Datasets:

jfcalvo

/

imdb-from-space-with-timestamp

like 0

train_9600

pending

fa44a225-6078-44df-adc3-854a1badbe6a

Another of my delves into the bargain bin, this movie gave me exactly what I expected - a load of trashy horror complete with screaming ladies.<br /><br />It all started so well - I liked the little intro with the "newsreel" about the young couple being exposed to a nuclear blast, and was totally absorbed right up until the first person caught fire...<br /><br />From then onwards the film descended into outright silliness, and at times became almost embarrassing to watch. When the heroine turned out to have been afflicted with the same condition as the main character (the ability to light one's own farts without the aid of a match) it seemed almost as if someone had thrown the idea in at the last moment ("that'll be good!" you can almost hear them say...) As for the almost psychic link between the main character and the nuclear power plant, well...<br /><br />The movie came across as cheap tat - if you pay more than £1.50 for it you've been done.

neg

train_9601

pending

5a92ec6e-af6e-4715-8356-569c8c47b2ca

This a fascinatingly awful movie. It make so little sense that it starts to make a kind of weird internal logic of its own. Well, it would if it didn't keep darting off up side-alleys until eventually floundering under the weight of its own indecisiveness. The movie can't make up its mind whether it is a straight forward 'Man Turns Into Monster' flick (like all those 1950s 'THE INCREDIBLE insert verb ING MAN' movies), or a ghastly big business conspiracy theory movie, or a mystical afterlife contact story, or... or what? Take your pick. It's just a mess. Grotesquely over the top and firing off in all directions, leaving loose ends flapping all over the place. It was as if Tobe Hooper had been taking David Lynch pills. Unfortunately he didn't take enough.

neg

train_9602

pending

e0b4bdda-2819-45aa-81ec-d1acd6b8bacf

how can a director that makes such great films as poltergeist and the texas chainsaw massacre make such rubbish as this? i got this film off a friend and he didnt want it back its so bad. how this can be classed as horror i will never know.<br /><br />2/10

neg

train_9603

pending

19d0184c-926c-462b-a173-d054a47ad56c

Poor Tobe Hopper. He directed an all time horror classic "Texas Chaimsaw Massacre". Since then everything he's done has been horrible. This is probably the worst...and that's saying a lot. It's about a man (Brad Dourif) who has the ability to make things (and people) catch fire...or something like that. Hardly an original idea (anyone remember "Firestarter"?) It's a real mess...literally EVERYTHING is done wrong! Pathetic acting (even Dourif!), asinine script, loust production values, crappy special effects...everything is BAD!!!!! A must miss...not even good for laughs.

neg

train_9604

pending

f3631d4d-af8a-429b-a325-c9e40cfa86d2

Jeux d'enfants or how the film was wrongly translated into English Love me if You Dare is a film made by stupid people and about stupid people. I just don't know how I could expect something worth a look from a film with such plot: Two stupid ignorant kids make a bet that each of them will do something (certainly extremely idiotic) to prove to each other (wtf?) that they are "cool dudes". I know that i exaggerated some aspects but that is what the entire film is about. They grow older...and instead of realizing that they are just a couple of alienated weirdos continue to perform their crazy things, thinking that they are great people.<br /><br />One could expect such a film from Hollywood, but France? It is even more offensive to watch the film from the country which created Amelie a couple of years ago, which, btw, the film tries to look like but is far, extremely far away from.<br /><br />Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.

neg

train_9605

pending

88860ba6-da06-42e5-84ab-6c74929c4cf5

I really disliked this movie....mainly because of the main characters! They are both immature, selfish, and self-centered people. They hurt EVERYBODY around them playing their silly game. The visual effects were good but what good are they if there are no characters that you connect with or a story line that is interesting. Am I supposed to be happy when these two psycho people FINALLY consummate their love for each other? <br /><br />After watching this movie I was thinking "This is supposed be the #1 smash from France?"........<br /><br />*spoiler* <br /><br />As for the end: GOOD RIDDANCE! They both deserve each other! <br /><br />

neg

train_9606

pending

c7645ec9-1ddd-4578-be44-cda9b9ecd329

Who could possibly sympathize with these two obnoxious protagonists? What's intended to be a light, frothy comedy about neighbor children who can't give up their childhood game of dare even as they age well into adulhood, comes off more as an exercise in cruelty and petulant self-indulgence. As children, the pair are unbearably precocious; as adults they're intolerably immature. It's a bad combination.

neg

train_9607

pending

93042230-3f1a-450d-b462-184f883c12a2

This movie is just boring.<br /><br />It tries to copy some effects borrowed to a creative director like Jeunet in "Amélie Poulain", but it is too much. The dialogs are pretty bad, some of the worst I have ever heard, Guillaume Canet is not convincing (I have almost never found him very convincing), his father in the movie plays very badly, the story is dumb, the ending is... stupid.<br /><br />I think I have not dislike a movie so much since "le pacte des loups" (brotherhood of the wolf) from Christophe Gans (and I watch / see about 80-100 movies a year), but at least that movie had some action and lots of good actors.<br /><br />I had never commented here (only rated), and when I saw the rating and the comments, I thought I had to write something down.<br /><br />I guess we won't have problems to sell the DVD we were offered : not such a bad movie in our (large) collection !!!<br /><br />I am open minded (I watch SF, westerns, drama, comedies, silents, horror, fantasy... movies !), but this movie was so boring that I felt like I had lost one hour and a half.

neg

train_9608

pending

f723d7b6-28aa-453f-b891-4edbd691be22

Ummm, please forgive me, but weren't more than half the characters missing? In the original novel, Valjean is a man imprisoned for 19 years for stealing a loaf of bread and then attempting several times to escape. He breaks parole and is pursued relentlessly by the police inspector Javert. Along the way there are MANY characters that weren't in this version. Some worth mentioning would be Fantine, Cosette, M & Mme. Thenardier, Eponine, Marius, Gavroche, and Enjolras. The only character with the same name is Javert. I was confused and frustrated throughout the whole movie, trying to see how it was in any way connected to Victor Hugo's epic novel.

neg

train_9609

pending

8167ec9f-a4a8-4ca2-aba2-7b45fe31efe7

An innocent man (Steve Guttenberg) has a one-night stand with his boss's wife (Isabelle Huppert). She spots a woman (Elizabeth McGovern) being attacked outside but she can't call the cops because it would blow her marriage to Gutenberg's boss (Paul Shenar). So Guttenberg, honest citizen that he is, when he discovers that another woman was attacked and killed nearby only half an hour later, comes forward and claims to have witnessed the first attack, merely intending to pass on the information given to him by Huppert. Well -- never bear false witness against thy neighbor, as they say.<br /><br />This simple attempt to help the police nab a murderer turns rapidly twisted. When he meets the first near-victim, McGovern, she immediately twigs to what happened, but agrees to keep quiet for the moment. But then Guttenberg finds himself in court, supposed to identify the heavy (Greenquist) and we discover through cross-examination that he is NEAR-SIGHTED and can't identify objects at a distance, let alone faces. (Not that it matters because, after all, he never saw the creep in the first place.) The plot gets practically labyrinthine. Guttenberg winds up the chief suspect when Huppert is murdered too.<br /><br />He barely escapes arrest and holes up with the now-sympathetic McGovern. Guttenberg and McGovern hatch a plan to trap the murderer. She will serve as bait. They'll follow the flagitious creep into one of his seedy haunt and McGovern will act like the doxy that the murderer is attracted to, just to get him to try to kill her. But everything will be okay, see, because not only will Guttenberg keep a close watch on her, and not only will he alert the police a few minutes after she enters this dive, but she will keep a can of mace handy -- just in case.<br /><br />I ask you, the alert viewer, does this scenario unfold as planned? Elizabeth McGovern has a quirkily interesting bone structure. She seems all mandible and tiny mouth at times, but she's vibrant. Steve Guttenberg has hair on his brawn and that's about it. Otherwise he's as helpless as the character he plays. If Isabelle Huppert can act, it isn't evident in this film. The killer is so formed and so groomed that he looks like he's wearing one of those masks of deformity in that Twilight Zone episode about greedy heirs.<br /><br />Didn't the director, Curtis Hanson, go on to make "L.A. Confidential"? That was a nicely done piece of work. Here, everything seems clumsy and contrived, down to the small bit parts. Just before the inevitable violent climax, a uniformed police officer is introduced to delay McGovern's rescue, and the scene is embarrassing to watch. Dick Olsen has a bit part as a late shopper. He's a neat guy and always reliable. Paul Shenar as the cuckolded hubby has a striking face that seems made for the stage and he does a fine job too.<br /><br />That louche joint where McGovern attracts the attention of the murderer, where she plays pool with a couple of hairy apes, was shot at a bar in Carolina Beach, in North Carolina, not far from where I lived. The way the interior is set up, it's clear that this is supposed to be a dangerous and dirty dive. Actually it appears rather more elegant on screen than it did in reality.<br /><br />Overall, this is Hitchcock territory and it brings tears to the eyes to imagine what he would have done with this story.

neg

train_9610

pending

9264c4b3-992d-4da8-b489-2761900174a9

A pretty obvious thriller-by-numbers, in which the only possible twist turns out to be a hiding to nothing. I was watching principally for the English-language performance by Isabelle Huppert. It wasn't great, but then it was a strange role. I wouldn't be surprised if half her contribution turned out to have been left on the cutting-room floor along with several last minute script re-writes.<br /><br />The acting is the least appealing thing about this film. Steve Guttenburg looks like he's trying to flesh out his role with the charm that everyone's told him he has. There's a sensationally stupid sequence in which it's suggested that his sexual prowess will be able to help treat PTSD. It's an uninteresting performance. Elizabeth McGovern is more of a draw with genuine charm and character but it's small consolation. 3/10

neg

train_9611

pending

50154714-0b32-44ab-a06a-539a27687cd7

This is, without doubt, one of the worst films I've ever seen...<br /><br />The plot is so full of holes, the story is like a bad remake of a bad suspense movie and the actors sound like were reading directly from the manuscript for the first time. Worst of all is Steve Guttenberg. He plays his character like he was in "Police Academy" - the same foolish womanizer - and that's not suited for a leading man in what should have been a thriller.<br /><br />It's really hard to believe that Hanson would make "L.A. Confidential" ten years later...<br /><br />Avoid this like the plague...

neg

train_9612

pending

3de9b24a-1b17-4c16-a2d9-c0db4d0653a9

This program is really overrated. A detective like Danny Pino's hot-headed character would have been transferred to the "rubber gun squad" years ago. The whole squad is made up of sanctimonious egomaniacs who judge people whose actions go back decades by the standards of 2007. Every Vietnam veteran character they've ever had has turned out to be the killer, unless it was another Vietnam veteran. There has only been one black murderer, and he was put up to it by his white boss. The only Hispanic killer was a "race traitor" who killed another Hispanic to frame a Hispanic street kid for a crime that (naturally) two rich white kids committed. What a bunch of propaganda. Hey,screenwriters: minorities and poor people commit murder too. Only on this show are most murderers upper-class whites.<br /><br />What's more, the arrests of people in their 70s, 80s, and 90s for crimes they committed 50-60 years ago are a joke. No real-life DA will push for murder one because it means the state will be stuck with their humongous medical bills until they finally kick. The state would be doing their families and insurance companies a favor. The prosecutor will just plead them to involuntary manslaughter and they won't serve a day. The only really old criminals who go to prison are either organized crime figures or ex-Nazis, whose high-profile convictions boost DA's careers.

neg

train_9613

pending

f5a63837-2348-4e94-85a0-0ca4f03ed9eb

I hate this programme: not only is the very concept ludicrous, but it tries so hard to be feasible (something that was left out of similar "I confess" ending programmes like, Muder: She Wrote).<br /><br />Sigh. Why is it that the writers can't ever be intelligent enough in this programme to come up with evidence that would stick and win a decision in court?<br /><br />Come on: after X-amount of years of the cases being unsolved, why must EVERY SUSPECT, EVERY EPISODE *CONFESS* (damn it!) to a murder which would otherwise go unsolved?<br /><br />I bet all police wish that criminals were this good sportsmen: "Aw, shucks, officer, you're a bright one - I guess if you've uncovered enough to convince yourself I did it, I may as well admit to it and make it easier for you in court. What can I say? It's a fair cop."<br /><br />Absolute dog s**t and an insult to those of us with with enough brains to even have heard of I.Q.

neg

train_9614

pending

3d5af58d-8107-4d24-b77e-9e4d7b76d2d1

The first time I watched Cold Case was after it had run for about a year on Danish television. At the time it came to the TV it nearly drowned in 4 or 5 other American crime shows aired roughly the same time.<br /><br />I saw it and I was bored to death. The substandard actors with the self righteous faces and morals were a pain in the behind. The entire premise that so much money was given a team of investigators to solve murders dating back 10-20-30 or even 60 years seems so unlikely.<br /><br />The time is also a factor as they only have 50-60 min to tell the story which means that they get a break through just in the nick of time to solve the case and bring justice to surviving family members, if they are still alive. This combined with the "personal" problems and relations of the investigators which there HAS to be time for leaves the show a complete lackluster.<br /><br />I give it a 2-star rating because of the music i the end which is really the only reason for watching it....which you then of course won't do as that is TOO lame a reason for watching this crap.

neg

train_9615

pending

5f69c5cf-3208-487e-b436-8bf54543a940

This movie is one of the most wildly distorted portrayals of history. Horribly inaccurate, this movie does nothing to honor the hundreds of thousands of Dutch, British, Chinese, American and indigenous enslaved laborers that the sadistic Japanese killed and tortured to death. The bridge was to be built "over the bodies of the white man" as stated by the head Japanese engineer. It is disgusting that such unspeakable horrors committed by the Japanese captors is the source of a movie, where the bridge itself, isn't even close to accurate to the actual bridge. The actual bridge was built of steel and concrete, not wood. What of the survivors who are still alive today? They hate the movie and all that it is supposed to represent. Their friends were starved, tortured, and murdered by cruel sadists. Those that didn't die of dysantry, starvation, or disease are deeply hurt by the movie that makes such light of their dark times.

neg

train_9616

pending

74f63ac5-46db-468a-84c0-3cddab02a053

A response to previous comments made by residents of the region where this motion picture was lensed: One person suggested that the closing and destruction of the Ocean View Amusement Park led to a downturn in the surrounding neighborhoods. This is simply not true. Prior to the construction of Interstate 64, which bypasses the Ocean View area, the primary route for traffic went through the heart of Ocean View. Once the interstate was completed, Ocean View rapidly became a ghost town with businesses closing up and an increase in crime. This led to a huge reduction in revenues for the park, which also faced new competition from nearby Busch Gardens in Williamsburg. Meanwhile, in the past few years, the City of Norfolk has done a remarkable job of fostering redevelopment so that the area has become a sought-after location for construction of high-end housing.<br /><br />It has also been said that the destruction footage of the roller coaster was used in the film "Rollercoaster". This is also untrue. Footage was shot of two coaster cars careening off the ride for that film, but the actual explosions and collapse are exclusive to "Death of Ocean View Park".<br /><br />As to the film itself, the storyline of a "supernatural" force in the water adjacent to the park was certainly silly, but somewhat typical for B-grade movies of the time. With the cast involved, there should be no surprise that the scenery was gnawed in almost every scene by the primary actors. I don't believe this film was intended to be another "Citizen Kane"; I believe Playboy was experimenting with a new non-nude format to determine if this was an area for the company to expand into (apparently not!). A strange force in the water causing strange events in an old amusement park probably sounded good at the conference table, but proved unmanageable in execution. The roller coaster and the rest of the park was destined for the wrecking ball anyway; "let's come up with a weird way to justify an explosive demise!".<br /><br />For the casual movie viewer, this would be a "see once and forget about it" film (except for Diana Canova fans); but for the thousands of people who live in the region and have fond memories of the park, this movie is like a "walk down memory lane" for footage of the park as well as old footage of downtown Norfolk, the first "Harborfest", and Old Dominion University. Even a limited release of this film on DVD would be welcome.

neg

train_9617

pending

aade6124-ec33-4ae3-b951-131298cd7f33

It's obvious that the people who made 'Dead At The Box Office' love B-movie horror. Overt references to the genre are peppered throughout, from stock characters (the authority figure who doesn't believe the monstrous invasion is really happening) to Kevin Smith style discussions to reenacting Duane Jones' last moments from 'Night of the Living Dead' not once but twice.<br /><br />Unfortunately it takes more than love to make a good movie.<br /><br />The staging and shot choice are unexciting and unimaginative. While a common admonition in film school is to avoid 'Mastershot Theatre,' telling the story completely in a wide master shot, here we find the obverse as in several sequences it's hard to figure out the spatial relationships between characters as the story is told in a series of medium shots with no establishing shot to tie it together. Editing is drab and basic and at times there are unmotivated cuts. The lighting is flat and sometimes muddy, making the scenes in the darkened theatre hard to make out (was there lighting, or was this shot with available light only?). Some shots are out of focus. The dialogue is trite, and the performances, for the most part, one-note (Isaiah Robinson shows some energy and screen presence as Curtis, and the fellow playing the projectionist has some pleasantly dickish line readings; Michael Allen Williams as the theater manager and Casey Kirkpatrick as enthusiastic film geek Eric have some nice moments). The premise is silly, even for a B horror flick (Also, it's too bad Dr Eisner was unaware of Project Paperclip - he could've saved himself a lot of trouble!). The 'zombies' are non-threatening, and their makeup is unconvincing (although the chunky zombie trying to get a gumball out of the machine raised a smile). For a zombie fan film, there is very little blood or violence, although what there is, is handled pretty well. The incidental music, while stylistically uneven, is kind of nice at times, and there are some good foley effects. The 'Time Warp' parody was a fun listen, although the images going along with it were less fun to watch. Unfortunately, the looped dialogue sounds flat. Was this shot non-sync (doubtful, it looks like video through and through)? I watched the special introduction by Troma Films' Lloyd Kaufman before the main feature - although it consisted essentially of Kaufman plugging his own stuff and admitting that he hadn't seen the movie while someone mugged in a Toxie mask, its production and entertainment values were higher than 'Dead...' itself (quick aside to whoever put the DVD together - the countdown on film leader beeps only on the flash-frame 2, not on every number plus one more after). For that matter, the vampire film theatregoers are seen watching early in 'Dead...' looked a lot more entertaining than this. Recommendation to avoid, unless you know someone involved in the production or are an ardent Lloyd Kaufman completist (he plays 'Kaufman the Minion' in the film-within-a-film).<br /><br />(Full disclosure: my girlfriend is an extra in this movie. I swear this did not color my review.)

neg

train_9618

pending

7a04d59d-7116-4dd7-9162-3ee530de00e2

30 seconds into the opening credits, I had this feeling that this was going to be a bad movie, but I didn't know just how bad. Then the actor playing the evil Nazi scientist opens his mouth and my friend and I decide that in order to survive this movie, we'll have to turn the volume down, make up our own dialogue and double the speed on the DVD. But that didn't help. About half way through we turned it off. Now, I've lived through some very bad movies before, both with and without the aide of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" and "Svengoolie," but there are just some movies which I doubt even the Bots can save. The biggest part of the movie that bothered me the most was that the people hypnotized into believing they're zombies had rotting green skin. I guess they were all hypnotized into death, then hypnotized into rotting themselves. Stick to the real B-movie cult classics like "Plan Nine From Outer Space."

neg

train_9619

pending

e7df76e1-47f6-4cd0-b793-b72ee893d8f7

When the employees of a theater find an old reel of film, they decide to show it at the midnight screening of Night of the Living Dead, assuming it's an old preview reel. Unfortunately, it's actually an old Nazi mind control experiment that turns the audience into a horde of mindless shuffling zombies.<br /><br />I can't understand the hate for this movie. It is a low budget independent production with a lot of camp, but it doesn't deserve a "1.1" here on IMDb. It is just so much fun. It is obvious that the filmmakers have a reasonable knowledge and love of old horror movies, and they have created an entertaining tribute to them sprinkled with references and homages to a variety of them. It has the feel of such things as Night of the Living Dead (in many ways, very similar), Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, and various others.<br /><br />I liked the explanation of how the zombies, though really just hypnotized into thinking they are zombies, actually come to have the physical attributes of the living dead-unbelievable, perhaps, but I appreciate the effort by the writers to explain it. The gore effects were decent for the budget, the acting was all right, and the story was entertaining.<br /><br />I liked it.

neg

train_9620

pending

38a822a3-b5c5-4801-854f-387757180013

This wasn't what i wanted to see. I bought this on DVD and under the movie i found myself irritated and turned off the movie for a moment.<br /><br />Heres what i didn't like:<br /><br />1 They were shooting at the father<br /><br />2 The tribes was really annoying<br /><br />3 the dinosaurs (mostly)looked to faked<br /><br />4 The bad scientist well he was annoying<br /><br />5 The picture quality on the DVD was really bad<br /><br />What i DID like: <br /><br />1 The music by Jerry Goldsmith. This music is really great. I have the bootleg soundtrack from this movie. Sadly the sound quality is not good, but its OK for its time.<br /><br />2 The first time we see the dinosaurs they inspire a sort of awe.<br /><br />3 Baby is kinda cute when he is in the water and is playing<br /><br />4 That funny scene with the tent. <br /><br />5 The children who sees this film would hopefully learn that evil always loses.

neg

train_9621

pending

5c1edf38-af04-4ee5-b6d0-38cc27f0a90d

... and I actually gave it a ZERO on my personal 1-10 scale. I have been attending movies since 1952 and have seen well over 1000 in the theater (I don't rate movies that I see only on TV). This is the ONLY movie I have ever rated ZERO.<br /><br />My wife and I took our four children (then aged 15, 11, 8 and 6) and even the kids thought it was terrible. In fact, it was my daughter (now 26) who alerted me to this site (amazed that the movie was getting an overall rating of 4+).<br /><br />The animation of the dinosaurs looked amateurish at the time (and is even worse in retrospect), the acting (particularly by Sean Young) is atrocious and the story line is simply silly.<br /><br />

neg

train_9622

pending

e41f1676-ceda-44c4-844c-b3e153c72165

I saw the movie as a child when it was released in the theater and it was so bad that it became the makings of a family joke. If the ranking had a zero, this movie would get it. The dinosaurs were awful. The storyline was ridiculous. The acting really doesn't qualify to be called acting. The only reason I even remember the name of the movie so well is because my family still talks about how BAD it really was.

neg

train_9623

pending

511ad207-885b-4528-9e67-7c3b0dac4c63

Okay, if you have a couple hours to waste, or if you just really hate your life, I would say watch this movie. If anything it's good for a few laughs. Not only do you have obese, topless natives, but also special effects so bad they are probably outlawed in most states. Seriuosly, the rating of 'PG' is pretty humorous too, once you see the Native Porn Extravaganza. I wouldn't give this movie to my retarded nephew. You couldn't even show this to Iraqi prisoners without violating the Geneva Convention. The plot is sketchy, and cliché, and dumb, and stupid. The acting is horrible, and the ending is so painful to watch I actually began pouring salt into my eye just to take my mind off of the idiocy filling my TV screen.

neg

train_9624

pending

edd59954-480e-4482-895b-f6e353b95a85

For those who are too young to know this or for those who have forgotten, the Disney company went almost down the tubes by the end of the 1980s. People were NOT seeing their movies anymore and the company was not producing the usual wholesome material....at least no what people expected. A major problem: profanity.<br /><br />Yes, the idiots running the Disney movies during that decade would produce films with swear words - including the Lord's name in vain, if you can believe that - interspersed in these "family films." In fact that happens twice here in the first 20 minutes! <br /><br />This movie, in addition to the language problems, has a nasty tone to it, too, which made it unlikeable almost right from the beginning. Thankfully, Disney woke up and has produced a lot of great material since these decadent '80s movies. ("Touchstone" is Disney, just under another name.)

neg

train_9625

pending

be3024cd-79e3-412a-8454-5ceeee2ef057

I don't think this movie was rated correctly. I took my copy and blacked out the PG rating and wrote down R. I would NOT recommend this for anyone under 17 or 18, whatever the R limit is.<br /><br />Why? It contains a scene in the jungle with several topless Indian women. I don't know about you, but that's not something for little children to be watching. True, it might be the traditional "clothing style" of the African (?) Indians, but... I think partial nudity should give a movie an R rating.<br /><br />I haven't seen the movie recently, but I guess otherwise, it was alright.

neg

train_9626

pending

fba038bb-c1f4-416c-bd47-2f9155062ba7

A really bad sequel. Part 1 had a lot of funny moments - part 2 is just bad (in a boring way) and obviously made to squeeze money out of the fans.<br /><br />Shame on you, Otto Waalkes!<br /><br />The only slightly amusing moment in the film is Helge Schneider who apparently seems to be pis*ed about the other characters. It's quite easy to identify with him...<br /><br />The screenplay is sloppy/non-existent. The director should do everyone a favor and quit his job immediately. The acting is worse than a 2nd grade school play. <br /><br />Technically the movie is awful as well, but who can blame the cinematographer/sound guys who had to work with such an untalented director?

neg

train_9627

pending

19ec3b37-7aa9-472b-bf34-b367e1eed96f

I agree with most of the other guys. A waste of photons and valuable time.<br /><br />Nearly no joke is worth the paper is was written on. The only highlight from my pov is Olli Dittrich as Pinocchio. ("Egal, ich muss eh Waldsterben") This reminds of old times with RTL Samstag Nacht. It is hard to describe the performances of the actors, since most of them don't even seem to have a good time during production and just "do their thing". Camera is OK, plot is laughable, I think you would be ashamed even if you discuss this with lots of beers.<br /><br />Apart from this I yawned all the time, wondered about how a script like this could even be considered for production and waited for the end.<br /><br />My 9 year old son was pleased, but then he is pleased by so little at this age :-)<br /><br />Anyway, a 1 point rating here nearly is 1 point too much...

neg

train_9628

pending

e23a64e6-e53c-4ffd-a04b-0e8af476b6f2

Despite what a lot of other people thought about the first movie, I really liked it. This one however. How to sum it up in one word?: This movie is (and here comes the word): CRAP!<br /><br />But let's look at it part by part: Here is the plot: Finally the old queen has been removed from her castle, but her successor: Snow white has problems of another sort: The Court-Jester, Father of her son, has gone astray, as the super, Spliss, goes to the extreme, to battle his gray hair and sells the royal offspring for some blond and full hair. In her desperation Snow white seeks the help of Bubi (Otto Walkees),who must first find his other six dwarf companions and then try to find the royal offspring or at least try to find the name of Rumpelstiltskin.<br /><br />The whole plot seems to have been written on a weekend, where the writers were very drunk but were just under pressure from the studio to write the screenplay. <br /><br />Yes, there are some good jokes. Even for fans of the first part, or for fans of any of the other actors, it's really not worth buying the the DVD. Believe me. <br /><br />The only thing, that at least kind of saves the movie from complete oblivion, are the performances of some of the actors. That's why I gave the move 3/10. Sadly, the script is so bad that none of the actors or all of them combined can make up for the bad story.<br /><br />For example, at one point, they even cross over in our reality, and sadly.. they don't do anything funny while being here. <br /><br />Still, a lot of great actors in this movie: Otto Waalkes, Ralf Schmitz, Martin Schneider, Nina Hagen, Cosma Shiva Hagen, (Especially funny): Rüdiger Hoffmann as the mirror, Helge Schneider and many more but sadly all these comedians aren't able to bring this really bad script to life. <br /><br />Maybe it is a treat for some hardcore fans but for regular movie goers or by now DVD Renters or buyers it's not worth the money. <br /><br />I even regret renting the movie.

neg

train_9629

pending

c1e3976a-8f77-46b6-8312-064a547c9179

There are a lot of highly talented filmmakers/actors in Germany now. None of them are associated with this "movie".<br /><br />Why in the world do producers actually invest money in something like this this? You could have made 10 good films with the budget of this garbage! It's not entertaining to have seven grown men running around as dwarfs, pretending to be funny. What IS funny though is that the film's producer (who happens to be the oldest guy of the bunch) is playing the YOUNGEST dwarf.<br /><br />The film is filled with moments that scream for captions saying "You're supposed to laugh now!". It's hard to believe that this crap's supposed to be a comedy.<br /><br />Many people actually stood up and left the cinema 30 minutes into the movie. I should have done the same instead of wasting my time...<br /><br />Pain!

neg

train_9630

pending

d6ac7188-e8b6-42f4-8f96-e365b5b726a1

I've seen the first of the dwarf-Movies and sometimes I had little fun watching it. There are many famous TV/Comedyactors appearing in the first part and presented, in fantasy costumes, typical little episodes of their Stand-Up-Program and exactly that is the problem the second movie has to struggle with. Everything was already there....nothing new to obtain. You're familiar with most of the often boring and dumb "jokes" and you always feel like their goal was to put in every Comedylooser of the last decade who wants to get back on stage. There's nothing important about the story: typical fairy-tale story of Rumpelstiltskin, without any importance. I expected something like that but that's nothing I could complain about. I'm actually complaining about the lazy story writers who had an entire background story; their only business was to get many jokes and parodies inside but they didn't get it anyway. This crap is except the great appearance of Helge Schneider a total waste of time and money.(if you don't like him then remove 2 points of my evaluation) If you like to save your money and get bad jokes then watch the crap that's broad casted every Friday evening on SAT1 or RTL for free. I'm sure you will recognize some "laugthers" I saw last night in cinema.

neg

train_9631

pending

be440150-2718-43fb-b461-19a46c9f0c36

I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny. -Great comedians - but a very poor movie! The "best" performance still did NINA HAGEN <br /><br />TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the "real world" scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ?? <br /><br />I guess I have still enough brain left to NOT find this movie funny. -Great comedians - but a very poor movie! The "best" performance still did NINA HAGEN <br /><br />TRIVIA: Did you realize that it the "real world" scenes (in Hamburg) the cars are almost ONLY new BMWs ??

neg

train_9632

pending

8cf451e3-7049-4906-b149-a10f18a59e5d

WARNING! Don't even consider watching this film in any form. It's not even worth downloading from the internet. Every bit of porn has more substance than this wasted piece of celluloid. The so-called filmmakers apparently have absolutely no idea how to make a film. They couldn't tell a good joke to save their lives. It's an insult to any human being. If you're looking for a fun-filled movie - go look somewhere else.<br /><br />Let's hope this Mr. Unterwaldt (the "Jr." being a good indication for his obvious inexperience and intellectual infancy) dies a slow/painful death and NEVER makes a film again.<br /><br />In fact, it's even a waste of time to WRITE ANYTHING about this crap, that's why I'll stop right now and rather watch a good film.

neg

train_9633

pending

5d067234-a691-4e4e-aba6-631e493daa53

Otto Preminger directs this light as a feather story. Bohemian Jean Seberg and her equally bohemian widower father David Niven holiday in the South of France with nutty Mylène Demongeot. Things are fine until family friend Deborah Kerr shows up. Nivens, a degenerate womanizer, finds the conquest of Kerr too hard to resist. That's fine with Seberg, as long as Niven loves her and leaves her (as he's done with all the women in his past...including Demongeot). When it appears as though she's becoming second banana in Niven's life, Seberg exact revenge on Kerr. Preminger tells the story in flashbacks from Seberg's perspective and cleverly combines black and white with sunnier color scenes. The cinematography by Georges Périnal is stunning. The film features some of Preminger's least heavy-handed direction, although he rarely allows any close-ups, which makes it difficult to make out what the actors are really feeling. Arthur Laurents wrote the script and it's full of acidic dialog and funny scenes (mostly involving bird-brained Demongeot). Seberg acquits herself fairly well, but Niven is at his least appealing...and he shows no chemistry with either Seberg or Kerr. Preminger really mis-steps with that casting. It's a role that seems tailor made for someone closer to Charles Boyer. With Geoffrey Horne as Seberg's would-be suitor and Martita Hunt as his daffy mother. Juliette Gréco, playing herself, sings the title song in a Paris nightclub. The great titles are by Preminger regular Saul Bass.

neg

train_9634

pending

fe02a5ff-d5fa-4fed-894f-dd7ff1dc2a5a

The over-heated plot of "Bonjour tristesse" is taken from a juvenile first novel by Francoise Sagan, which became a best-seller, though God knows why. For teenagers wanting to get rid of a potential step-parent it may have a certain appeal. Don't be taken in by the fact that David Niven plays the playboy father and Deborah Kerr the step-mother-in- prospect. Unfortunately, too much rests on the frail shoulders of Jean Seberg. She's beautiful and easily fulfills the image of a spoiled teenager. The problem is that she can strike poses but she can't act. Anyone who saw her as Joan of Arc in Otto Preminger's St. Joan -- Seberg's first film -- knows she was incapable at 19 of carrying a film. This movie, also by Preminger, fulfills the "promise" of the first. It was her second movie; she was now 20. What was Preminger thinking? That Niven and Kerr could compensate for Seberg's lack of acting capacity? Not a chance? Seberg's character is at the center of the story and, pretty though she is, convincing though she may be physically as a 17 year old, she can't meet the emotional demands of the role. I don't know if she ever became a successful actress in her short life because she did not have an impact on my consciousness in her later pictures. But anyone who thinks this film is better than mediocre needs a taste check. In spite of Niven and Kerr, this remains a juvenile story executed in juvenile fashion by a beautiful young girl who badly needed acting lessons.

neg

train_9635

pending

eb5b40f4-9d97-48af-92f0-8da9facfbe04

Bonjour Tristesse covers similar ground as 'The Member of the Wedding.' to wit, a possessive daughter tries to prevent a relationship from forming between a beloved family member and an interloper. While critics love 'Member of the Wedding,' I find Julie Harris to be a jumbo-drag and an adenoidal, scenery-chomping thespian in everything she's been in. This portrays irritating, rich idiots as in Last Year at Marienbad, but this time it's a travelogue.<br /><br />In this Preminger movie sequences develop, but characters do not. For the first 30 minutes he's content to blur the father-daughter relationship between Seberg and Niven, making uncomfortable sexual readings possible. Once the conflict is introduced, Seberg can't deliver the depth the part requires. Kerr pulls rank and turns the film into 'Endless Love.' Seberg's vacuous narration, is like something out of Strange Interlude - it is not good. I really wish someone other than Niven was in his role. He spends so much time normalizing orthodox British behavior in all his movies, he never gets around to the character.<br /><br />In the most memorable sequence, an evening out dancing becomes a free-for-all in a harbor. Bertolucci steals the entire scene for his empty exercise, 'The Conformist.' Kerr is on board to clasp her hands and portray another major pain (as in Black Narcissus, Night of the Iguana, King and I, Heaven Knows Mr. Allyson, Tea and Sympathy, etc. etc.). Really, Kerr was a horrible actress. I wish every movie with her could end with a fatal car crash, or even better, start with one.<br /><br />People uncomfortable with ambiguity should avoid this.

neg

train_9636

pending

bd9ef167-35f1-4d78-afec-3a80ecda87ad

This is shallow hedonism and/or social commentary wrapped in a tragic tale about a jealous young woman's scheme to drive apart her father and his fiancée. Is it incest or just a view through the eyes of a daughter with an Electra complex? Who cares? All of the characters, except for Anne (Deborah Kerr) are vacuous and vile. Seberg is poor (I agree with the "boys with breasts" comment of an earlier review). The plot plodded. This predictable material was sufficient for about 30 minutes of film that unfortunately was stretched over an hour and a half! If you want to see great gowns and jewels on the Riviera, I recommend "To Catch a Thief" - in which you will get the added bonuses of an entertaining story and likable characters. <br /><br />I like for films to entertain me. I personally don't really care where a film is set. Whatever the time or place, I want a good story - comedy or drama. I also want to see some enjoyable characters. It doesn't hurt if I can relate to them. Poor Deborah Kerr gives a typically good performance, and so does David Niven in a despicable role.<br /><br />The "2" rating is solely for Kerr and Niven, and for the cinematography - the rich color scenes and the murky, foreboding black and white scenes. Unfortunately, all the great cinematography in the world cannot salvage a poor story with un-enjoyable characters. A sow's ear is still a sow's ear. Consequently watching this mess was a serious waste of my time.

neg

train_9637

pending

ffe832bc-f4df-4404-97bc-e97e12c56af1

Jean Seberg had not one iota of acting talent. Like all her films, 'Bonjour tristesse' suffers not at all from her looks (though she is perhaps the first of those modern women whom Tom Wolfe gleefully, accurately describes as "boys with breasts": publicists, of course, use the word "gamine") but suffers grievously from Seberg's dull, monotonous, killing voice. In all her films when had to play anger, Seberg played it with grossly audible, distracting, gasping panting between her monotonously droned verbalizations. Oy.<br /><br />Preminger's adaptation of Françoise Sagan's breathlessly juvenile, fantasy soap opera plot is noteworthy only for his lush cinematography - but then that's difficult to funk on the photogenic French Riviera, and perhaps for his apt, but certainly not groundbreaking, employment of black & white for the present day scenes from which Seberg's monotone narration delivers us to the flashed-back-to color past.<br /><br />Juliette Gréco has a brief moment, as a nightclub chanteuse in the black & white spotlight, delivering in smoky Dietrichesque voice the bleak existentialist lyric of the title song. This moment is nowadays, in retrospect, more than a wee bit drôle. Except, of course, if you're French - particularly if you're a French "68-er" longing for the glorious days of the barricades roundabout the Sorbonne - and your kids riot to retain the lifelong sinecures which have blighted and emasculated France's economy: then you still believe in Sartre and Foucault and all such arcane, irrelevant theorists.<br /><br />David Niven has the hardest role, having to play with sufficient gusto an aging hedonist who's yet to grasp that life isn't all about Sagan's teenybopper notions of a hip, cool, swingin', "mon copain!" Papa. Deborah Kerr delivers her usual, consummately professional presence, convincingly playing the woman who suffers undeservedly Seberg's spiteful teenaged snot-nose jealousy (fulfilling Sagan's shallow teen fantasy of the Classical theme of "there can be only one Queen Bee in the hive"); in fact, to Kerr belongs this film's sole great and memorable on-screen moment.<br /><br />The dialogue is unnatural - I agree with an earlier reviewer who said that it sounds to be "badly translated" from French; combine the unnatural scripting with Seberg's incomparably dull, unendurable monotone and you can save that Valium for another night. Atop all that the ineptly synched post-production voice dubbing is, almost throughout, obvious and thus much more than irksome: this is especially true of the dubbing for Mylène Demongeot because it spoils her otherwise very pleasing dumb blonde performance.<br /><br />Hunky Geoffrey Horne gets the short end of the stick here - a very good looking young man who also suffered from a less-than-lovely, uncinematic voice which, when paired with Seberg's drone, yields unconvincing scenes of puppy love. (Horne was, shall we say, merely adequate in 'Bridge On the River Kwai,' perhaps because his end was held up by those great cinema pros William Holden and Jack Hawkins instead of being unsupported by the regrettably ungifted Seberg).<br /><br />In sum 'Bonjour tristesse' is pretty to look at but it's shallow, immature soap: thin gruel with suds.

neg

train_9638

pending

b0a8b8d5-3bc7-4057-9a4b-1df644dfa43a

In one respect, it's like 'The Wizard of Oz,' with Paris in black-and-white and the Riviera in color. But it's supposedly about possessive love, destructiveness and moral decadence, while actually being about designer gowns, shots of the Riveria, lots of big expensive cars, and music-and dancing interludes that suggest Vincente Minnelli on one of his off-days. Watchable, but a remarkable example of desperate, dark plot material and glitzy style heading in opposite directions. (Was this the model for 'The Talented Mister Ripley? Does anyone sense an affinity between Jean Seberg and Matt Damon?)

neg

train_9639

pending

9d308afc-948e-495e-be82-e0d2c586bef3

Greenaway's films pose as clever, erudite and innovative. Yet his style and grammar originate and remind viewers of films made in the World War 1 era of film-making: the frame composition, use of mid-shot, the static camera. It may be well to rub against mainstream movies with this style but it is not new. Perhaps like that other "innovator", TS Eliot, he draws more from the past than in looking forward as an authentic innovator would or could.<br /><br />Yet Greenaway's biggest failing is that he cannot write. His dialog and even plot structure is mechanical and logical but without the vitality of another dramatic logician, Brecht. Where this weakness is most apparent is in his humor, which is poised and logical, so the joke is dead before it's delivered. The result is tedium: if it's not funny, it has failed: ask a stand-up comedian to justify their act if the audience doesn't respond. Perhaps the well-read director could learn something from Freud on humor.<br /><br />Finally, like Woody Allen, Greenaway has manipulated his actors over the years to work like clones. They speak the lines with a bored, smug air like narcissistic adolescents.<br /><br />This film, despite its design and lighting, is meretricious.

neg

train_9640

pending

a3aa02e2-48c4-4662-b909-d8e581c3dddd

This is a baffling film. <br /><br />The beauty in sexual relations between men and women is shown degraded by a set of men and women who can only be described as a collection of oddballs and misfits.<br /><br />Greenaway acknowledges his inspiration to Fellini's film "8 1/2" but whereas Fellini is a titan of world cinema, Greenaway is not.<br /><br />He has none of the maestro's lightness of touch nor his ability to convey feelings and emotions with a deftness of clarity.<br /><br />He is pretentious, the film being divided into chapters with a written introduction to each, as if the viewer has to be guided into the film except that the written notices only stay on screen for a few seconds, not long enough to be read by the audience with the result that they are mostly ignored.<br /><br />As for the women, only two can be described as lookers, Palmira, played by Polly Walker and Giaconda played by Natacha Amal. The rest ooze with ordinariness. Both the women and the men retreat from the harsh light of reality into the dim shades of fantasy.<br /><br />Greenaway obviously wants to make the point that sexual fantasy does not lead to happiness. The women themselves are depressing since they render their services in exchange for money. Relations between men and women are debased into a commercial transaction.<br /><br />There is no sense of joy or happiness or love in the film, indeed there are several scenes that are deeply unpleasant :<br /><br />The suggestion of an incestuous relationship between father and son, Philip and Storey Emmental played respectively by John Standing and Matthew Delamere. The callous disregard of both men that Giaconda is carrying their child, she in fact, gets pregnant twice, the first foetus being aborted and the second time, she is sent away to a destination chosen by the men from a flight book. Both men having sex with a woman who has no legs, (the half woman in the title). The beastiality that exists between Beryl, played by Amanda Plummer, with a pig named Hortense. Father and son sharing women between them. Women enjoying being beaten sexually. The father sleeping with the corpse of his dead wife.<br /><br />Mercifully, none of these scenes are shown sexually, only hinted at.<br /><br />The hinted degradation of women is such that there cannot be any wonder that the film was booed at when it was first premiered at Cannes. What is more extraordinary is that the actresses in the film lined up to defend it, showing yet again that there is no limit to the naivety of women and that women will fool themselves into being exploited by men.<br /><br />Greenaway's directorial style is pretentious, it is a triumph of style over substance, a depiction of Film as Art accompanied by the abandonment of common sense.<br /><br />Greenaway tries to attain the sublimity of surrealism but only succeeds in showing the banality of human relationships.

neg

train_9641

pending

232210d1-6a0c-4055-b7bf-476847cf0660

Writer/Director Peter Greenaway cements his title as the High Lord of Art House Pretension with his latest exercise in obnoxious self-indulgence, 8 ½ Women. The film follows a wealthy Englishman and his son on their mutual quest for sexual satisfaction, as they lure and blackmail women (guess how many) into joining their personal collection of concubines.<br /><br />Think of any possible way that this premise could be offensive, and chances are Greenaway's done it. The female characters are little more than a catalogue of fetishes for the two protagonists to partake of. There's the Kabuki-obsessed Mio, the ever-pregnant Giaconda and Beryl, who's got a thing for farm animals. Giulietta has no legs and uses a wheelchair, she's the "half woman," get it? Greenaway vehemently denies all accusations of misogyny, but if this isn't it, then what is?<br /><br />The film goes on to eroticize anything and everything having to do with Japan, a continuation of themes from his snore-worthy (but less sexist) 1996 film, The Pillow Book. But where the The Pillow Book was erotic and graceful, 8 ½ Women just gets horny and exploitative. Greenaway's work is tasteless and arrogant in its fetishism, and the only person likely to enjoy watching it is the auteur himself.

neg

train_9642

pending

beaa2002-9ee7-4987-8cc1-cba679c104be

I dont know about you, but I've always felt drawn to 'ART' cinema. The first 'art' film I managed to get a hold of was Peter Greenaway's "The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover", which blew my mind and creative spiret into overdrive. The film was the ultimate paradox, both beautiful and grotesque...this is what 'art cinema' was about, exploring intellectual ideas and bringing the visceral to the screen with purpose. Life, real life, can be like living in a madhouse, and art expressed shows it for what it is. I love movies of all types, but especially those that both entertain and have something to say, whether I agree with it's stance or no...<br /><br />"8 1/2 WOMEN", is a dry, clinical 'comedy' where a father and son gather a harem to fufill their many sexual fantasies. There is only a very brief allusion to Fellini in the film, unlike what the previews have suggested. The main focus of the film falls on the 'close' relationship between father and son, brought together after the mothers' death. In the early scenes of the film the fathers' sadness is believable, you can feel his pain. What happens afterwards is plain by Greenaway standards, the gathering of the harem, observations on love and death, and flesh displayed for the sake of flesh...One could argue this, but I feel the movie to be shallow and pointless. And the idea that this could be a comedy is perplexing to me. The acting for the most part if fine,...especially good are Polly Walker and Amanda Plummer(though poor Mandy should put her clothes back on) What the film lacks is a compelling story, and the usual Greenaway touches of excess that made his other films so wonderful to watch. <br /><br />While filled with moments of insight, and the occasional taboo, "8 1/2 Women" is too cut and paste to be considered art, too bland to considered 'funny', and simply too dull to be considered worthwhile.<br /><br />Save your money...I can only recommend this film as a sleeping aid.<br /><br />4 out of 10

neg

train_9643

pending

c0dfdf6e-de3d-471b-ae5b-0b983a12a696

Stilted, stagy, strange and opaque, if visually striking ... a wannabe-erotic fantasy. Really boring, way too much male nudity (including father-son incest), and just a sort of shameless pointlessness. I will confess, however, that certain passages of dialogue, taken on their own terms, do have a lulling, haunting quality.

neg

train_9644

pending

d41aeb03-1b15-4c5b-bb36-4c130ffd1838

I am giving this pretentious piece of garbage a 1 simply because i don't believe there is a worse movie in the world.<br /><br />I hate this movie, i hate the acting, dialog, setting, writing and directing. I hope everyone that was involved in this movie burns and rots in the darkest circle of hell.<br /><br />Damn this disgusting waste of time.<br /><br />I pray every day that this movie is just a figment of my imagination. i pray that i dreamt the movie, and that i will never have to see it at <br /><br />my local video store again.<br /><br />BURN IN HELL

neg

train_9645

pending

9376c0b2-a1be-4482-9941-d66301dc43e6

To overcome the death of his wife, an old man does what anyone in his position would naturally do (at least in a Peter Greenaway movie): he and his son populate their home with eight and a half (one has no legs) women and embark on a sexual odyssey. This being a Greenaway film, there is lots of pretentious and uninteresting blabbering and of course there is unnecessary male nudity. In fact the father and son share a bed sleeping in the nude. Gross. Besides, who wants to see an old guy full frontal? For those who are not into the homo-erotic scene, one of the women likes to do the nasty with horses. There is no story - just a random collection of dull scenes.

neg

train_9646

pending

9de0b72c-1272-4a74-8ea5-2729bf84aa77

To borrow from Dorothy Parker: This is not a film to be tossed aside<br /><br />lightly. It should be thrown with great force.<br /><br />This is an excruciating mess. And I'm a Greenaway fan.<br /><br />MIND-NUMBINGLY AWFUL<br /><br />"The Mummy Returns" has much more artistic merit

neg

train_9647

pending

67d1849c-2b87-4c73-aa65-b6eba69ed06b

Greenaway seems to have a habit of trying deliberately to disgust his viewers. This film opens with incest--and purposeless, meaningless, casual incest at that. That's Greenaway's big problem. He prefers parlor tricks to shock over actually doing anything meaningful. Technical skill isn't enough. He's just a bit perverse for the sake of perversity.

neg

train_9648

pending

6d8e4425-a853-4dc2-9bd4-7ea7876f5348

This movie was awful in the worst way: you just didn't care. You didn't care what happened in the plot; you didn't care about the characters. Everyone was devoid of heart. I ended up walking out about an 45 minutes into it because I simply didn't want to subject my mind to it any more. There is far too much sex in the film. Sex can be okay; it can even make the movie (hence Karma Sutra) but the intercourse here was not beautiful or sexy. It was just ugly. Don't see this film.

neg

train_9649

pending

a15f5c1b-c25a-4f04-a6a5-4e7c3a4e7581

I am sorry to say that it was one of the worst films I've ever seen. Although visually fascinating (e.g. the use of colour was absolutely stunning), it was pretty boring and disturbing (see the father/son incest).<br /><br />What's more, music is totally absent, and if you think of those wonderful soundtracks by Michael Nyman (who wrote the soundtracks for most of Greenaway's films) then you can imagine what a difference it makes.<br /><br />

neg

train_9650

pending

83dd4802-a917-4c83-814a-20f759c2caee

somewhere i'd read that this film is supposed to be a comedy. after seeing it, i'd call it anything but. the point of this movie eludes me. the dialogue is all extremely superficial and absurd, many of the sets seemed to be afterthoughts, and despite all the nudity and implied sexual content, there's nothing erotic about this film...all leaving me to wonder just what the heck this thing is about! the title premise could have been the basis for a fun (if politically incorrect) comedy. instead, we're treated to cheap, amateurish, unfinished sketches and depravity and weirdness for its own sake. if i want that, i'll go buy a grace jones cd.

neg

train_9651

pending

2e5c5d1f-28fb-46b4-bf7d-4c429d9ef23e

Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?<br /><br />Movies have put me to sleep before, but no movie has ever done that twice, so it took me three sittings actually to finish it. The dialog was bad. Women spoke stiltedly and the men were caricatures. And two of the supposedly Japanese women looked Chinese, had Chinese names and spoke with clearly Chinese accents. I'm still trying to figure out why the Emmenthal men were sexually wrapped up with each other. 10 minus 8 1/2 equals a tough choice: Do I give this movie a rating of one? or two?

neg

train_9652

pending

be3fa0f6-f43b-4fef-bb5f-7cf2ce13911c

La Chute de la Maison Usher, or The Fall of the House of Usher as it's know amongst English audiences, starts with Allan (Charles Lamy) heading for the Castle of his good friend Sir Roderick Usher (Jean Debucourt) who sent him a letter saying that his wife Madeleine is ill. Once there Allan finds Madeleine very sick & her husband Roderick determined & almost obsessed to paint her portrait. As Roderick paints Madeleine becomes weaker & weaker almost as if the picture is draining the life out of her, Allan tries to help his friend but tragedy soon strikes...<br /><br />This French production was co-written, produced & directed by Jean Epstein & was the second of two filmed The Fall of the House of Usher adaptations during 1928, honestly I don't know the original novel was published in 1839, I mean you wait 89 years for a filmed adaptation & two come along at the same time! Anyway, I feel that I have a bit of a problem here as I have read plenty of positive comments about La Chute de la Maison Usher & maybe I'm not the right sort of person to write a comment on it but I have to say that it simply didn't do anything for me. I didn't like it, obviously the first thing to say is that this is a silent film & therefore it relies on imagery but even so I thought the story was weak, I thought as a whole the film was boring & dull even though it only lasts for about an hour & it really didn't do anything for me at all. La Chute de la Maison Usher was made almost 80 years ago & that is literally a lifetime, the world, cinema & tastes have moved on a lot since then & I found no enjoyment in this film. I feel this film has dated badly & probably wasn't that good to start with anyway. I never felt for any of the character's, I never cared about anything that was happening & I found it all rather tedious to sit through, I'm sorry if I've offended any silent film fans out there but that's the way I felt.<br /><br />Director Epstein does an OK job, a lot of people ramble on about the imagery in La Chute de la Maison Usher & I will freely admit it definitely has it's moments but I thought they were few & far between. Shots of people's mouths moving & not actually hearing what they say just seemed weird to me, I didn't like the music & the version I saw kept the original French language insert cards which were narrated by guy with the most awful sounding thick French accent which was also off putting. Based on the story by Edgar Allen Poe I doubt this has much resemblance to it apart from one or two basic elements, stick with the fantastic Roger Corman House of Usher starring Vincent Price.<br /><br />Technically the film was OK considering when it was made. You simply cannot tell about the acting as no one ever speaks although the film is full of unnatural exaggerated movements to try & suggest emotions or reflect what's happening which works to an extent but after a while just looks a bit daft.<br /><br />La Chute de la Maison Usher will appeal to those who crave a bygone era, who live in caves or who are stuck in the past, for me I like my films to have a story, not to bore me & to have sound & I'm sorry if that last statement makes me sound like an uneducated idiot but that's how I feel. The world has moved on since 1928 & for the better.

neg

train_9653

pending

d2a955f3-a398-45f7-b2a8-f1c6cde441c2

This flick reminds me some really bad science-fiction movies from 50's and 60's.It is not scary or interesting,but it's dull,cheesy and stupid.Special effects are laughable,all actors are ludicrous and the ending is simply awful.Don't waste your money,rent or buy something better.I give it 3.5 out of 10( I found this turkey quite amusing because of its stupidity).

neg

train_9654

pending

ee21f9f7-81f6-4f95-9b67-16ba86c8d36b

"Plants are the most cunning and vicious of all life forms", informs one dopey would-be victim in "The Seedpeople", a silly, flaccid remake of "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers", "Day of the Triffids", and about a thousand udder moovies. And why are seeds moore dangerous than plants, one might ask? Because, according to the same dolt, "seeds can chase us". Yes, I can remember one horrifying incident when the MooCow was just a calf, being chased all the way home from school by ravenous dandylion seed... Yeah, right. Unfortunately, the "monsters" in this seedy little turkey kind of look like shaggy little muppets, some of which roll around like evil tumbleweeds, others which sail about on strings. There's not even the tiniest inkling of terror or suspense to be found here. For reasons left unexplained, the seed monsters are knocked out by 50 volt ultra-violet lights, even though they can walk about in the daylight, which has about 1,000,000,000,000 times more uv energy. As you can see, not much thought was put into this cow flop. The MooCow says go weed yer garden instead of wasting your photosynthesis here. :=8P

neg

train_9655

pending

13ca5a81-60d4-4031-a400-fa7a888d2fed

While most of the movie is very amateurish, the Kosher slaughter scene is played up, but not untrue. Kosher law says that an animal must be conscious when the blade touches it's skin. The Kosher slaughter scene is accurate as anyone knows who has seen one, or has seen the Peta film showing a Kosher slaughter, in which the animals throat is cut, and the esophagus cut out while it is still alive, conscious, and obviously suffering. We must remember that history is written by the victors. Is one even Allowed to even THINK that maybe the Nazis were right??<br /><br />Doesn't it say anything that the Nazis had outlawed this vicious religious slaughter, and the Jews are still practicing it even today?

neg

train_9656

pending

f9f1872c-ab9b-4279-8b62-07e92f7774ba

I would perhaps give 6 or 7 to this propaganda film because it shows when and how a propaganda film becomes successful. If there are people who watch this piece and think that "well then Jews must have done something to be treated the way they were treated in WW2", then the movie is very cleverly made to conceal 'why's and 'how's as well as mix correct and false observations on how a people live. What more can a propaganda movie aim for? The part in which an American movie about the Rothschild family is included is re-used very shrewdly here, for instance. The question of why the Jew keeps his wealth away from the officer is never asked. No one mentions the system of taxation within that particular social strata.<br /><br />Besides, the level of excitement (or, the level of disgust) in the movie increases slowly and the solution-like end of the movie suits the aim and the musts of doing propaganda. The audience would leave in joy and gratefulness to the times that are coming up...well done.<br /><br />In the movie, there is a kind of simplicity that addresses the most basic emotional perception of the audience. The movie is kind of history today, so no need to fuss much about it actually. However, in this simplicity of words of ethnic degradation, a careful watcher can find relevance to today's cultural hatred, violence, decivilization as well as the problems of integration. Overall, fine trash.

neg

train_9657

pending

25b55a73-180d-4c28-9cab-32f6fc6846f6

The Eternal Jew (Der Ewige Jude) does not have what we today would call the markings of a scholarly document: rather than naming experts or sources to support what it says, it simply says, without opposition, what it wants us to believe (one will concede that American newsreels of that period were also much less regulated than would seem ethical to a modern audience, often inserting dramatized scenes and passing them off as actual news footage). Add to this directed propaganda the fact that filmmaker Hippler was "preaching to the converted," not so much asking gentile Europeans to hate the Jews as validating the feelings so many of them must have held already, in order to have allowed the holocaust that followed. The weakest link in the film's logic shows in its "rat" analogy, wherein it goes on to explain the behavior of rats, and then adds something to the effect of "Well, Jewish people are like that too." Similarly it characterizes Jewish people as ugly by showing ugly Jewish people in comparison to attractive gentiles; the accompanying leap of faith is that ugly is bad. The film appears to contradict itself a few times, for example by attacking Western painters who portrayed Old Testament characters as light-skinned Europeans; thereby the text admits that so-called "Hebrew" ethnicity is in fact an ingrained aspect of Christian culture. It also shows ghetto Jews willingly living in roach-infested filth, despite the supposed treasure they've hoarded, and then flip-flops by saying that these same undesirables live in wealth and luxury as soon as they leave the ghetto. Incidentally, who wouldn't? The use of scenes from a well-known American film, House of Rothschild, shows an equally blurry deployment of logic. First the film is denounced as having been made by Jews; then it is apparently used by Hippler to verify the deceptiveness of Jews (the aforementioned pretense of poverty by ghetto Jews, shown as a means of avoiding taxation, although the Rothschild character's "spin" is that Jews are taxed excessively); finally the Rothschild film is once again execrated for implying that the famed banking family invented the checking account. This apparent indecisiveness in whether the American footage is shown positively or negatively might become clearer with repeated viewings, but at first sight it makes for some murky moviewatching. For all of Eternal Jew's imperfections, I was at first surprised that the IMDb viewer rating for this film is as high as it is, just shy of a "5" to date. I'd say the reason is that EJ's documentary value has exceeded its original purpose, offering us, unintentionally, a look into the lives of European Jews as they would not be seen a few years hence. Needless to say the film's very badness also provides an historical insight into bad, or simply evil, filmmaking as a propagandist's tool. About this time I should expect director Hippler to flip-flop once again, springing forward to say "That's what I meant to do all along!" The scenes depicting animal slaughter are particularly gruesome, and show same as decidedly inhumane, contrary to the intent of Kosher law to prevent animal suffering. I would like for someone who has seen the film, and has some knowledge of these procedures, to comment on whether the portrayal is accurate.

neg

train_9658

pending

4e871056-9951-4f8e-a7e8-825fcf4848e8

That shall be a documentary? I saw it (which is forbidden in Germany) and I have to say, that it was the worst documentary I've ever seen. It is nothing but one big lie from the beginning to the end. Who can doubt after this trash that all Jews were supposed to be killed in the concentration camps?

neg

train_9659

pending

26cf3f55-6980-48b5-bc4a-a8ff92b84b39

1940. - A visit to the Lodz ghetto in Nazi-occupied Poland, recorded by a German cameramen with the naive co-operation of the Jewish community, is combined with archival footage, clips from international newsreels, and excerpts from related cultural films to portray the World's Jews as swindlers and parasites. This 'documentary' interprets Jewish life from the viewpoint of traditional anti-Semitism and Nazi ideology. A candid, cinematically-unique expression of racial hatred. I personally find this film frightening and highly offensive. One can only hope that such pictures as this will never reach the screen again.

neg

train_9660

pending

927459ca-e524-4707-a842-9568ad9effd7

This film is justly famous as one of the most horrible examples of propaganda ever produced. The insistent equation of Jews with disease is simply<br /><br />pathological, and even worse it almost becomes believable for brief seconds<br /><br />through its sheer repetition. The fact that something this crude works, even<br /><br />briefly, is an object lesson in itself. You have to have a strong stomach and a firm grip on yourself to sit through this, and I wouldn't recommend trying unless you have a good reason.

neg

train_9661

pending

1d9c1d89-0e5c-4983-b932-e8f73969a515

Having seen "Triumph of the Will," I can only say this movie is ghastly, even measured against the historically low "standards" of the time. Naturally it's all totally fabricated and prejudicial. This is what one would expect of 1930's German propaganda. Unfortunately, the quality of the presentation, itself, is hackneyed and cheap. It's also so blatantly ridiculous that even contemporary Germans must've left the theater holding their noses. In a genre renowned for its base appeal, lack of originality and unapologetic wrong-headedness, this film doesn't even qualify as "bad." It would have to improve significantly to attain that status!

neg

train_9662

pending

96662339-42e6-48de-8fc0-74fac16f4e3b

Interesting? Hardly. The 'scientific evidence' the movie provides for its point (which is basicly that Jews are a cancer) is so stupid and lame, it's almost laughable (if we didn't know what happened in that era).<br /><br />Important? Nah. I can't imagine Germans (even at that horrid time) would like or believe this movie. Compare it to Riefenstahl's Triumf des Willens. Now that was I movie I was impressed with. This is just silly garbage.<br /><br />'Best' part is a scene from M (one of my all-time favorites) where (the jew, as the announcer so eloquently keeps reminding us) Lorre plays a child-molester and murderer. In the eyes of these film-makers, only a depraved mind can do so. Uh-huh. Didn't know M was Hitler's favorite movie, right?<br /><br />No, it's just plain STUPID. Even for it's nazi-propaganda genre. 2/10.

neg

train_9663

pending

084c9122-ad20-4d77-b67d-f3ed6729513b

This Book-based movie is truly awful, and a big disappointment. We've been waiting for this move over a month. Many film reviewer were hopeful for it. Also in newspapers and TV, it made big sense. When 29th April comes, many people regretfully noticed that movie is really awful. Why? First of all story was so monotone. It has been many indefinite scenes, sometimes it's hard to realize what's going on. The actresses, out of Hulya Avsar, weren't harmonized with their roles, especially Vildan Atasever. She acts better in comedy films, In this movie, a kind of drama, she couldn't disposed of her previous role. And finally Movie is too short, just 66 minutes.

neg

train_9664

pending

590f0646-1390-4867-b7aa-c343eebed4be

How cynical are the writers, to pander so. I may be an American citizen, but I don't need to see other Americans pat each other on the back for an hour and half in order to enjoy a film. I'm astonished that so few have commented on how utterly jingoistic, sentimental and trite the dialogue in this film really is. The historical inaccuracies of the film are not as gross and offensive as in "U-571" (which changes British submariners to American ones) but you still walk away feeling a little slimy. Really, the Germans in this film do nothing but admire the Americans between battle scenes! How sad, unnecessary! I'd just like to say to the writers: it's obvious to many of us that you can't capture real people, with real problems, under real pressure, and that you've taken some very well tested shortcuts. Lucky for you there will always be nationalist nutjobs to appreciate your sugar-coated tripe.

neg

train_9665

pending

0d350944-382a-4f09-8a32-2d77b88c8fb6

I usually read reviews before I watch a movie. Guess what, I didn't do that before watching TLB, and I have to say I was very surprised to see the above average rating at IMDb. I found it to have a total lack of story. You just get dropped into it (and, sadly, not in the way Saving Private Ryan dropped us into the movie), and it also has a sudden end, which was very unsatisfying for me.<br /><br />I have to admit, the wounded soldiers looked pretty realistic to me, especially with the low budget in mind. But prepare yourself to have a laugh... Some guys are being tossed through the air after an explosion as if they are Olympic gymnasts. A mid-air corkscrew or somersault during WW I is a bit too much for me, especially when it's performed countless times during the movie...<br /><br />But the parts that really got me laughing until I almost cried were the scenes containing close combat. The screaming and shouting German voices...unbelievably funny. It seems as if they are spoken by one single actor / voice performer, because they all sound exactly the same, and it just sounds like a 'typical' German voice.<br /><br />I would absolutely NOT recommend this movie to anyone, except to people who just want to have some laughs because of the sad and corny quality of it.

neg

train_9666

pending

2cf12f3b-8332-42c7-ab0e-c0ef895c2a7a

I want to say the acting is bad, but I think it was the directing that made it so. I never thought much of Highlander (same director) but that one could be blamed on the 80s.<br /><br />This one however, has no excuses. People get shot while exiting trenches with a man in front of him!? Those kind of mistakes, along with an unclear time line, weird battle tactics, sub-par cutting and poor visual effects, makes this one a sub-par film over all.<br /><br />Then like so many other have commented, all this American bullshit. The German general being practically scared of his captured American private. Be prepared to swallow a lot of it, although in small doses.<br /><br />To sum it up, a not horrible but still definitely sub-par war movie in all aspects.

neg

train_9667

pending

d3f6dee4-2236-4e6e-9b4b-961204188ef9

When this movie was first shown on television I had high hopes that we would finally have a decent movie about World War I as experienced by American soldiers. Unfortunately this is not it.<br /><br />It should have been a good movie about WWI. Even though it was made for television it is obvious that a real effort was made to use appropriate equipment and props. But the writing and directing are badly lacking, even though the makers of this movie obviously borrowed freely from quite a few well made war movies. War movie clichés abound such as the arrogant general who apparently does not care a flip about the lives of his men. When will Hollywood realize that, even though there have been plenty of bad generals, most combat unit generals have seen plenty of combat themselves and are not naive about what the average grunt experiences? The first part of this movie appeared to be "Paths of Glory" with American uniforms. Except that "Paths of Glory" was emotionally gripping. Later on there was Chamberlain's charge (except uphill) from "Gettysburg" and even the capture of the American soldier by a ring of enemy soldiers from "The Thin Red Line". But in "The Thin Red Line" the soldier was alone when captured. In this movie a ring forms around the new prisoner in the middle of a battle.<br /><br />If this movie used a military adviser they ignored him. Even though the actors (and I never could forget they were actors while watching) mouthed military tactics I didn't see very much of it. The American soldiers would stand up to be shot while the Germans attacked. And the infamous Storm Troopers, who were apparently blind, appeared to use no tactics whatsoever in their attack. In the real war, the tactics were what made storm troopers so effective. But the silliest scene was the attack of the German Flamethrowers. In this scene the German flamethrower operators walked in a broad line towards the defending Americans. If that had been real they would never have gotten close enough to use their flamethrowers before they had all been dropped by the defender's bullets.<br /><br />Okay, so most war movies are unrealistic when it comes to the tactics shown. But it is still disappointing. But what really turned me off to this flick was the typical anti-war anti-military angle that movie makers seem to think is important. True, war is hell. But most American soldiers, even though they grumble and gripe, tend to believe in what they are doing and can be rather gung-ho about it. My Grandfather served in World War I. And even though he died four years before I was born I have been told how proud he was of his service.

neg

train_9668

pending

fec3c32c-9d70-4645-aacf-557695caa0ae

After watching this movie I was honestly disappointed - not because of the actors, story or directing - I was disappointed by this film advertisements.<br /><br />The trailers were suggesting that the battalion "have chosen the third way out" other than surrender or die (Polish infos were even misguiding that they had the choice between being killed by own artillery or German guns, they even translated the title wrong as "misplaced battalion"). This have tickled the right spot and I bought the movie.<br /><br />The disappointment started when I realized that the third way is to just sit down and count dead bodies followed by sitting down and counting dead bodies... Then I began to think "hey, this story can't be that simple... I bet this clever officer will find some cunning way to save what left of his troops". Well, he didn't, they were just sitting and waiting for something to happen. And so was I.<br /><br />The story was based on real events of World War I, so the writers couldn't make much use of their imagination, but even thought I found this movie really unchallenging and even a little bit boring. And as I wrote in the first place - it isn't fault of actors, writers or director - their marketing people have raised my expectations high above the level that this movie could cope with.

neg

train_9669

pending

f6019d36-141b-4b86-8231-7f55f34360c2

My God, what an incredible movie it is! Reminded me so much of the similar scene in Mel Gibson's movie "We were Soldiers" when "the Company is not lost, they're just cut off" And the other scene in Pearl Harbour when the British officer says to Ben Affleck "If all Americans are like you, then God help the nation that goes to war with America!<br /><br />Put all 3 movies together and you would have enough BULLSHIT to fertilise the entire Sahara Desert.<br /><br />The story of the cut-off Battalion may be real enough but the movie could have done without all that American preachy jingoistic propaganda attached to it. There were audible groans in the cinema during the above-mentioned scene in Pearl Harbour (no kidding either) The Lost Battalion however is really in a class of its own ….<br /><br />"Americans think they are unbeatable…inspired bravery…. " I actually cringed and damn near puked at all the swill being spewed out throughout this diarrhoeic disaster (the movie that is) <br /><br />The fighting scenes were well made (3 stars for that) but if the script is manure, then wrapped even in brightly coloured ribbons, it is still manure. The writer, James Carabatsos, also wrote those other screamers…Hamburger Hill, No Mercy , Heartbreak Ridge. Someone, please shoot him before he writes any more such garbage.<br /><br />The Director, Russell Mulcahy is an Australian too. God, the shame!!!

neg

train_9670

pending

5b36ff15-f8d1-4b77-9bf2-aa8648cae314

1) I am not weapon expert, but even i can see difference between U.S. army riffles in WWI and WWII. In movie we can see privates, armed with "M1 Garand" (invented in year 1932!), not authentic "1903 Springfield" (aka "Silent Death"), who privates use until WWII. Difference - M1 can load 1,5 times more ammunition and 3 times more fire rate! M1 was semi - automatic, Springfield requires reloading after every shot. Little difference?! 2) German army uniforms has borrowed from 1940 Year too. Especially - helmets. German helmets until end of WWI have significant pike on top, we cannot see even one in movie. And if we make little additional search in archives - how much truthful is this "True Story"? I am surprised, how much "truthful" can be film directors in a pursuit of cheap propagation.

neg

train_9671

pending

f5ac5582-c57d-4188-ab59-a804c87f9ef1

This movie has the made for TV stink all over it. Though, it started out with great intentions, featuring great looking sets and authentic props and costumes. The film quickly degenerated into horrible on the nose cheesy dialogue, and rushed TV sappy melodramatic acting. The characters were so sappy that at times I thought that they are about to degenerate into a bilious puddle of goo, and the action was so convoluted and poorly cut that it looked as it the soldiers were merely standing around and taking turns shooting at one another. The Germans were so unrealistically depicted that it was painful to watch. The only thing that the German officers talked about was how wonderful the Americans are. Please take my word for this. I am a huge fan of the war genre, and this movie is crap. Nevertheless, this DVD does have an excellent extra feature, covering letters from the WWI front lines, thus making this rental not a total waste of my time.

neg

train_9672

pending

7f86851b-5cd2-4b8d-9f8c-6f538c4eddaa

I ended up watching this movie before even going through any of the reviews, on the request of a female. Just out of curiosity, I thought, let me find out if there are people who actually recommend others to watch this movie. I am quite shocked to find such long and positive reviews on this website that makes me conclude that it's a scam.<br /><br />As far as my opinion goes, I have to ask,"are these filmmakers retarded or do they assume that the viewers are retarded?" The movie is atrocious on so many levels and I'm not even talking about the story or presentation.<br /><br />So, these bunch of guys plus one girl (the lead actress) form a Music band; guessing from the constant presence of guitars it is supposed to be a ROCK band. Hell, when did dancers started becoming the part of a Rock band??? Anyway, let me accept it as the-Bollywood-version-of-a- Rock-band, but amusingly enough all the scores which actually had these two guitarists doing all kinds of cool "ROCK GESTURES" and I am assuming they were playing the instruments, the sound of the guitar was completely missing!!! I simply can't comprehend the magnitude of stupidity here....<br /><br />I am just going to conclude here because it is absolutely not worth pointing out any further flaws in the movie. Bollywood directors seem to have no shame anymore!!!!!!!!

neg

train_9673

pending

498ec615-3e95-46f1-a6c8-13b80237abb1

The movie is plain bad. Simply awful. The string of bad movies from Bollywood has no end! They must be running out of excuses for making such awful movies (or not).<br /><br />The problem seems to be with mainly the directors. This movie has 2 good actors who have proved in the past that the have the ability to deliver great performance...but they were directed so poorly. The poor script did not help either.<br /><br />This movie has plenty of ridiculous moments and very bad editing in the first half. For instance :<br /><br />After his 1st big concert, Ajay Devgan, meets up with Om Puri (from whom he ran away some 30 years ago and talked to again) and all Om Puri finds to say is to beware of his friendship with Salman!!! What a load of crap. Seriously. Not to mention the baaad soundtrack. Whatever happened to Shankar Ehsaan Loy?<br /><br />Ajay Devgun is total miscast for portraying a rockstar.<br /><br />Only saving grace are the good performances in the second half. Ajay shines as his character shows his dark side. So does Salman as the drug addict. <br /><br />Watch it maybe only for the last half hour.

neg

train_9674

pending

a03c712e-1fe5-4c73-afad-72dec43b4cba

I just wondering what is the purpose of making movies like this? the profit? and to whom they are referring what intelligence must use your brain to watch something like this crap? This movie is watchable by under 3 years old children if you are adults don't try to watch it. Thats the reason i think Hollywood started to use cartoons in movies with actors like this you must forget the art of cinema , be sure that you ll have tons of pop corn to consume for time to pass till this movie ends also get many cola's hamburgers your laptop your cellphone this movie can be used easily in a restaurant but for sure not in a theater , my dog who is always next to my family when watching a movie left the building.The sure thing is that this movie is referring to people with no demands from the cinema art.The only thing that this movie can be used is for watching it when making the supermarket shopping list.I am giving 2 stars for supporting the India's cinema efforts but for nothing more or less..

neg

train_9675

pending

163e9eca-ec4c-4bd4-8e3b-27d69503a96a

The film was written 10 years back and a different director was planning it with SRK and Aamir in lead roles<br /><br />The film finally was made now with Vipul Shah directing it And Ajay and Salman starring together after a decade HUM DIL DE CHUKE SANAM(1999)<br /><br />The movie however falls short due to it's 90's handling and worst it's loopholes<br /><br />The film tries to pack in too many commercial ingredients and we also hav the love triangle<br /><br />Everything is predictable and filmy and too clichéd<br /><br />There are loopholes like how Ajay runs away from London Airport and makes a place for himself with no one? even the way he starts his band is not convincing The second half gets better with the twist in the tale of Ajay destroying Salman but sadly the climax falls short and the film ends on a bad note<br /><br />Direction by Vipul Shah is ordinary to below average Music is the worst point, most songs are mediocre<br /><br />Amongst actors Ajay gives his best shot though he isn't convincing as a Rock singer yet he does superb as the negative role Salman however irritates with his punjabi and talking nonsense he only impresses when he gets drugged and thereon Asin is nothing great just a show piece Ranvijay should stick to MTV Om Puri is okay

neg

train_9676

pending

49e191c7-4748-4326-ad8c-8da2439405f4

The movie is a total crap. We have two good actors who are miscast and a meat-head of an actor Salman Khan just to attract the female audience. The story is a crap. The characters poorly sketched. Non existent story telling. No editing to speak of. Ajay Devgan as a Rock Star..that is a dream in itself. The movie drags along to the point of decadence. The whole charade about Arjun bringing his Manna to London, let him grope his girlfriend and let him not play at Wembley (Vimbley in the dubbing process) is absurd. Salman Khan's over the top acting or faking is too painful to watch. I remember seeing some good movies from this Producer Vipul Shah but this is not one of them. It seems all the good directors are falling prey to the Box Office mania..that the Mumbai Media Morons have created. This is yet another crap movie in the lines of "Wanted" with idiot actor like Salman Khan who has no place in a Good Hindi Cinema. He is good to the Indian Cinema as Titanic was to the Winter Cruise Business. On a positive note-I like Asin character dancing Bharatnatyam when she changes to the Western style dancing when the teacher is not looking.

neg

train_9677

pending

286a8226-8463-43aa-96af-fbfa6c2a1f2b

Maaan, where do i start with this god awful movie. Bad bad bad story telling. I do not know what the director was thinking when he made this movie. Namaste London was quite an enjoyable movie to be honest..even the soundtrack was good. But in this one..oh my good..for a movie which is supposed to be a musical one..the songs are soooo bad. AR Rahman should have been the music director. <br /><br />Given two great actors a much better job should have been done by the director. Even though the first half sucks, the last 30 mins of the movie are OK. Performances from Salman and Ajay save the movie from being a total disaster.<br /><br />Watch it if you have nothing better to do. The last good movie from Bollywood i watched ( and i do watch a load of them) is Dev D and Wake Up Sid.

neg

train_9678

pending

297ea6e9-93dc-49d8-a453-0d7f7ad7de18

Who were they kidding with this? There was just too much in this film that was hard to digest. Right from when Arjun (Ajay Devgan) unknowingly wishes death on his father to when he arrives in London with his uncle(played by Om Puri) only to abandon him minutes later. The only problem with that theory is that anybody who has ever passed through London Heathrow knows that such a fête would be impossible to pull off and especially not by an Indian. But the film problems do not end there, there's the issue of the two main leads (Salman Khan and Ajay Devgan) passing as rock-stars on the verge of achieving their dreams. I mean yeah we saw success come to Susan Boyle (a woman in the UK achieving her dreams after age 50) but that was a rare case. It was really hard for me to suspend my disbelief because I felt that the casting of Salman and Ajay was just ill-conceived. They would never cast Madhuri Dixit and Sridevi to play the same roles so why should we be forced to watch Ajay Devgan and Salman Khan (men well into their 40s) prance around desperately trying to hang on to their 20s? Let's not even talk about the most self-conscious actress on screen today, Asin. This is her second film (that I have seen) and she is just hopeless as an actress, so conscious of her looks that she only concerns herself with looking good and voguing for the camera rather than giving in a good acting performance. It's just hard to believe that she turned down all those other movie roles to star in this fluff and then be so fluffy as an actress, nothing to write home about at all. And to top all of that, the film just boringly dragged on. There's nothing special about it at all, trust me you will predict every clichéd thing that is going to happen in it.

neg

train_9679

pending

3722a6bf-d892-4d3d-b54a-d54db17ce1e4

Vipul Shah has done some really impressive work as a filmmaker in the past. 'Waqt - The Race Against Time' and 'Namaste London' were entertaining and interesting to watch. 'Singh Is Kinng' was fun, which he produced. His latest outing as a filmmaker 'London Dreams' comes up as his careers weakest fare.<br /><br />'London Dreams' has a mediocre storyline, it's about how success turns friendship into hatred. Agreed, it has the potential but when you watch 'London Dreams' you wonder what's happening? This film has maybe the worst climax in recent times. Vipul Shah the writer puts Vipul Shah the director down. <br /><br />The first hour is boring, The second hour is better; but again the climax is horrendous. How can anyone forgive a person who decided to destroy you? I won't. Ajay Devgn suddenly decides to go to India and ask forgiveness to his diaper buddy, thanks to his uncle Om Puri. When he reaches India, rather than slapping or abusing him Salman welcomes him with band baja and says he was the reason behind the entire fiasco? Was Vipul Shah's intension to show Salman's character as a GOD? If yes, than you've failed completely. The only question I want to ask Vipul Shah is that, would you welcome a person who destroyed you with such a great reception? Write what you feel, don't fool us {the audience}, we are sensible enough to understand what's good or not. <br /><br />This is a musical but the music by Shankar-Eshaan-Loy is terrible. Not a single song stays in your mind. <br /><br />Salman is superb though. He carries the film on his shoulders and does really, really well in the emotional scenes. But again his character is shown as a GOD, which makes him look like a retard in the end. Ajay is equally good, but Salman has over-shadowed him completely. Asin is wasted, and what is a great talent like Om Puri doing in this film? Rannvijay hams, though Aditya Roy Kapoor excels. Brinda Parekh is alright as the vamp.<br /><br />On the whole, this dream remains a dream!

neg

train_9680

pending

3f8bafed-ae6b-4df5-8d05-2cfbbf11aca8

London Dreams, directed by Vipul Shah, is a frustratingly foolish film about foolish people. It's the kind of film whose central conflict could be instantly resolved if the characters concerned simply sat down and had a chat. Ajay Devgan plays Arjun, an aspiring pop-artiste obsessed with performing before a cheering crowd at London's Wembley Stadium. He becomes jealous of his devoted best friend and band-mate Manu, played by Salman Khan, who is evidently more talented than him, but nowhere near as focused or ambitious. Arjun decides to sabotage Manu when the latter's popularity threatens to outshine his own. Now here's where a heart-to-heart might have helped. Had Arjun explained what this Wembley fixation meant to him, Manu would have graciously backed off and let Arjun fulfill his childhood dream, and we'd have been spared the agony of watching the rest of this uninspiring drivel. But director Vipul Shah and his writers are in no mood to do us any favours. London Dreams is packed with unintentionally hilarious gems like that back-story involving Arjun's grandpa who committed suicide out of shame for getting stage-fright at a packed Wembley concert. Or the ridiculous incident at a show where Manu must take over vocal responsibilities after a blast of confetti practically chokes Arjun into silence. The idiocy, however, doesn't end there. In his attempts to shame Manu publicly, Arjun uses his connections to get Manu hooked onto drugs. A buxom groupie urges Manu to down a couple of tequila shots with her but replaces his salt with cocaine. Before you know it, Manu has acquired quite the appetite for the addictive white powder, practically chomping it down like dinner. If that isn't silly enough, there's a crude scene later in which Manu chases after the said girl to find out who she's been taking orders from. The pursuit ends in a dark London alley where the girl gets down on her knees pretending to do the unmentionable so as to mislead Manu's girlfriend who's been secretly following after them. Wait, there's more! Expect to howl hysterically when Arjun snaps off his belt and whips himself mercilessly to banish all thoughts of romance or lust towards the band's lead dancer Priya (played by Asin) because nothing and no one must distract him from his musical goals. Too generously inspired by Milos Forman's Amadeus for it to merit any comparison with last year's Rock On!, Vipul Shah's latest is a clunky melodrama that's as loosely directed as it is scripted. The film goes for broad humor, over-the-top emotions, and basically chooses loudness over subtlety. That works for Manu's character, with Salman Khan playing him all loutish and lovable, but in the case of Arjun, Ajay Devgan comes off too passive with a performance that is mostly internalised. When Arjun does reach boiling point however, it results in an awkward pre-climax scene in which he lectures a packed concert hall and is understandably pelted with plastic bottles as punishment. Of the remaining cast, there's not a kind word I can say for Asin, who practically lit up Ghajini with her ebullient charm, but disappoints here with unnecessary over-acting in a thankless role. Ranvijay Singh and Aditya Roy Kapur, reduced to mere sidekicks in the band, show up at regular intervals, usually to utter some inane dialogue like, "We'll rock it dude!" For its dim-witted writing and sloppy direction, London Dreams is ultimately a tiresome watch. If you must, watch it for Salman Khan who's turned buffoonery into a bonafide acting style. It's the only thing that'll make you smile in this sad, sad film.

neg

train_9681

pending

585c829b-2e70-4ccb-8ab2-897b5a0bc216

The Lack of content in this movie amazed me the most. First i though that people was going to compare this to Rock On! but i'm really surprised myself to say that this was worst than Rock On! So-so story Horrible cast Ajay Devgan Jamming with Salman Khan and Asin you gotta be kidding me. The music was Okay Khanabadosh was the track of the movie the rest was bad! Vipul Shah hasn't still learn from Singh is King's critically bashed comedy. Now Asin.. where do she come from sorry for Asin's fan out there but she suck*d big time in this movie seriously bad acting she didn't look good at all overdose of make-up! My final verdict go watch Aladin with your family instead wasting your time here.

neg

train_9682

pending

4ace4937-8850-4f5a-b88b-8660ef6a2a2a

It's a bad season for Bollywood with all the big releases with a massive hype surrounding proving to be duds at the box office. London Dreams is no exception to that. Let's dissect it... It's all about chasing your dreams and how far will you go to achieve it. Sounds impressive right? But unfortunately the film is not.<br /><br />Arjun (Ajay Devgan) is an aspiring musician who wants to make it big someday. His dream is to perform in Wembley stadium in front of a cheering 90,000 audience calling out his name. He is joined by two brothers, Zoheb & Wasim (debutants Aditya Roy & Ranvijay) and a ravishing Priya (Asin). Together they form "London Dreams" their dream band. After impressing the chief of a record company, they become overnight sensations. Arjun is secretly in love with Priya which he doesn't want to reveal till he achieves his goal. Arjun then brings his childhood friend Manjit Khosla aka Mannu (Salman Khan), a carefree flirtatious guy who has got no ambitions in life, to join their band. Mannu is a trained musician and a real talent for whom later Arjun become envious for Mannu's superior skills and his affair with Priya. Arjun with the help of Zoheb plans to blight Mannu. What happens next forms the rest of the movies.<br /><br />Coming to the technical aspects, we feel only the shadow of Vipul Amritlal Sha whom we have admired in Namaste London. Felt like he simply visualized the screenplay. To cut it short, a glorified cameraman. Screenplay by Suresh Nair dulls even though it has its moments. Defined in a predictable fashion, the screenplay bore you to stiff. Camera work was awesome in capturing the beauty of London. It's the only entertaining part while watching songs.<br /><br />Few songs are hummable while others are passable noisy fare. Ajay was the one who stole the show with his negative character. Salman is monotonous and he irks you. Asin is forgettable and I don't that she will make it big in Bollywood. Aditya Roy is impressive while Ranvijay is strictly OK. Brinda as the bitch is what we have seen in innumerable movies. Ompuri is ongoing with the proceedings. I don't want to pen down about the flaws as it will be a herculean task.<br /><br />Finally let me put it simple and straight, London Dreams is a soulless movie which you may better enjoy on DVD.

neg

train_9683

pending

361baa14-574f-459a-9780-64a7add76288

First thing first . In this genre movie the first thing you need is a good music , and thats where Mr. shankar and his party fails.<br /><br />music is completely pale and uneffective. On other hand there is AJAY DEVGAN , WHO HAS REMOVED A LETTER 'A' from his spelling , done good job but was of no use to a bad casted movies like this.<br /><br />ASIN is like a doll which is used to amuse public, even though she is good to look at but her role in movie is to dance, actually she is dancing member of a rock band and i don't think any rock band have there dancer as a member of band.<br /><br />in nut shell this movie is a piece of crap a piece of ***t. watch it if you wanna get fooled.

neg

train_9684

pending

95818fe2-b6ea-4d40-b22e-84bdb902f343

Below average movie with poor music considering a movie based on music??? Ordinary Script & Direction with full of blunders. Salman Khan was at his usual acting. Ajay's performance deteriorating with time as his looks,especially his styles as a Rock Star were pathetic. Asin was just a showpiece only. Overall I felt like wasting my money in cinema. Salman Khan remains as immature as 10 years ago compared to Aamir Khan. There were many songs in the movie all boring except "Man Ko Ati". The Most Important Song to impress the UK Music Sponsor was most unimpressive. "Khanabadosh" can be very easily understood by an English Music Sponsor. The other movie I saw last week was "Wake Up Sid" which was simple slow love story with good direction & acting despite average music

neg

train_9685

pending

db98995b-fcb4-443e-9dac-25cf341a1963

I couldn't believe some of the horrible dialog coming out of people's mouths, and the end reel of bloopers attached to body of the film was a real hoot. And we get titty shots of Angelique Pettyjohn (sort of) and Loren Crabtree to boot.<br /><br />A teleportation device activated by psychic Angelique Pettyjohn brings an alien container to an underground lab out in the desert. According to director Fred Olen Ray, they were leftover sets from the Klaus Kinski film, ANDROID which gives the film an increased value beyond how cheap it looks.<br /><br />Inside the container is a midget alien (played by Ray's son) who starts clawing people to death. It was pretty funny watching this little 'creature' in a black reptile suit with what looks like large beetle shells attached to it, running around in the dark. We even get to see the little thing stamp and tear at a poster of ET, which I thought was hilarious.<br /><br />And then there's what looks like a snake that also comes out of the container that gets hammered to death by William Fair, after the mini creature chews into Frank McDonald's neck in the kitchen. A low budget take on ALIEN, I suppose...<br /><br />The whole thing ends abruptly, looking like they ran out of film at the end before the blooper reel comes in with the end credits. Talk about a lack of funding...<br /><br />Fred Olen Ray also mentions in the director's commentary that they also weren't sure if Aldo Ray would make through the shooting and remember his lines. He barely did.<br /><br />Low budget cheese sneeze. It's fun to watch, I'll grant ya that. <br /><br />4 out of 10

neg

train_9686

pending

41a543dc-1978-4877-be03-fbf916898de3

If you're watching this movie, you're either a Fred Olen Ray fan, you found it on the $4.99 shelf at Suncoast and thought "what do I have to lose?", or you spun around the video store with your eyes closed and rented the first movie your finger touched.<br /><br />This movie is hysterically bad. It's got everything a terrible movie needs: a screenplay featuring jaw-dropping dialogue and baffling detours in the plot, wacky science involving psychics and other dimensions, continuity that seems to travel through wormholes in time and space, actors that are not only wooden, but seems to border on befuddled, gratuitous nudity (not all of it is what you necessarily would ask for), and of course, a 5' monster played by what I assume is Fred Olen Ray's kid.<br /><br />Underneath it all, however, there is something resembling heart -- as if Mickey & Judy decided to get together all the kids in the neighborhood and make a monster movie (hey! my dad can direct it! yeah! We can use red paint from my johnny's dad's hardware store, and I know this ex-stripper who can act in it!).<br /><br />Watch for the blooper reel over the credits -- you get to find out why the final cut of the movie was so crappy.<br /><br />Incidentally, Biohazard II...the Alien Force is also worth a look, but doesn't have the same enjoyably crappy veneer this one does.

neg

train_9687

pending

70f13640-0215-4d47-bf75-4cade50e9393

I was always curious about this film because it is so tough to find, so when I stumbled upon it on Ebay I forked over the $10 and bought it, now I understand why its so rare! This film is SO bad, so terribly written and hopelessly low budget that the ending credits, which show all of the cut scenes where they fumbled their lines, are literally the movie's highlight. The film is about a psychic (Pettyjohn, cast for one obvious reason, her topless scene) whom uses her powers with an experimental machine to pull objects from another dimension into this reality. When she pulls in some kind of box like object the military nonchalantly throws it into the open back of a truck with one soldier to guard it, and gee, what do you know? SURPRISE! A kid in a foam-rubber monster costume pops out, instantly kills the soldier with a scratch across his face, then escapes to a nearby city. But rather than deploy half the armed forces of the county to find it and protect the public those in charge just leave it up to Pettyjohn and Ray to find it on their own, but no matter, this movie blows all its credibility LONG before then. This barely escapes being voted a 1 by me only because of unintentional laughs, somebody needs to alert the producers of "Mystery Science Theater 3000" if they don't know about it already! 2 out 10, really, REALLY bad!

neg

train_9688

pending

46124ba4-7160-4846-aa1f-da7df48aa38f

Occasionally one is served a new entrée from foreign films. That is their great attraction. They take from life and serve it up raw. American films, rarely dare to touch the forbidden subjects of society. Too many hang-ups and a morbid fear of financial failure. The Almighty dollar, determines their selections. Something which invites European directors. In addition, audiences world wide remain hungry for "different" films, especially those which offer a savory bite out of the wretched, suffering body of humanity. Despite the fear of directors or producers, many audiences yearn for beauty, poetry, and the pristine flavor of life. That is what the film "To the Left of the Father" offers to curious audiences. A family locked in the belief that unity of family stems from the unity of it's obedience to tradition. Yet when the patriarch of a family forgets it's members are flesh and blood humans, filled with raging, unbridled dreams and dark passions, then the two are set in motions against itself. Selton Mello plays André a son who seeks to control his inner passions with the stagnant philosophy of his father. Raul Cortez plays his Father. Simone Spoladore is Ana a young woman who seeks to quench a forbidden thirst from the family waters. Leonardo Medeiros is Pedro, the elder brother. The film offers much, but does takes an extremely inordinate amount of time to say it. ***

neg

train_9689

pending

cc9a465d-67d1-4512-81cf-75dc4df2a6b7

"Boom" has garnered itself a something of a reputation. With heavyweights Taylor, Burton, Noel Coward, Tennessee Williams and Joseph Losey, one might be tempted to think, how bad could it be? Well, it's a lot worse than you could possibly imagine.<br /><br />The sad and disturbing fact of "Boom" is that is seems to signal the decline and fall of the aforementioned heavyweights. It was only director Joseph Losey who having plummeted the depths with "Modesty Blaise" and "Boom" (some may wish to add "Secret Ceremony"), managed to recuperate and in 1970 create his best work, the wonderful "Go-Between".<br /><br />Saddest of all is the work of Tennesee Williams. From the mid forties until the early sixties, Williams penned a number of plays which have gained classic status, remaining in theater repertory throughout the world, many becoming much praised films. When William's muse deserted him, probably owing to his notorious substance abuse, it deserted him for good. Williams at his best is an actor's dream providing many unforgettable performances. (Were Ava Gardner or Deborah Kerr ever better than in "Night of the Iguana" ? ) Taylor in particular, shone in both "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" and "Suddenly Last Summer". There is an anecdote in which supposedly Taylor asks John Gielgud whether he would teach her to play Shakespeare, to which he replied "if you will teach me to play Tennessee Williams". Had Gielgud seen "Boom" he would have held his tongue. Taylor simply has never been worse, turning in a cringe inducing performance. Despite her face photographing well, she is decidedly podgy. Besides the physical decline, from this time onwards she would basically lose credibility as a serious actress with a string of completely forgettable (and worse) roles to her credit.<br /><br />Much the same could be said of Burton. Following his short lived theatrical stardom, he won fame and fortune in Hollywood. But the body of his work from this point onwards (1968) would be unremarkable to say the least.<br /><br />Noel Coward had long ceased being a force in the theater where his drawing room comedies had been replaced by the likes of Williams and the British "angry young men". He seems to be enjoying himself camping it up, but barely manages to amuses, that from the man who claimed such a talent.<br /><br />The only cast member who maintains her dignity is young Joanna Shimkus, who in a few years would forego a promising screen career to become Mrs. Sidney Poitier.<br /><br />"Boom" reeks of self indulgence; it's simply out of control. A rather sad pointer to careers gone wrong rather than a camp fun fest as some have suggested.

neg

train_9690

pending

6f446fe1-c188-46ac-b37d-017a36746c85

Boy, this was one lousy movie! While I haven't seen all of the Burton/Taylor collaborations, I can say with confidence that this is the worst. This rich but ill woman (Taylor, of course) owns this beautiful island in the Meditteranean, ruling over a put-upon staff when she's suddenly visited by this traveling poet, who mouths platitudes. In fact, the whole film is just a talk fest, with much of the talk making no sense. Even in 1968, no one could make heads or tails of this pretentious nonsense, and the passage of time makes that even more clear. If it weren't for the beautiful cinematography and scenery, it would deserve a negative rating. The only thing this film is good for is its unintentional laughs at the expense of the stars.

neg

train_9691

pending

7c61c832-5254-4637-ae34-3b222284d363

This astonishing waste of production money is filmic proof that the rich and famous can be just as stupid and wasteful as politicians. From a (silly) play by Tennessee Williams and directed (with a dead hand) by Joseph Losey and starring Taylor and Burton and Noel Coward - this project filmed in a spectacular cliff-top mountain island mansion in the Mediterranean must have seemed a sure fire winner when presented to Universal in 1967. The result is so absurd and tedious that it almost defies belief. Visually the film is spectacular but that is the force of nature that has allowed the setting and the fact that a real home is used instead of a set. The shrill antics of a screeching Taylor, Burton's half asleep wanderings, the loony dialog, Noel Coward laughing at himself, the ridiculous story and plot devices and the absurd costuming simply irritate the viewer. BOOM is a disgrace, a waste of money and talent and clear proof that lauded famous people can be idiots just like the rest of the planet's plebs. Not even fun. Just terrible and mad shocking waste.

neg

train_9692

pending

7177dc6c-76d9-4842-a7c6-8940c4293340

WOW! Pretty terrible stuff. The Richard Burton/Elizabeth Taylor roadshow lands in Sardinia and hooks up with arty director Joseph Losey for this remarkably ill-conceived Tennessee Williams fiasco. Taylor plays a rich, dying widow holding fort over her minions on an island where she dictates, very loudly, her memoirs to an incredibly patient secretary. When scoundrel Burton shows up claiming to be a poet and old friend, Taylor realizes her time is up. Ludicrious in the extreme --- it's difficult to determine if Taylor and Burton are acting badly OR if it was Williams' intention to make their characters so unappealing. If that's the case, then the acting is brilliant! Burton mumbles his lines, including the word BOOM several times, while Taylor screeches her's. She's really awful. So is Noel Coward as Taylor's catty confidante, the "Witch of Capri." <br /><br />Presumably BOOM is about how fleeting time is and how fast life moves along --- two standard Williams themes, but it's so misdirected by Losey, that had Taylor and Burton not spelled it out for the audience during their mostly inane monologues, any substance the film has would have been completely diluted. <br /><br />BOOM does have stunning photography---the camera would have to have been out of focus to screw up the beauty of Sardinia! The supporting cast features Joanna Shimkus, the great Romolo Valli as Taylor's resourceful doctor and Michael Dunn as her nasty dwarf security guard...both he and his dogs do a number on Burton!

neg

train_9693

pending

ce5b1915-128a-42a8-9e3a-e6e5aec838ca

Whatever rating I give BOOM is only because of the superb location photography of Sardinia and Rome. Otherwise, this is only for hardcore addicts of ELIZABETH TAYLOR (her downward phase), and RICHARD BURTON (his miscasting phase). Tennessee Williams wrote "The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore" and is supposed to be very fond of this adaptation of his play--but apparently, he was the only one. Taylor reportedly hated it and Burton needed the money.<br /><br />Whatever, it amounts to a hill of beans with Taylor posturing and fuming in her shrill manner, exploding at the servants and exchanging bad baby-talk with no less than NOEL COWARD who seems to be a visitor from another film when he finally appears.<br /><br />It's so campy that among Taylor fans it's probably considered a "must see" kind of thing. But if you can sit through this one without a drink in your hand, you're way ahead of me. Sadly, this is the film that signified the end of Taylor being taken seriously as a film actress, even after winning two Oscars. For Burton, it was equally disastrous and the critics called it a BOMB. Judge for yourself if you dare.

neg

train_9694

pending

7efde5c7-35a7-4b74-9c53-9cef3ad69f33

Is rich, ailing Elizabeth Taylor courting the Angel of Death on her island fortress in the Mediterranean, or is she just overreacting--or more precisely, overacting--as usual? Actually, both are applicable in director Joseph Losey's wandering, meandering mess called "Boom", appropriately titled since tempers in the lush, luxurious setting are nearly ready to explode. Richard Burton climbs Taylor's mountain uninvited; she dresses him in a samurai's robe complete with saber. Though great-looking in widescreen, the picture is otherwise quite deadly, a failure even Liz 'n Dick-philes should shun (the stars' collective "what the hell!" attitude to their late-'60s film careers reached an ego-mad nadir here). Pointless, confused, and maddening, "Boom" is a catastrophe--although screenwriter Tennessee Williams, who adapted his own unsuccessful play "The Milk Train Doesn't Stop Here Anymore", was said to be quite fond of it! * from ****

neg

train_9695

pending

d28b1e9b-adfe-4f7c-851a-2f5a5cda5bb9

I have an awful pan-and-scan videotape of "Boom!", and I want to see it in all its widescreen glory. So I voted "1" and hope you will too. Together, we can pull this movie down into the pits of cinematic dross, and hope that someone will see an opportunity for BIG MONEY in releasing "Boom!" in its Director's Cut Extended Version. The movie is one of my howling favorites…you just look at the people involved, the director, the actors, the cameraman, and you say to yourself, "Yep, I guess you can fool some of the people for a lot of time." Producers considering the DVD release of "Boom!" should note that, everywhere it's been shown, there have been sellout crowds in the theaters. But it hasn't been up to Frostbite Falls yet.

neg

train_9696

pending

14e87f53-9d56-4435-a119-82179f56503e

The movie appeals to public due to charisma of Ben Stiller and notoriety of J. Aniston. It seems that we have here a recipe for a successful title, but there's nothing successful in this movie.<br /><br />Polly is very well played by Aniston, no doubt. This is the kind of character which suits her perfectly. <br /><br />Bem Stiller is the same troublesome guy like in " Meet the parents", but in this movie the comic scenes are few compared to the title mentioned above.<br /><br />The script is very poor with nothing special at all. With this two well payed actors the things could get a lot better - but what can they do when there is such a poor story and script.<br /><br />4 out of 10.

neg

train_9697

pending

649b6a9f-d677-4524-a37a-f35ca9dea3e9

I realize several Ben Stiller movies are out or will be out this year, but perhaps he should insist on quality, not quantity.<br /><br />I was dumbfounded at what the filmmakers thought passed for comedy in "Along Came Polly." <br /><br />Stiller's Reuben is grating, charmless and ranks as one of the worst performances of the year. Stiller's schtick is getting tiresome. He undoubtedly has comic talent, but he needs to either find another schtick or take a break, find some material that is actually funny. Because his movies are going from painfully humorless to excruciatingly bad.<br /><br />There's absolutely no chemistry between Stiller and Jennifer Aniston, which is a shame because she's a good, smart actress with a promising career. As long as she keeps making more movies such as "The Good Girl" (in which she's terrific) and less like "Along Came Polly," she'll have a career of which she could be proud.<br /><br />Aniston tries desperately to overcome the limp material with which she's working, but it's a daunting task for any actress. With the exception of a few moments with Alec Baldwin, as Reuben's boss Stan, and Philip Seymour Hoffman, as Reuben's best friend Sandy, there's nothing funny in this awful film. Other supporting characters, including Debra Messing as Lisa and Hank Azaria as Claude, are annoying. Azaria's accent is not only stupid, it's terribly unfunny.<br /><br />The premise of "Along Came Polly" certainly showed promise. Unfortunately, it needed a writer who could actually turn it into a good comedy, instead of this lame, dull, boring excuse for a comedy.

neg

train_9698

pending

f6486279-a67b-4a8c-9599-895bc5c8ed00

I saw this for free, thankfully, and wish it was better than it was, but it's really the same old stuff that movie studios seem to foist on us in the last ten years.<br /><br />Ben Stiller and Jennifer Anniston play a couple who are opposites- and yet they are attracted to each other.<br /><br />If that plot line doesn't take you by surprise and thrill you, the movie won't either.<br /><br />Lots of sight gags and fart jokes. Halfway through the movie I began to realize that Ben Stiller really isn't that funny, but he tries VERY hard. And Jennifer Anniston really isn't that pretty, but her HAIR looks great. And Hank Azaria and Phillip Seymore Hoffman must have got paid a great deal of money to be in this kind of average ho-hum movie, I've come to expect more from them.<br /><br />What was interesting was that I saw this after I saw American Splendor, which is a truly funny and original movie- and I compared the two in my head, and found myself wishing that the movie executives would be forced to sit through those two movies back to back- perhaps that would knock some sense into them and<br /><br />they'd start making better movies with unknowns rather than this formulaic stuff that plays best on airplanes.

neg

train_9699

pending

a5761240-700e-4f9f-b253-3b6f035430d5

This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen. The DVD was given to me free with an order I placed online for non DVD related items.<br /><br />No wonder they were given away, surely no one could part with money for this drivel.<br /><br />How some reviewers can say they found it hilarious beggars belief, the person who includes it in the worst five films ever has got it spot on.<br /><br />How on earth a talented actor like Philip Seymour Hoffman could get involved in this rubbish is unbelievable. Mostly toilet humour and badly done at that.<br /><br />Anyone wanting to be entertained should avoid this at all costs.

neg