up to find out that the cat has laid it's curled business neatly on your forehead while you slept. It is clear from the start that the female actors have been cast for their cleavage size (which they exploit shamelessly) whereas the males for their hardcore "kick-ass" attitude. I honestly did not care any of the characters for any moment of the film and found myself actually wishing their demise so as to spare me a good hour of this torture. Uwe Boll should have considered screening two hours of footage from the actual game as a movie. At least then we'll get better acting… However not all blame can be placed on the actors as it is certainly a challenge to produce a convincing film when faced with the script of this film. It is arguably the worst section of the film and actually contains such lines as: "These are zombies, pure and simple" and "No cap'n, we must not go there! It's evil!".<br /><br />We all know that Zombie movies are never going to be particularly thought provoking or full of meaning; at best they are a harmless two hours of action, blood and closet terror. Trash, yes, but entertaining trash. Not the kind of trash which bursts out of your bin bag as you haul it across the room and smothers your shoes in sour milk cartons and decaying banana skins. According to IMDb, "House of the Dead" received such bad reviews that no Danish cinemas bought the movie. If only we could have had the same privilege.<br /><br />Final Score: 1/10.

neg

train_9118

pending

8b19d7c0-369b-4efa-9e1d-542a6fb6bcdb

WOW! i didn't know that someone would make this movie! its awful! I have written down 5 things that can tell why u do not want to see this movie.<br /><br />number 1: "its the biggest rave ever" where is the that rave? i could only see a few people dancing around.. <br /><br />2. when they are on the rave,they can ONLY see blood everywhere,no people,two ruined tents and one stage.. and what do they do!? they drink!<br /><br />3.the worst actors i have ever seen! the captain and his crew.. awful! <br /><br />4. when one of the people is firing an ordinary gun, he shoots almost 30 times without reloading! <br /><br />5. i didn't knew every person in the world could fight as a pro! must be a new thing..<br /><br />i wonder what the producer was thinking! "this is going to be a big hit, its gonna be a classic" .. sure u dumb s**t anyway don't see this movie, its a waist of time. MY EYES ARE STILL BLEEDING!

neg

train_9119

pending

b7900eda-a124-40fa-b5de-241cd257c1f2

F*ck Me! I've seen some incredibly horrific movies in my time but this takes the p*ss!<br /><br />Honestly I can't express in words how bad this film actually is. Besides the plot that isn't really there, the comically crap acting, the hilariously dreadful excuses for zombies; You know what, I could go on all day. Every little thing in this film is either stupid, pointless, crap or embarrassing. I express to anyone who wants to watch this movie... don't!<br /><br />I'm ashamed to say, I have this on my rack. It's hidden away right at the god damn bottom of the huge pile. I couldn't even give this horse-sh*t excuse for a film away. That's how bad it is.

neg

train_9120

pending

a9e5de47-dee7-4519-a12e-92d750e275fd

If there were a movie that deserved a 0 out of 10, this would be it. 'House of the Dead' redefines the term "bad movie". Other bad movies, such as 'When A Stranger Calls' or 'Premonition', will actually look much better when compared to 'House of the Dead'. The basic "plot" of House of the Dead is a group of twenty-somethings travel to a remote island to attend the "rave of the century". When they get there, they only find some tents, a bar, a stage, and some bloody t-shirts. They decide to stay anyway, and they are soon attacked by zombies.<br /><br />There is absolutely nothing redeeming about this movie. It is not entertaining. Instead, it is painful to watch because of how terrible it is. The acting is unbelievably bad. In a DVD interview, one of the actors claimed that Uwe Boll, the director, is not afraid to tell someone when they are doing a good job or a bad job in a scene. This is a blatant lie. The script appears to have been written by an 11-year-old, who decided to include a scene of someone throwing up on a girl's chest and to include the hilarious line, "it smells like someone farted out here." The characters have no personality or depth and they do some of the most moronic things ever seen in a horror movie. Somewhere along the way, the characters also magically transform into a SWAT team to take down the zombies. It's like they don't even have to aim their guns and they automatically shoot the zombies in the head.<br /><br />The scariest thing by far about this movie is the directing. There is something wrong with Uwe Boll. Boll's camera work is astonishingly disjointed. His pans to zombies running through the forest are more silly than menacing. Worse yet, Boll actually thought it would be a good idea to include small bits of footage from the House of the Dead video game into the movie. Quite often, and at the most random times, you will suddenly see an animated zombie getting shot. It makes no sense. No one in their right mind would think that was a good idea. It's like Boll wants to remind us repeatedly that this movie is supposed to be based on the video game. Uwe Boll also decided it would be cool to include slow motion 360 degree rotating shots during the action scenes, a la 'The Matrix'. Unfortunately, he does it way too often and each shot is nauseating. The soundtrack to this movie also boggles the mind. Most action scenes are accompanied by loud rap track. This also adds to the ensuing headaches caused by the atrocious 'House of the Dead'.<br /><br />'House of the Dead' isn't bad because it's based on a video game. In fact, it has very little to do with the video game. It also does not fit into the category of 'so bad that it's good'. It does however fit into the category of 'so bad that it's painful'. This movie just plain sucks. Uwe Boll should never be let anywhere near another movie set. Even his presence will curse a production. To all the directors out there: whenever one of your movies gets a bad review, all you have to do is remember that you didn't make 'House of the Dead' and you will feel much better. I will never get those 90 minutes of my life back. To sum it up, words really cannot describe just how bad this movie is. Everyone involved in the production of this film, especially Uwe Boll, should be ashamed of themselves. Although what I have said may make 'House of the Dead' sound funny, it really isn't. Nothing about it is funny. Avoid this at all costs.

neg

train_9121

pending

9b4174df-50bf-4c71-bf7e-8422e2f95884

Just like everybody else have said, the acting is awful, no story or whatsoever, poor directing. About the SFX, the 360 degree, matrix style shooting, 1 shoot is stupid enough, but for each characters. I mean come on gimme a break. And what's up with all those video game scenes, just to remind us it's a "video game adaptation"? Jesus, they should have fired whoever think up this idea.<br /><br />0.00001/10

neg

train_9122

pending

32d1cedb-e136-4437-9448-7d4452997073

I usually try to be professional and constructive when I criticize movies, but my GOD!!! This was THE worst movie I have ever seen. Bad acting, bad effects, bad script, bad everything! <br /><br />The plot follows a group of teen cliche's on their way to a rave (that takes place in broad daylight) at a remote island. However, when the group arrives, all they find is an empty dance floor and bloody clothes. Determined to find out what happened to the rest of the party-goers, the clan set's off on a mission through a zombie-infested forest. During this crusade, they are aided by a police chick and a sea captain that just happens to have the right number of weapons to give to each of the kids. They also meet up with Jonathan Cherry and some other survivors. Basically the rest of the movie is a collection of poorly directed action sequences including a far too long shootout outside of the "house of the dead." This fight came complete with cheesy Hollywood violence, redundant clips from the HOTD video game, and sloppy matrix-esque camera rotations. One of the character's even volunteers to sacrifice himself to save the others. Why? Not because he was noble and brave, but because part of his face got scarred by acid a zombie spat on him after he continued to beat the creature long after it had been disabled! I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy?!?<br /><br />To sum it all up, there is absolutely no point in seeing this movie unless you want to see for yourself just how terrible it is. The theater I was in was more dead than the zombies on the screen, and I'm sure the money I wasted seeing this piece of sh*t could easily cover the costs it took to make it. GRADE: F

neg

train_9123

pending

3113d44b-3af1-41cd-871a-5904a1d3fa48

Okay, let me start off by saying that nothing in this will come as a surprise to anyone who's read the other comments. That being said, MY G-D, THIS MOVIE REEKED! I mean, WOW, I didn't know it was possible to throw as much money as they obviously did at something and still come out worse than ANY Roger Corman movie! Corman was probably pitched this movie at some point but declined due to the poor quality of the script! The only reason this movie got made in the first place is that someone said, 'Hey, Zombies are popular. Video games are popular. What game can we get a hold of that has zombies in it? Resident Evil? No, someone else got there first. Silent Hill? No, too silent. People will never sit in a dark room just to be scared silly. Hey, didn't Sega have a game where people ran around shooting zombies? They're out of the platform biz, we could get that for pennies!'<br /><br />Basically they tried their best to make a movie that felt like the video game, even down to shooting the combat as if the characters were actually playing the game.<br /><br />The first and major problem is that the original game was horrid. I mean,<br /><br />bad-movie-merchandising-made-into-a-worse-game-in-two-weeks-and-then-shippe d-out-and-bought-by-morons-and-their-parents-for-christmas horrid. The graphics were boring. The monsters were boring. The levels were boring. The interface was boring. The CASE was boring. In other words, this was a boring game. And that was the ARCADE version. The home version was even worse! With the home version, you didn't even get the shotgun to hold in your hand while you were being bored silly by this pointless game! But I digress.<br /><br />The second problem is that they went so far as to actually intercut scenes from actual gameplay during the fight scenes. HUH??? Didn't the editor have enough confidence in the effects to indicate that there was an actual fight going on? Not to mention that EVERY fight was shot from the perspective of a video game, which may explain the tedious use of Matrix-style effects. The problem with this is that the game was a first-person shooter (the player proceeds from the POV of the character). Maybe that's why they put in the game graphics, to let you know that they were alluding to the game... Right, whatever...<br /><br />Anyway, the only thing that made this ENTIRE experience remotely enjoyable was the fact that everyone in the theatre was making fun of the movie out loud, so my sudden fits of hysterical laughter and general incredulity were taken as commonplace and didn't get me kicked out.<br /><br />To sum up, DON'T GO SEE THIS MOVIE! Don't even deign to rent it when it comes out on video in a couple of week. Run. Just run.

neg

train_9124

pending

4d252533-0535-4afb-b98c-260b2f246334

It is cheese. If all you want is a video game, complete with what look like straight-from-the-computer cutaway sequences for action the film was too cheap to actually make special effects for, this is it. My friend and I actually had a great time seeing it, since the theatre was mostly empty and we could heckle a bit. This movie REALLY requires heckling.<br /><br />Plot? There was a plot? OK, some stupid college or later types get invited to "the rave of the year" and go to one of the San Juan Islands ("If they'd only stayed back in Seattle, they would have survived." - direct quote, or nearly.) to attend. They get there and everyone is gone, and the site is somewhat wrecked (but hey, the keg is still full!). With the help of a crusty old captain and a coast guard woman (who acted only slightly less tough - and slightly less well - than Cynthia Rothrock), they fight lots of zombies (some which spit acid), get an earful of freaky legends, and mostly get killed. That's about it.<br /><br />It's not quite as BAD as Demonicus, but not by much, and still better than Severed (they are sort of my own personal alpha and omega for bad movies - the former is bad but fun to heckle, and the latter is just too freaking bad to watch more than once). On the other hand, if you're expecting a video game movie as excellent as Resident Evil, run away!!! run away now!!!<br /><br />OK, some real big questions (without too many spoilers): Since when did Spanish ships of the 18th century venture into the Pacific Northwest????? Why is anyone in the Pacific Northwest smuggling guns, and to whom - CANADA, for crying out loud??? Why is a rave on an unnamed (oh, excuse me, it's called "isla del muerto", shya, right) San Juan Island - and outdoors, still keeping in mind this is THE PACIFIC NORTHWET. And the rave has about 30 people in attendance - "the rave of the year," my patoot.<br /><br />Lucky thing there's lots of hatchets around. Lots of them. Everyone has them. Must be a hatchet sales outlet nearby.<br /><br />Finally, while the movie started out playing with a little "parody" (with nudges at I Know What You Did and Jaws), it didn't carry it through near enough.<br /><br />OK, really finally - when the introductory comments (in a voice-over, no less) casually mention that one of the characters "gave up her boyfriend to focus on her fencing" you can be darn sure there'll be some fencing by the end of the movie. Not GOOD fencing, but a couple of people hacking at each other with swords, anyway.

neg

train_9125

pending

beeb9ef1-e5ba-475d-a60b-2b65f4139982

The thing about calling "House of the Dead" the worst movie of all time is that it's really not. There are worse movies out there. I watch alot of Hong Kong ninja movies that are basically the result of an unfinished Japanese police drama having footage of ninjas inserted at the end to create something that could technically be called "a movie."<br /><br />House of the Dead is however one of the worst films I've ever seen at the theatres. Walking out half way through, I actually felt I was somewhat dumber for having set through 45 minutes of this piece of garbage.

neg

train_9126

pending

943ec587-f9dd-442d-ad7f-2b507e4254d8

The House of the Dead was the worst movie I have ever seen, between the pathetic 'matrix' 360 camera angle attemps and the cheesy acting I fell asleep. I don't think that the director and set manager could decide whether it was raining or not, because there would be rain on one side of the boat and not the other. I would rate this movie a 1 out of 10, (10 being the best, 1 being the worst). Also jumping scenes from the movie to the game was really annoying, it makes you wonder if they were just making up for lose time. I beg anyone who reads this, NOT TO SEE IT. It's not worth the time.

neg

train_9127

pending

d8699def-a504-43ff-825d-00adb66344ea

You know you're in trouble when the opening narration basically tells you who survives. It all goes downhill from there. Unnecessary, "Matrix"-influenced bullet-time camera work. Pointless cuts to video game footage. Crusty old sea captains and wacky seamen. Ravers who become skilled combatants in the blink of an eye. Even the zombies are boring.<br /><br />I was hoping for at least a "so bad it's good" zombie movie, but this one is "so bad those involved with its creation should be barred from ever making a movie again".<br /><br />

neg

train_9128

pending

f59e8bce-de64-47ca-b416-4b3dccb9db3a

This is about the worst movie I have ever seen. This movie does match the quality of such movies as "THEY" & "Cabin Fever", but even those had name actors where this one fell short. The "eye candy" of this movie looked to be a 50 woman with a bad face lift. (just an example of the quality). I would have rated this movie in the negative if possible. Ladies I have to tell you that the men were not bad to look at, but not much either. If you were planning on going to see this movie I would strongly recommend saving your money.

neg

train_9129

pending

222fbb0a-6db2-4636-bd6c-1d0999f035a1

I usually like zombie movies, but this one was just plain bad.<br /><br />The good parts: Girl swimming topless with thong bottoms, Sonya Salomaa's topless, and Ona Grauer's boobs jiggling in a skimpy top when she ran.<br /><br />The bad part: too much video cuts, too much Matrix slow motion (it drags the action), not enough blood and guts, bad acting, and no story. The only other person in the theater was smart and left right after the topless swimming scene. A total waste of $6 and time. I give it a 2 out of 10.

neg

train_9130

pending

189323d2-7005-4b06-8814-cb2c8f2be013

I have never seen a worse movie.<br /><br />It is possible to take a shootem up video game and make it into a decent movie.<br /><br />Mistake 1: absolutely no connection to any of the characters. In this movie you don't bond with any of the characters because... you don't get a chance.<br /><br />The only character that is sympathetic or even interesting is the Deck Hand: Salish as played by Clint Howard. Except for this unique character, the outcome of the movie is meaningless as all the characters were lifeless from the begining.<br /><br />Mistake 2: the worst gunfight scene ever. I love gunfights. I love when the heros open up on the badguys and clean house. heck I even like to watch a badguy clean house sometimes. But this gunfight was weird I guess that the best way to describe it is "Apathetic" I've seen people shoot with more feeling and emotion while PLAYING THE VIDEOGAME. In this movie it looked and felt like the "Actors" were simply walking through shooting everything that moved without emotion.<br /><br />Why? Where's the trash talking? where's the snarls of rage amongst the gunfire? These are supposed to be kids that got caught at a rave gone bad... but even real soldiers acting professionally and ruthlessly show their humanity.<br /><br />If you want a GOOD horror movie about a secluded house full of monsters, I recomend Sam Rami's Evil Dead series. DO NOT see the disaster that is house of the dead. I hope that they burn the master and all copies of this movie.

neg

train_9131

pending

ad136a72-4190-43a0-8c88-68f8aaebbc9e

When I go to see a movie about zombie's, I'm not expecting oscar calibre performances, or writing on the level of The Godfather, but I do expect the actors to at least not look like their straining to read their cue cards, and dialogue that doesn't sound like it was typed out 10 minutes before the actor reads it into the camera. This movie was just awful, I actually got up and left about 25 minutes in and went next door and watched Cold Creek Manor, that wasn't very good either, but it seemed like Citizen Kane compared to this pile of crap. On the plus side, the girls were very pretty, that's probably the only thing that kept me in my seat for longer than the first 5 minutes, in fact I left after the hottest one got killed, there wasn't anything to hold my interest after that.

neg

train_9132

pending

1b7cba5b-d2b2-416c-bc64-99f3bb772e3a

What can I say? I ignored the reviews and went to see it myself. Damn the reviews were so right. What a waste of money considering it's budget.<br /><br />Good thing, I went to see Kill Bill after this one.<br /><br />To see a really scary movie, would be Crossroads!<br /><br />Bottom line-- I like "Girl in Gold Boots" better than this crap.

neg

train_9133

pending

6f026c5c-40e6-46c0-aae2-565bd946a24c

The question, when one sees a movie this bad, is not necessarily, "How did a movie this bad get made?" or even, "Why did I see this awful in the first place?" but, "What have I learned from this experience?" Here's what I learned:<br /><br />- Just because the "rules" of horror movies have been catalogued and satirized countless times in the last ten years doesn't mean someone won't go ahead and make a movie that uses ALL of them, without a shred of humor or irony.<br /><br />- If your movie has to be described as **loosely** based on the video game, you have script problems.<br /><br />- The black character may not always die first, but the Asian character does always know kung-fu.<br /><br />- While you may be proud that you figured out how to do the "the Matrix effect" on a budget, that doesn't necessarily mean you should use it over and over again ad nausea.<br /><br />- Being Ron Howard's brother does not guarantee choice roles.<br /><br />- Whenever a scene doesn't edit together, just use some footage from the video game, no one will notice.<br /><br />- If your cousin's rap-metal band offers to write your movie's theme for free, politely decline.<br /><br />- Zombie movies are not about people killing zombies. They're about zombies killing people, preferably in the most gruesome way possible. That's what makes them SCARY.<br /><br />- White people who can pay $1600 to get to a rave deserve to die.<br /><br />- If you find an old book, it will tell you everything you need to know. Anything else you will figure out on your own two lines after someone asks, "What was that?" or, "Where are we?"<br /><br />- Bare breasts are not horror movie panacea.<br /><br />- A helicopter boom shot and a licensing deal with Sega magically transforms your movie from "student film" to "major studio release". Try it!<br /><br />- Just because you can name-drop all three "Living Dead" movies, that does not make you George Romero. Or even Paul W. S. Anderson.<br /><br />I've seen worse movies, but only because I've seen "Mortal Kombat: Annihilation."

neg

train_9134

pending

4e4f3aca-4738-4622-a1e5-6f63465f9405

It gets really bad. The only half-way redeeming quality is the effects from the thousands of bullets used during the film. There are context errors everywhere. The acting is horrible, save Kirk. The story is as holey as the grail, and the belief that the movie is a video game in itself just kills the movie, if it wasn't already a corpse. So all in all it's a waste of your life. I would have given this a zero had that been an option on the rating scale.

neg

train_9135

pending

e5ae0c16-827a-492b-8925-95d81a70b05f

Randolph Scott is leaving the USA for the greener pastures of Canada's British Columbia. He wants to start a cattle ranch there with partner Bill Williams and cook Lee Tung Foo. They stampede their small herd over a toll bridge erected by Victor Jory. Later Jory rustles their cattle and Williams loses his left arm during the fracas.<br /><br />From 1945 until 1962 when he retired, Randolph Scott made a series of good adult themed westerns, some of them considered real classics. Unfortunately the Cariboo Trail will never be listed among his best westerns. <br /><br />It's more like the material that Roy Rogers or Gene Autry might use. The story is downright silly at times. Williams who was along for the ride with Scott, he wanted to go prospect for gold as there was a big strike at the time. He doesn't blame the rustlers, he blames Scott for convincing him to make the trip for the loss of his arm. <br /><br />Also there's a scene in the film when Scott, Lee Tung Foo, and Gabby Hayes are captured by Indians. They escape because Gabby's mule has been taught to kick on command and he kicks away at the Indians allowing our heroes to escape. I'm not sure that would have played in a Rogers film.<br /><br />Furthermore the story actually wants you to believe that tyro prospector Randolph Scott accidentally stumbles on a gold strike after just a few lessons from prospector Gabby Hayes on how to find gold. <br /><br />This was Gabby Hayes's farewell feature film part. It would have been better had he gone out in a good western and in fact he had done a couple of better ones with Randolph Scott before this.<br /><br />I will say this, though no Caribou made any appearance in the film, this is one of the few Canadian locale films from the past that did NOT have any Mounties. <br /><br />But if I were you unless you are a big fan of Randolph Scott or Gabby Hayes, take the next detour off The Cariboo Trail.

neg

train_9136

pending

b6a278e4-ee6d-431b-8e5c-fbd172bf73ae

"The Leap Years" is a movie adapted from an e-novella by Singapore writer Catherine Lim, which became the first Singapore novel/novella to be sold over the internet. The film had a tortuous post-production schedule: shot in early 2005, it was slated for release at the end of 2005, but only turn up eventually 3 years later, on the 29th February 2008, a leap year.<br /><br />Before I say anything, I must first admit I'm no fan of the romance genre, so I may be a little biased against this film - I watched it merely because it was a Singapore production, and that it's available for borrowing at my neighborhood library. Here's my two cents on the movie.<br /><br />Let's just start by saying that other than Qi Yu-wu's KS and Wong Li-Lin, everybody here of note seems to be a Eurasian. The love interest is a Eurasian (Ananda Everingham), and Wong's trio of buddies are all, er-hem, Eurasians. Does this film perpetuate the stereotype that falling in love and associating with Eurasians are more "in" than the common Chinese (or whatever Asian race you are?) I don't know, it sure seems that way. Also, everyone in the movie speaks in some mystical "anglified" accent which doesn't exist anywhere, certainly not in Singapore. It's the kind of "semi-perfect English" that authorities would like us speak, but which doesn't exist anywhere outside, say, the MTV Channel. The effect is that the dialog of the movie sounds forced and stilted, not helped by the lack of true-blue Singaporeans in the cast.<br /><br />The scriptwriter seems to be trying too hard to string one-liners after one-liners. After twenty minutes, the "wit" of the movie starts to pall and the film starts serving up its usual plate of clichés. <br /><br />I guess I didn't enjoy the movie because the entire premise of sustaining a love affair over 16 long years seems unbelievable. <br /><br />There are other incredulities in the film. I can't for one believe that KS (played by Qi Yu-wu) would fall for one of Wong's girlfriends. And the scene where the bridegroom says, "Go, before I change my mind," has been used in a hundred East Asian (Korean, Chinese, Hong Kong, Taiwanese etc) TV serials...<br /><br />So 4 stars for this film. The production value is fair, and Wong Li-lin tries her best, but she's not helped by the script. Joan Chen has a 15-minute bit-part in the movie as the older Wong and is perhaps the best actress of the lot, but, hey, her role is just cameo.<br /><br />If you come across "The Leap Years" in the rental or library, you may want to pop it in the DVD player for curiosity's sake, but otherwise, for people who don't exactly enjoy the romance genre, you can decide whether or not to give it a miss.

neg

train_9137

pending

f84af4f9-113d-409f-a6f5-c9ca906e4a96

Recherche is a good word to describe this movie.<br /><br />Let's say every movie has a selling point, a gimmick. Transformers' gimmick is the awesome effects as well as fan boys nostalgia. Sleepless in Seattle's gimmick is situational in their tag-line, "What if someone you never met, someone you never saw, someone you never knew was the only someone for you?" Many romance relies heavily on these gimmicks and some through draw of big names. Leap Years employs both by using the Irish folklore as the circumstance and featuring considerably famous names within the country.<br /><br />So now that the audience are in the cinema, besides all the usual elements in characters, conflict or consequences, crisis, resolve and denouement, they also look forward to stimulating dialog, more absorbing situations as a result of the leap years, interesting sub-plots and perhaps, to a certain extent, a good twist in the middle or towards the end of the story that favors the circumstances of the characters.<br /><br />This is what Jean Yeo is trying not to achieve. If they've tried to, their goal was apparently in the other court, at the other stadium, on the other end of the planet. She and her writer, Alain Layrac, utterly failed to provide stimulating dialog. Most of the lines were contrived. It seems that they have a bag filled with lines which she would like to use in her movie: "Okay, these are the lines and quotes which I've heard or read from either movies I've seen or books I've read before and they all sound good to me. If they sound good to me, they will sound good to the audience. Therefore, all i have to do is piece them all together. I am going to use all of them." The result is cathartic. I can't say that the lines were unnecessary and bears no relation to the story or in driving the plot on, but they seem to spring out of nowhere, catching you off guard with these quotable quotes.<br /><br />On a personal level, i know people who cite quotes based on most of the situations in our dialog, trying to make it meaningful to themselves while nodding along. I don't go out with them anymore because the urge to punch them is overwhelming.<br /><br />Secondly, the characters portrayed are silly and one-dimensional. With exception to the unnatural dialog which implies their motivation (necessary to drive the plot), there was no sense of conviction in them. I haven't an idea who they are. They are all simpletons spouting lines from the advice column of a female-oriented magazine.<br /><br />The gimmick in the leap years is not enough to drive the story on because the circumstances are too shallow. Then again, there are movies with less but fared better than this, aren't there. They made it up with my first and second point. Moreover, the sub-plots are inconsequential (not that it's a bad thing for movies) and thin (bad thing).<br /><br />Jean Yeo and the producers are trying to pass off the terrible plot with fancy locations and passable photography. This is because they probably understand that it is possible and easier to attain the approval from some viewers than the others with the good use of cinematography, soundtrack and filming location. These non-discerning viewers.<br /><br />It is not even the kind of movie that is so bad that it's good. It is just bad. Don't watch this.

neg

train_9138

pending

cdb946b4-cb08-4e9e-a290-6c33f56cf77e

There are no spoilers in this review because everything was already shown in the movie's trailer. I am trying to be balanced in my review because I strongly support local movies, but I can't help but support the backlash against this movie. It is slow, boring and bordering on pointless. Even the "almost nice and believable moments" were immediately undercut by painful clichés and bad acting. Vernetta Lopez and Wong Li Lin, whom I usually love, were only passable in this movie. It felt like the director was trying to make a melodramatic TV Soap, then got carried away and decided to put it on the big screen. The Leap Years should come with an RA rating (Rated Awful) but it hasn't changed my faith in local movies. More good films will come, so long as more films like these don't get made.

neg

train_9139

pending

cca52980-5ed1-4db9-b124-eb5c43197e4e

I must preface this by saying I am a huge romantic. Hence I really wanted to like this film. So I'm writing my thoughts to save the rest of you from the disappointment I felt watching it. The Leap Years tells the destiny-filled tale of Li-Ann who falls for the suave Jeremy and they commit to meet every leap year. A very romantic premise, based on a great short story and with a cast that doesn't feel like you're watching yet another Jack Neo flick. Then why oh why is it so bad? Firstly, I feel the filmmakers thought they were shooting a music video, because they chose to replace storytelling and any true emotions with cheesy montages, predictable actions and clichéd lines. I am both upset and embarrassed to have been one of the first few in Singapore to watch The Leap Years, but those of us in the cinema would agree that our muffled groans at the cringe-worthy performances spoke volumes. My hope was to watch a romantic movie that would surpass Forever Fever, the best Singaporean romantic comedy so far, and The Leap Years does not even come close. Some blogs have called it The Crap Years which is harsh but ultimately true. Don't waste your money or your emotions like I did. The movie will make you give up on love forever.

neg

train_9140

pending

3de4d724-2963-4c39-b1e6-72d2c749da1c

The Leap Years stars some heavy hitters in the local and regional film and television scene. And yet, they cannot save this movie. It has so many things going against it - over acting, overly melodramatic, poor script, inconsistent direction; and too few things going for it - decent music , good cinematography. This comment is mainly for anyone who throws all local movies into one basket after watching this film and says all local movies are bad. Please do not judge the rest based on this one film. This is a television soap opera masquerading as a romantic feature film. My hopes were high when I bought my ticket and my hopes were dashed five minutes into the film.

neg

train_9141

pending

27ccaaae-9fc1-4cbc-b927-3906f825cd6b

The only reason that this movie is rated a 1 is that zero is not one of the selection options. With a plot thinner than depression era cabbage soup, horrific acting, and special effects that look like they came out of the "Thunderbirds" TV series, it is amazing that Widmark didn't kill the director for putting this black mark on his resume. Even by 1950's standards, the special effects are atrocious, except for a couple of underwater submarine sequences. I can only assume that it was nominated for best special effects because, except for 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and THEM!, there wasn't anybody else doing effects. It was certainly no contest for Disney that year if this was their only competition. I wouldn't recommend the film, even for hard core submarine movie buffs, as the most realistic scene on the submarine was limited to one shot where seawater can be seen dribbling down the up-raised periscope. There are other, much better, sub films that you can enjoy from this era, like the aforementioned 20,000 Leagues or Torpedo Run.

neg

train_9142

pending

50a3ebb9-6dcc-426c-a503-8fe3ab7fe69f

...well, pop this into the DVD, waste an hour and a half of your life that you will never get back, and find out.<br /><br />Acting? What acting? <br /><br />Production values? ...Production? ...Values?<br /><br />Story? Don't get me started.<br /><br />After many years of posting on IMDb, I never thought I would see a film so bad that I truly wished for a lower rating than one. I always have found at least a reason or two to see merit - if only in the intent or the effort of the writer, the director, the cast, or the producer?<br /><br />In this case, they're all the same guy (!) who really needs to get a handle on the fact, at least as demonstrated by this worthless waste of video tape, that he has no talent. I mean it would be a reasonable excuse if this were some junior high schooler's "production" for his first cinema class, but the referenced "artist" behind this dreck was twenty-six at the time of this miscarriage. <br /><br />Just how did this ever get made? Who in their right mind ever wrote a check for this? Moreover, don't let the box cover fool you: there's not even anything that remotely resembles a good sex scene or any good "exposure" of the hunk on that cover.<br /><br />Two final items: there was one second when this "film" had redeeming value: the aforementioned "talent" gets roundly punched out by his lover. I cheered! And, I did learn one thing from this "film.". There are times when something is so very bad that it is, indeed, truly very funny. But not in any comical manner; it's just sadly humorous. Very sadly humorous.

neg

train_9143

pending

9785822b-3b2a-4458-9a45-708a7875e8d8

This movie was laughably bad. A friend rented it from Netflix and made me watch it. There are so many gaffes and goofs that it's impossible to even bother getting to know the characters and the plot. How about these for example...<br /><br />The "Vermont Airport" surrounded by palm trees<br /><br />Ben's miraculously appearing shirt during a phone conversation<br /><br />The priest's palatial office... complete with a folding card table desk<br /><br />There is a decent story hidden behind a very bad movie. But even if you look past the technical flaws, you'll find horrid acting and casting. I was most tickled by the casting of a flamboyantly gay actor to play the right-wing religious zealot brother. His opening scene, sitting in his immaculate apartment, stroking his kitty cat, was hilarious.<br /><br />I applaud the writer/director/producer/editor/star/caterer/cast dentist/composer (and whatever else he did on this move) for actually getting a movie like this distributed. If you have nothing better to do, it could be a fun group movie or even the basis of a drinking game but don't rent it for a powerful story about homophobia and gay marriage.

neg

train_9144

pending

6e8f6370-e533-4141-b6d3-3de3ac8f4e72

If an auteur gives himself 2 credits before the main title and about 15 more credits before the movie starts, and the first shot shows the auteur rolling around on a bed in lycra bike shorts, it won't be a surprise to observe that said auteur has the kind of body that should never be seen in spandex. The kind of look that might be useful to a homosexual aversion therapist.<br /><br />Others have given this thing the dishing it deserves. For me the most pitiable moment came when the trip from LA was signified by a plane landing at what appeared to be LAX; and the return was signified by a shot of a Fedex cargo plane.

neg

train_9145

pending

247881ec-d4c4-4434-b6ea-9407679876db

Oh my GOD. I bought this movie and...I...watched...the...whole...thing. . . Okay, it's going to be alright... I'l know I'll be okay in a month or two. Some time soon I hope to be rid of the flash backs. I was going to eat something after the movie but I just can't seem to get up the courage to try and hold any food down at the moment. Bad? Yes bad. Very BAD. BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD. Wait, bad doesn't seem to get the message across in quite the right way. Hmm... There isn't a word to describe just how awful.... not awful... Hmm disgustingly horribly casted/acted/filmed/directed/written. Now I don't know what to do but throw it out. Possibly burn it I wouldn't want it to end up at the bottom of an architectural dig a thousand years from now. The worst movie ever since "Hey Happy"

neg

train_9146

pending

0265919f-a596-4b6e-b7a5-6a3450f60935

Your first clue that this is a cheesy movie is that it was shot on video, not film. The story is convoluted, and the production is amazingly sloppy. Note, for example, that when the title couple are on a plane ostensibly landing in Vermont, where they've gone to celebrate their relationship in a civil union ceremony, the plane is shown coming into an airport surrounded by palm trees. Their ceremony - in Vermont - takes place in a garden of tropical plants, including palms, which wouldn't last five minutes in the New England climate. On yet another airplane trip, the establishing shot depicts a FedEx cargo plane taking off. Presumably they could only afford to travel in steerage. As for the plot, this movie expects you to believe that Victor, the devoutly Christian brother of Arthur, is kicked out of his church when the congregation learns that his BROTHER is gay. Not only that, but the pastor eventually sets Victor up with a hit man to have Ben and Arthur killed "to purge their souls of sin." Apparently no one in this church has ever heard of the Ten Commandments. Were it not for Jamie Brett Gabel, who is surprisingly effective as Arthur, this movie would have no redeeming qualities at all.

neg

train_9147

pending

530824e4-803a-4da8-bac5-16a2a5f8dfd2

Ben & Arthur COULD have been a 10. Sam Mraovich wrote, directed, stared, and produced this movie. Sam should have given his idea to a good writer, director, and left the acting to somebody who could act. this is a good example of one person controlling the whole production. there was nobody to tell him, "Sam this is bad, really bad".<br /><br />Jamie Brett Gabel's acting was the only good point, but he could have been so much better with a good director, and better actors to work with. <br /><br />This movie is so bad i think Sam Mraovich should be tied to a chair and made to watch this movie (twice). the acting and direction was so bad, this movie was turned into a comedy. you just had to laugh, and in the wrong places. <br /><br />A second good point....this would make a great date movie. after the first two minutes you would quit watching the movie and pay more attention to your date!

neg

train_9148

pending

ebba31fd-0a72-4d83-8b2e-159653b27b06

This film was the worst film I have ever viewed. It was like a "homework assignment" for a film class. It totally misses the mark when it comes to the "message" it is TRYING to relay. Characters are over exaggerated, poor acting and as for a plot...well it is utterly ridiculous. The cover shot is what made me think it may be a decent film, the co-actor is handsome and that's about it. Moral of this movie: NEVER JUDGE A MOVIE BY IT'S COVER! Save your time, money and energy and make your own home movie and you will be far better off than I. It was painful to watch and quite frankly I am surprised that anyone would spend money to make and distribute it!

neg

train_9149

pending

36413664-0700-4e22-9cc7-a736a0b56d56

THE. WORST. FILM. EVER. MADE.<br /><br />After watching this supposedly gay made film, I suspect someone rounded up a brain damaged half blind neo-nazi and had him make the worst gay film ever, all in some deluded attempt to attack gay culture. I had to stop the movie and call a friend to come over just so I had someone to scoff at when I paused the movie out of shock, disbelief and outrage at such sheer stupidity.<br /><br />On top of all the horrible writing and acting and illogical and stupid plot, its just a poorly made film. A dog with a handycam tied to its tail could have churned out better.<br /><br />Seriously, after reading the few positive reviews this movie has here, I suspect the writer must have a half a dozen IMDb accounts. Anyone who says this film is even watchable as anything other than a joke, is a liar or being paid heavily to say so.

neg

train_9150

pending

b437ecf3-1b5d-4bc7-a025-687af57d76ae

I have never posted a review before, but I had to do it for this film! This film is SO bad, I found myself trying to justify how bad it is by trying to think of it as kitsch or parody. But it ISN'T. It is truly, un-self-consciously BAD. This is a serious attempt that flops gloriously. Other reviewers have pointed out the film's many flaws, so I'll try not to repeat these, but I do urge you to see this film. Throughout it I was either speechless, literally gasping with disbelief, or rolling on the floor in hysterics. I haven't had so much fun watching a film in years. In fact, I'm going to try to get all my friends to see it because it's the kind of movie that needs to be shared.<br /><br />My favorite parts: -- When Arthur auditions to be a go-go boy (his dancing is unbelievable) -- The gratuitous nudity (the director/leading actor just had to get a nude shot in) -- The preacher's office with its cardboard and crayon rendition of Christ -- Of course, the famous wedding scene with the palm trees and the forgotten rings (what narrative function does this play?!?) -- The ex-wife's wrestling match with Ben to get possession of her gun -- The detailed sequence wherein Arthur kills the preacher; he apparently burns him up with this incredibly measly match -- Yes, the gay religious-fanatic brother with his bleached hair and WeHo fashions -- And, my favorite, the use of Joplin's "The Entertainer" as the opening soundtrack and "Pachebel's Canon in D Major" as the closing soundtrack! -- the list goes on and on -- a MUST SEE!!!

neg

train_9151

pending

975a0574-529a-44e9-9280-1e6f892c33dc

Intrigued by the synopsis (every gay video these days has a hunk on the cover; this is not necessarily to be construed as a good sign) I purchased BEN AND ARTHUR without knowing a thing about it. This is my second (and I assure you it will be my last) purchase of a CULTURE Q CONNECTION video. As far as I am concerned, this DVD is nothing but a blatant rip-off. I do not make this observation lightly – I am a major collector of videos, gay and mainstream, and I can state with some authority and without hesitation that BEN AND ARTHUR is quite simply the worst film I have ever sat through in my life. Period. My collection boasts over 1,600 films (93% on them on DVD) and of those, well over 300 are gay and lesbian themed. I hardly own every gay movie ever made, but I am comfortable in stating that I pretty much purchase almost every gay video of interest that gets released, and very often I buy videos without knowing anything about the film. Sometimes, this makes for a pleasant surprise - Aimee & Jaguar, It's In The Water, Urbania and Normal are all examples of excellent gay titles that I stumbled upon accidentally. So when I read on the box that BEN AND ARTHUR concerned a conflict between gay lovers and the Christian Right, one of my favorite subjects, I decided to take the plunge sight unseen, despite my previously disappointing purchase of another CULTURE Q CONNECTION title, VISIONS OF SUGAR PLUMS. That film was pretty bad, but compared to BEN AND ARTHUR, it viewed like GONE WITH THE WIND. So what was so wrong with BEN AND ARTHUR? Plenty! To begin with, the "plot" such as it was, was totally ridiculous. This film almost made me sympathetic to the Christian Right – we are asked to believe not only that a church would expel a member because his brother is gay, but that a priest would actually set up a mob style execution of a gay couple in order to save their souls (like this even makes sense). The writing is so poor that many scenes make no sense at all, and several plot points reflect no logic, follow-up or connection to the story. Murder and violence seem to be acceptable ends to the gay activist / right wing conflict on both sides, and the acting is so bad that it's difficult to imagine how anybody in this film got hired. The characters who are supposed to be straight are almost without exception clearly gay - and nelly stereotypes to boot; the gay characters are neither sexy nor interesting. This film is enough to put off anybody from buying gay themed videos forever, and the distributors should be ashamed of themselves. The only advantage this picture has over my other CULTURE Q Connection purchase, VISIONS OF SUGARPLAMS, is that this one has a soundtrack with clear dialogue. Hardly a distinction, since the script is so insipid that understanding the script only serves to make you more aware of how bad this film truly is. It is an embarrassment to Queer culture, and I intend to warn everyone I possibly can before they waste their money on it. At $9.95 this film would have been way overpriced; I understand that it's soon to be re-priced under $20, which is STILL highway robbery. I paid the original price of $29.95, and I never felt more cheated in my life. The only true laugh connected with this drivel is the reviews – I have seen "user reviews" for this film on numerous websites, and there is always one or two that "praise" the director / writer / actor in such a way that it's obvious that the reviewer is a friend of this Ed Wood wannabe. How sad. How desperate. I just wish IMDb would allow you to assign zero stars - or even minus zero. If ever a film deserved it, this is it.

neg

train_9152

pending

3d806793-9dd5-422d-8a76-eecc52d0f41d

Holy crap this movie was bad. I watched it just as a joke. It isn't even so bad that it's good in an unintentional way. This film seemed to be designed to personally make me angry. It worked really well at doing that. It's as if the people who made this just took all of the really annoying stuff about the movie PRIEST, added in a bunch of ugly dudes, took out anything interesting, funny, or even remotely sexy and clever out of the concoction, and then added in a bunch of old rotten cheese. That's all this is. Cheese. There isn't a single person this film could possibly connect to. There isn't any universe this film could possibly take place in. Why can't a film like this just be about enjoying life and being happy? Why did they have to make this already stupid idea for a film even more ridiculous than it already is? Why couldn't they at least even tried to make it an okay film, or even a B-movie. Now that I think of it, what they hell were they trying to do with this film? I watched it expecting a campy love story and instead I got some boring student project about some idiot who has to find the strength and courage to marry his boyfriend while his annoying Christian brother tried to destroy it all!!! No, I'm not joking. That's what it's about. Does that sound good? This film is pretty ignorant against people of the Christan religion, with it's stereotyping of all Christians being loudmouthed, rude, and hellbent on making as many people as miserable as possible. A lot of Christian people I know would never speak or act like these freaks. The film, however, is just as unfair and ignorant to the gay community as well. These have got to be the most tastelessly crafted stereotypical gay men since the guy on the radio station on that ROADKILL video game. It's so nerve wracking and simply irritating to the point that I wasn't able to fully pay attention to this film. The makers of this train-wreck had no strategy for set design, acting, camera angles, lighting, script, authenticity, or an idea to make this entertaining or interesting. There isn't even a single sex scene, or at least not a believable one. Jamie Brett Gabel was the only guy in the film that looked any good at all, but his good looks were sadly put to waste. This is trash. In a perfect world, this film would get voted a 0.0. It's worth 0 as a film alone. A mentally handicapped nun who is blind, deaf, and has tiny little bones for arms and legs and whose face is located on her armpit could write, direct, and produce a better film, and she'd probably be a better actor as well. the fact that this film exists is a crime against the word "film" itself. This film is so bad that other films should be ashamed of being available in the same watchable format. I could put a broom in a chair and then record it with a camera and then stop the film and then replace it with a mini x-mas tree and then record that and I've already made a film that will always be better than BEN & ARTHUR by at least half. There are only two things worse than death. Torture and watching BEN & ARTHUR. I'm a homosexual and I will probably be the gayest person you will ever meet if you ever met me, and I don't think I've ever been more offended by an entire film than I was by the first five seconds of this film alone. If this movie was a mistake, I will personally find a way to change the famous phrase "It's okay to make mistakes" to "It's okay to make mistakes unless that mistake was BEN & ARTHUR." You know how people always say things like, "Good things come out of everything!"? I think that BEN & ARTHUR was primarily invented so that there could be something on this earth that nothing good would ever come out of. To call this movie the worst movie I've ever seen would be giving it WAY too much credit. It's as if this film were designed just so that it could qualify in a category of it's very own. There are good movies, there are bad movies, and then there's BEN & ARTHUR. This is BEN AND ARTHUR.

neg

train_9153

pending

042e1a87-d661-452f-a0a8-ecbeef6ff976

I made the big mistake of actually watching this whole movie a few nights ago. God I'm still trying to recover. This movie does not even deserve a 1.4 average. IMDb needs to have 0 vote ratings possible for movies that really deserve it like this one. A 1.4 is TOO HIGH.<br /><br />I had heard how awful this movie was, but I really did not think a movie could actually be that bad, especially in this day and era. I figured all of the cheesy god awful movies were only from the 1950s and 1960s. My god was I wrong. Trust me folks, this movie REALLY IS THAT BAD. It is beyond horrible; it is beyond pathetic; it is beyond any type of word that I can think of for it. BATTLEFIELD EARTH looks like Best Picture of the Year compared to this movie. SNAKE ISLAND (which up until now was the worst movie I'd ever seen) looks like it deserves a few Oscars compared to this pathetic effort.<br /><br />I seriously can not believe that the makers of this movie thought this was a legitimate serious effort of producing a Hollywood movie. This has no business being called a movie. In the first 25 seconds of the film, I seriously thought I was watching some high school theater class attempting to make a short movie. Or better yet, I thought it was some Saturday night Live ripoff skit of the real thing. I mean, it looks exactly like that. The acting is horrible; the whole movie almost looks like it was shot with a 20 year old VHS video camera. the special effects.......well good lord Bewitched from back in the day had better special effects than this movie. The scene where he gets shot at the door is beyond laughable and beyond cheesy. I mean seriously, my Intro to Acting class from 4 years ago in college, all of us could have put together a better movie than this. And the worst part of the entire movie, where Arthur is naked in the bathroom. Oh my god I almost thew up right there. I have a strong stomach, but wow that was horrible. Some people should never be naked, and he's one of them. The plot of this movie just seems to go absolutely nowhere. They talk about legal issues that we never hear about again; Ben talks about getting into music that we never hear about again; arthur says he is looking for a job and money for college and the next thing we see is he's running a porn shop. Everything about the movie is just horrible.<br /><br />This really doesn't have much to do with my critique, but just so everyone knows, I am not a gay man. I DO however support gay rights and believe we should all be treated as equals. And I would support any gay person in my church, unlike the cruel priest in this movie, who by the way seems to cuss every other word. (WHERE IS THE F*(#*ing white out?) hahaha But I didn't want anyone to think I hated this movie just because of it being about two gay guys. It has nothing to do with that: This would have been just as horrible of a movie if it was Ben & Jill instead of Ben & Arthur.<br /><br />I just watched this movie to see if it really was as bad as they say. And yes it was even WORSE than I had read. Let this be a warning to everyone: ONLY watch this movie if you want to just sit back and laugh at how pathetic some movies in the 21st century can still be. If you watch this movie and are actually expecting a good movie or some entertainment, I have no sympathy for you whatsoever.<br /><br />On a final thought: How in the world are there 7 movies ranked BELOW this on IMDb? There is no way there are 7 movies out there that are worse than this!

neg

train_9154

pending

21a30b9f-c3ba-466e-8754-255208a4a529

There is absolutely nothing in this movie that shows even the tiniest scrap of talent. Nobody in it has ever tried acting before, even the extras in the coffee shop look as if they've been glued in place. Nothing looks rehearsed.The film quality is terrible. Most of the 'action' takes place in narrow corridors or apartments with the cameraman crammed in as an afterthought, swinging some cheapo camera backwards and forwards between 'actors' as they deliver their lines. No tripod and no proper microphone either, there sound quality is terrible. Even 'Manos' fares better than this, at least they had proper equipment. What plot there is simply gets lost in the production mess.<br /><br />Stick to home videos, preferably made by some 5 year kid trying out the video feature on daddy's new camera phone. You will be in for a long search to find a movie more inept than this.

neg

train_9155

pending

425a79eb-cb84-4812-ab12-4d62b031413f

I was looking on Imdbs bottom 100 because i thought id never seen anything as bad as plan 9 from outerspace or Roller Ball remake, I was wrong. Ben and Arthur has beaten both.<br /><br />This out of the many countless amount of movies I've seen is the number one worst film on the i ever saw. Bad Directing ,Bad Characters ,Horrible Acting ,Horrible story There's a reason nobody but Sam ever says anything positive about this film. Sam was a horrible annoying actor but his directing was so bad he may just overthrow Ed Wood.<br /><br />The Director should be ashamed of his work unfortunately i have to give it at least 1 star but it deserves - to be continued stars.

neg

train_9156

pending

1fdb90b5-ab3a-4ceb-a904-1288fcce4f48

I have no idea what on earth, or beyond, could have possibly made Sam Mraovich believe that this would have been a worthy project to undertake. Ben & Arthur is one of the worst movies ever made. In fact, I see no reason why it should not be at #1 on the Bottom 100. For although I have not seen, for example, SuperBabies: Baby Geniuses 2 (#5 at the time of this publication), I would venture to guess that that film is considerably better than this oozing wound, because even in its vapid dismalness at least Baby Geniuses 2 was professionally made. By contrast, everything, and I do mean everything, in this film is completely unprofessional.<br /><br />The movie is intended to be an attack on the Christian Right's supposed bigotry and hatred toward gays. And I do emphasize "intended." Not only does it completely and utterly fail at its purpose, it also leaves an ugly scar. Instead of creating a compelling and realistic portrait of a gay couple's struggle against a society that largely opposes them, it creates tired, crass stereotypes of each party involved. Ben and Arthur, the namesake couple, are portrayed as two crude, sex-starved, and hopelessly romantic cardboard cutouts who marry when the laws change to allow them to do so. This meets with the opposition of Ben's brother Victor, a Christian minister who, like all Christians (as this movie would have us believe), is loud, prying, stupid, and violent. He tries to kill Ben and Arthur after his associations with them get him kicked out of the ministry. Just like in real life. And if you think that's dreadful (it is), you haven't seen it all.<br /><br />The actors (?) here manage to completely destroy any vestige of credibility in this movie by saying their lines as if they were narrating a YouTube home comedy video. But not even Daniel Day-Lewis and Marlon Brando as the title characters could have saved this clunker, for there would still be the matter of the completely inane and laugh-inducing dialogue that fills every minute of the movie. Every scene has at least one awkward or misplaced quote. For example, in one scene, Victor tries to complain about not being able to have nieces or nephews because of his brother's homosexuality. But instead of portraying this idea clearly, he spits out the stupid, utterly confusing, whiny-sounding line, "You know what, I'm never going to have any nieces or nephews, okay, because you're so F***ED UP!"<br /><br />Even more glaring is the complete lack of production values. Yes, I know this ain't The Dark Knight, but even amateur film makers should know some basics about special effects and editing. For example, six dots of red cake dye do not suffice for realistic bullet wounds. People do not teleport across a room between takes. And objects do not fall FORWARD when shot! <br /><br />Do not waste your money on Ben & Arthur. I don't care if you're 7, 17, or 107. I don't care if you're gay, straight, bi, or undecided. I don't care if you're "just curious." I don't care what pathetic reason you may have to be tempted to buy this dung-heap. Stay away, far away. This movie's only redeeming quality is its ability to be used as a Frisbee.

neg

train_9157

pending

f6309b26-c806-443a-8ef8-82800a372e92

Sam Mraovich should never be allowed to touch a camera again. If he does he should be arrested on the spot...at the very least for petty larceny. Anybody who pays even a dime to rent any of his garbage should file a claim and be compensated. This was innocently my first viewing of his "work"...and it will my last. Ed Wood looks awfully good to me right now.<br /><br />When I return this piece of crap to the video store, I will personally ask that it be taken off the shelf. An active supporter of gay cinema, I am incensed and angered that this warped, exceedingly untalented man-child be allowed to distribute and package something like this, with a coltish pretty boy on the cover (Jamie Brett Gabel, who, thankfully, has no other acting credits in IMDb) and an interesting synopsis on the back used as bait, and then market it as a "movie" rental. Trust me, this has no place being on any rack anywhere; it is simply not a movie in any sense of the word. Offensive, irresponsible junk such as this can only be detrimental to the efforts being made to promote and support gay cinema (hell, gay rights in general!) For those tempting to rent this out because of the cover, you WILL be disappointed. Gabel is not as flattering to look at on film as he is on the cover, and he appears once or twice without a shirt -- that's it. Instead, the homely Mroavich inflicts on us his own disgusting, sorry-looking dough-boy nakedness.<br /><br />This "thing" he "assembled" is a reverse vanity project for Mraovich. Both he and his friend Michael Habousch (who, I understand, puts out similar sleazy garbage) are terrible in this. Mraovich is purposely posing as a complete no-talent (in all fields), desperate to grab onto any "loser" attention he can for himself. He is to be pitied.

neg

train_9158

pending

a7c28a7f-7a8e-4cab-b757-1e800f8ee908

Let me first state that I enjoy watching "bad" movies. It's funny how some of these films leave more of a lasting impression than the truly superb ones. This film is bad in a disturbingly malicious way. This vehicle for Sam Mraovich's delusional ego doesn't just border on talentless ineptitude, it has redefined the very meaning of the words. This should forever be the barometer for bad movies. Sort of the Mendoza line for film. Mr. Mraovich writes, directs, and stars as blunt object Arthur Sailes battling scorned wives and the Christian forces of evil as he and his partner Ben "dead behind the eyes" Sheets struggle for marital equality. As a libertarian I believe gays should have a right to get married. Ben & Arthur do more harm to that cause than an army of homophobes. The portrayal of all things Christian are so ugly and ham-fisted, trademark Mraovich, that you can't possibly take any of them seriously. Arthur's brother Victor, the bible toting Jesus freak, is so horribly over-the-top evil/effeminately gay that you have to wonder how he was cast in this role. That's because Sam "multitasking" Mraovich was also casting director. The worst of it all is Sam Mraovich himself. When you think leading man do the words pasty, balding, and chubby come to mind? Sam also delivers lines like domino's pizza, cold and usually wrong. The final tally: you suck at writing, directing, acting and casting. That's the Ed Wood quadruple crown. Congratulations you horrible little man.

neg

train_9159

pending

b09b8112-7163-4482-88ff-baf0942d8fed

This movie is just truly awful, the eye-candy that plays Ben just can make up for everything else that is wrong with this movie.<br /><br />The writer/director/producer/lead actor etc probably had a good idea to create a movie dealing with the important issues of gay marriage, family acceptance, religion, homophobia, hate crimes and just about every other issue effecting a gay man of these times, but trying to ram every issue into such a poorly conceived film does little justice to any of these causes.<br /><br />The script is poor, the casting very ordinary, but the dialogue and acting is just woeful. The homo-hating brother is played by the most camp actor and there is absolutely no chemistry between the two lead actors (I think I've seen more passion in an corn flakes ad). The acting is stiff, and the dialogue forced (a scene where the brother is feeding the detective his lines was the highlight).<br /><br />I'm just pleased to see that the creator of this train wreck has not pushed any other rubbish out in to distribution, and if he is thinking of doing so, I have some advise - JUST DON'T DO IT.

neg

train_9160

pending

d1d31d5c-1ea7-432d-bee4-690cad8cd82d

as an actor I really like independent films but this one is amateur at best.<br /><br />The boys go to Vermont for a civil service yet when the plane lands it flies over a palm tree - were the directors aware that palm trees are not in Vermont? Pines yes - palms no. And the same for the wedding service - again nice grove of palm trees.<br /><br />When the boys are leaving VT they apparently could not get a ticket on any major airline since the plane that is filmed is Federal Express. Did they ship themselves Overnight in a crate? Come on guys little details like this separate an indi film from totally amateur.<br /><br />The Christian brother is far gayer than Arthur with his bleached hair and tribal band tattoo. The two should have switched roles.<br /><br />The minor characters are laughable and overact something terrible.<br /><br />Applause to the directors for making a gay film but pay some attention to your locations and casting next time

neg

train_9161

pending

0fedd309-6263-4e5f-9e5f-cebe7ec83b20

Just watched this after hearing about how bad it was and wanted to see for myself. Seriously, even if you read all the negative comments on here you will be nowhere near able to comprehend how awful this film actually is, although it has to be one of the most hilarious things I have ever seen! Never bothered to post a comment on here before, but this piece of crap really warrants it. <br /><br />Firstly the entire plot is ridiculous and nonsensical. Brother of the lead character (either Ben or Arthur, I forget which is which, and frankly it's never very clear) wants to stop some kind of gay marriage by killing everyone in sight - because homosexuality is abhorrent to Christians, but apparently mass murder isn't. Then there's some other crap thrown in about one of the gay couple's ex-wife trying to force him to remarry her at gunpoint. This leads to nothing, but provides us with one of the funniest lines of dialogue in the whole "film" - "I don't make sense? You don't make sense! That's who makes sense!". Brilliant.<br /><br />Then there's the acting, which is just atrocious. It must be seen to be believed. My personal favourite is the apparently stoned civil rights lawyer woman, who is clearly reading her lines off of something, yet still managing to mess them up. Enough said. The gay couple couldn't be less convincing. There's the vaguely attractive and completely gormless guy, and his boyfriend who looks like that little cartoon dough man of the bisto adverts. Only fatter. And less talented. <br /><br />The "film" has also been filmed by someone who is incapable of holding a camera even remotely still, and the number of mistakes throughout is amazing. The whole thing kicks off with the fat main guy in bed with a pair of boots on. Yep.<br /><br />But anyways, we all know how terrible this thing is, so I'd like to highlight some of the most priceless comedy moments that the "film" provides. <br /><br />- When the fat guy sets the church on fire and then prances like a six year old girl across the car park to make his escape. Hilarious.<br /><br />- Mildread! No idea what relation she is to the main characters - sometimes they know her, sometimes they don't, but she pops up in a couple of scenes nonetheless. Hilarious.<br /><br />- The stoned lawyer. Already mentioned her, but she's so funny she's worth another mention.<br /><br />- The evil brothers dinner of crackers that he lays on for his guests.<br /><br />- The evil brother's anti-gay potion.<br /><br />- The evil brother's cats.<br /><br />- The ending, which I won't give away because it MUST be seen to be believed. I warn you though, make sure you're not eating at the time!!!! The tub of lard main character/director/producer gets naked. It's foul. <br /><br />Basically, Ben and Arthur is indescribably bad, but unintentionally the most comical thing you'll see for a long time. Literally, nothing is good about this excuse for a film, the goon of a director even manages to make the opening credits into a joke by writing his own name about 15 times.

neg

train_9162

pending

fc627d1a-ef16-4bde-a6e1-ab57aa164461

Oh man, what was Sam Mraovich thinking? What was anyone who was involved in this "film" thinking? Mraovich is the head of nearly everything of "Ben and Arthur": Director, writer, producer (also EXECUTIVE producer!), caster, lead star- you name it, he did it. And he (Mraovich) sucks more than anyone has ever sucked in every department of film making.<br /><br />So what is wrong with this film? Everything. The film is about two gay lovers, Ben (Jamie Brett Gabel) and Arthur (Mraovich- *groan*). Ben and Arthur want to get married in a world where everyone basically hates gay people. To make things worse, Ben's crazy "ex-wife" (they don't exactly divorce), Tammy (Julie Belknap) is steaming mad that Ben's left her for another man and demands Ben that they get back together (saying that she can be gay, too!) and Arthur's Christian devoted, excessively hypocritical, equally batty as Tammy brother, Victor, is hell bent on making Arthur turn straight and then try to kill him after he gets kicked out of his church.<br /><br />The film is absolutely chock a block with so many goofs (ie. Ben and Arthur fly to Vermont to get married- they go there on Alaska Airlines and Vermont has palm trees; they fly back on a FedEx cargo plane- hope they were comfy in a wooden crate, plus many, many more) and plot holes to boot (Victor calls killing Arthur "The Final Plan" which later changes to "The Final Deed"; Arthur and the private (intern) detective drive the same car, blah, blah, blah). The "actors" are all very bad and are way, way over the top; the script is laughably horrible(one such example is "I don't make sense? You don't make sense! I make sense, that's who makes sense!") and there so much more wrong with the "movie" that I can't write them all down.<br /><br />However, the most laughable yet unbelievable thing about "Ben and Arthur" is that Sam Mraovich thinks that he has created something that is truly fantastic (see his fake reviews for "Ben & Arthur" and obvious comments by him on YouTube.). Mraovich is narcissistic and his arrogance blinds him from seeing how awful anything with his name on it really is.<br /><br />So, to conclude, forget every bad film that you claim is the worst movie ever- "Ben and Arthur" will knock them right off that title, even Paris Hilton movies look like "The Dark Knight" compared to the monstrosity known as "Ben and Arthur".

neg

train_9163

pending

994de9fb-2b7f-442d-82f1-bdc59f0fb398

Phew--I don't what to say. This is a film that could be really good a with a bunch of stoned viewers. Some of the acting reminded me of John Waters' early offerings. Perhaps I should take that back--I don't want to insult Waters' ability as a director/storyteller.<br /><br />I particularly loved the lawyer taking about the "full faith and credibility" clause. It's "full faith and credit," by the way!<br /><br />This also reminds me of "The Conrad Boys," where the main actor is also the writer, director, film editor, etc. Those sort of multi-involved undertakings such as that are probably best left to very seasoned film professionals who would have the technical ability (albeit a stunt, some might say) to pull something off like that.

neg

train_9164

pending

13ff849d-0eb3-4159-9335-1a966f4841a8

I don't know what it is about this movie- director Sam Mraovich somehow messed up just about every little aspect in this movie. I would normally say that this is a movie that should not exist, but this movie may be the most important of all time. This movie should exist for the sole purpose of being without a doubt 'The Worst Movie Ever Made'. I've seen bad movies in my lifetime, but this somehow breaks what I considered bad into something much more hard to imagine.<br /><br />Everything in this movie is hilarious, but the single funniest thing is that Mraovich himself considers this to be a great movie.<br /><br />Oh wow...

neg

train_9165

pending

aacb1858-46f9-43d8-bf11-30bb885f66a5

Worst film ever, this is a statement that people here on IMDb often throw around. Whether it's an Uwe Boll movie, bad classics like Manos The Hands Of Fate or the latest no brains summer action fest from Michael Bay, people are often quick to jump to the sudden conclusion that on the board they're posting that there is nothing worse in the movie world.<br /><br />I envy these people, because they're blissfully ignorant and unaware of how deep the rabbit hole of crap movie making really goes. There are films out there so bad, so hideous, so unintentionally hilarious and so ridiculous that cults form around them to celebrate their awfulness and their discussion boards are the kindest places on the internet due to everyone agreeing unanimously that said film is really that bad.<br /><br />Ladies and Gentlemen, i present to you Ben and Arthur, an 85 minute gay epic that is so utterly bad that it's a lot like a violent car crash, you know it's awful but you can't stop looking at it. The brainchild of self proclaimed "hollywood actor, director" and may i add beached whale Sam Mraovich, this film is legendarily terrible. Let me give you a hint of how ego driven this project was. Mr Mraovich not only directed this film, he wrote it, produced it, executive produced it, scored it, edited it and then finally starred in it. This is a man so blinded by his own ego and so believing of his non existent genius that like someone with an ugly child he fails to recognise just how catastrophic his bastard creation really is.<br /><br />Everything in this film fails on an epic level, the acting is the worst you will ever witness, the plot is the most ridiculous, the editing and cinematography is the most amateur and even the music is like nails on a chalkboard. I'm aware i've gone on a bit of a tangent here, but please believe me that this film is really as bad as i describe it, i would say this film is horse crap squished into a film reel, but the truth is it wasn't even shot on film, it was shot on a digital camcorder not much better than the one sitting in your closet right now gathering dust. Don't get me wrong, i forgive low budgets for films provided the concept is interesting, for example as much as i disliked it The Blair Witch Project proved that low budgets can still lead to an atmospheric interesting film. Ben and Arthur does not have a good concept to fall back on, even if this film was shot on a budget of 20 million with Hollywoods finest actors it would still suck, the plot is that atrocious, and the characters are even worse. One of the main characters Arthur who is portrayed by non other than Sam Mraovich is one of the most whiny loathsome little turds ever put in a film. You'll dislike him within 5 minutes of the start of the film and by the end of the film that hate will have turned into outright loathing. Apparently Mr Mraovich forgot that we're supposed to root for the hero.<br /><br />I don't want to spoil all the gut busting hilarity you'll experience watching this film (which i urge you not to pay for) so i will give you two tame mild examples of how stupid this film is, tame and mild as in amongst the least offending mistakes in the movie. In one cut we hear one of the main characters say how "they know a good lawyer and will give HIM a call" the shot fades out then fades back in and this HIM they spoke of earlier is actually a woman, quite a spectacular mistake to make in post production i think. The second is simple, seconds after seeing this transsexual lawyer the characters are told to fly to Vermont, we then cut to a shot of a plane landing amongst palm trees in a sunny area. I've never been to Vermont personally but i'm certain you won't find any palm trees there.<br /><br />Imagine this kind of stupid amateur inconsistency stretched to nearly an hour and a half combined with ridiculous dialogue and plot and then multiply it by 10 and it still won't fully prepare you for Ben and Arthur. Imagine the absolute worst film you've seen in your life and imagine it being even worse and you still won't be on the same level as Ben and Arthur, this film is really that bad.<br /><br />However we should be glad in a way, films like this are a true rarity. They give us hope that one day we can become film makers ourselves or that we can be screenwriters. Simply because we'll have a new found sense of confidence due to the fact that we'll know that nothing we produce no matter how amateur could be as much of a suck fest as this.<br /><br />The real worst movie of all time has finally been discovered, and it is called Ben and Arthur.

neg

train_9166

pending

d6dbe3c7-72bc-4a35-a0a7-14e1c0ef42ad

What can I say, this is a piece of brilliant film-making that should have won an Oscar. A copy should be kept safe in a secure vault for posterity. It should be required viewing for all high school students across the world. Sam Mraovich is a genius, perhaps the most genius writer/director/producer/chef/babysitter/walmart greeter to ever grace the cinema world with his art.<br /><br />Where do I begin with this one? Every millisecond of Ben and Arthur was so completely breathtaking! And Mraovich as Arthur, wow, he is so attractive I'm surprised he didn't go for Mr. Universe. I couldn't contain myself during the nude scene. I loaned this movie to my brother and he called me on the phone saying how Arthur's nude scene turned him gay. I am totally supportive of course, because of this film and it's beautifully crafted lessons in tolerance. Why just yesterday I burned down a church and I wrote "for Sam and Arthur" in its smoldering ashes.<br /><br />The cinematography was the best thing about this film. When that Fed-Ex plane took to the skies amid the palm trees of Vermont, I wept! Why, I never even knew they had palm trees in Vermont or that people could travel on Fed-Ex planes before this film. It opened my eyes to a new realm of possibilities. This film inspired me to enroll in Sam Mraovich's school of Screen writing, Acting, Directing, Composing, Casting, Producing, Production Design and Real Estate. I just want to say, "Thank you, Mr. Mraovich. Thank you for bringing this creation into the world. We can never re-pay you enough."

neg

train_9167

pending

95b4b5ac-3035-4962-b6fa-f8655b46f9f8

When the film began, I was shocked to see it was filmed using a cheap video camera! In fact, the camera shakes and looks worse than the average home movie. Even direct to DVD films should have production values better than this! Heck, a large percentage of the home videos uploaded to YouTube have better production values! All too often, the film seriously appears to be made by sticking the camera on a tripod and turning it on--with no camera person! Closeups and anything resembling camera-work are absent in some scenes where they might have worked and in others there are too many or poorly framed closeups. Yecch! <br /><br />The film is about two gay men who want to become married. As if was made almost a decade ago, their only option was marrying in Vermont--times have definitely changed. However, the recent acceptance of gay marriage cannot in any way be attributed to this film--if anything, it set the gay marriage supporters back instead of helping as the movie stinks and never really tries to seriously address the issue. According to the film, religious people are one-dimensional idiots who carry Bibles EVERYWHERE and shoot people as well as wives who have gay husbands are narrow-minded when they learn their spouses have been living a lie--go figure. I'm sure glad it gives an honest chance to both sides on the issue! <br /><br />The bottom line--nothing about the film shows any professionalism at all and I even hesitate to call this a film. It's more like a home movie and doesn't even merit a listing on IMDb or even inclusion on IMDb's Bottom 100 list of the worst rated films of all time. The acting is horrible, the writing is horrible, the direction (if there even is any) is horrible, the camera-work is horrible and the plot is horrible. It's a home movie!! There is nothing positive I can say about this in any way except that it makes the films of Ed Wood seem like Oscar contenders in comparison and I am sure the ghost of Mr. Wood is smiling every time someone watches this mess! <br /><br />I don't care if you are gay or straight--this film is not worth your time and I don't know how they managed to create DVDs of it. I assume one of the actors burns them on his home computer during his free time! Seriously, this gives new meaning to the word 'bad'!<br /><br />By the way, if the one lady in the film WAS a real lawyer, wouldn't the ability to read be an important prerequisite?! I'm just sayin'.<br /><br />Finally, with gay marriage being such a serious and important topic, can't we have a film that's BETTER than THIS that addresses the issue?! This one, sadly, only invites laughter.

neg

train_9168

pending

b6a61984-b112-4d83-9a2e-5b28092122a5

Oh, Sam Mraovich, we know you tried so hard. This is your magnum opus, a shining example to the rest of us that you are certainly worth nomination into the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (as you state on your 1998-era web site). Alas, it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. With Ben & Arthur, you do just that.<br /><br />Seemingly assembled with a lack of instruction or education, the film's screenplay guides us toward the truly bizarre with each new scene. It's this insane excuse of a story that may also be the film's best ally. Beginning tepidly, the homosexually titular characters Ben and Arthur attempt to marry, going so far as to fly across country to do so, in the shade of Vermont's finest palm trees. But, all of this posturing is merely a lead-in for BLOOD. Then more BLOOD, and MORE AND MORE BLOOD. I mean, there must be at least $20 in fake blood make-up in the final third of this film.<br /><br />The film in its entirety is a technical gaffe. From the sound to the editing to the music, which consists of a single fuzzy bass note being held on a keyboard, it's a wonder that the film even holds together on whatever media you view it on. It's such a shame then that some decent amateur performances are wasted here.<br /><br />No matter, Sam. I'm sure you've made five figures on this flick in rentals or whatever drives poor souls (such as myself) to view this film. Sadly, we're not laughing with you.

neg

train_9169

pending

c1fdf534-d9db-4acd-b37b-4829fe94b20a

I tried to like this program; I really did. I even bought the pilot film, first on VHS and later on DVD. However, I couldn't get into this story because its two main characters: "David" (Bruce Willis) and "Maddie" (Cybill Shepherd) just seemed to in love with themselves, for one thing. I admit was some clever dialog in the shows, which was a key part of the success of the TV program, and I did appreciate of lot of that dialog. <br /><br />Basically, this was almost like the old screwball comedy movies of the '30s and '40s with male versus female. You get lots of arguing, accusations, yelling and screaming. A lot of people apparently love that sort of bickering, but I hate it, so I never got on the Moonlighting bandwagon. <br /><br />Only Allyce Beasley as the hapless aide "Agnes," was entertaining. It's too bad she had such little air time. Shepherd was nice on the eyes and I suppose women would say the same for Willis, but too much arguing between the two finally turned me off.

neg

train_9170

pending

5d9bf058-38ae-4fb1-a154-853aba73191c

This is strictly a review of the pilot episode as it appears on DVD.<br /><br />Television moved out of my life in 1981, so I never followed the series or any part of it - which means that I'm immune to the nostalgic charm that Moonlighting appears to have for most reviewers. <br /><br />(Possible spoiler warning) <br /><br />The pilot of Moonlighting is your basic "caveman meets fluffball" yarn, where a "charming" red-blooded he-man manipulates a misguided woman into realizing what she really wants and needs. The premises that the script's "wit" is based on must have already felt stale around 1950. It also contains some frankly bad writing, as in the scene where Maddie demolishes the furnishings instead of shooting the villain, strictly in order to prove herself the inept female in need of masculine assistance. <br /><br />I often feel that Susan Faludi overreacts in seeing male chauvinist conspiracy in simple entertainment, but in this particular case I'm all with her - Moonlighting has BACKLASH stamped all over it. <br /><br />In one sense, however, this DVD is a must for all serious Bruce Willis fans: in addition to the pilot episode, it contains the screen test that landed Willis the job. Both features show to what amazing extent Willis' acting ability developed between 1985 and 1988/89 (Die Hard 1, In Country). Impressive! <br /><br />Rating (and I _am_ a Bruce Willis fan): 2 out of 10

neg

train_9171

pending

5ec09ba1-3522-4842-bed8-581dffd9b0cd

The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu starring Peter Sellers in a spoof of the characters created by Sax Rohmer is an injustice to the end of Sellers' career. The plot was very simplistic, and if done the right way could have been handled nicely, but instead it was poorly executed. Part of the reasons why this film wasn't that good was the poor dialog, cheap laughs, choppy directing, and an awkward feeling that the film was somewhat incomplete.<br /><br />The acting, on the other hand, was really the only thing that kept my interest during this mixed up picture. I found Sellers portrayal of diabolical Manchu brilliantly done, with the occasional lines that will be remembered. For example, there is the scene where Fu Manchu is confused which henchman is which in which he says "Ah, you all look the same to me." I hate to admit it, but I laughed out loud with that line.<br /><br />Then of course a fistful of strong supporting characters really caught my attention with the likes of Helen Mirren as the backstabbing constable, David Tomilson as Sir Roger Avery (his last film as well, not a way to end a career), and Sid Ceasar (who gives a rather whimsical performance of Al Capone's relative who works for the FBI). These characters also kept me watching.<br /><br />The sets were also nice. Oriental designs and English society in 1933 was depicted with elegance in this dud-of-a-picture.<br /><br />In all honesty, my advice to you is to watch the film if you are a Peter Sellers or Sid Ceasar fan. Otherwise, you're better off settling on chewing aluminum foil.

neg

train_9172

pending

a2fe7f3c-0bb9-4b3a-8503-9aa43b2631a5

I can hardly believe I watched this again last night after more than 25 years...<br /><br />Some time back, I watched 6 Fu films in a row... Boris Karloff, and all 5 Chris Lees. The last 2 Lees, both directed (and I use that word loosely) by Jess Franco, were abominable. At the time, I skipped this one, remembering that, in some ways, it was EVEN WORSE.<br /><br />Well, I watched it. NEVER again. You know what's worse that an abominable film? A really WELL-MADE piece of S***. And that's what FIENDISH PLOT is. It is a VERY good-looking movie. GREAT production design, sets, costumes, music, photography, editing, mostly good cast, some decent acting...<br /><br />...and absolutely, positively, one of the WORST SCRIPTS in movie history!!!!! AAAUGH!!!!! The first minute of the film is so deceptive... one might mistake this for a decent movie. And then they start singing "Happy birthday to Fu"... and it goes downhill. Having Burt Kwouk (of whom his master says, "Your face-- is familiar.") accidentally pour out Fu's elixir vitae to put out a fire, resulting in his being condemned to torture, burial and having one of his ears cut off, was the closest thing to funny they had. It was like someone decided they wanted to do a "campy" film-- so ridiculous it would be funny. RIDICULOUS, it is... FUNNY... it AIN'T. At all.<br /><br />It's sad, because it's clear in the first few minutes that someone did a LOT of research into the Fu Manchu series in order to get so much of it "right". With a different script-- either a really FUNNY one, or a dead SERIOUS one, they might have-- could have-- SHOULD have-- had a classic on their hands. A film that could have made one forget the horror of those Jess Franco atrocities... instead of making one want to dig them out as masterpieces, by comparison.<br /><br />There was a period in the late 70's when a whole slew of classic 30's characters were revived in movies that were universally awful. Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, Tarzan, The Lone Ranger, Charlie Chan, even Doc Savage. I'm not sure, this one may be the worst of the lot. It took great self-control not to fast-forward over whole sections of it, especially any scenes containing Sid Caesar (FBI chief who was also Al Capone's cousin-- you see what I mean?). It isn't just that the ideas in the film aren't funny... they often make NO SENSE whatsoever. Like when they "audition" police officers to impersonate the King and Queen, and we wind up seeing people "audition" dance-hall routines like singing, dancing, and riding a unicycle. How many drugs did the writers of this thing have to take for any of this to make sense to them? <br /><br />As I said, a shame... and a real waste of all that talent, including that of Peter Sellers (who played both Fu and Nayland Smith), Burt Kwouk (who'd been in a Chris Lee Fu film in his time), Helen Mirren (the police woman who shockingly falls in love with the villain and damn near steals the last half-hour of the film!). I begin to wonder if anyone will EVER make a "proper" Fu Manchu film, or if fans will have to settle for Karloff's being almost the ONLY one?

neg

train_9173

pending

6cb235fb-998d-4487-b596-28ab4d5b818f

It is true that some fans of Peter Sellers work may be disappointed with this, his last venture. But surely any fan of Sellers will find delight in all of his films, simply because of the man's huge talent. and The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu is certainly no exception. Unfortunately this would prove to be Sellers last film, (it was even released after his death), but it's still nice to see how the man had managed to keep his irreplaceable talent right until his untimely demise. And not only do we get one Sellers, but we get to, for Sellers plays not only the title role but also his nemesis, the equally bizarre Nayland Smith, the detective on the hunt for the crazed 168 year old Fu. The story is equally outlandish as we follow Fu's outrageous antics to make his age-defying elixir and also Nayland and his group of associates trying to prevent him. Just like any of Sellers greater films, the film comes with a guaranteed impeccable performance from him, as well as many of his familiar-faced co-stars - David Tomlinson, Sid Caesar, John Le Mesurier, Clive Dunn and Helen Mirren to name a few. It's also nice to see Pink Panther stalwart Burt Kwouk (Cato) enjoying a cameo with Sellers - albeit playing the same role, but still nice. The story is indeed pretty ridiculous, as are many of the characters involved, which classes this as a film strongly under the Goon influence. And, although it never reaches the heights of Goon comedy, there are plenty of amusing jokes that seem to point in the right direction. The film failed commercially on it's initial release due to the entire world mourning after Sellers' death (the film was released less than 3 weeks after)and there is always that sorrowful thought lurking in the back of your mind when viewing it that this was Sellers last film. It's far from a great film - it's often slow, too ridiculous, and sometimes the jokes simply aren't there - but it is nevertheless enjoyable - if only for another top rate performance from Peter Sellers.

neg

train_9174

pending

c5d3a84f-4827-41e2-9012-8075c652c722

There's no getting around it-- this movie is terrible. I've seen the old Christopher Lee/Fu Manchu movies, I'm familiar with the characters and it's serial origins, but it's still just godawful. However, Peter Sellers' genius still shines through with his portrayal of Nayland Smith, with echoes of sadness, tragedy, and strength simmering through a stoic facade; it's a performance I place on par with Peter Cushing's portrayal of Van Helsing but done in a tenth of the cumulative screen time of all Cushing's "Dracula" movies. If the movie was done in a more serio-comic vein like BUBBA HO-TEP by way of the 1960's AVENGERS TV show, this could've been something special. If you're a Fu Manchu or Peter Sellers completest, this is something you need to see, but it's a pass for anyone else.

neg

train_9175

pending

3865b17b-ad12-4df3-84eb-91f04e006ac5

Even if one didn't realize that Sellers was in poor health at the time of filming and passed away before the film's release, THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU would be painful viewing. It is supposedly a lampoon of Sax Rohmer's famous Oriental villain but it lacks any focus. The potential for satirical commentary on the anti-Oriental overtones of Rohmer's concept are ignored. Indeed, the movie employs racist insults. There are hardly any actual jokes or gags, just mostly actors behaving idiotically and spouting dreary lines. It is especially distressing to see Sid Caesar forced to spout curses and racial slurs for attempted laughs. Most of the other actors embarrass themselves as well.<br /><br />And then there's Peter Sellers. He plays the dual roles of the sinister Fu Manchu, who is trying to concoct a formula to regain his youth and his stalwart British foe Nayland Smith. Sellers isn't one hundred per cent bad; he conveys a quirky warmth as Smith when he discusses his fetishistic attachment to his lawn mower and he's oddly moving as Manchu when he expresses his love for English music hall entertainment. But most of the time, he plays both roles with a weary grimness, thus further sabotaging any comical possibilities. Sellers' routines where he revitalizes his fading strength with electric shocks are particularly excruciating; he seems too convincingly agonized to be funny. <br /><br />A few genuinely witty lines, an apt slapstick bit by Burt Kwouk (Cato in the PINK PANTHER films) as one of Manchu's minions, and Helen Mirren's amusing musical numbers cannot salvage this mess. If anyone wants to understand why Peter Sellers is considered a comedic genius, they won't learn anything from THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU.

neg

train_9176

pending

bf1e7e3d-948d-4a9c-b596-e7fafe997d25

Ok so here's the basic plot. It is 1933, Peter Sellers is Dr Fu Manchu, a 168 year old Chinese man who has lived quite a long time. The film opens with his birthday in which he celebrates by drinking a special elixir that (even the film never mentions) prolongs his life. Well on this occasion the elixir is clumsily dropped by an assistant (Kato if you remember the Pink Panther movies) and he orders his minions to then go find 6 rare items to make the elixir. This creates a global man hunt in which his henchmen end up robbing museums of diamonds and venturing into London, to meet up with Dr Fu's nemisis, a retired Scotland Yard detective Nayland Smith, also played by Sellers who tries to stop him in what is suppose to be a witty comedic adventure.<br /><br />This was apparantly Sellers last full length feature film that he made before he died. The terrible tragedy is that he was in it. Sellers who is such a gifted comedian and has had memorable 'funny' roles in the Panther movies and particualrly in the movie 'The Party', is anything BUT that in this film. This film was absolute torture to sit through and I couldn't even finish it. He completly DIES and I kept cringing while watching Sellers performance. After coming of the great work of 'Being There' a year earlier how, I mean HOW can he make this and HOW did this thing even get made??? Like one person mentioned the first 10..15 minutes are ok but then it is ALL DOWNHILL...<br /><br />Avoid like the plague.<br /><br />Rating 1 out of 10.

neg

train_9177

pending

a0deb573-b03e-4698-9985-445d516f592e

....shut it off. The prologue with Fu Manchu's birthday, and the opening credits of the assassins training, is amusing. Then it drops off faster than hair sprayed with Neat. Look for a cameo by Cato in the beginning, with a figurative wink at the audience.

neg

train_9178

pending

c8f4b0eb-2a83-47e7-88e0-a8ca74b17fee

It's one of the funny things about being young that one can be fooled easily by advertising. I have spoken before on another film,in which the commercial for the (comedy) film makes it seem funnier than it is. Seeing the ad for this in 1981 made me think this was going to be a wildly funny film. What I and my brother who went and saw it with me didn't know is that the scene used in the TV ad was the very last scene in the film! <br /><br />Since this scene is the end result of all that came before in the film,I can only guess that there was nothing else funny to use! The last scene is,thanks to a youth potion,Dr. Fu Manchu turns from a long bearded old man,into a bright young Asian/Elvis like rock star! (With back up singers no less!) <br /><br />Set for no real reason,in the 1930's,Peter Sellers does his best with the material at hand but he's not given any really good reason for his "comedic" moments. The rest of the actors were just plain dull and my brother and I sat all through this barely laughing at anything. It was only natural that we were expecting a "Pink Panther" type comedy,Peter Sellers was so great at that. <br /><br />It's a pitiful shame this was his last film before he died. His appearance on the Muppet Show was more entertaining than this ill-conceived flop. Still,I don't fault him. I fault everyone else involved for not trying to make a better film of this. 2 stars is being generous!!

neg

train_9179

pending

22935086-9bd3-45f1-82f1-0eef7c6448a4

This may not be the very worst movie Peter Sellers ever did (I think that laurel goes to "The Prisoner of Zenda") but it is surely the most depressing. Sellers, especially sans makeup as Nayland Smith, looks like he has just undergone chemotherapy. As Fu Manchu, he looks hardly better and spends most of the film (with the exception of those strangely disturbing scenes where he gets jolted with electrical currents) on the verge of collapsing under the weight of all that makeup. The supporting players also look tired and run down, and Sid Caeser's presence is offensive even without his constant references to "Chinks!" (One bright spot: this would be one of the last times a major motion picture would portray Asians so insultingly ... or, for that matter, star a non-Asian as one!). The film seems surprisingly cheap, with soupy photography and drab sets - even the whiz-bang Elvis number at the end looks cut-rate. Only the stunning Helen Mirren and the tall, thin, nervous guy who get his pants wet add any sparks of life to this sad affair. All in all, this film provides an eerie premonition of a great comic's death, and an even eerier documentation of his dying.

neg

train_9180

pending

0c9d2bac-a52f-432d-92ee-bb03b767b685

I don't have much to say about this movie. It could have been a wonderful tour-de-force for Peter Sellers, but it is one of the most tragic misfires in movie history. That it was Sellers final movie makes it all the more painful.<br /><br />The terrible screenplay, direction and shockingly wooden performances all come dreadfully together to make this one of the most unwatchably awful movies ever made.<br /><br />I wish so much that I could find even a snicker or a chuckle buried somewhere in this pile of putrid blubber, but it's a lifeless, humorless disaster. The truth hurts.<br /><br />Peter, why couldn't you have stopped at BEING THERE?

neg

train_9181

pending

f9c82bc8-04fd-4402-83bc-189cbe3cefed

An unfunny, unworthy picture which is an undeserving end to Peter Sellers' career. It is a pity this movie was ever made.

neg

train_9182

pending

d548d4f7-57aa-41b0-8e36-07e2184e36f2

This is not an all-around terrible comedy, but it is very DULL. It has barely any laughs, and it wastes its lavish production values. There is one poignant moment near the end, when Fu Manchu offers a dose of his elixir to his "nemesis" and tells him that "You've been my one worthy adversary; and now we can start all over again". That scene, however, along with Burt Kwouk's amusing cameo in the beginning, are the only memorable parts of the movie. (*1/2)

neg

train_9183

pending

d3560b26-ecff-479c-8b00-aa08fed2f8fc

The Fiendish Plot of Dr. Fu Manchu (1980). This is hands down the worst film I've ever seen. What a sad way for a great comedian to go out.

neg

train_9184

pending

4e41b147-fc19-4c55-987f-247685ada3dc

I actually saw this movie in the theater back in it's original release. It was painful to watch Peter Sellers embarrass himself so badly. The story was incredibly lame and difficult to follow, and the ending was ridiculous. It was just sad to see how the mighty had fallen. I won't say that I'm a huge Peter Sellers fan, but I did thoroughly enjoy the Pink Panther series and I felt that he gave a strong performance in Being There. But this film should never have been made. From what I've read, he pursued producing this film against the advice of the people around him. Fine, but that still doesn't excuse the studio actually releasing the film.

neg

train_9185

pending

90af7e75-ca99-489d-8ddd-7da607618b63

This is, quite literally, the worst movie I have ever watched in my life. It may be the worst movie possible. Some movies are so bad that they're good; this movie is so bad that it goes past enjoyable camp and simply becomes unwatchably awful. It is the anti-enantiodromia. We bought it with the intent to heckle, and all of my family gathered around for a fun evening of clever remarks; instead, we sat in stunned silence, pitying poor Peter Sellers.<br /><br />This is worse than the animated Lord of the Rings. It is worse than the Matrix sequels. It is worse than Krull. It is worse than any Batman movie.<br /><br />Do not, under any circumstances, let this movie approach within ten feet of your television.

neg

train_9186

pending

87a3502f-4dac-4cd0-a575-5ea6ca6d4f12

... or maybe it just IS this bad. The plot is a cheap rehash of the first, which is weird, since it's supposed to be a prequel, not a sequel. Pretty much the entire movie seems like a cheap remake of the first, with scenes mimicking the things that happened in the first, only a lot more ridiculous and unlikely. Where the first had a great cast, this one consist of B-list actors and rejects. The acting is mostly horrendously bad. Half of the good lines in the movie are taken directly from the first, as is nearly every major character, including the ones who weren't in the first movie. I realize this was made up by a TV series pilot episode, but that's no excuse. They didn't have to turn the (bad) footage into a movie. Only one thing is marginally good, and that's the erotic sequences. However, as these are nowhere near as good as the ones in the first, even this isn't raising it above a rating of 1. If you have a chance to see it for free, and you're a straight guy, it could be worth checking out, if you want something erotic that isn't porn. If not, avoid at all costs. 1/10

neg

train_9187

pending

5cdc04ee-e573-43f8-8f13-47ba3bfca338

There isn't one decent scene.<br /><br />Amy Adams gives one of the worst performances of all time. Proof that you a can start anywhere. The guy playing Sebastian sucks, too. He doesn't even look much like Ryan Phillipe. More like Joshua Jackson. The two other girls are terrible, as well. <br /><br />Then the dialogue is also crap.<br /><br />Sebastian (About to have threesome): If you cant beat them... <br /><br />Virgin Girl: Who says you can't beat 'em?<br /><br />Lame.<br /><br />The ending contradicts the entire plot of the original. In the first film, it is clearly stated that Kathryn and Sebastian never had sex. One of the reasons Sebastian wanted Kathryn so bad, aside from the fact that she's played by Sarah Michelle Gellar, was that she was "the only girl he couldn't have and it killed him". She was a tease who liked playing with him. The fact that she never gave it to him increased his wanting. Then in this P.O.S., it implies that he CAN have her, along with a girl on the side. What? And we don't even see the sex, either. It's implied, making it not only stupid, pointless, and contradictory, but worthless too.<br /><br />And in the first one, Kathryn rejects Sebastian because he fell in love, making him a loser. Even though he won the bet, that crumbled his chances. Then in this excrement, he looses AND falls in love. So she doesn't screw "losers", only complete losers? Another thing: it's stated that Sebastian has never been in love, so what do you call the thing with Virgin Girl?<br /><br />Then at the end, virgin girl is all of sudden revealed to be Kathryn's evil lesbian lover (dun dun dun) and, like I said, they go into a lame offscreen threesome. Stupid. <br /><br />There's several other plot contradictions. Did the writer even see the first film? A 5 year old can point his stuff out.<br /><br />After the threesome, Sebastian has sex with the blonde virgin, corrupting her innocent mind in the back of a limo while Kathryn and Virgin Girl Turned Evil Lesbian In Lame Sudden Plot Twist sit in the front, listen, and smile evilly into the camera. <br /><br />The end... <br /><br />Seeing Sebastian become the ass hole he was in the first one could have made an interesting film. I guess all it took to make little Sebastian bad was a threesome with two hot girls. Interesting.

neg

train_9188

pending

aa895ba6-396f-4d89-9c49-49ed2ee3a092

If you ask me the first one was really better one. Look at Sarah M. G., she is real, mean, cruel girl, look at Amy Adams she is just little fool hanging around. She is nothing! People don't adore her! Second, Sebastian was cute and hot in first movie, now he is "baby face". Story is not that good, and i do not understand. Why didn't they make this one first, it is the beginning. Loosy actors, nothing with story. This is not cruel, this is playing. First one has better actors, better story, and its mean. I think that the music is better in cruel intentions 1 and the music is better in cruel intentions 3. It is not the worst movie I saw, but in compaer with first one its one big, big, big nothing.

neg

train_9189

pending

e51e297f-aba6-4d1b-bf51-4822356af6e8

Because 'cruel' would be the only word in existence to describe the intentions of these film makers. Where do you even begin? In a spout of b*tchiness, I'm going to start with the awful acting of nearly everybody in this movie. Scratch that. Nearly does not belong in that sentence. I can't think of even one character who was portrayed well. Although, in all fairness, it would be nearly impossible to portray these zero dimensional characters in a successful way. Still, the girl who played Katherine (whose name I purposefully don't include - I'm pretending she doesn't exist) remains one of the worst actors I've ever seen, only eclipsed by the guy who played Sebastian. The story was God awful. It attempted to mirror the brilliance that was the first one but failed in so many ways. Pretty much every part of it was pointless - though I will admit (grudgingly) that the plot twist was quite good it its surprise. And the ending was at least slightly humorous. But this film is up there with the worst I've seen. Don't watch it. Just don't. There is absolutely no value in watching it. None. It only takes away the enjoyment of the first.

neg

train_9190

pending

b1b51ceb-b026-419c-9e0a-24601fe2ae97

They had such potential for this movie and they completely fall flat. In the first Cruel Intentions, we are left wondering what motivated the lead characters to become the way they are and act the way they do. There is almost NO character development whatsoever in this prequel. It's actually a very sad story but this film did nothing for me. It was as if they left out good writing in place of unneeded f-words. And the end makes absolutely no sense and doesn't explain anything. The writing was just terrible. Another thing that bothered me was that they used at lease 3 of the EXACT SAME lines that were in the original. Such as "down boy", or the kissing scene, and a few others I can't remember. I was not impressed at all by Robin's acting, but Amy did a great job. That's about the only thing that reconciled this movie.

neg

train_9191

pending

ca00b300-3030-4bf0-a358-293fb799b259

Basically, Cruel Intentions 2 is Cruel Intentions 1, again, only poorly done. The story is exactly the same as the first one (even some of the lines), with only a few exceptions. The cast is more unknown, and definitely less talented. Instead of being seductive and drawing me into watching it, I ended up feeling dirty because it compares to watching a soft-core porn. I'm not sure whether to blame some of the idiotic lines on the actors or the writers...and I always feel bad saying that, because I know how hard it is to do both...but it was basically a two-hour waste of my life. It literally amazes me that some movies get made, and this is no exception...I can't believe they'd make a third one.

neg

train_9192

pending

655469c1-c74b-4b78-9c93-b7a0d3106466

Cruel Intentions 2 is bloody awful, I mean uber-bad. Words can not explain how bad it is, but I'll give it a go anyway.<br /><br />The plot of Cruel Intentions 2 is very similar to the first film. Sebastian (Robin Dunne), is kicked out of a private school and is forced to move to New York. There he decides to make a fresh start and just a life a normal life and settle down. Unfortunately he has to deal with his step-sister Kathryn (Amy Adams) wants to drag him down. Sebastain starts to fall in love Danielle (Sarah Thompson), the innocent daughter of the Headmaster of the school. Kathryn wants Sebastain to just sleep around with the whole school which had been describe as a 'whore-house'. Kathryn also wants to get revenge with Cherie (Keri Lynn Pratt), who humiliated her during the school assembly. Kathryn wanted to make the freshman into the biggest slut in the school, a similar sub-plot to the first film.<br /><br />Cruel Intentions 2 is basically a cancelled TV-show, which was turned into a prequel. There are so many problems with the film. It is poorly written, unfunny, and badly acted. Luckily for Amy Adams that the show never took off because now she is a fairly big actress. Whilst Cruel Intentions had a sense of realism and can been seen to be set in the real world, Cruel Intentions 2 is set in sitcom land and as described on amazon.co.uk 'a randy version of Saved by the Bell'. There were some dark themes involving sex and drug use in the first film, but in Cruel Intentions 2 tried to make it funny and some of the ideas in the film shouldn't be, such as Kathryn having an affair with a teacher. Other ideas also don't work such as the secret society where all the popular kids meet to discuss the downfall of other students. The film also had a major problem of sexualised 15/16-years-old. I know that teenagers do have sex, sometimes a lot, but when done on film or television, is treated very seriously. One famous sense was when Daneille encourages Cherie (who is around 14/15 in the film) to simulate sex on the back of a horse to the point where she has a orgasm. The idea of turning a girl around 14/15 into a slut is just very wrong with me, and shouldn't be made into a subject of comedy. The jokes in the film fall flat, whether if it's a verbal gag like 'she goes all moist when she sees you' to a visual gag where Sebastian pushes Kathryn face first into mud.<br /><br />There is a lot wrong with this film, which I don't have time to go into, but I say it should be avoid. Just watch Cruel Intentions, whilst not a classic, still is a decent film and treats the subject matter well.<br /><br />This film is just a pervert's wet dream, having school-kids having lots of sex with each other.

neg

train_9193

pending

3c9eb4ec-2e44-4780-96c6-ed802bf3c272

I watched this movie at 3'o clock in the morning, a time in the day where I am usually very open when it comes to movies. But still I think it wasn't good, this movie wasn't good at all. The reasons why are many.<br /><br />The acting isn't all that good, and time after time situations occurring in it reminded me of a poor 90's Chevy Chase comedy. I mean, come on, like the handcuff situation, and the poker situation amongst the servants... This movie was so obviously based very much on the first one, and thats OK. But if I hadn't seen the first one before seeing this, it would have sucked even worse. Like the ending, it came very suddenly, and I felt like I got no closure what so ever... Sebastian changed very suddenly, and this This movie seems like it was made solely to explain nr 1, and like no time or effort was used on making anything else good. The score is the same as in the first one, and it didn't feel like a movie at all...<br /><br />They should have handled the situations with more style and class, but they didn't, and therefore, this movie turned out bad...

neg

train_9194

pending

531e4921-4e0b-437d-9964-58388998063c

The first Cruel Intentions, the original, is my favorite movie of all time. It was an absolute masterpiece. So how on earth could they make a sequel so downright bad. Sarah Michelle Gellar was perfect in the first movie. In this one, Amy Adams sucks. She is terrible. And couldn't they have found a chick who actually looked like Sarah Michelle Gellar? At least the same hair color!!! i mean come on. Robin Dunn isn't as bad as Adams, but he is absolutely terrible when compared to Ryan Phillipe. The Sebastian in the first film is devious, deceitful, and much more evil than the Sebastian in the prequel. And what is up with the story line. It basically goes like this...<br /><br />1- Sebastian has a bad rep at his first school, so the movie says, although it mentions nothing about him and his dating life, and how he has been with girls 2- Sebastian moves to New York, and just suddenly decides he's going to turn himself around. He "falls in love" with Danielle (might i remind you that in the original, Sarah Michelle giller says quote "you broke up with THE FIRST PERSON you ever loved because i said to- so how can he have been in love in the prequel???). And he's all nice and charming, and all "good person", as he turns down sex from the chick his dad was doing.<br /><br />3- He does a complete 180, and ends up in a threesome at the end of the movie, and then seducing Cherry.<br /><br />I mean, its terrible. And i loved the first one so much. I haven't even seen the third one yet. I hope to god its better than this prequel.

neg

train_9195

pending

a7d719f0-6c26-40be-9dce-6e033d3677f2

This so-called prequel is just a badly made remake to to a better version of Dangerous Liasons. The plots are identical as is most of the script. I loved the book its based off of, and I loved the first movie, but I'm not even going to bother with the 3rd movie. The pointless banter between the two main characters in the prequel was completely predictable and unoriginal, and...I just can't stress how bad the movie was. If you don't want to take my word for it, just watch it, and you'll see what I mean. If you've read a review that says that 'If you likes the first one, you'll like the second one' the only reason that is is because IT IS THE EXACT SAME MOVIE! Although the plot is not even as good. They took so many lines from the first movie, Its hard to tell which movie you're watching.

neg

train_9196

pending

c9babef8-f9e9-4c97-aaaf-128811b4f631

I was mad anyone made this movie. I was even more angry I lost valuable minutes of my life sitting still to watch this. I could have had a wax job and been more entertained. At least Cherri makes me laugh before it hurts. I was a bit confused at first but then I caught on and realized what was going on. By this time the film was half way through, and Yes I am a procrastinator but I always want to see things through until the end. So I stuck it out I watched it all. Not only are the actors not as attractive as in Cruel Intentions, they just aren't convincing. I've seen my nephew cry for attention more convincingly than the supposed lust portrayed on screen in this movie. If you like bad movies with bad acting watch this.

neg

train_9197

pending

c6e5f27b-2d32-49ca-bea5-88fb5a04679a

From the very opening scene you will notice just how hard they tried to mimic the very smart and powerful 'Cruel Intentions', and how flat it landed. You'll also notice what a terrible choice they made by casting Robin Dunne as Valmont... Then in the second scene, you meet the two best things in this movie, Amy Adams and Mimi Rogers as Kathryn and her mother. That is, if you can get past the fact that Kathryn wasn't blonde in the first film... Then the movie goes on, you see the cheap romantic story from miles ago, and you notice Sebastian has already met an Anette in the past, here called Danielle, and a Cecile, here called Cherie... How original is that for a prequel. Then it turns into a low budget 'Wild Things' type of film with lots and lots of oh-my "twists". As I mentioned, Robin Dunne was a very bad choice. Not that he is a bad actor, he's good.. He just doesn't have the charisma Ryan did. Amy Adams, who is in my opinion one of the most talented young actresses of our time, once again delivers. But with all the talent in the world, there is no way one could save this trash. As a whole, this "movie" feels like a 'Beverly Hills, 90210' episode. The score has been stolen from 'Cruel Intentions' and 'Jawbreaker'... Yes, they used the score from JAWBREAKER... Couldn't they at least leave that one alone?! You'll want to pass this one. If you want more Cruel Intentions, watch Stephen Frears' Dangerous Liaisons.

neg

train_9198

pending

bcd88a39-8386-409d-b23a-b85a997de0cd

What can I say about Cruel intentions 2? Well, I can say in all honesty, I will only watch this film again if I am fastened to a chair and have my eyes opened clockwork-orange-style.<br /><br />The film 'stars' Robin Dunne (No, I never heard of him either), whose awful impression of Ryan Phillipe made me cringe throughout. In a case of terrible casting, Dunne attempts (and fails) to carry off playing a handsome charismatic, charmer. Since the actor is not handsome, nor charismatic nor charming, the character is left wholly unbelievable. Amy Adams, (she was in an episode of buffy one time), tries to pick up where Sarah Michelle Gellar left off and bring scheming Katherine to life... However, Adams is not that good a an actress and her performance was flat and lacking in any real emotion, often she looked like she was reading cue cards just off camera. There were two good actors in the film however, Barry Flatman (Saw 2 & Saw 3) and Mimi Rogers (Mrs Kensington in Austion Powers), made very good and entertaining performances as the parents of Sebastian and Katherine and are the only reason why I rated the film as a 2, not a 1.<br /><br />The film itself is a poor version of the original, with such lows as carbon copy's of dialogue and mimicked scenes which lacked the originality of the previous film.<br /><br />I think that as a TV show, it might have worked, but if it had been recasted with people who could actually act in the main parts.

neg

train_9199

pending

0867bd49-224a-4729-b593-b4506f4c472f

<br /><br />When I first started watching this movie last night on Cinemax, I was shocked that it had been made. Cruel Intentions, in my opinion, was one of the best teen-oriented films made in years. This prequel had certain things incongruent with the original. (Sebastian's father married into wealth, then why does he have a rich Aunt on long island?)<br /><br />Then I found out today that it was not really intended to be a new movie, but rather a television series, Manchester Prep. After hearing that, it made sense to me that it wasn't the same as the movie, just as Buffy the Vampire Slayer is different in TV form. <br /><br />I think that Roger Kumble most likely added the ending that this movie had, AFTER the series wasn't picked up by Fox. It just seems like something that would happen too fast (Sebastian becoming the male version of Katharyn) and I just don't know where they would go with the next episode, since it wouldn't be leading to the 1999 Film (Which the newer ending is directed right towards.)<br /><br />One thing I didn't like was that it suggested Sebastian and his father had married into the wealth, which isn't typically looked good upon in this area of new york, and sine Katharyn's mother was just an adult version of her, it didn't seem like something a woman in her position would do, marry a man not of her social class. <br /><br />As a prequel this is fairly lame. But I would have been interested to see where this had gone as a series.

neg