Datasets:

Siki-77

/

Sub_test_diff_length

like 0

While this isn't an all time classic comedy it is a pretty good little movie to watch if you catch it on a rainy Saturday morning with not a lot else going on right then.<br /><br />Harold Lloyd plays Ezekiel Cobb, an American coming home after growing up in China where his dad was a missionary.He has come home from China to find an American wife and plans to return to China to continue his father's work.Cobb unwittingly is recruited to run for mayor of his corrupt home town when the existing political machine that controls the town realizes that he would make a perfect patsy to run against the current mayor who also is the head of the town's underworld.They figure the bumbling ,stumbling Cobb has no chance to win and therefore the current mayor continues to run the town and run his schemes which makes them all rich.<br /><br />Lloyd isn't doing the physical comedy here like he did in his silent films.He does a convincing portrayal of Cobb with a reserved understated dignity.The acting was good from all involved and the story and script were also quite good.<br /><br />Being made in 1934 the film does have some rather racist language when talking about the Chinese and it also has a typical black character from that era but these stereotypes aren't nearly as mean as I've seen from other films from that time.<br /><br />Although not close to being Lloyd's best film ,this movie does entertain and Lloyd is very good as Cobb.You won't be blown away by this film but it may be enough to peak your interest in Lloyd and make you want to see more of his work.

Remember those old kung fu movies we used to watch on Friday and Saturday late nights when our babysitters THOUGHT we were in charge? Well, this movie plays exactly like one of those movies. Patsy Kensit's biggest claim to fame was the love interest to Mel Gibson's character in "Lethal Weapon 2," and this performance was one of the reasons why she's never made it big: she's a terrible actress.<br /><br />In "Lethal Weapon 2," I thought she was cute. Cute enough to check out some of the other movies she'd been in, including "Loves Music, Loves to Dance" another big let down, which I, obviously, was not impressed with, either. But, as attractive as she is to my eyes, my soul screamed at me to turn it off because she played another cheap, predictable role, and done it very badly.<br /><br />In this movie, Kensit stars as a comedienne (and not a good one, either) who's working the clubs of France (couldn't cut it in her own homeland, so she's making THEIR ears bleed), who's down on her luck, but, even worse, the French government wants to throw her out because of an expired visa (or maybe they just caught her act). But she gets married to this Casanova (Freiss), who is just as down on his luck, and the predictability begins...terribly! Is there any way to give this movie a NEGATIVE rating? 1 out of 10 stars is over rating it!

This is horrific. No really, this is ,bar none, the absolute worst...worst...I hesitate to even call it a @&$%in' _movie_. It is a ninety minute visual root canal. The plot is practically non-existent: a mad scientist who looks like the frontman from 'The Cars' impregnates a woman in his secret lab, a lawn chair in what I think may be a garage, via an injection of Palmolive. Within hours she births a full grown monster who then goes on a rampage. Thats the whole movie. The death scenes: these are poorly set up, take _forever_, and the acting...how can you mess up _screaming_?? The victims stand there while the growling, wheezing, congested freak advances on them and proceeds to limply strangle them for about three days. The sets are cheesy, the lighting for most of the movie consists of a single maglite (yes, a big honkin' flashlight), the sound quality is poor, theres only about 40 words of dialogue for the entire movie and the acting is generously described as wooden. Footage is shamelessly recycled to pad out the movie. And the special effects would make any BBC sci-fi production shake their head and proclaim "They didn't even try". The 'monster' is some nameless in a $3 halloween rubber mask with a few bandages slapped on. In its encounter with the lone cop of the movie the cop fires flashless, smokeless, invisible bullets that apparently travel so slow the monster can dodge them at five paces. Don't see this movie. No really, thats not a dare. Don't see this movie. The director should be shot. The writer should be chained to a giant rock where his liver will be devoured every morning by Ed Wood. Enough rentals and there could be a sequel, don't let it happen!

A montage prologue, quite obviously manufactured by the blessed maniacs who actually chose to distribute this thing, tries to convince us that the comic impact of this staggeringly incompetent bit of nothing is entirely deliberate. Don't you believe it: this is to Lloyd Kaufman as Andy Warhol is to Herschel Gordon Lewis. It is so thoroughgoing in its project of torturing its hypothetical audience that it seems like some kind of misanthropic negationist art installation, only it can't be because it is so completely bereft of self-consciousness. As obnoxious and ugly as "Things" or "Frozen Scream", this manages to up the ante by recycling itself with a maddeningly bald insistence that has to be seen to be believed. A Hitchcock-style shot-by-shot analysis of, say, the attack on the cardio girls might yield twenty edits and perhaps three minutes of footage - only the sequence is ten minutes long! You WANT to believe that this started life as a slightly more bearable short subject, except if you took away the repetition what's left would be far less fascinating: eg. when the 'fiend' does enter the room, he only inspires extended, highly apathetic, utterly blank stares from his imminent (offscreen) victims. Repeat this scenario about four times, in marginally varied settings; bridge these with perhaps thirty lines of dialogue total; offer up actors even more hateful and lethargic than those in the above mentioned classics; and grace us with a monster comprising gauze, ketchup and one yellow Spock ear, and you've got a movie too mind-boggling to refuse, a working definition of bad. I'm proud to own it!

I'm also a SF buff, among other genres, and I especially like those films from 60's and 70's with their "ideas over effects" premise that produced so many intelligent and likable stories put on screen. In a nutshell I completely agree with scott-886's review of this movie. I heard of this film, and being what I previously mentioned, a 60's and 70's SF buff, with a penchant for SF stories with touch of the "Twilight Zone", I expected a lot, and my expectations were heightened with reviews ranking the effects of this movie "second best" to Kubrick's "2001 Space Odyssey". What a fraud. "Journey to the far side of the sun", was ordinary, convoluted, half baked, silly looking film, with laughable amateur special effects (and remember I love films from that era and despise CGI), and it can be fully compared more to 60's SF disasters such as "Marooned", which "Journey" very much reminded me of. The idea behind it all is not that bad, but building the plot on a story of a twin planet to Earth, on which the same world is inverted, asked for a master like Kubrick to direct. Needles to say Robert Parish is nothing like that, so he delivered boring and silly movie, that looked and felt like a matinée TV series of those days. Not worth wasting your time on, even if you are an absolute fan of the genre.

Being the sci-fi fan that I am, I was always curious about this film. So I was excited to see Journey to the Far Side of the Sun finally get released on an affordable DVD (the previous print had been fetching $100 on eBay - I'm sure those people wish they had their money back - but more about that in a second).<br /><br />Anyway, the premise of this film (just like Twilight Zone's "The Parallel") is that there is an undiscovered planet resembling Earth on the "other side of the sun". This planet is of course exactly like ours except that it's inverted. This basically means their letters are reversed and people drive on the wrong side of the road.<br /><br />Sound intriguing? Well that's basically all there is to this film. The first hour or so is dedicated to the preparations for the journey to this other planet. It's just tedious scenes of switches being pressed, banal dialog, etc. There's no point to it whatsoever. Gerry Anderson managed to find the most boring British actors in the history of cinema to play most of the roles. I mean they are so dull I'm surprised the crew was able to stay awake to finish the film.<br /><br />Anyway, once the crew FINALLY lands on the planet (after an interminable sequence of the astronauts sitting and literally sleeping in the cockpit), Roy Thinnes notices the copy is all backwards on a bottle of cologne and hops back on another ship to tell people about what he has discovered. Oops he never gets to do it as he crash lands and dies. The end! Oh wait, there's a bonus scene of one of the space executives hurling himself into a mirror in his wheelchair at the end. I guess he wanted out of this film too.<br /><br />I'm really surprised a film like this could get made even back in the 60s. Rent if you must. DO NOT BUY.

This movie is honestly one of the greatest movies of all time...if you suffer from insomnia. It is a fool-proof way to guarantee hours of sleep at a time. As the movie slowly progresses, the audience slips into a state of unconsciousness and gradually loses sight of any sort of plot that the movie might actually contain. This effect is surely created due to the lack of sweet action/sweet babes.<br /><br />Also, Mr. Eisenstein was obviously unable to master the art of montage. A prime example of this is the scene on the Odessa steps. For no apparent reason, an event that in real life would have taken a matter of seconds is transformed into a seven minute nightmare for any sane viewer. This editing flaw tarnishes any sort of realism in the entire film. Honestly, i've seen more realistic editing watching cartoons.<br /><br />Some individuals who have commented on this title have hailed Battleship Potemkin as: "One of the greatest movies of all time" and, "Truly a masterpiece". Well i'm writing this comment to persuade readers to avoid watching this film at all costs. My best guess is that my fellow Potemkin critics simply wrote the wrong words in their summaries. Surely what they meant to say was: "One of the greatest snooze-fests of all time" and, "Truly an epic fail".<br /><br />In conclusion, don't waste your time. If you are interested in watching a movie of far superior quality, go to www.youtube.com and watch a Halo 3 montage. If i played the movie "Battleship Potemkin" in a game of slayer on guardian, i would shoot it in the face with my sniper rifle and then teabag its dead body. PEACE!

this movie was really bad. it has that quality that a lot of indie movies have: moments of humor filled with long spaces that are completely boring. Any die-hard BAM magera fan will prolly like this movie, but then again thats probably the only person who would see it. someone gave me this movie to watch knowing i am a fan of Jackass and was a fan of viva la bam, before the scripted nature of that show wore thin. To explain why this movie doesn't work i should just say the premise itself is played out<br /><br />a guy who is with a girl who is horrible to him. And pretty much the whole movie you've got this Ryan Dunn guy whining and Bam magera skipping around like a merry mischief maker. Dicamillo's performance is strange at best. It's a humorous little nonspecific Canadian french accent that pretty much is the extent of his performance (basically funny for 5 minutes and then its like 'ok you're pretending to be foreign enough already")<br /><br />Maybe it would work if they were going for parody but all they succeed in doing is making a movie with an IQ of zero. I love toilet humor as much as the next guy, but this isn't even lowbrow its just stupid. Its like the only humor to be gotten from this movie is completely inside and the audience, even those savvy to Magera and company, are left out of the joke.<br /><br />Next time magera is handed a sack full of money let's hope he doesn't blow it on some lousy pet project

About one step above an Olsen's twins film, there's a nary a surprise in store here except for how repulsive the bloated, hunchbacked Depardieu looks walking around the beach without a shirt on. This guy was supposed to be some sort of heartthrob? Quasimodo hubba hubba? Well, whatever.<br /><br />Katherine Heigl's a great actress, whose career over the last several years has displayed a lot of her potential as both a comedic and dramatic actress, but this movie definitely didn't do anything to offer her a break-out role. Her vapid character lacks any trace of personality or self-esteem, spending her entire vacation crushing on a cute boy that she thinks is the greatest guy in then world (basically because he's a cute boy), yet she can't be honest with him for two seconds. Ladies, let me tell you something; if a guy's really into you, he's not going to stomp off in a huff because you tried to pass your dad off as your boyfriend. He may be a little confused about why you'd do something so silly, contrived, and um...incestuous, but in the end it's just going to be something you'll laugh together about.<br /><br />The plot and dialogue hits every clche' right on cue. No originality and no wit...but it's rilly, rilly SWEET and Ben's rilly, rilly cute so viewers who think Titanic is the greatest movie ever made will of course say this movie is great because they won't notice that it doesn't have a brain in its head. One star.

....You get this stupid excuse of a Child's Play rip-off! Man, what were they thinking? First they mess with a Rumpelstiltskin horror movie then they make crap like this. Fariy Tale haters! Well to be honest, I've seen this as a kid, and it scared me a bit a lot, simply because I was under aged with the assumption that Pinocchio wouldn't do that, wah wah wah. But I've grown and come to think of this as Child's Play rip, a fairy tale bashing nonsense, and a lame Tales From The Crypt episode, or trying to be one at least, with a lame ending that was stupid, and it had many plot holes, and I still can't understand how it came to life. Was it the work of an evil Geppetto? Then what, after a few evil deeds, he becomes a real boy who becomes America's Most Wanted? Personally, I think the concept of an evil Geppetto sounds better, he builds an army of wooden killers, and starts a crime wave, funny. But this is awful, awful, awful, awful, AWFUL! AWFUL! Stinky like a shoe, and awful! IT SUCKED IT SUCKED! If you want killer puppets, settle for the killer doll, specifically Child's Play, instead, no strings attached. Or if you want a fairy tale figure turned upside down, watch Leprechaun, or if you want Pinocchio, watch the animated Disnet version or live version with Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Martin Landau instead. >>>>> -10/10(negative 10)

Any movie should have an idea; Simple or more complex, it needs one... The problem with Fragata,..it's once more, that when he decides to make a movie, he so anxious to do "whatsoever" that he forgets this main detail, and as result we have the characters doing whatever without any justification, behaving without justified reasons...they are simple puppets going along the movie on the flavour of the wind. It's boring and sad to see them appearing and vanishing like cards being discarded in a game. Fragata always seem to have talent in advertising is own work...and that leads you to see what he did...but in the end there's always a big disappointment. It's not enough having a movie full of the "hot Portuguese's pink magazine stars"...especially when half of them can't act...they only pretend to be funny. Here my only good point goes to the actor Helder Mendes...one of the few non stars': He makes the effort to establish some credibility, and in such a messy movie without any direction (of any kind) I give him the credit for trying hard. But this movie its worth to check out as a manual of "how to not do a movie"...and if Fragata's previous works where bad...this one it's a "masterpiece" in achieving the title of AWFUL. In few words,..Just check it out! It will make you good,...and if you homemade your family movies,...and always feel bad with your work...so just spend 30 minutes looking to this so "called" professional work...your home made stuff will look like Powerful Hollywood Flicks compare to Sorte Nula.

I'm big into acting, writing, and directing, but not famous yet. My friends and I frequently rent bad movies, just for fun and a good laugh, but when we went to the local Family Video and found a movie called Biker Zombies From Detroit, we knew it was gonna be the worst movie of all time and it was! Biker Zombies From Detroit has no script! They can say they do have one, but they're liars! There was a 4 minute scene of just two guys riffing about women and sexuality, and you could tell it was improvised. And if they're going to improv, it should be at least decent, but it wasn't, and you could tell by the two actors screwing up lines and saying stuff that didn't even make sense.<br /><br />To give you an idea of how terrible and retarded this movie is, here's the beginning: a girl flicks a guy off, he punches her in the face and beats her up, then rapes her. Then we see zombies who attack and they both turn into zombies.<br /><br />This is the beginning of the movie! Not to mention the lead zombie voice over that carries through the whole movie, trying to be sinister and thought provoking, but sounding like Marylin Manson having a conniption fit.<br /><br />Worst movie ever. Bottom line, folks. But watch it if you like movies with no script, no plot, bad acting, bad editing, bad music, and over 100 F words used in the movie.<br /><br />If this can hit video stores, my future films are gonna win Oscars.

I rented this pile of sewer waste hoping for a few good laughs. With a title like `Zombie Bikers from Detroit' and with Dead Alive productions stamped on the front cover, you would think that this could be a funny/gruesome film, but no. This is the worst movie I have ever seen (and yes, I have seen all of the Police Academy movies). The story (this is a joke within itself) and the dialogue are atrocious. The make up of the so-called zombies looks like they used one of those two dollar `Make yourself look like a Zombie' kits that you buy at K-Mart.<br /><br />I would rather watch Beverly Hills 90210 while listening to the Backstreet Boys and be whipped by a 400lb novelty birthday card model than to sit through another single minute of this pathetic excuse for a DVD. Honestly, I could make a better movie with $3, some popsicle sticks and a slinky. I feel as if 90 minutes of my life were stripped away from me and taken to the land of Suckdom. I know that tagging on the Dead Alive production doesn't guarantee a great flick, but you do expect to get your moneys worth.<br /><br />The only thing that made me happy (save, returning the horrid mass of elephant feces) was that it wasn't titled `Biker Zombies from Pittsburgh'. I feel for Detroit folks that wasted their hard-earned money on this one. Unless you have been lobotomized …. Do not buy, rent if you must … But …. You will regret it.

Evil never looked so bad. They meant it.<br /><br />When a buddy of mine picked this DVD up at a half-priced book store, I didn't know what to expect. I mean, based on the title, I knew it would be worth a laugh, but I didn't realize how laughable it would really be.<br /><br />The first time through, I missed some of the dialogue (if you could call it that) because we were all too busy poking fun at the plot of the movie. It seemed like it was written in filmed in less than a week, and they hadn't the budget to go back and fix some of the minor flaws. Wait, did I say "minor"? I meant the exact opposite. For instance, the main character is credited as 'Ken', but several times throughout the film he is referred to as 'John'. <br /><br />If the plot holes aren't enough fun for you, take a look at the acting. Nobody seems overly concerned about the zombie raids in their state, including the mother of the main character, who is missing for days while she sits in front of a fireplace reading a book.<br /><br />The constraints that the budget puts on the movie are equally as hilarious. Maybe they didn't have a permit to film wherever they were, because during the BIG MOTORCYCLE CHASE SCENE, the characters are obeying all traffic regulations. The zombies, who had just killed twenty or so people, actually stop at a stop sign coming out of a parking lot. I don't even do that, but then again, I'm not a biker zombie. The ending of the movie looks like they just ran out of money. It ends so suddenly that it leaves you wanting more... On second thought, it ends just soon enough.<br /><br />So if you're looking for a good time with your friends, seek out this movie. It's a great unintentional comedy.

By the time this movie came out in 1996, director Mark Lester had been making tight, sharp little B action pictures for more than 20 years. He was responsible for the great "Truck Stop Women" from the '70s and several other little gems; unfortunately, he's also responsible for this dud. It's a shame to see the talented--and still smoking hot--Theresa Russell wasted yet again, but she's still the best actor in this picture. Eric Roberts shows up for a while, does his Eric Roberts thing, then goes away, a not altogether unwelcome occurrence in a picture with Eric Roberts in it. Frank Stallone actually isn't bad, which should give you an idea of how truly pathetic this picture is. As has been mentioned by other reviewers, the action scenes--which is the reason a picture like this gets made in the first place--are almost completely illogical and unrealistic, in addition to being somewhat inept. Other than some "vintage" clothes and a few old cars, there's no feel whatever for the 1930s, the era in which this film is set. A by-the-numbers script with irritating lapses in logic and little historical accuracy--this isn't a documentary, of course, but the filmmakers could have at least TRIED for a little authenticity--and performances that range from grade B to grade school relegate this cheap little quickie to the 4:00 a.m. Sunday slot on HBO, which is just where I saw it.

Worst Movie I Have Ever Seen! 90 Minutes of excruciating film-making. All the ingredients to make this movie a true work of CRAP. Bad acting, bad directing, bad storytelling, bad makeup, bad dialogue, bad effects, and bad reasoning behind certain actions taken by the characters. It also threw in a terrible naked shot of a dumb blond, and a breast shot of a stupid Asian girl, and both attempts were just scary, since these girls are ugly. Some good horror movies came out of the 80s, but this could never be considered one of them. Kevin Tenney also committed one of the greatest sins in storytelling: he introduced characters at the end of the movie (an Old Man and Old Woman). I would vote for it below a 1 out of 10 but the voting system doesn't work that way apparently. Right from the title sequence I knew it would suck and I would return my DVD but Best Buy doesn't refund DVDs, or consumable products as they call it, or so my receipt says. I have "The Dunwich Horror" and that was truly god-awful, but I still feel that "Night of the Demons" (an obvious Evil Dead RIP-OFF) was far worse than "Dunwich Horror." This is just like "The Howling," how in the hell could sequels get milked out of this anorexic cow??? Save your money and get the "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (just don't get any of its sequels though) or "The Evil Dead" or "Dawn of the Dead." "Night of the Demons" is a very, very, very bad investment. Every second of it was just maddening, excruciating pain for the audience, because the whole movie all-around was horrible! Do yourself a favor, DON'T SEE IT! You'll be saving some brain cells.

I'm starting to wonder if all these PG-13 horror movies are just glorified screen tests for young and emerging talent. Get a first-time screenwriter, an inexperienced director, a few TV actors looking for their bigscreen break and see what they can do. 'When a Stranger Calls' is a little better than most such recent offerings, but is still completely by-the-book; riddled with plot holes and genre clichés.<br /><br />The story is unbelievably simplistic. The slim 87 minute running time is heavily padded with inconsequential friends and a pointless cheating boyfriend. The killer is devoid of even the token motivation of Jason or Michael or even the original movie's killer, and as a result is never particularly frightening. The police behave in such an unbelievably ineffectual and lazy manner as to verge on professional misconduct. Simon West brings the same attractive banality to proceedings that he managed with Lara Croft, but his style of directing is decidedly generic, possessing no indicators of real talent or vision. The performances are routine, dark hallways replace genuine horror, and the scares are of the tired cat-in-the-closet variety.<br /><br />The cinematography and production design, however, are above average for this kind of film. The house is beautifully designed, all dark wood and glassy reflections, and there are a few moments that are of visual interest.<br /><br />Though lacking an ounce of dramatic originality, it acts as a reasonably satisfying 'dark house' thriller, and maintains interest longer than most of its ilk.

That's pretty much all I can say about this flat and uninspired remake of the 1979 Carol Kane vehicle. Camilla Belle isn't much of an actress, and she brings no energy and vitality to the role of Jill Johnson, the babysitter harassed by an anonymous phone caller.<br /><br />But if you're looking for some great home architecture and interior design ideas, this movie provides more inspiration than anything you'll see on TLC or HGTV. Jill spends nearly 90 minutes wandering through the house of the rich doctor and wife for whom she's providing her sitting services, searching for the origins of strange sounds and things that keep going "bump" in the night. As she lurks around corners and peers down hallways, we get to see a beautiful master bathroom with his and hers sinks that look like Roman tubs, a huge kitchen with incredible back lit glass shelving, and the piece de resistance, a self-contained aviary and coy pond that feature a self-watering system.<br /><br />Because the movie isn't compelling enough to draw us into Jill's fear, we're distracted by the grandeur of the house, which isn't something you should be doing when you're watching a thriller. Even as Jill is pursued by the faceless maniac, we cringe because she's breaking valuables and messing up the coy pond, not because she's about to get murdered.<br /><br />The movie plods along as predictably as most teen slasher movies, and the ending is anything but original. By the time it was over, I just wanted to find out where the heck that house was and if it was real. Never mind Jill and the kids she was babysitting.<br /><br />2 stars - both for the house.

Good lord.<br /><br />I'm going to say right off the bat, I only watched 20 minutes of this movie. As I am a hardcore Eraserhead fan, the "what, you can't watch a wierd black and white movie with little-to-no dialogue?" defense does not apply. I simply can't watch TERRIBLE weird black and white movies with little-to-no dialogue.<br /><br />This movie is what happens when you give an angsty goth-child with no talent and nothing to say a camera and budget, and let him/her put as much meaninglessly offensive imagery on screen as possible. It was clear from the start that this film should have been 5 minutes long (assuming it should exist at all). Shots that should last a few seconds drag on for minutes, because the director has "I-Just-Love-The-Sound-Of-My-Own-Voice" syndrome, and refuses to cut to another shot until the entire piece of footage has been viewed. From the moment the girl in the mask started masturbating the corpse of "God" (the opening scene of the film! joy!), I knew it was only a matter of time until I turned off the tape. After at least 10 minutes of a different corpse being pulled around, twitching, on a rope, by a gang of cloaked mystery-men, I knew it was time to give up. Rarely do I give up on a movie. I sat through the entirety of Blair Witch 2: Book Of Shadows, albeit not happily. This did not deserve the 20 minutes I gave it.<br /><br />If you're an Eraserhead fan, do NOT let simple-minded comparisons to said film con you into renting this piece of amateur trash. Allow me to refer you to Tetsuo: The Iron Man, for a watchable and enjoyable piece of incoherent black and white weirdness.

There were two things I hated about WASTED : The directing and the script . I know I`m opening myself up to ridicule but Stephen T Kay`s direction is too much like a .... like a .... well like a MTV pop video . It`s shot ( I think ) on digital video against an intrusive soundtrack , often out of focus and often with rapid cross cutting . If you`re not a teenager you`ll find many segments of WASTED unwatchable due to the stylistic approach . As bad as the directing was it was the script that yanked my chain . The story is told through Samantha , a poor little rich girl who spends much of the film talking through voice over ( Strange how the voice over never seems idiosyncratic enough to have come from the same character ) telling us of the pressure of her exams , the pressure of home life , her social solitude and it`s all this that led her to take drugs . It`s for similar reasons like parental break up that her two male friends ( I thought she was supposed to be lonely ? ) to start taking drugs . Oh poor little Sammi in her nice house and her problems how my heart bled for you and your chums - NOT . What WASTED doesn`t mention is that no matter what someone is addicted to , be it drink , drugs , nicotine or chocolate that person has to work at becoming an addict , they`re not a victim of external forces , they`re commiting an act of free will . Both TRAFFIC and TRAINSPOTTING made this point very well , people become addicts because they want to . To portray them as victims in any way is wrong patronising and very possibly dangerous<br /><br />By the way , if MTV are anti drugs will they stop playing videos from stars who freely admit taking drugs ?

1) Men over the age of 25 that refer to themselves, without irony, as having "game", or being either a "player" or a "baller". Gentlemen, from here on in it's a swift descent into starring in your own real-life version of "A Night at the Roxbury". <br /><br />2) Saying "The V.I.P." The term "V.I.P." in and of itself isn't bad, but when preceded by "The" it instantly becomes part of the Douchebag Dictionary. This goes double for white people. <br /><br />3) People that make TV shows based on stuff that they don't know isn't cool and then go on IMDb posing as "fans", (...right...) moreover, one of whom is from the "United States" (hey, me too!) to bitterly insult members of their potential audience for inevitably thinking their show sucks. Minus 1 additional demerit point if they employ any variation on the oh-snap-nice-one-bro justification that "If you don't like the show you obviously can't get laid." <br /><br />4) Canadian Hip-Hop/R&B sensation Massari...a random addition to the list at first glance, but at the end of the day Massari gets the gas face for the simple reason that his particular brand of low-rent American-aping uncool and general Aqua Velva douchebaggery dovetails with the overall sensibility of "Keys to the V.I.P." <br /><br />5) Last but not least, "Keys to the V.I.P."...for all the above reasons and more.

There is nothing I hate more in a movie than pretentiousness, and this is one of the most pretentious films ever made. It's self-consciousness is obvious in every frame: "see what a profound, sophisticated film we are making," the director and screenwriters seem to be saying to us, and to themselves they say, "lets's see how we can bore and confuse the audience even more." I would rather watch the worst film by Ed Wood or Edgar G. Ulmer than something like this. At least they were giving us honest trash, and at least their films, in their own atrocious way, were entertaining. This film is about as entertaining as a root canal without anesthesia, and thus is tantamount to torture.<br /><br />Have these screenwriters ever heard the word 'story?' It doesn't appear so. They have a concept, they are able to create an atmosphere, and they were able to assemble an excellent cast and elicit good performances from them. And for what? To bore us for an hour and 45 minutes? Nothing really happens in this film. The only exciting part, and this lasts only about two minutes, occurs when one of the soon-to-be-evicted homeowners starts shooting at the state employees who come to tell him he has to leave. But nothing comes of it. Too bad he didn't keep shooting until he hit the screenwriters. The only redeeming features of this film are the acting and some beautifully photographed scenery toward the end. 3/10

"What symbolism!" exclaimed a woman as we exited the theater after viewing the Polish brother's paean to Ingmar Bergman. Some symbolism is there all right. But not much. "Northfork" adds up to some fine acting weakened by dreary cinematography that fails to make any coherent statement and a muddled story that irritates rather than enthralls.<br /><br />Northfork is a town facing extinction after a new hydroelectric dam goes into operation. It's the early to middle 1950s and a squad of identically dressed state agents, all looking as if they had just answered a casting call for "The Untouchables," have the job of relocating recalcitrant dwellers who fail to appreciate both their immediate peril as well as the proffered bounty for moving. An exciting anti-development movie is always a possibility but let's get real: rural electrification is one of the greatest advances in bringing decent living conditions and a boosted economy in American history. Dams can be built without forced relocation? Not in this country.<br /><br />But this film is less about the plight of homeowners than it is a fantastical creation of a dying young boy's escapist imagination. Nick Nolte is the priest who tends to the lad and much of what he says might have been interesting if the sound was clear enough to hear.<br /><br />Alternating between the black-suited evacuation agents (working for "lakefront" land when the dam creates that valuable acreage) and a phantasmagorical collection of weirdos, the film develops neither theme coherently or even interestingly. <br /><br />The cinematography is poor. A washed out, subdued and depressive color permeates the whole film to little dramatic purpose. There is no reason for this vast terrain to be depicted so bleakly. Indeed, a contrast between largely untouched natural beauty and the massive and grim solidity of the evolving dam and power plants would have been very effective.<br /><br />4/10.

I should live this film, but I don't. It won international awards, it is foreign (I usually like such films) it is slow moving (again something I like) and it has no gratuitous sex or violence. the problem is that it is boring. We have two friends from the same village in Turkey one "successful" the other not. the unsuccessful one comes to Istanbul to stay with the successful in an attempt to get a good job at sea. Both live lives that are unfulfilling, pointless and petty.<br /><br />Well, it isn't the first time this kind of film has been made. I didn't see anything new being added to this tired theme. There are long takes that are just someone standing and looking at the sea or sitting in a coffee shop or watching TV. I do understand that this kind of thing is there to show the emptiness of their loves, While it does do that I got the idea in the first 15 min. I don't need to be beaten over the head with it for the rest of the two hours.<br /><br />The symbolism is also a bit heavy handed. the plate of live minnow type fish with one off the plate and flopping around in its death throws. Symbols are best when they are not obvious but are there, in the background, creating a mood just slightly below the viewer's awareness.<br /><br />The film is so apathetic, that it doesn't even rate a score of 1, so I gave it a 2. To rate a 1 takes a talent at being bad. This film didn't have that much energy.

Hollywood has made a lot of strange movies over the years, but none stranger than this. WHY this movie got made I will never know, nor how Paramount could have thought it would sell any tickets in 1947. It is the strangest mix of genres I have seen in a long time, a movie that truly does not know whether it is trying to be a serious war drama or a Viennese operetta comedy.<br /><br />It tells the story of a British spy trying to get a poison gas formula out of Germany in the days just before WW II began. Ray Milland, a fine actor, is stuck playing the part like an escapee from Monty Python, all very exaggerated English prep-school dialogue. In Germany he meets a gypsy, Marlene Dietrich, who helps him to travel under cover as, of course, another gypsy. She plays her part like the typical Viennese operetta gypsy caricature, as do the other "gypsies" in the movie. But there are also Nazis, who are not funny at all. And then Milland finds he is starting to think like a gypsy, and that is not treated as a joke. Sometimes the music is for a light comedy, sometimes for a drama. Every time the Nazis show up, the film score plays Wagner, which is funny by itself.<br /><br />This movie could have been a comedy, or it could have taken the plight of the gypsies seriously and done a serious job of showing how the Nazis treated them. Both are hinted at in this movie, but neither pursued. What we are left with is a truly strange mish-mash of genres that must have embarrassed everyone (except the director) involved.<br /><br />Bizarre.

No matter what you've heard, "Fame" is not a good movie. It's not worth the investment of over two hours to watch stereotypically troubled teens dancing, singing, learning, and staring at girls in the dressing rooms.<br /><br />Every cliché finds a cozy little home in this movie. There's a gay teenager looking for acceptance. That would have been great if it had been treated as anything more than a secondary plot point. There's a ghetto kid who has too much attitude-- what, was I surprised? And guess what? They all want to become big stars, finding fame and fortune, and they'd all be willing to crawl over their own mothers' smoking corpses to get it.<br /><br />Oddly enough, this film is remembered for its music. But in actuality, the only moderately good song is "Hot Lunch Jam," which is still too cheesy to be of any real quality. The two most popular songs are nothing, either. "Fame" is meaningless fluff drowned out by the sheer spectacle of a massive dancing-in-the-streets scene. And "I Sing the Body Electric" (what in Bubba's name does that even mean?!?!?!?!?) is just an incomprehensible joke.<br /><br />Bad acting, tasteless dialog, and hack direction (it is, after all, from the director of "Evita") are only marginally helped by Michael Seresin's appropriately ordinary camera work. But cinematography alone cannot carry a movie, especially one as uninspiring and pointless as this.

I saw a great clip of this film, which I'll talk about later, and then the cast list, and thought I might as well give it a go. Basically, a down-on-his-luck bartender, Randy (Matt Dillon), his cocky cousin Carl Harding (Paul Reiser) and murder investigation Detective Dehling (John Goodman) all have something in common, they have seen the girl of their dreams (whether married or not), and they would do anything to please and be with her, even die. All three met/saw her "one night at McCool's", the bar that Randy worked at, they have no knowledge of each other, but all three cannot stop thinking of Femme Fetale Jewel Valentine (The Lord of the Rings' Liv Tyler). All three are telling their stories to someone they hope will listen to their pretty intense and revealing stories, Randy talks to hit-man Mr. Burmeister (Michael Douglas, who co-produced the film), Carl to psychologist/psychiatrist Dr. Green (Reba McEntire) and Dehling to priest Father Jimmy (Richard Jenkins). They confess all details of what they have been willing to do, their sexual contact with her, and eventually they are all brought together in one place, all intent on being with her, and all involved with the final shootout that leaves one dead, one running away (and eventually dying) and one stunned, and the unexpected guy she chooses (but at the same time obvious, cos it's sex-obsessed Douglas). Also starring Andrew Dice Clay as Utah/Elmo and Sandy Martin as Bingo Vendor Woman. If I had to pick a favourite moment, it would definitely be what was mentioned at number 11 along with Cool Hand Luke on The 100 Greatest Sexy Moments, where Tyler copycats the woman washing the car with suds all over herself, and in front of Goodman, very sexy! Apart from that, not the most memorable film. Okay!

I don't usually watch Hollywood dribble, but I was dragged along with some friends to see this one, which turned out to be amusing in places but totally devoid of any originality. Don't worry, you won't have to think - Tarantino-like storyline leaves enough over-obvious hints for us to correctly predict where this one's going about fifteen minutes before every "twist" - I sat there worrying that the film was building up fairly nicely for a Hollywood flick but that it would have nowhere to go at the climax. And boy were my fears realised - YMCA couldn't save this one, but Liv Tyler almost did. I suppose being male and in my twenties helped, but she delivered a really good performance - obviously she didn't have to do much except look absolutely stunningly over-the-top sexy, but what she did she did well! McCOOL'S is certainly not going to go down as one of Hollywood's great successes (or should I say "shouldn't" because the mainstream American film industry is not going anywhere at present, and hasn't for a decade at least, save the odd hit like AMERICAN BEAUTY, TITANIC and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, and even those had major flaws), but if you're a teen male, do yourself a favour and see Liv - she is one hot chick. Rating: 5/10. See also: anything by Quentin Tarantino, any American teen film over the last decade, anything with sex as its main selling point.

One Night at McCool's wants you to think it is a hip and clever black comedy. It pushes its "quirky" characters and "outrageous" situations at the viewer like a crack dealer making overtime. The premise is about a gold digging woman, named Jewel who dates men to get them to steal and sometimes murder, so she can have all the worldly possesions she so desperately desires. You know, this wouldn't be a bad strategy, if she chased after rich guys. This film really wants one to believe that a foxy con artist would waste time dating bartenders and Andrew "Dice" Clay. Please. That major flaw in Jewel's scheme is really the only entertainment to found found in this stinker (and that's unintentional). Watching it, it is not hard to believe there could have been a good movie inside it somewhere. One Night at McCool's just could not decide what direction it wanted to take, so just sat in the middle of the road like a dead armadillo. It tries to be sexy but no clothes are removed on camera, and the few scenes of body head are dreadfully pedestrian. There is one recurring scene where a hitman is asking the protaganist (played by Matt Dillon) about how the sex is with Jewel. It seems like Matt doesn't know, neither do the viewers. Why was he dating her anyway? One Night at Mccool's also wants to be funny. Sorry, bizarre coincidences and misunderstandings didn't even work on Three's Company. What's worse is that this movie really seemed like it was going for a dark atmosphere to accompany its comedy. Kind of like a sophomoric Coen brothers film but its shallow script could not play subtlety, nor could its lackluster dirction sledgehammer in any shocks. What the audience is left with is a film that seems to busy trying to please everybody and just losing any appeal along the way.

This film looks great, and that's about where my praise ends. "Love Is a Many Splendored Thing" came out in the very schizophrenic year of 1955, when candy-coloured nonsense like this co-existed with trail-blazing artistic fair like "Kiss Me Deadly." As a trend toward smaller, socially conscious films like "On the Waterfront" and "Marty" established itself in the mid-50's, other directors felt the need to stick with the unchallenging, pandering melodrama that classifies so many other films from that decade, and "Love" is one of the latter.<br /><br />This is the kind of 50's movie where the Technicolor is used to its garish utmost and the lighting is invariably high-key; even scenes taking place in a dark room or at night are brighter than the average sunny day. I never want to hear the theme song again, as it's played frequently enough over the course of the film to last anyone a lifetime, and I certainly don't want to hear it sung by the shrill, ear-piercing choir that belts it out over the end titles. Jennifer Jones and William Holden are passable, but really anybody could have played these parts. Jones' role is horribly written--her character is incredibly inconsistent, and it seems as if whenever her character is required to make a decision about something, the screenwriters flipped a coin to decide what that decision would be.<br /><br />People will undoubtedly tell me I'm taking this film too seriously, that I'm unromantic, etc. But I loved "All That Heaven Allows," released the same year and just as cornball in its own way, except that Douglas Sirk is able to turn melodrama into an art form, whereas Henry King (director of "Love") is not.<br /><br />I'm usually able to enjoy bad melodrama, but in this case I was just bored.<br /><br />Grade: D+

Barney and friends...the Dora the explorer of the 1990s.<br /><br />OK, i'll admit it. as a kid, barney was my ultimate hero. i had my barney plush toy and i used to watch the same barney episodes over and over on videotape. maybe cause it was so sugar coated and mind-numbing.<br /><br />However, by the time i turned 7, i started to hate barney. everyone at school would Dis barney, and i went along with it (mainly because it was funny) and it's what little boys do. but a few years later, I discovered something else about barney that i will never forget.<br /><br />a person known on the IMDb as Angel_meiru did an Essay for school, explaining the dangers of watching barney, and he or she posted it in the message boards. a lot of those dangers made sense.<br /><br />Barney is a dinosaur who can magically come to life during a day at school. he is supposedly educational, or so Sheryl Leach (Barney's Creator) says, but really, all i can remember him teaching me, is that magic can solve anything, which is not true.<br /><br />to end off this comment, I'd like to tell you a little story. There was once a young boy who watched a particular episode of barney. one day, he was alone, when a stranger lured him into his car and drove away with him. i don't know the outcome (but it's safe to assume the child died) but why was he abducted in the first place? because he watched the Barney and friends episode titled "A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet." <br /><br />0/10

Barney and Friends is probably the worst kids show that I have ever seen. It teaches kids nothing, the songs are corny, it is not educational and the characters are just plain agitating. I am not one to disagree with those who hate the show. Honestly, I have seen more negative than positive reviews for this show. 75% of the reviews are negative and there are some really mature people. This show contains no educational value or age-appropriate educational material whatsoever. More reasons why I dislike this show is because of the crappy plots, cheesy dialogue, horrid special effects and the abysmal story lines. Besides, it says that you should eat junk food if you are sad and that strangers are your friends. Saying that is a "model of what preschool television should be",as expressed by Yale researchers Dorothy and Jerome Singer, is a load of crap. They don't know what they're talking about. I would never recommend Barney to anyone. Te reason why some kids keep crying for or get addicted to junk is because of this show poisoning the minds of children everywhere. For people(parents/children) who seek real preschool mater, switch over to Nick Jr. and watch "Super Why!" instead. It's far more better than this turd and Five TV once had the nerve to put it on "milkshake" but thankfully took it off. I highly advise everyone to keep far away from this show as possible. Parents, I highly advise you to keep your kids as far away from this show as possible. They'll thank you later.<br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: Don't Bother Wasting Your Valuable Time With This Stupid Show. It's Utter Garbage. -10000000000000/10. Grade: Z. Avoid Like The Plague!<br /><br />Thanks for reading.

I AM NOT LYNNE BATES MY NAMES IS RITICHIE BUT LYNNE IS MY MUM I'M JUST USING HER ACCOUNT! Barney and Friends, (Or Barney, as it is called here in England) is the corniest show ever. I never really liked it, It had been about for 3 or 4 years when I was born, so It was nothing new. My friend, however, loved this dildo of a show. I was about 6, and I was at his house once, and he had a Barney VHS tape playing on the TV. I turned the power off, and he burst into tears. GROW UP ITS A TALKING DINOSAUR FOR CHRISTS SAKE! Anyway, I happened to catch the Barney movie on TV later that year, and I loved it. I got the VHS of it a few months later, and I wore the tape out I loved it so much! I gave that tape away a few years ago now, but I loved it at the time. But the show! My god the show was bad! Several kids fell victims to paedophiles because of this butt plug of so called entertainment! Never again, never again! Its not just me who hates Barney, either! 85% of all the comments on this show are bad, and and just look at the amount of You Tube Poops and videos that take the mess out of Barney are on You Tube! And don't get me started on Blow Job BJ! Why the hell would the producers dare give a character such a sexual name! Yet another subliminal message in a kid's show! And that Baby Bop is the worst thing since Osama Bin Laden! All in all, I give Barney and Friends MINUS 1000 OUT OF 10!

Okay, I agree with all the Barney haters on this site. I think Barney and his friends are all ugly looking and obnoxious and the show is very lop sided and unrealistic.<br /><br />But the thing that ticked me off the most is how Barney presented Gays, Lesbians and Bisexuals on his show when talking about same sex parents and relatives. That wouldn't be so much of a problem if the creators of this show didn't use so many derogatory stereotypes of homosexuals. I mean, not all gay men wear mascara and love the colors purple and pink, and not all lesbians are ugly and manly looking with a bosom that sags to their abdomen. As a bisexual female, I just think this is terrible for a children's show. If this were South Park, I wouldn't mind it, because South Park is for people who can distinguish fantasy from reality. A lot of people who watch Barney are little kids or handicapped people who can't usually distinguish fantasy from reality.<br /><br />And now that I think about it, Barney sort of comes off as an ugly gay stereotype himself. Let's see, he doesn't have a girlfriend, he's pinkish colored and wears clothes with sequins (yes, it's true) on it. If you claim to be for the rights of gay and bisexual individuals, then stop making a mockery out of them in front of people who don't know any better. If Barney went black-face and ate fried chicken and watermelon at the same time, the show would be pulled off the air before you know it.<br /><br />I give this show a negative one out of five. Don't show your kids such hateful crap. There are children's shows out there that are so less insulting.

I rented this movie from a local library without having any prior knowledge of the book it is based on or the movie itself, purely based on the chance that it's one of those rare, overlooked gems that one can discover from time to time and really enjoy.<br /><br />Unfortunately this is not one of those movies. I am not sure if this is a movie driven by sentimentality or worse, deliberate agenda, but certain elements of it made it impossible to immerse. It is supposed to portray a struggling immigrant worker community which tries to cope with the difficult realities of their life. That is a fine premise and it could have made for a gripping story, but the execution just made me alternate between getting annoyed and amused at the ridiculousness of it.<br /><br />Here we have a community of simple farm workers who migrated to the US in search of employment and who get used and abused repeatedly by evil white men. And when I say evil - I mean EVIL. All white people in this movie are sinful, racist, sadistic, abusive devils whose sole purpose in life is sexual depravity intertwined with exploiting the poor immigrants. It would be a sad story if it wasn't so unintentionally grotesque and therefore hilarious.<br /><br />The portrayal of the immigrants is also a poster-worthy example of exaggeration except that it goes in the opposite direction. The immigrants are saintly, clean and could serve as ointment for boo-boos and ouies the world over. I couldn't help but laugh when I saw these "field workers" presumably digging in the ditches all day with their notoriously clean clothes and chiseled hair cuts from a top notch hair salon. A little restraint and a more unbiased hand at the helm could have made this a much better movie evoking some intended emotion rather than sarcastic snickers.

This has to be one of the worst films I have ever seen.<br /><br />We are supposed to like and be rooting for an arrogant, know-it-all, trashy bank robber, played by Dale Robertson, and a coy tease played by the extra-ordinarily beautiful Linda Darnell in a fire engine red dress. She must have been sewed into that bodice! <br /><br />A Senator in the film thinks Native Americans and whites should try to come to an understanding, the bigots, however, win the day. I could barely sit through the endless dialog of bigotry that issued from the other characters mouths.<br /><br />Except for Wounded Knee and Dances with Wolves there are few films that give a positive portrayal of American Indians, and very few old westerns do. This one is exceptionally bad in that regard.<br /><br />The romance between Robertson and Darnell set my teeth on edge, as he came swaggering in, forcing a kiss on her, while she plays the old hard to get game.<br /><br />There are scenes that are unintentionally humorous, such as the characters obviously not really riding in or on a stagecoach in several shots.<br /><br />A puzzlingly humorous incident in the storyline is Linda Darnell's character going to great lengths to purchase tickets for the stagecoach, only to then demand a horse to ride, minutes later, for no apparent reason.<br /><br />Another humorous scene is when the stagecoach comes to a screeching halt at the sight of a cowboy hat lying beside the road, and not only that, but then ALL the passengers pile out for a look-see.<br /><br />1 star.

French Cinema sucks! Down with all these psychiotric visions with their my-God-am-I-cultivated distinguished attitudes! Pestilence to conceited symbolic film-language and impervious chiffres! I'll no longer have a mind for that! Léos Carax, did you ever think about, that a dialogue in a film could be natural and vivid??? Maybe I'm too common to understand you? Or had it been your task to confirm all the clichés of a Frenchman the world can have? Guillaume the to-be-guilliotined comes to his home-palace, Mme. Deneuve, not in the picture, plays the flute: "Here am I, darling!" In this moment, I knew, that she's in the bathtub, and we`ll see her lying in there soon. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not prudish, and the incestous sex scene was the climax of the film. But this is, in Berlin, we say "etepetete", what means something like "être-peut-être", a snobistic, self-satisfied, and, the worst, seen that often in French movies I can tell! Other example: She, beautiful and willing, is looking at herself in a mirror, combing her hair, and her wild-bearded, dirty young guru rushs into the room, breathless shouting: "There's no escape, there's no escape!" Forty years after existencialistic Sartres and consorts- what's new, what's exciting about? My God, there's that woman and she loves and admires you, what would be more natural to be happy with your life? And when you're not, please explain much better, why!! Born French means you have to live a life in extravaganza, no escape, is that the point?

I am not afraid of bad movies. I like bad movies. I enjoy mocking them in the company of my friends. We're all quite good at it, in fact. That being said, let me tell you how much I hated this movie.<br /><br />To begin with, it was incomprehensible. Rob Lowe attacks some people, they capture him but he escapes in this big ol' shoot out. There's this singer whom we think died, only she didn't, unless maybe there are several of them who all act and look the same. Cue Burt Reynolds to come in and question the singer. He looks like he's just wandered into this movie off of the Walker, Texas Ranger set and is darn confused. Then Rob Lowe dies, only he doesn't... And the worst thing is, there's not enough dialogue or action that doesn't involve killing people or attempting to to even make fun of this movie!! And don't even get me started on the random chihuahua. Then there was the fact that it was supposed to be about the old power structure in Eastern-Europe falling apart. We didn't know where we were, all the accents were apparently "Eastern-European" and what were Burt Reynolds and Rob Lowe doing there in the first place?<br /><br />I desperately wanted to tell the people at Blockbuster what I thought of this movie, and to get my money back, but since I'd gotten it as a special (only $.99) I decided against it. What I want to know, however, is HOW THE DIRECTOR GOT THE GREENLIGHT to make this darn movie, and what the 'stars' were thinking when they signed on???

I wanted to love this film so badly...I really did. But it was a horrible disappointment.<br /><br />I read Jennifer Egan's novel in 1996 and was enthralled by the story. In fact it remains one of my favorite books of all time. Mind you, the book had much more depth than this movie, in plot and emotional resonance. It MADE you care about the characters. It painted a complete picture of Phoebe, unlike the utterly poor characterization of the young girl in the film.<br /><br />Though beautiful and showing *some* promise in her burgeoning career, Jordana Brewster was as flat and hollow in this performance as was the script. And Christopher Eccleston (Wolf) was just an awful choice for the role of Wolf, both physically and logistically. What an awkward looking couple. Wolf should have been more of a dark brooding character, and more physically alluring, like he was in the book. What's more, the chemistry between the two actors was painfully forced.<br /><br />Cameron Diaz, however, deserves utmost praise for her performance. She took an impossibly mediocre script and gave her character life, a real spirit. She is simply gorgeous and her careful mannerisms make her very believable as a hippie. It's too bad her talent was squandered on this forgettable film.<br /><br />In the book-to-movie category, this is a dreadful translation, almost as bad as Message in a Bottle with Kevin Costner. But don't get me started on that one...<br /><br />I am not usually so harsh in my critiques but I was so disappointed here, because I really cared about the story and wanted to see it told right. It did not deliver...<br /><br />

This film was basically set up for failure by the studio. One, Anne Rice (author of the book) offered to write the screen play but was refused by the studio. Two, they tried to stuff 2 in depth novels in to a 2hour movie.<br /><br />I maintain the only way for these two books -Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned- to work in a live action form would be through a mini-series. First off the the Vampire Lestat alone takes place from the 1700's to the 1980's and has a plethora of character vital to the plot understanding of the main character, Lestat. The entire book Vampire Lestat sets up the events of the second part Queen of the Damned. Without that full understanding the premise of a movie is destroyed.<br /><br />Lestat was not cruel and vicious to all, he was not wanting to go along with Akasha's plans, Marius did not make Lestat, Lestat did not love Jesse or make her, Lestat could not go remain unscathed by the light, Marius was not after David nor the other way around, every character was completely represented wrong, BASICALLY same names different story.<br /><br />If they wanted to make a vampire movie, fine. Even if you wanted to be inspired by these novels, fine. But don't piggie back into the theaters off the success of Rice's great novels and characters just to destroy what her loyal readers have come to love.<br /><br />If you haven't read the books you won't understand the film really, if you have read the books you will be insulted. That being said, I am such a huge fan I had to see the movie knowing full well this was going to be the case and still went for it. Catch 22, must see it, will hate it.

Now don't get me wrong, I love seeing half naked chicks wiggling around. It's part of the fun of a Moroccan restaurant: ogling the belly dancers. But it doesn't make much of a plot.<br /><br />My first major problem is the music. I have the feeling that when Ann Rice wrote "The Vampire Lestat", the Cure was more the style of the music he would have liked (though I could be wrong). I know relating to current "goth" music might have seemed like a good idea, but they did a horrific job incorporating it. Lestat was an actor with presumably a pretty good singing voice. That they chose Jonathan Davis to be his stage voice is heartbreaking.<br /><br />Second, and someone else said it, mashing two very intricate books into one crappy movie is a bad idea. "Lestat" could have been a movie in it's own right, and a damn good one if done right. I honestly don't think "Queen of the Damned" lends itself to a movie very well. Though I would love to see a movie that incorporates a creation story, there's too much, how to word this, "inaction" in the book for it to be a very interesting movie. And the retelling they did soiled it pretty badly. Now mind you, it's been a long time since I've read it, I always thought "Lestat", "Tale of the Body Thief" and "Memnoch the Devil" were much more action packed and would have made better movies.<br /><br />I know a lot of people (hey, myself included) who like a lot of cheesy vampire crap that thought this was absolutely the worst of the genre to be a major motion picture. I tend to agree with them there. Aaliyah had a nice body though.

I have been living in Istanbul for 24 years and I (a 39 years of experience would suggest) do know what Istanbul has gone through all those years.<br /><br />Faith Akin is still quite young (born in 1973) and falling in the great mistake of being ORIENTALIST when looking at Turkey (just as his other movie Gegen Die Wand did) This movie SERIOUSLY LACK contemporary urban Turkish life AND MISLEADS the audience when giving out (quite false) clues as to the geographical and cultural spreading of Istanbul.<br /><br />Anyone who could speak Turkish could easily attest that many underground bands & groups depicted in the movie (Siyasiyabend for one ) are SO MISERABLE and their members cannot even speak a proper language that they cannot be taken as 'representatives' of the contemporary Turkish music. Much less a piece of crap which many Turkish listeners even do not know about at all.<br /><br />We Turks have long been accustomed to 'superficious' westerners who look at Turkey with some Orientalist point of view: trying to fit the actual Turkish image into their mind molds.. What is new in this movie is the fact that now a Turkish originated director (Faith Akin) is making the same mistake: Looking at Turkey with some false western glasses and scrambling to depict it as if he understands better. All of a vain effort.<br /><br />Just ask any Turkish friend of yours: What sort of a musical documentary is this without mentioning the names : Zeki Muren, Baris Manco, Ajda Pekkan, Teoman, Muslum Gurses, Ibrahim Tatlises, Ferdi Ozbegen?.. and many others who have SHAPED so far the real MUSIC we are listening today?<br /><br />Faith Akin has a long long lesson to learn before babbling away and confusing other people's minds with false images about the contemporary Turkish Music.

What Fox's fascination with dysfunctional families, made up of mean, obnoxious, spoiled kids, and parents who are determined to be cool, as opposed to being a parent?? I'm sorry, I don't get it. The one episode that I was barely able to stomach watching involved one of the kids demanding a Bar Mitzvah, with the intention of getting thousands of dollars in gift money. Of course, the idiot mother decides that her precious little junior has to have the biggest and bes-test party of all, and has no problem dropping 20 grand on the big event. The ditzy, brain dead, boy crazy teenage daughter bounces back and forth between wanting to be Jewish and then Catholic, when she see's the "cute" religious tutors.<br /><br />The one borderline "heartwarming" moment in the entire episode, was when the putz of a father, who has been convinced the entire time that the Bar Mitzvah is solely a money making scheme, see's the son studying his Hebrew lessons, and is momentarily duped into thinking that perhaps, his conniving offspring is being sincere about the right of passage into manhood. This warm, fuzzy feeling is immediately ripped out of his chest when he informs junior that since he has not yet had a bris, a certain "procedure" needs to be performed. The Bar Mitzvah is called off, and the mother is out several thousands of dollars when the kid refuses to comply.<br /><br />This show is garbage, and I am saddened that I shall never get back the 23 minutes of my life I wasted watching this piece of crap, because nothing else was on TV ...

I'm one of those gluttons for punishment when it comes to sitcoms these days-I still will check them out every once in a while.My observation is that most of them aren't very funny even the ones on major networks that are getting high ratings ,I just don't get who is finding them gut busting funny. While a few have made me crack a smile ,none of them made me laugh out loud,I usually change the channel after a few minutes. Now on the FOX network they churn out new shows like changing your underwear,for some reason they think they can make a good sitcom,wrong dead wrong. They have beat this dead horse so much it is to the point of hiring just anyone they can find to write a crappy pilot with bad dialog and just churn them out.Let's take a brief look at the latest piece of junk that Fox has churned out called "The War At Home"<br /><br />I watched about 5 minutes of it and that was generous. In this particular episode,the daughter is mouthing off to her parents doing the I'm an adult now rant.The dad gets fed up tells her "OK fine,go ahead and do whatever you want,If you screw up it's your problem" to which she replies"Well I guess your mad but hey at least I didn't get AIDS"(cue the laugh track,no way that can be a live audience unless they have been paid to applaud such garbage)-I found the crack about not having AIDS to be in such bad taste. Well hey at least I don't have to watch any more of this crap. Take a hint FOX, stop wasting your time with sitcoms.OK well you have the Simpsons but it is now getting really old and tired as well.

This show drives me crazy. It goes against everything a family should be, even if it is intended to be a comedy. The show is suppose to follow Dave and Vicky Gold (Michael Rapaport and Anita Barone) as they raise their three teenage children: Hilary, Larry, and Mike. A good premises for a comedy yes but it does not mean it will be a good show.<br /><br />I don't think I've ever heard cruder talk from parents to children and vice versa. The only talk that seems to be in the show is control of children by the parents and sex. I know that sexual intercourse is usually a subject talked about by teenagers often but it is brought up in nearly every episode with no point to it. The one episode I was just watching involved the parents giving their daughter, Hilary a car, not once do you think they are related in anyway by the way they talk to each other and how the parents talk about how Hilary is like "their slave."<br /><br />The show fails on the comedy level the most. I haven't laughed at this show once in the numerous times I have attempted to watch it, and I'm a person who gave such films as Animal House and Dumb and Dumber very high marks. Michael Rapaport is a very good actor and why he choose to ruin his career by making this piece of filth show is beyond me. <br /><br />Parents, make sure your children never and I mean never watch this. Teenagers, you'll probably get a laugh out of this just for the blatant sexual references but nothing comes out of it and afterwards you feel rather empty. <br /><br />1 1/2/ 5 Stars.

How is it in this day and era, people are still dumb enough to think that other dumb stuff is smart? Maybe dumb people like watching stuff that makes them feel smart. Such as 'The War At Home'. 'Cuss it's even dumber than the dumb people who watch it. There are no jokes, only half-jokes and slight gags that barely even warrant a tiny internal smile. The acting is your typical, unsubtle, idiotic, standard sitcom flailing-limbs type acting. And why oh why did this crap replace arrested development? Well you gotta hand it to Fox. They know that they need to have stupid shows to attract all the stupid viewers. You see, the reason Arrested Development wasn't massively popular was because it was so smart. It was so smart that it made dumb people feel bad about being so dumb. And of course, if a dumb person encounters a smart person, the dumb person will hate the smart person. Most of the time anyway. Either that, or try and mooch off of the smart person. If you like this show, and are one of the dumb people, I truly cannot fathom what it must be like not to have open eyes and open minds. I cannot fathom what it must be like to be mindless, laughing drones, influenced by every little thing. Basically, people who laugh with a laugh track are parrots. Trained, obedient, mindless parrots. Maybe I shouldn't insult parrots by comparing them to you. You know who you are. (If I seem like a bastar* in this review, it's because I'm so annoyed at AD being canceled.)

1 Bolo Yeung is in the movie ten minutes altogether including when he's serving iced drinks to his boss. 2 a lot of street thugs looking like junkyard keepers get instantly overpowered by the Asian superhero who talks like an illegal alien just out of the back of a manure truck. 3 (thug) let this to me -shirt off, gay model like muscles- heee-haaw! hee-heeew! hap hap! - he's dead on the floor with his neck, elbow, chin or balls broken - 4 cheap semi-sex scenes where the white broad come out of nowhere digs the Asian superhero. 5 Norton (former C action movies star ) does nothing but pose as an eccentric trendy weapon smuggler who traffics white slutty girls hand picked at a night club where they willingly follow some idiot posing as a millionaire snapping at them ( you reap what you sow ) 6 yes, the local police captain is involved and yes, the first butchered cop is the former patrol teammate of the super-hero ( yaawn! ). 7 Action scenes are fake, like A) hee-haw! Chinese tries some spinning kick B) skinny leg of Chinese to the throat of negro thug C) finishing death move to his head too much like Walker Texas ranger fake action 8 end titles finally<br /><br />utter rubbish. Those people are good enough only to be stand ins or body doubles in other C movies and be credited AT MOST collectively as "stunt crew provided by the county prison ".

I usually give sequels the benefit of the doubt and go easy on them. But this…is very poor. The exact same as what happened in the first film happens here again. The exact same. Only they wanted younger kids to be able see it (this accounts for the repeated presence of Bugs Bunny but why they threw in one 'f*ck' is beyond me).<br /><br />They didn't even bother to change Jackie Mason's character from Dangerfield's. Let me explain, in CADDYSHACK Rodney Dangerfield played a boorish Real Estate owner who enrages the uptight members of Bushwood country club. In this movie Jackie Mason plays a boorish Real Estate owner who enrages the uptight members of Bushwood country club. A big effort they made to change the content of the script huh? No, I don't think so. A very unfunny Dan Aykroyd shamefully copies Bill Murray's character. He even goes after the gopher (now more like a Gremlin) in much the same fashion as Murray did. <br /><br />There is not a laugh to be had. A sample of the 'comedy' in this film: Jackie Mason is getting ready for a hot date with Dyan Cannon. He is in the bathroom is his robe. He moves to the door to get dressed in his bedroom when…the door handle breaks off. Wow!?! That's the best they can do. Eight years to think of a completely new sequel and that's all we get!?! I could have pulled a better script out of my ass.<br /><br />See it only if you're a die-hard fan of the original. It's the only way you'll find any kind of laughs in it. Everyone else steer clear.

An insane assault on viewers senses. This is a mish-mash of assorted Hindi and English movies - poorly done. The name carries over from a 70s' multi star cast, which the 2002 version also boasts of. The story is taken from the 70s' Sunil Dutt/Reena Roy starrer - "Nagin" and visual effects taken (a horrible attempt) from The Matrix, Terminator 2 and Mission Impossible II.<br /><br />Set in a college environment (Sunil Shetty, Akshaye Kumar, Manisha - college kids!!!???!!), Manisha Koirala is the victim, who mistakes a fatal assault on her by two students as a collective effort on the part of our heros. As it turns out Manisha is a Cobra (Nag) snake reborn as a girl in this life and her mate from the previous life, now a super powerful-all-and-any-shape-assuming (Ichadhari Nag) - Munish Kohli, is out looking for her in this life. Manisha appeals to him to avenge her violation and murder.<br /><br />So begins the mad killing spree, where the avenging lover starts singling each male of the group, with increasing powers and tricks with successive attempts. The effects are extremely cheap, with computer generated skeletons, morphing bodies and motorcycle stunts completing the farce.<br /><br />Carry over from Nagin includes Raj Babbar playing a catholic priest who provides temporary relief to our boys with a more "Religiously correct" multi-religion locket (the original Nagin only had an "Om") . Sunny Deol plays Manisha's love interest in her current life and the ultimate saviour against the all powerful Munish Kohli.<br /><br />Music and songs are below average.<br /><br />Avoid if you don't fancy cheap thrills.

The clever marketeer is he is, Jess Franco naturally also cashed in on the huge temporarily success of psychedelic spy movies like Mario Bava's ultimately sensational "Danger: Diabolik!". Franco is the ideal man to shoot a similar film, as he could freely insert as much sleaze, kitschy scenery and absurdly grotesque plot twists as he wanted to. And he partially understood this very well, as "The Girl from Rio" revolves on a man-hating organization, led by a funky dressed lesbo, that plots to turn all men into obedient slaves! Unfortunately (for them, at least), the diabolical plans conflict with the daily business of a feared crime syndicate boss, played by George Sanders. All the right ingredients are well-presented, yet this is a surprisingly weak and unsatisfying adventure movie. The plot is rich on imagination, but seemingly only on paper, as the action is quite tame. The film is also very colorful...but not too bright and especially shocking was the total lack of vicious sex. There's a bit of nudity, sure, but too few according to normal Franco standards. All the characters are sick in the head, so the least I expected (or hoped for) were more perverted undertones or frenzied themes. Franco obviously had a bigger budget as usual to work with, and I must say he spends that money well on more convincing set pieces and talented cast members. Particularly the veteran actor George Sanders ("Village of the Damned", "Psychomania") is one of the best players ever to appear in a Franco production. Too bad even he can't save "The Girl from Rio" from being a huge letdown. A legendary Euro-smut filmmaker like Jess Franco could and should have done more with this concept. Shame, shame, shame...

Didn't the writer for this movie see the other three? I loved the original, I thought 2 was the best, I tolerated 3 (it was OK, nothing special). But I HATED this one. Who dare they kill off UG? This was certainly not the Ug who had been almost like a brother to Charlie in number 2. Remember his speech? Charlie said, "You wouldn't just leave me on Earth, would you". Ug replied, "Charlie, Bounty Hunter", saying that he was now one of them now. How dare the writers ignore this special bond between them and turn him into a baddie who get's killed by Charlie (in a particularly awkward scene) just because they realized the movie was getting boring. In fact for the first 20 minutes, we get a new cast and have to wait this long until we again find out what happened to Charlie, who was the hero we've been waiting to see. I kept waiting saying, "Come on, when's Charlie going to appear?" Angela Basset must be doing her best to deny she was ever in this Turkey. Moving it to the future eliminates the possibility of ever seeing a sequel with the original cast or in our time. I think the writers decided, that their movie was going to be the last and they could do whatever they wanted. This movie is totally out of line with the first two. And it didn't even seem like it was written by the same people who made 3. 3 at least had humor and could easily be seen by younger Children. 4 is just ugly and mean-spirited (Eric DaRe) is particularly cruel and unnecessary. I hated this movie. Hated, hated, hated it. I hated the fact that anyone could like it and I hated the fact that it ruined what was one of my favorite camp classics. I give this a one start simply because IMDb.com won't let me give it a zero.

I found this movie to be okay.<br /><br />On paper, this movie has everything a person may want! Romance, comedy, drama. A bank robbery, a unique cast, great music and storytelling!<br /><br />In reality, this movie ended up being mostly garbage, and I'll tell you why.<br /><br />a) This is my biggest problem: The editing. This movie has by far the worst editing I've ever seen short of local-car-dealership commercials. The editing could've been done better by a deaf Parkinson's patient tapping away at iMovie with a a dead cat. There are scenes where two characters are talking to each other and you can see their lips moving and the audio/video isn't in sync because its clearly dubbed. Why was it dubbed? I don't know! Its English dubbing English! The voices were done in a studio elsewhere in certain scenes! Could they not find a boom-Mic?! They're not expensive; Jesus, even I own one! And i don't make films!<br /><br />b) Andrew Keegan's performance lacked. It really didn't seem like he wanted to be a part of this project, and his acting was the equivalent of a skit performed by D.A.R.E. for schoolchildren. At least John Krasinksi showed some enthusiasm.<br /><br />Yes, John Krasinski is the only reason I rented this flick, and its the only real reason worth watching. He's did a good, witty performance and he was the most three-dimensional character. Dean Edwards' character was quite thin, as was whats-her-face.<br /><br />Final Word? If you're a fan of John Krasinski, this is worth your time. If not, don't even bother. The editing

This movie illustrates like no other the state of the Australian film industry and everything that's holding it back.<br /><br />Awesome talent, outstanding performances (particularly by Victoria Hill), but a let down in practically every other way.<br /><br />An "adaptation" of sorts, it brought nothing new to Macbeth (no, setting it in present-day Australia is not enough), and essentially, completely failed to justify its existence, apart from (let's face it, completely unnecessarily) paying homage to the original work. If there's one body of work that has been done (and done and done and done), it's Shakespeare's. So any adaptation, if it's not to be a self-indulgent and pointless exercise, needs to at least bring some new interpretation to the work.<br /><br />And that's what this Macbeth fails to do. As it was done, this film has no contemporary relevance whatsoever. It's the same piece that we have seen countless (too many!) times before. Except with guns and in different outfits.<br /><br />Apart from the fundamental blunder (no other way to put it) of keeping the original Shakespearian dialogue, one of the more cringeful moments of the movie is the prolonged and incredibly boring slow motion shoot out towards the end, during which I completely tuned out, even though I was looking at the screen. I never thought I had a short attention span, but there you go.<br /><br />I suppose the movie succeeds on its own, very limited terms. But as Australia continues to produce world-class acting talent, its movie-makers need to stop being proud of succeeding on limited terms, and actually set high enough standards to show that they respect for the kind of acting talent they work with.<br /><br />A shame. An absolute shame.

I am very interested in animal children and I have read many Edger Rice Burroughs novels -- but this awful movie couldn't keep me interested, nor could I stomach all the absurd, unrealistic scenes. I only managed to sit through the Africa part and John's first few days in Scotland. Let's talk about 'unrealistic' and 'downright silly'! The actors in ape suits looked like extra large chimps, rather than great apes (there is a difference). They did not move with the grace that a wild animal would. (For comparison, see some of the better Planet of the Apes movies where they trained their actors to move in simian fashion). The apes eat large haunches of meat -- not a common ape practice as far as I know. I am a sucker for animal stories but the script did not make me care about the apes. The great white hunters of the expedition that finds John Clayton are charicaturish entirely. The parents of Clayton were shipwrecked on an ocean beach, but somehow it is a very long trip down the river to get to the coast -- give me a break! Let's talk about 'slow'. Even the folks who think this is an excellent movie admit that it is not an action movie. Far from it. It tries to be a character study -- unfortunately the downright silly part predominates! I did not read Burroughs' Tarzan books, but many of his other series -- they were packed with meaningful action and heroic purpose! This film just isn't there.

Some of the greatest and most loved horror movies have a wicked sense of humour, but when a film comes along that isn't as original as the "classics" but just goes at it for laughs then a bunch of po-faced, wanna-be critics completely slag it off. This film made me laugh aloud several times, this is testament to the way this film was approached and it shows. The two main leads look natural and believable together and this really helps this film. You root for them the whole way and laugh along with them, everyone has friends like both of these guys. Another highlight for me was the monster truck, it's awesome, intimidating and really well shot. Taking inspiration (completely stealing) from loads of films, the most obvious being Duel, Jeepers Creepers and probably in reference to the Jack Black alike co-star Orange County. But really you can pick any road trip gone wrong movie and find a reference here. But so what, it's not trying to win any Oscars just give the viewer a good dose of frights and laughs and on that score it's a 10! Obviously It's not getting a 10, I give real sensible reviews and scores unlike 99% of the people on IMDb. There is no-way this movie can get a zero like so many lazy idiots give to too many films and as fun as it was it ain't getting a 10 either. It's just a good fun movie for anyone with a sense of humour and a liking for scares. You really can't get anymore simple than that.

Fans of horror comedy will like this one. Others might get quickly annoyed and shut it off. It's sort of a buddy film, with over-the-top violence and gore, deliberately stereotyped characters, and a lot of craziness.<br /><br />It looks to have been made on a budget of about $100, by a bunch of fraternity guys after a big beer keg party. There's a lead who's a frustrated nerd, and his loudmouth prank-pulling friend who mocks him about 30 times per second. There's a cool monster truck chasing them for hundreds of miles, which is the highlight of the film. Whenever this thing and its gnarly-mask wearing driver appear, it's a great scene. There's a mysterious girl who randomly appears in their back seat, and plenty of giant guys in overalls hanging out in red neck bars. The nerd's friend never shuts his yap, and gets them in one mess after another. Their arguing got on my nerves, but other aspects of the film make up for it.<br /><br />Sight gags poking fun at several "psycho tormenting and trying to croak somebody" films are everywhere. Take your pick which one is riffed the most: Hills Have Eyes, Saw, and Jeepers Creepers were some that I recognized.<br /><br />It's enjoyable insanity, if you're in the right frame of mind. Sensory-dulling brewskies with your friends can make viewing this more fun; it's a good bet that's the condition of the movie makers when they put this thing together.

Last night, I am sitting in my TV room, beer in hand, bowl of pretzels on the TV tray & I decide to put the movie "Monster Man" into my trusty VCR. Expecting a fun-filled, gory, crash & bash cheesefest of a movie. What do I get instead? One of THE most silly, stupid, unfrightening & predictable films I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. And what's even worse, all during the(& I use this next phrase loosely) "sex scene" the girl keeps all her clothes on! I'll make this summary short & sweet: mix "Dude Where's My Car" (about a good 1/2 of the film) with a very watered down "Hitcher", add a redneck version of the antagonist from "I Madman" as the primary villain & finally some incoherent black magic mumbo jumbo & you'll kind of get a clue how rotten this movie is. It's also utterly predictable throughout. The only notable factor to this buddy movie disguised as a "horror film" is that some of the moments between the 2 guys (even though the "hero" is one MAJOR annoying geek & the other is a Jack Black clone) are kind of funny (just mediocre funny i.e..like most of SNL skits). Other than that, "Monster Man" is a monster mess! 3/10 (This one I'll be handing out at Halloween time-just hope after the person views it I don't get my house egged or worse)

Now don't get me wrong I love bad movies... no I adore bad movies, Troll 2.... ouch painful, Manos The Hands of Fate... just watch Torgo go, Guru the Mad Monk.. is that traffic noise in the medieval background? OK so that's clear, but this is one of those films that was quite obviously trying to be something better, but didn't make it. Why not? Well it would be easy to blame the plot, but heh we've seen worse, there weren't too many holes and heh I know there's not a lot of originality in it but then that needn't kill a film. The effects aren't bad (if you completely ignore the last scene), the monster is OK, the truck quite menacing so where did it go wrong? Well I'd love to blame it on the 'Chris Moyles' look-a-like Harley... so I will! Comedy and horror are difficult to mix well, bad comedy and horror even worse and there's the problem. I loathed this guy from the moment he stuck his head up (literally), the continual bating of the overly meek Adam becomes annoying, so annoying that you lose belief that the mildest of people wouldn't react by pushing him out of the moving car door... and I thought it was the monster bits that the director was meant to have trouble convincing us of. Why are bad movies fun? Well you have great fun poking holes in them, laughing at the script, all the howlers etc. This film doesn't make the coveted category of 'Worst Movies' because its just bad due to being annoying nuff said. Don't bother, go watch anything else and you'll be a better person for it... I promise! (Fade to chants of Torgo Torgo Torgo)

Okay, so when a friend of mine told me he was supposed to direct MM2 and MM3, I thought, heck, I got to check out Monster Man and see what its like, maybe I can get a part in it, but when I popped it into my DVD player and and tried to choke down the first 45 minutes of nothing but bad, bad I mean horribly annoying bad comedy from that fat ass thinking he's funny, not to mention how looooong the director spent on the pointless desert road trip, I cam to the conclusion that these guys didn't have a clue of what they were doing and missed the boat by a long shot. The story had potential to be somewhat different than the usual BS you see on the Blockbuster/Hollywood Video shelf put out by Lions gate these days, but they surely messed this one up. Why put so much time and effort in shooting annoying bad acting and bad jokes, why not shorten the road trip and put more of the plot in the movie. Myabe the writing was so bad that they had to cut out a lot of the movie or maybe the director didn't shoot enough of the horror and gore, that they had to find filler to make the usual 84 minutes???? All in all, and I'm being easy here, maybe because a friend of mine is the bald redneck in the bar scene that gets his skull crushed when chasing the three leads out into the street, I will give it at least 1 star for trying, and the gore/kill scenes weren't that bad, again, they tried. Too bad, Lions Gate could have created a cool franchise from this idea, but failed. I don't recommend paying to rent it, maybe you can find a cut down version where the movie starts from the hitch hiker scene. CRAP!

This episode had potential. The basic premise of a woman living next door to an empty apartment (but a phone that constantly rings) is somewhat interesting. And when she explores the noise, there is genuine tension and fear. But stupid script writing ruins any promise the episode had.<br /><br />First of all, the woman readily admits to seeing things that would send most of us running in the other direction (e.g. "It's funny that the door slammed shut even though there is no wind;" "This door has serious damage to it that wasn't here a minute ago;" "The door opened by itself, without me touching it;" etc.). Given these supernatural phenomena, plus the fact that a woman committed suicide in the room, wouldn't she take some precaution before entering it? Maybe she could investigate in the day time. Or maybe she could investigate the apartment with somebody else. Or maybe she could TURN ON THE LIGHTS!!! Also, while in the haunted apartment, she decides to make numerous phone calls to the operator and gets into an argument over who has the power to disconnect the phone, and then they begin discussing the details of the suicide. JUST UNPLUG THE PHONE! The phone company doesn't need to be involved. Walk up to the phone and unplug it. Case closed.<br /><br />Finally, showing the phone scamper across the floor like it's alive was just comical. If the director wanted the woman to get strangled by the phone card, he could've done it in a way that didn't look cartoony. Brave Little Toaster anyone?

Alright, we start in the office of a shrink, and apparently not a very good one. The main hero from the first Jack Frost is in the shrinks office blurting out random rhymes about Jack Frost. Gee, alright my brother is yelling ''Turn it off!''. Anyway, back to the crappy movie.<br /><br />The shrink has his speaker phone on and is letting his secretary and her friends listen in on this heroic insane sheriff. I suppose he is supposed to be the hero from the first movie, but he looks nothing like him!. Yadda yadda yadda, they laugh at the poor sheriff, yadda yadda. Now some people are digging up the anti-frozed snowman, yadda yadda, now we're in a lab with some type of doctor people.. I don't quite see how this has to do anything, but their poking the anti-freeze/Evil killer mutant snowman with needles, heating it, shocking it, adding strange and bizarre chemicals to it, the whole nine yards. Nothing. Alright, they give up and leave it in a fish tank. One of the doctors leaves his coffee on the top of the tank. The janitor walks in, cleans stuff, bumps the fishtank and the coffee spills the tank which makes Jack alive.<br /><br />Behold the power of mocha! Now somehow he is in..uh.. i believe the Bahamas... but it looked more like Hawaii.. But it couldn't be Hawaii! Unless they spent all of their budget on the dang air plane tickets. Bah.. I wont spoil the rest of this rotten movie, so you'll have to rent it and watch it your self... Er... i wouldn't suggest doing so though.... Sheesh..

Talk about rubbish! I can't think of one good thing in this movie. The screenplay was poor, the acting was terrible and the effects, well there were no effects. I can't believe the writer of this movie did Identity, everything in this movie made me sick to start to finish.<br /><br />The front cover of the video box shows a showman with shark like teeth and scary eyes. I looks like a scary villain, but like the old saying "never judge a book by it's cover", the whole villain looked like a cardboard cut out. One part in the film a girl gets killed by a salad tongs, terrible. The setting was bad enough, like they could of set the whole thing in Lapland but no, a tropical island instead.<br /><br />I took this movie as a spoof, which I think they wanted it to be but the only thing that made me laugh in a bad way was the tacky effects. You can argue that I haven't watched the first one, but seeing this I would be safe if I wouldn't attempted it.<br /><br />The biggest joke in this movie is the effects, the snowballs looked like they were home made, and that carrot was a complete embarrassment. If I would of guess the budget of this movie would of probably be between 8 to 9 pounds fifty. The producer in a last minute panic must of grabbed the actors for the street gave them the script told them they have 6 minutes to practise these lines and shoot on a island.<br /><br />Lastly the acting in the film was painful, it was like the actors forgot their ordinary lines and made them up the way through.<br /><br />In conclusion I give this film: 0 stars out of 5

Sheba Shayne (Pam Grier) receives a telegram informing her that her father may be in trouble. Sheba, a private investigator and former cop, goes to her father's aid. But someone will stop at nothing to run her father out of business. An attempt to show their muscle goes awry and Sheba's father is gunned down in cold blood. These guys have messed with the wrong woman.<br /><br />If I had to describe Sheba Baby, the best I can come up with is Pam Grier Lite with some really bad acting. For a Pam Grier film, Sheba Baby is incredibly tame. It's nowhere near as violent as some of her earlier films. Gone are the over-the-top images of Pam placing a small revolver or razor blades in her afro. Pilot (D'Urville Martin) and his crew can't hold a candle to some of the real villains Pam faced in her previous movies. It's strictly by-the-numbers and almost has a made-for-TV feel. As for the bad acting, the baddies that Pam faces off with are as unnatural sounding in their delivery as I've seen. As a result, characters like Pilot don't come across as threatening as they should or need to for the movie to work.<br /><br />That's not to say there aren't moments or elements in Sheba Baby that I didn't enjoy (Pam in a wetsuit and Pam brandishing a spear gun), it's just that when compared with Pam's other films like Coffy, Foxy Brown, and even Friday Foster that the movie fails.<br /><br />One final observation - maybe I'm just more sensitive to these things post-9/11, but I don't remember a time, even in the security lax 70s, when you could take a suitcase full of guns on an airplane. When Sheba flies to her father's aid, she's got an arsenal packed in her luggage!

French Cinema sucks! Down with all these psychiotric visions with their my-God-am-I-cultivated distinguished attitudes! Pestilence to conceited symbolic film-language and impervious chiffres! I'll no longer have a mind for that! Léos Carax, did you ever think about, that a dialogue in a film could be natural and vivid??? Maybe I'm too common to understand you? Or had it been your task to confirm all the clichés of a Frenchman the world can have? Guillaume the to-be-guilliotined comes to his home-palace, Mme. Deneuve, not in the picture, plays the flute: "Here am I, darling!" In this moment, I knew, that she's in the bathtub, and we`ll see her lying in there soon. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not prudish, and the incestous sex scene was the climax of the film. But this is, in Berlin, we say "etepetete", what means something like "être-peut-être", a snobistic, self-satisfied, and, the worst, seen that often in French movies I can tell! Other example: She, beautiful and willing, is looking at herself in a mirror, combing her hair, and her wild-bearded, dirty young guru rushs into the room, breathless shouting: "There's no escape, there's no escape!" Forty years after existencialistic Sartres and consorts- what's new, what's exciting about? My God, there's that woman and she loves and admires you, what would be more natural to be happy with your life? And when you're not, please explain much better, why!! Born French means you have to live a life in extravaganza, no escape, is that the point?

In New York, in a morning close to Christmas, an upper class father and mother go in their BMW to a private school to see the play of their daughter. Then they go shopping and later they return to their fancy apartment in Manhattan. In the night, they move to a simple apartment in a dangerous neighborhood, where they prepare drugs for distribution. On the Christmas Eve, while buying the Christmas gift for their daughter, the father is kidnapped, and his wife desperately tries to raise a high amount of money to pay the requested ransom. "R Xmas" is a deceptive movie of Abel Ferrara. The lead characters do not have names, are anonymous, and maybe his intention is to tell that in the breast of a neighbor family in your building may have drug dealers; or that drug dealers may also have families and may be loving persons; or that there are many dirty cops, probably worse than the criminals; or is it a simple apology to crime? Whatever! However, this humanization of criminals is a horrible message, and I really did not like this movie. In Brazil, for example, many drug dealers and criminals help their communities, due to the absence of the State in poor areas and slums, but this procedure does not make them model citizen. In this movie, we see a loving upper class family in the day, providing drugs as means of living, but the destruction of the members of other families is not shown in the story, and it is impossible to feel sympathy for any characters. In the end, I wished all of them dead. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Gangues do Gueto" ("Gangs of the Ghetto")

I recently rented this film on DVD and thought it would be an interesting choice seeing as I am both from the north of England (Bradford), and also interested in film-making. However, it soon became apparent that this film seemed to lack a decent level of development script-wise. The characters were weak and often stereotyped and the story lacked substance. The subject matter could be an interesting basis for a film. However, the delivery of this appeared naive and unfocused. <br /><br />The ending felt as though it was casting judgement on the characters - punishing and rewarding where the filmmakers felt necessary. This felt a little awkward and silly, and seemed at odds with the 'realism' used in the style of shooting. For me, the film dealt with the characters and subject matter in a rather heavy handed and clumsy manner. It felt as though the writer had already decided how he wanted to end the story and set about crow-barring everything else in to fit it.<br /><br />Another point that I feel strongly about is the watered-down Ken Loach feel the film had. I get quite upset that UK film financiers can't see that there is more to British films than 'gritty realism'. It has become almost a safe option. Film is an infinitely wonderful playground for imaginative ideas and it is not being exploited by UK feature film producers. There is a lot of talent here in the UK. It's unfortunate that most of these individuals end up either making music videos and commercials 100% of the time or they go to America. <br /><br />Love + Hate would have worked better if it had been cut down to 30 or 60 minutes and appeared as a one-off TV drama.

A depressed creepy teenager does many bad things to a socially active older lady who does not like to use shades or drapes in her windows. He steels assorted things from her, peeps at her, does prank calls, and plays assorted unpleasant tricks on her. Oddly, he keeps none of this a secret from her. At first, she does not seem to care one way or the other that he is bothering her. Then later she seems to begin to respect him for his cruel fevered activities.<br /><br />There are some illogical items to note. One is that the guy peeps into the night through a pane of glass from the more brightly lit side. In real life such a thing would not happen. The more brightly lit side of a pane of glass acts as a mirror. He would be able to see exactly nothing. Also, everyone out in the night would be able to look inside at him sitting in his well lit room.<br /><br />One other illogical item is that the creepy teen takes a job as a milkman, and his one and only customer each morning seems to be the lady he is picking on. Easy work, if you can get it.<br /><br />I saw A SHORT FILM ABOUT LOVE at a public showing. By the end, there was not a single open eye in the house. A SHORT FILM ABOUT LOVE is the foreign language movie for those who do not like reading subtitles. Not only are there very few words spoken in the film, but much of the movie is silent. A certain rest in peace.

This movie tries to say something profound; I'm just not sure what it was. Too much is left unresolved in the end for me to figure out the main point. A couple scenes really have me wondering what was left on the cutting room floor. I don't think the wall was very well developed I never got what was actually going on there. When the mother finally unveils it I just couldn't make any connection to the boy's silence. What was the point of the boy not talking? Was he just delusional or did he acquire some sort of power. What was the scene with the burnt girl all about? Another power the boy has or what? I don't understand how that developed any character or moved the plot. I got the bully bit but what happened to the dog? Did the dog come back or did mom get rid of Fido for good somehow? <br /><br />There were several additional plot elements that were more clutter than use. Like the radio talk show in the background discussing the Iraq War. I think that was supposed to create some sort of comparison to the grief and insecurity the mother and Addison were experiencing but for me it was distracting and strained. I didn't buy the link very much. I also found the teacher getting on Addison about not saying "here" for roll call a bit much. The mom seeing the doctor was pointless, how did it serve the plot? Was that to show how desperate the mother was getting, or was it something about the medicine that I didn't get? Was that the dad coming back in the last scene, or just some guy? So did writing on the wall work? What happened to the Dog?

A nicely evoked 1930s setting provides much interest for a viewer in the early 21st century; unfortunately, "London Belongs to Me" has little else to recommend it besides lashings of quaint English charm. All of the problems rest with the deeply unfocused story. The main plot concerns the actions of young lad Richard Attenborough, the problems he gets into and how the community in which he lives bands together to save him from society's laws. Or something. The main issue here is that Attenborough's character brings everything upon himself and, quite frankly, is guilty of almost every accusation brought against him, so it's baffling why the film (and all the characters) have so much sympathy for him. He's treated as a victim of circumstance when he really, really isn't; and what's more he isn't shown to have very much remorse for his actions, only caring about getting away with things he didn't mean to do. Alastair Sim gets a lot of screen time in a subplot that has absolutely nothing to do with the main plot line and you wonder what he's doing there (though Sim is, as always, superb). You know there's a problem with the structure when the main plot impacts constantly against the subplot but not vice-versa. And, following a sedate pace and a careful build up, the plot completely falls apart in the last 20 minutes with a deeply unsatisfying and unexplained conclusion which doesn't even show us if Attenborough's character has developed at all from the previous proceedings. The film doesn't end, it just stops.<br /><br />The acting, direction and the general feel of the film can all be commended but unfortunately the story and structure of the piece jars constantly. A last point of trivia: Alec Guinness based his performance in the vastly superior film "The Ladykillers" on Alastair Sim's performance in this film, right down to both the characters having almost identical first scenes.

Tom Cutler (Jackson) is a retired policeman who now works as a crime scene Cleaner-upper. In his latest job, he cleans a new crime scene and destroys evidence and isn't aware the crime hasn't been officially reported. Uh oh, this can't be good. <br /><br />You hear about Cleaners all the time, but usually when a mob or gangland hit is involved when bodies etc need to be removed and the area cleaned up. This one is different in that Tom Cutler works with the Police to clean up after the police have done their investigation of a crime scene. Hey, someone has to do it. You know the Police won't. The movie makes that quite clear and it is up to the family to get the area cleaned up. <br /><br />This is almost a good thriller, but a side plot involving Tom's daughter (Palmer) makes this story somewhat awkward. I guess they had to fill in some time. Oh, they brought this side plot around to connect with the another side plot, but it was still a reach and awkward. See?<br /><br />This was almost a good thriller because there was a noticeable lack of tension, suspense and the pace was somewhat draggy. The music didn't help either as I noticed the music was more appropriate for watching people take a long journey. You know, journey music. Get it? HA!<br /><br />The acting by all was excellent in this almost a good thriller. <br /><br />Violence: Yes, Sex: No, Nudity: No, Language: No

SPOILER!!!! Mind Ripper hmmmm.... I had just watched the nightmare on elm street movies and had just found out about Giovanni Ribisi. I thought Giovanni Ribisi hadnt done any horrors so I checked into it. I saw "the outpost" (mind ripper) I checked on my Tivo for it. There was an air date on Sci Fi. So I was set. I got my pop corn ready came in and set on the couch and what the hell is this? A freakin bold guy in blue sweat pants running around yelling! Nothing is scary about this movie at all! If anything its funny! Funny how low the budget is, funny how predictable it is, funny how bad the acting is and funny how much money it DIDNT make. Ok giovanni ribisi is a good actor but this movie is dumb. It is so stupid. They killed him at the end and then they go on this plane and the "monster" is on it. They shoot him in the head with a shotgun and it falls a long way to the ground. And<br /><br />-GASP- The killer ending, Its Still Alive! WOOHHH! Scary! woooohhhh! Sucky fat sack of crap waste of 2 hours.<br /><br />Bottom Line: You have somewhere to go and you need to kill some time. Mind ripper isnt the suggestion. I'd rather sit out naked in the snow than watch this movie a second time.<br /><br />OVERALL GRADE: F- - - - - - - - - - (ENTERNAL)

Sigh…the stupid government once again attempted to create an inexhaustible and indestructible soldier, and of course the experiments went terribly wrong, burdening us with a half man-half mutant who pukes an awful lot and squeaks like a little girl whenever he's upset. Lance Henriksen stars as the honest scientist who immediately quit the experiment upon hearing it was a military project, but he returns (bringing the whole family with him) when he finds out his beloved guinea pig has gone on a killing spree. "Mind Ripper" certainly is a watchable horror movie, but it's very unoriginal and features pretty much every lame cliché you can think off (including the estranged father/rebellious teenage son sub plot...yawn). The characters are like wooden puppets, the dumbest things are being said and done and there's a completely pointless dream-sequence...coming from the monster!!! There's a handful of interesting gory scenes to enjoy and some of the isolated desert-locations are effectively eerie. Lance Henriksen is adequate as always, even though this is yet another inferior production he stars, and Giovanni Ribisi surely deserved a better motion picture to make his debut in. For some reason, this anonymous 90's thriller is also known as "The Hills Have Eyes part 3". Is it because it handles about members of the same family being terrorized in the desert? Is it because Wes Craven was once again involved, as a producer this time? Or maybe it's because the monster gets bald near the end like the freaky Michael Berryman in the 1977 original? Who knows...Who cares? Wes Craven probably financed this project because his son co-wrote the script and it's always moving to discover that your offspring is equally untalented as you are. Not recommended!

Hungary can't make any good movies. Fact. This is a great example of that.<br /><br />First of all the term "plot" does not exist in this movie. It's seriously weak. Even tho a lot of people would argue with me on that. Sure, it's about a taboo, but that's about it. There are endless possibilities, which could have been really great, if used, but they nearly skipped everything. I think the whole movie is just an excuse to show pictures, which are the only decent things in this whole pile of awfulness.<br /><br />The acting is just plain shitty. There aren't many lines, so you would think that the actors have great facial expressions or mimicking abilities, but no. In fact, 86% of the time, they suck. And that's when they don't say anything. If they say even a single word, you'll start tilting your head, saying: "That's damn unrealistic". But than again, this is partly the fault of the writing. There's also no emotion in most of the dialogs.<br /><br />The editing is sometimes OK, but most of the time illogical and just worsens the whole picture. It could have given an emotional push, yet it seems the editing in here is all about putting cuts after each other.<br /><br />Someone please explain it to me, why critics say this movie is a masterpiece. Calling this an "Art" isn't gonna make it better. Sorry Mundruczo, but you failed. Live with it. Even tho you probably won't care about my or any other guys opinion scarifying your "child".

I agree with what so many others have said about the shallow and offensive nature of this film's examination of racism. It is baffling to me that so many people seem to have been fooled by its pretentiousness. I want to comment on the Matt Dillon character as an example of what's most infuriating about this movie. Here we have a man who -- contrasted with the film's underlying message that "we're all a LITTLE racist" -- effectively rapes a woman in public, cruelly humiliating her husband and deliberately goading him to make a move that, as he well knows, will lead to his arrest or even death. He does all this after pulling the couple over without any legal cause but because, as we come to understand, they are black and wealthy and he is a hurt little boy who is now the police and can therefore do as he pleases. This behavior is not a LITTLE racist. This behavior is evil. It is disturbing to me that this extreme of racism is held up next to another character's behavior -- spouting her paranoid stereotypes about gang violence -- to illustrate that everybody's a LITTLE racist. Later, we're spoon-fed some tripe about Dillon's poor old dad and how black folks drove him into the poor house. Is this supposed to explain, or worse, excuse this behavior? And is Dillon's character meant to redeem himself by committing the utterly unmotivated and unbelievable, laughably coincidental act of saving the woman he sexually assaulted the very night before? Please. The fact that so many people seem to feel some kind of self-congratulatory admiration for this film makes me feel sad about the shallowness of our understanding of racism, and our apparent lack of commitment to condemning and ending it.

The `plot' of this film contains a few holes you could drive a massive truck through, but I reckon that isn't always top priority in horror. Two elderly sisters in rural England keep their brother in the cellar since more than 30 years. Now, he escaped and started a killing spree, focusing on militaries that are homed nearby. `We only did we thought was best for him' they keep on repeating and – strangely – all the army officers love these women and don't doubt their sincerity, even though 5 of their men died. I don't know whether to find the revelation near the end suspenseful … or tedious! In a way, this film reminded me about `Arsenic and Old Lace'. In that black-comedy classic, two half-insane siblings mother their goofy younger brother as well, yet they do the killing there. The old ladies in `The Beast in the Cellar' are by no means less crazy, though. The `horror' in this early 70's film is very amateurish and cheap, but there are a few neat attempts to build up the tension. Too many `old-ladies' talk about the good ol' days, though and that rarely is something you seek in a horror film with such an appealing title. Flora Robson, who may be recognized by classic film buffs, plays one of the sisters. She gave image to the Queen of England is the legendary Errol Flynn swashbuckler film, the Sea Hawk.

'Leatherheads' tries so hard. Tries to be light hearted. Tries to be a comedy. Tries to be a love affair. Let's see, it tries to be a 'His Girl Friday' by way of 'The Sting' by way of 'It Happened One Night' by way of a dozen sports movies. Alas, trying isn't doing and the movie is as soggy as the last game's field.<br /><br />A fan of movies would watch the big fight scene in the speakeasy between the Duluth Bulldogs and some soldiers and realize that the fights that John Ford staged with such style and verve and humor in movies like 'The Quiet Man' or 'Donovan's Reef', or 'The Searchers' may have seemed easy to do but obviously aren't. I would bet George Clooney thought channeling John Ford would be easy as well. How hard could it be: masculinity run amok, punches, bottles broken over heads, an imperturbable piano player...just put it up there on the screen with some happening music. Sorry. It takes a master to make fight scenes flow.<br /><br />Movies aren't wished into existence. Humor is hard. Romance is hard. Slapstick a lost art.<br /><br />I once read that you never wanted to sit too close to a ballet performance. Something about not wanting to prick the fantastic bubble of the performance by hearing the thuds of the dancers' feet or the grunts of the lifts. This movie is like that...all strain and good intentions, handsome actors, nice sets, but it thuds through its paces rather than gallops like the original Galloping Ghost, Red Grange, who the movie is loosely based on.

It's difficult to find anything worth of praise with this movie. It's not the worst picture ever made, but that's not saying a whole lot. The plot is quite incoherent and unbelievable; it seems that the producers wanted to make a space movie, but decided to make it underwater to cash in at the success of The Abyss. In some scenes it seems as if the story indeed was set to outer space initially; the sub has a landing gear, the technicians are worried of a rip in a rubber diving suit at the depths of several kilometers, where the pressure would crush the diver and the suit like an empty beer can. <br /><br />The movie starts out okay, with planning of a recovery of a lost naval sub. After that the movie takes a plunge along with the Siren 2.<br /><br />Effects are so-so. The navigational screens are all done on Commodore 64 (remember, this is 1990, not 1983), the sub is controlled like no other sub ever; instead of control consoles, the officers have keyboards with which they enter long number sequences to control various functions of the ship. The interior of the ship isn't too convincing either.<br /><br />The final scenes leap from awkward to absurd. Welcome to the fifties, you can check your suspension of disbelief at the door.<br /><br />I fail to see enjoyment factor here. The movie is neither good nor hilariously bad MST3k-style (until you get to the final scene), it's like eating a slightly bad apple.

"Haaaarrrryyy!" <br /><br />The amplified, dispassionate female voice could have been Leona Helmseley in heat but, no, it belongs to Allison Hayes as Nancy Archer, the 50-Foot Woman of the title. In the most infamous role of her film career, Allison's performance literally rips off the roof. In fact, make that a couple of roofs.<br /><br />Jaw-droppingly tacky, "Aot50FW" is the tale of Nancy, a neurotic, boozy heiress and her loveless Lothario husband, Harry (William Hudson, who also co-starred opposite The Amazing Colossal Man). Nancy has a close encounter of the third kind, in the desert, with a bald giant from outer space who wears a mini-skirt and gladiator sandals, and who has a thing for Nancy's jewelry. What he does to her once he's carried her off is probably best left a mystery, but soon Nancy starts to grow.<br /><br />Treading into the center of town on tranquilizers, tightly wrapped in nothing but the bed sheets, the buxom giantess heads toward the low-rent saloon where Harry is having a few laughs with a floozy named Honey (Yvette Vickers). The confrontation turns ugly.<br /><br />The Poverty Row f/x make the alien giant and Nancy appear to be transparent due to incompetently transposed images. You'll understand why director Nathan Juran changed his name to Nathan Hertz on the credits. Juran was no stranger to directing giant creatures, human and non, having also directed "The Deadly Mantis," "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad," "Jack, the Giant Killer" plus several episodes of TV's "World of Giants" and "Land of the Giants." <br /><br />A lot of laughs for all the wrong reasons.

This line is a good summary of this movie. If you have read it, and watched 20 minutes of the movie, you will know exactly how the rest of the movie is going to behave. Some researcher named Surgei (pronounced SirGay) are searching for hell in the underworld of Moscow. However he seems to have disappeared, and his friend Oven follows with a team to search after him. Could they have find a more boring plot? Some bad actors looking after an old man in the underground. The acting is very bad, the romance really feels pointless and untrue, often there is no good reason for the way the characters are acting, nothing is scary and most of all: there's not happening anything interesting in the whole, entire movie. They just walk, asking some gang leaders and other guys about the way, walk some more, complain some, finds the old man, and then they run, and finally finds the way out of the underground.<br /><br />The only thing that provides me from giving this movie the lowest of all ratings is the atmosphere. If you just want to see a movie for that, this may be a good choice. It's dark, and it's mystical and murky. However, the rest of the movie is really dull. You just sit there all the time, waiting for the movie to begin or something to happening. It's actually happening some things, but they are not very well performed. For example, i didn't really notice when one of the characters disappeared, and I swear I wasn't sleeping or something. And I don't understand what's dangerous with these children... They just run around in the underground together, scratching it walls with sticks (I suppose it is meant to be scary in some way).<br /><br />Just watch this movie if you are in immediate need of some murky atmospheres.

Moscow Zero stole my money and I want it back! This is a horror movie, not thriller, not suspense, a horror movie. Yes, this movie is a horror. Horrifyingly bad. After many years of lurking here at IMDb, I am actually moved to set up an account just so I (like at least one other reviewer here) can warn people DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE! IT WILL STEAL YOUR SOUL, or at least your desire to live in a world that makes movies this bad, or at least an hour and a half of your life if you are not wise enough to hit the fast forward button.<br /><br />Seriously, I'd love to hear the director's voice over on an "enhanced" DVD (there's another horrifying thought) to see what the hell they were thinking. The producers had to assume there were enough suckers out there to fall for the Val Kilmer name to make this film at least break even in international distribution.<br /><br />I actually had the misfortune to pick this to watch on movies on demand, which provided no subtitles to the Russian dialog. Not that it mattered much. Straining to hear the Russian, translate it in your head (if you can) only to find out how dull it is just adds insult to injury.<br /><br />I will give this movie a "1" because I cannot give it a lower rating, and because it did achieve one remarkable thing. It somehow made an almost entirely subterranean movie NOT feel claustrophobic. Now that's a dubious achievement.<br /><br />HERE'S YOUR SPOILER: And the ending, holy mother (no pun intended) it's like they ran out of money and just decided to stop filming. The "climax" of the film literally happens seconds before the end and is solved by the simplest escape I have ever seen on film. Exercise your simple escape mechanism too if you find yourself watching this - the off button.

The casting (and direction) in Undercurrent is more insipid than inspired in this noir clunker that fails from the outset to get off the ground. Robert Taylor's wooden style poses a roadblock almost immediately for the highly affected Kate Hepburn and it's bad chemistry from the outset.<br /><br />Naive and innocent Ann Hamilton (Hepburn) falls for handsome airplane manufacturer Alan Garroway (Taylor) and rushes to the altar with him. She soon finds out there is a lot she does not know about him. As Alan becomes more remote she delves further into the murky past and Ann soon finds herself living a nightmare instead of the American dream.<br /><br />Undercurrent resembles a few Hitchcock plots but Vincent Minnelli rapidly establishes he is no master of suspense. Hepburn is no shrinking violet and she is a hard sell for a character more suited to the reticent styles of Teresa Wright or Joan Fontaine. Minnelli never really succeeds in getting Kate to defer in desperate fashion to Taylor's limited abilities as an actor. Her attempts come across as silent Gish while Taylor's wide descent into madness takes on restrained Bela Lugosi. Robert Mitchum completes the miscasting as the sensitive brother. Talk about piling on.<br /><br />Cinematographer Karl Freund provides some highly stylized noir interiors but Minnelli and cast utilize the atmospherics meekly and the tension remains tepid. With Minnelli far from his forte (musicals) and Hepburn's victim role fitting her like a bad suit Undercurrent drowns all involved.

<br /><br />In Japan and elsewhere in Europe new technology is enabling filmmakers to bypass the closed shop of the Hollywood mainstream and avoid Ed Wood like visible low budget production values to produce compelling films. What a shame that in the UK we can find examples such as 'Avatar' (name of many a video game) where brain dead attempts are made to imitate so many films - and console games beloved of girlfriendless teens - that themselves are cheap photocopies of clichés abound like testosterone fuelled kangaroos. Check out a bit of the synopsis:<br /><br />"Set in futuristic London, 2024, it tells the story of a Team of Virtual Reality Virus Exterminators faced against the ultimate Internet virus."<br /><br />Go back and read that quote again - avoid guffawing - and try to find a single original idea in it. This should have seemed a tired, sad concept in 1993, never mind 2003. Ah, but there is more - the 'ultimate virus' has already caused planes to crash, infected the air traffic control centre, etc. It has been developed by a 'child genius' and manifests itself as a scantily clad, athletic, mammary jiggling discount Lara Croft imitator who does a great line in snarling and cod martial arts moves straight out of the playground - the living product of adolescent fantasy. Oh, and she is accompanied by 'Predator' like sound effects to emphasise her remarkable powers.<br /><br />The whole thing has a 'futuristic' vision of stunning originality - the Lloyds building filtered with AfterEffects to look somewhat green. The budget does really show - which in this day and age should not. On the whole, a pointless mess of cheese, ham and cliché that Roger Corman would have left on the cutting room floor in his most shameless, desperate moments. Shame that such an alleged labour of love delivered nine minutes of wasted celluloid.<br /><br />

I have to start out by saying that the actresses and actor did a fine job for what they worked with. The problem in Dark Reality is you had a poor director who tried so hard to be innovative and evocative he ended up trashing up the film. From start to finish you can tell the film reel quality itself is low, but the poor lightning and shaky camera only hurt it further by obscuring what is going on. The sound is muffled and often times not understandable. I'm sure Huston (the director) would argue this was to induce a state of panic in the audience, but he had more than ample material in which to do it. Having to result to camera and lighting the way he did was a sign of over the top syndrome.<br /><br />The story is good. A basic sadistic female kidnapper story that avoids cliché by keeping the girl's in a state of despair the whole time for good reason. Billy Bob from Silence of the Lambs treated his victims better than Netwon. The biggest problem with the story is that dead people constantly harass the lead character in her mind, and by the second time they showed up I was fast forwarding as this was attempting to destroy the only decent part of the film.<br /><br />In the end, the way the director pieced it together showing random blurry things and constant barely viewable scenes (not because of horror, because of the lighting, angles, and camera) ultimately destroyed this film. Huston was obviously trying too hard and if anything it resembled a bad film school project. If you want to see a decent story then it's all right, but be warned the film quality is enough for most to turn it off.

The not the best movie in the world???? That was an understatement. I personally didn't like this movie at all. Not because of the story line, not because of the graphic violence, and the nudity. The nudity didn't really need to be in it, it did nothing for the story, except maybe the girls were going through a rough time, and being naked probably messed them up even more. But one of the things in the movie that I hated.. was that it was sooooo dark. You couldn't really make out what was going on. I think if it wasn't as dark, and you could see where they were, then it might not have been so bad. All you know that its a basement somewhere. You see no house, no road, the killer in it, all you could see was half his face for about 5 seconds. I wanna see some stuff in a movie. It gets boring after 20 mins of pretty much darkness and all you see occasionally is a flashlight or a wall. Then you will hear the girl sobbing. There was nothing that really stuck out to me that was good about the movie, maybe the suspense in the first 10 mins of the film... but not the suspense of how the movie is going to end, but the suspense of.. will I get to see anything in this movie but a few naked bodies and various flashing lights. But honestly people, this was a Saw meets Blair Witch Project wannabe. Both top notch movies, and both with the correct lighting to figure out what was going on. Forget this movie if you can see.. if your a blind person.. you might wanna rent it to hear the screams if your into that sort of thing. But then again if you are blind, your probably not reading this either.. so anyway... BAD MOVIE!!!!

The guy mentioned to sue for the 1.5 hours wasted of his life, i cant disagree on that one. The movie started as some kind of class project cam thing, and ended up in a dark room. whenever the girls where fully nude there magically appeared light all over, I know i dint write the script or having anything to say about it. But this one is like a bad remake copy of saw with a bad ending. To think of a man who actually wrote this story, sick. This is really a shocking movie cant say ist horror cause its not. Its mere the brutality and the violence that made me sick. It really is frustrating to watch a movie without ending, its like bang, in your face. the movie is done now you can go home. <br /><br />cons -cam -lighting (althrue i think is was supposed to) -overdone -sickening<br /><br />cons -real in your face -acting was good in my opinion -it sucks you in<br /><br />Overall The movie is NOT my taste of movie the witer wanted us to know that these things happen, and the man wrote his own little fantasy. If you ever saw the movies saw ? they all had a moment of comfort in it something to hold on to. This one ? does not. Maybe its just me, that im too soft but this movie made me tremble, and the story is real short, sick man kills girls slowly. But the actors sucked you in this movie every blow every scream you could almost feel it.<br /><br />And to be honest, i was to quick to judge about this one, its a terrible movie ? no its not. its an overdone example of reality, this is a real as it could get. But don't watch this movie if you expect great mystery or a real plot, or even some kind of story. man gets girls in a dark room and kills em one by one, thats really it.

I usually like movies about animals or reptiles turning against the mean old humans who threaten their environment, but I have to say Snake Island was a major letdown.<br /><br />The premise is interesting, a group of people, including a writer numbly played by William Katt, goes to an island called, duh, you guessed it "Snake Island", and quess what the island lives up to it's name. That is one thing I will give this movie, there are snakes, LOTS and LOTS of snakes of all sizes and kinds. So that part of the movie in fairness lives up to its name, but the writing, acting and directing is SOOOOOOOO lame it is almost painful to sit through.<br /><br />The characters are so unlikeable I was begging for the snakes to finish these horrible people off to put us all out of our misery. There are a couple of scenes that are so surreal and ridiculous they have be seen to be believed---snakes gyrating to really horrible disco music while 2 women dance seminude together and a scene with a snake holding some inane dialogue with one of the actors, it's beyond absurd. I think the writer was trying to be funny but this just came off like some weird LSD trip...<br /><br />I remember William Katt years ago back when he starred in "Carrie", what a hunk he was..not that he was ever a major star, but to be reduced to this garbage, I feel for him.<br /><br />Avoid this movie like the plague unless you are really into movies that feature lots and lots of snakes and really horrible humans.

Don't waste your time. One of those cool-looking boxes that you pick up at Blockbuster on a hunch, but not even worth that. You will NOT say, "It's so bad, it's good." Just, "It's bad." The Greatest American Hero is a writer who rents a cabin on African island, called Snake Island. Some other tourists are on the boat that drops him off, but they are not staying on the island. They just stop there to let off the writer. Then the boat is stranded there, and --in true Hollywood originality-- the one and only radio on the island is busted. So they start walking around and see a bunch of snakes. Like hundreds of them, which really became annoying and you knew the plot would go nowhere. It's not like there ever was ONE main snake. Like a giant mutated snake or an extra poisonous king of all snakes. Instead, there are just a bunch of ham-and-egger snakes of all kinds of breeds. Their only goal, then, was to escape the island...as opposed to having to conquer the enemy. Because there were so many snakes, you knew they couldn't possibly try to kill them all, and they didn't try. I've seen a similar movie where a town was haunted by snakes and they lead all the snakes into a cave then blew it up. At least then you get the feeling that the good guys killed the bad guys and it was a normal ending. In Snake Island (by the way, every single character was shocked to see snakes on the Island...duhhhhh, it's NAMED Snake Island for a reason), there was no plan other than trying to get gas for the stupid boat. Oh, they never do get gas by the way. They "just happen" to find another boat on the island already gassed up.

...but of course I was wrong.<br /><br />Now, I never expected to like the first movie. I'm not sure what's up with Disney's marketing group, but it seems that every trailer they make for an animated film ends up turning me off as too childish, or silly, or stupid, and yet the movies themselves are usually anything but. And no movie looked worse to me in the trailers than The Emperor's New Groove, which is why I was quite surprised to actually find myself quite enjoying that film when I finally broke down and saw it. I entered with zero expectations and came out pleasantly entertained.<br /><br />Despite Disney's track record with direct-to-video sequels, I had nonetheless hoped for a better experience with Kronk here... but in the end I was nothing but disappointed (and unfortunately not exactly surprised that I felt that way). There's almost no humor targeted towards adults. The original songs are uninspired and sickly cute. The animation, while not bad, still doesn't come close to Emperor (which was no Lion King to start with).<br /><br />The main plot, as such, is astoundingly "minor" and is comprised mainly of a sequence of mini-plot flashbacks - in fact the while thing felt more like a sequence of pilot episodes for a Saturday morning cartoon series than a well conceived single entity.<br /><br />David Spade gets about four lines throughout the entire movie and there isn't exactly a lot of John Goodman either, so overall we're just left with far too much of Patrick Warburton's Kronk - who was entertaining as a secondary character in the first movie but is completely inappropriate as the main lead here.<br /><br />Although kids might find it somewhat fun, the only thing Kronk's New Groove managed to do for me is make me want to go back and watch the far superior original.

This coming from an adult who happened to come across the first one expecting a movie aimed towards children and was surprised at the adult humor that was in Emperors New Groove. The character i liked most of all was Kronk, so i was thrilled when i heard of the sequel (sp) featuring non other than "Kronk".<br /><br />I just watched Kronk's New groove, it took me two days because i had to shut it off, i was so bored halfway through it. I finally watched the rest of it the next day and unfortunately the 2nd half was every bit as lame as the first.<br /><br />Being a Disney film, i was expecting to have some musical scenes, however this one was filled with them and they were not amusing. The great thing i found about Emperors New Groove was that it could be appreciated by a wide audience, from toddlers to adults. Kronks New Groove in all honesty did nothing for me nor my girlfriend and we both loved the first. It is really aimed towards young children, the comedy is pretty childish, the musical scenes are not very well done and the plot itself is extremely corny.<br /><br />Save yourself some money and rent this movie if possible because its definitely not worthy of a second viewing. I was extremely disappointed and shocked at how thrown together this film was. They actually managed to make a character(Kronk)not funny in this film, that is amazing in itself.<br /><br />Obviously every ones opinion differs but i am very easily amused, i usually enjoy sequels (sp) even when others discredit them, mostly because i loved the first so much i needed more of the characters and no matter how bad the plot was i would enjoy the film. I cannot say the same for this one, i never would have thought i would be turning it off half way through due to pure boredom.<br /><br />Buy at Own Risk.

Ewww! A Disney sequel that is rubbish! Who would have thought it? Actually, quite a lot judging by the comments here, and they aren't wrong. I actually looked forward to seeing this awful film based on my liking of the original. And therein lies Disney's whole "cash-in" mentality. Shovel out any old junk on the back of a success and people will go for it. Don't think they are that cynical? Ask yourself this, then....How many Disney films have sequels? And then....How many of those sequels spawn a follow-up? A significantly lower number.<br /><br />Kronk's New Groove is just another example of this. The plot is laughably simplistic and drawn out. Even more annoying was the increased number of "out of place" items and scenes - an old folks home for example and, God forbid an Aztec version of the Boy Scouts! Worse yet, Kronk's opposing Chippamunk leader has a completely bewildering over-the-top English accent for no reason whatsoever. An accent that was, after a very short while, intensely grating on the nerves.<br /><br />There are a couple of good things. The animation is very nice and the voice talent do well with the sub-standard dialogue they are given - especially Warburton in the lead role. But other than this there really is nothing to recommend it. Sure, little kids may like it, but there is little to amuse mum and dad whilst they sit through this tortuous maiming of the original concept.<br /><br />Avoid this monstrosity with the same zeal you'd use in avoiding a pack of ravening man-eating lions.

I know, it's a movie. But when it comes to portray real life (in any matter) it should be as faithful as possible. I'm sorry, but "El Misterio Galíndez" isn't as accurate as it seems. Nor is the Dominican Republic depicted as it really is. In fact, it shocked me to see that the filming location for Santo Domingo was actually Cuba. And incredibly enough, movies with Cuban themes (Havana, The lost City, Bitter Sugar, The Godfather part II) were actually filmed in Santo Domingo! So what happened here? Why did they shoot the movie in Cuba instead of the D.R.? The Spanish dialogs with the Cuban accent are horrible! Those are not Dominicans! On the historic level, Galíndez would have never been hanged. He might as well been shot, decapitated or died from the inhumane torture he'd been receiving. Then, thrown his body in the Caribbean sea. But Trujillo would have never ordered death by strangulation. His sick mind wouldn't have allowed it.<br /><br />Acting isn't delivered as expected. Harvey Keitel looks like he's just expecting a paycheck. I prefer the leading actress in "Deep Blue Sea". The rest of the cast would have been excellent in some Cuban movie, and the same goes for the selected shooting location.<br /><br />I suggest "La fiesta del chivo" (The feast of the goat), from bestselling author Mario Vargas Llosa, directed by his cousin Luis Llosa. It's a bit more realistic with Dominican history. The Trujillo character is very well portrayed, and the Galindez incident is treated very briefly in this movie.

We've seen a story like this before: a wife in marital troubles (played by Nastassja Kinski) engages in sex with a stranger (William Baldwin) and then wants to go back to her life with husband and girl. When she returns home she finds out that her husband has finally found a job. Everything seems bright. However, Kinski finds out that her husband's new boss is actually the stranger who still shows interest over her and seems to do anything to get what he wants. What to do? Say nothing?<br /><br />I didn't really like the movie. While it wasn't just bad, it clearly lacked "that something". Maybe it should've focused more on what's going inside Kinski's head. Nothing to say about the actors themselves (I guess Baldwin was a good choice for the role of the obsessed boss) but the characters seemed somewhat stereotypical, acting the way you would see characters acting in your everyday TV films. Finally, the ending totally ruined what could have been an interesting plot.<br /><br />In my opinion the movie tried to look cool, it had a bit of shaky camerawork here and there, some stills, fast cuts and glamour, but in the end I think it fits Spelling productions much better. Same goes for the music. Otherwise it didn't look that bad.<br /><br />Some might like this but it definitely wasn't my cup of tea. To be fair, I don't usually watch much this type of thrillers. This one felt too long even if it was just an hour and a half long, I think it could've worked better as an hour long episode in some TV series. There was absolutely no need for some of the scenes, especially the shower scene.<br /><br />My advice: Try before you buy!

This movie was very disappointing, and except for a few moments, wasn't fly at all. More than anything, it was just flippin' stupid. The music was frickin' bad and the plot played out like a BYU bowl game – very predictable (avoiding embarrassment by scoring, a late game flurry of touchdowns, a rally that falls short and leads to a loss). In essence, the half-childish / half-naive Will (the movie's fetcher) and his religiously confused brother Danny (we'll just call him a democrat), treat Kirby (the movie's "Sweet Spirit"), the 3rd member of their hapless Mormon "boy band," like crap until the man and father figure of the film (the stage manager, Jill) has a talk with Will and straightens him out. Believably, Will's personality changes 180 degrees and he's instantly the mature and self-aware leader of the band. This would be a cute, perhaps funny, 10 minute roadshow gig, but the fact that the movie is 93 minutes long really sucks the life out of you if you watch it to the end. My advise – take the money you'd normally spend to rent this show and either burn it in your fireplace or flush it down the toilet – more entertainment with much less time commitment. If you want to watch a better movie of the same genre, get Saints and Soldiers – not a comedy but an infinitely better show (actually, Kirby has more funny stuff in Saints than he does in SOP).

I can barely find the words to describe how much this piece of trash offended me. Why is it that American filmmakers always go out of there way to portray Jamaicans as a bunch of backwards ass bush babies and worse yet, cast people to play Jamaicans who sound utterly ridiculous when they try to imitate the accent? We are not all extremely dark, we do not all walk around carrying machetes whether for work OR PROTECTION, we do not walk around naked in our homes and we do not practice VOODOO!! We are doctors, lawyers, architects, Businessmen and women, musicians, actors AND FILMMAKERS. I am sick and tired of watching all of these portrayals of Jamaicans as a bunch of dreadlock wearing Rastafarians who do nothing but sit around all day smoking weed on a beach or shooting guns in the air (When we're not living in our tree houses). YES, we wear clothes. YES, we have electricity. No, weed is not legal on the island AND CHANCES ARE WE SPEAK BETTER English THAN YOU! The worst part is, this isn't just me being angry and bitter, these are actual answers to questions that most Jamaicans who have traveled overseas have been asked at some point. Read a book before you assume what's it's like in another country and worse yet, decide to make a movie about it.<br /><br />WELCOME TO JAMAICA! The land where all we do is murder white people and beat our bongos drums...Tales from the Crypt has officially sickened me, along with the entire crew of people who worked on this garbage, especially the writer.

It's important to check your expectations when you see HATCHET. The *buzz that has been generated on this site far surpasses the real impact of the movie. What may help someone about to see the movie is to realize that it is --not supposed to be scary--. It is pure camp and an attempt at fun. It is not --funny--, just campy. Don't expect something like SHAUN OF THE DEAD; nor something like Friday THE 13TH (Part II through infinity).<br /><br />HATCHET does possess passable actors. The cinematography is straight Ed Wood. Creature effects and make-up are silly - probably on purpose. Gore and blood is something between Romero and DEAD ALIVE. HATCHET is a movie of betweenness. It's between SHAUN OF THE DEAD and LESLIE VERNON. It's between campy and comedy (there's a difference). It's between ultra violent and violent comic book.<br /><br />Instead of "capturing the essence of American Horror," or whatever other silly jargon that has been used to describe the movie, it tries to capture something between seminal --American-- Horror like Friday THE 13TH and new Horror like SHAUN. It thankfully stays away from Torture Horror.<br /><br />In the end HATCHET is between a bad movie and a decent movie.<br /><br />*I think it is happening more and more that people involved in movies are flocking to sites like IMDb to rate and comment on the movies that they are involved with. At very least there is campaigning going on for people associated with the associates to leave positive feedback and ratings. There is no other reason for this movie to have stared out in the high 7s with 600 votes and quickly fall after wide release. This movie is on just better than the HorrorFest releases and should not be so bloated.

Being stuck in bed with the flu and feeling too rough to get up to find the remote, I actually watched this abomination from start to finish (how many people can say that? And for any who can - what's your excuse?). My God, has there ever, EVER been such a total mess released by a major studio? There is not one second of genuine tension in a supposed "thriller"; the script is inept and ludicrous; the sets look like they were leftovers from a low-budget TV movie; and the cast ... WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?!!! Sally Field gives what is without doubt the worst and most embarrassing performance of any Academy Award winner in history. Her irritating nasal whine and stupidly perky behaviour in what is meant to be a life-threatening situation are truly asinine. It's a wonder she didn't use all her future earnings to buy up and destroy every print of this turkey. Michael Caine, who now pontificates endlessly on the art of screen acting - even running master classes for would-be thespians - should be taken out and shot (preferably by one of Telly Savalas' henchmen). Angela Cartwright, an actress I usually like (and whose name isn't even in the opening credits, poor soul), is ten years too old for her role, and her horrible matronly yellow prom dress must haunt her nightmares to this day. Slumming it are Karl Malden and Shirley Knight - hopefully they collected a big pay packet to assuage their involvement. The whole film is a series of bad scenes, but one that especially sticks in my mind is the explosion which results in the "ceiling" (if an upside-down ship's deck can be termed as such) collapsing and a load of empty cardboard boxes falling through! Ooh, how scary! Really, really, terrible.

I went to see this 3 nights ago here in Cork, Ireland. It was the world premiere of it, in the tiny cinema in the Triskel Arts Centre as part of the Cork Film Festival.<br /><br />I found "Strange Fruit" to be an excellent movie. It is a bit rough around the edges, but for a low-budget movie that is to be expected! In general the acting (particularly from the main lead Kent Faulcon) is wonderful, the cinematography and direction excellent, and the script hugely entertaining and thought-provoking, with some nice set-ups and witty dialogue.<br /><br />The ending was a bit sudden, with no conclusion given to characters and events once the finale came to its gripping end ... but perhaps that's what the filmmakers were going for? It certainly did make the movie more unsettling. I did like the fact that the main character never came to terms with his mother on screen: it leaves you wondering whether or not he ever will, as in real-life sometimes these things are never settled. This was a good choice, to leave it unresolved rather than sentimentally wrapping it up!<br /><br />Taut and suspenseful throughout, "Strange Fruit" is a hugely ambitious debut and I have high hopes for what the writer/director Kyle Schickner will unleash next. He - and his colleagues - are a talent worth watching.<br /><br />I hope "Strange Fruit" gets a wider release soon, as more people deserve to see this movie, an above-average thriller with some original and insightful twists on homophobia and racism in America's Deep South.<br /><br />Highly Recommended: 7/10

I too had waited a long time to see this film. As far as I know it has never been released in Australia so in the end I found a copy on the net and ordered it through there. Weeks after my order confirmation it finally arrived and I was extremely excited to finally be sitting in front of my TV ready to watch a film that sounded so interesting and controversial and filmed in an area of the world where so many good movies are. What a disappointment. Within the first few minutes I realised I'd ordered a B Grader but was still full of expectation. I convinced my son (18) to watch it with me as I love sharing when I find a movie of value with good underlying statements and/or story lines. About half way through he got up and said he couldn't stand watching it any longer, it was so predictable and amateurish. I agreed but watched to the end. The acting was atrocious even for B Grade standards. The stereotyping also predictable and I feel for the good folks of Lake Arthur, Louisianna who must've cringed after seeing the film depicting them in such a way. No doubt some racial prejudices still exist in many parts of the world not just the States but really, in this day and age I doubt they'd get away with all the ridiculous alibi's presented in this. I had to double check the date the film was made as their attempts at gimmicky filming of the more gruesome scenes was something I'd expect from a high school student's first attempt at making a film 'indy' like. I'd like to see this film put into the hands of experienced scriptwriters and film makers, its an old tale but one that could still pack a punch if dealt with professionally. So disappointed after such a long wait and with such high expectations. The soundtrack was probably the only thing I enjoyed.

Horrible writing, directing and acting! The writer/director has portrayed Southerners, especially Southern law enforcement as ignorant, backwoods, homophobic and racist (a very popular, yet ignorant, stereotype, that the film industry loves to perpetuate). The acting (or overacting) and the writing came across as amateurish and low budget. The plot line is the same old stale Hollywood story of the mean 'ol racist and homophobic rednecks who are ultimately defeated by the enlightened people from "Newwww Yoke Ceety".<br /><br />I was raised in the small Louisiana town where this movie was filmed and looked forward to seeing the film but was immediately disappointed during the first few minutes of the movie. The start of the film depicts a gay bar located in the "swamps" of Louisiana. How ridiculous a concept! There are a lot of gays and gay bars in south Louisiana but no gay bars in the "swamps" or small towns of Louisiana. We then are introduced to the sheriff who uses the phrases "homuh-sex'l" in the worst southern drawl and overdone performance ever. Then there is the scene where the local police are watching porno on duty in the police station. I could go on and on about the horrible cheesy acting or the stale stereotypes or ridiculous scenes.<br /><br />This director and his crew were welcomed into this small friendly town and shown true southern hospitality. The townspeople of Lake Arthur, and the state of Louisiana were only to be insulted and degraded in the final editing. The good people of Lake Arthur were excited and enamored with "Hollywood" being in town not knowing that in the end, they would be portrayed as ignorant, racist and homophobic country bumpkins in a low budget amateur movie that went straight to DVD. My advice: skip this one or watch it on late night Cinemax if it ever makes their rotation.

I think I've finally seen the Worst Movie Ever Made, and it hurts me to say that. As a big fan of indie cinema, gay or otherwise, I had high hopes. Several minutes into the film, however, the sheriff appeared and has my vote for the worst actor of this or any other century. His performance, and the dialog he was forced to perform, caused me the unusual step of stopping the DVD in its track. Hours later when I screwed up enough courage to press the play button again, it was no better.<br /><br />Aside from the sheriff and his cartoon-racist deputies, the film has an attractive cast for whom I felt genuine sympathy since they had such a miserable script. The idea behind the film is fine - using lynching of gay men in the "New South" the same way it was used on black men in the Old South, leaving "strange fruit" hanging from the trees.<br /><br />With an accomplished writer and director, we might have had a movie. Instead we get fake detective work, platitudes about homosexuality, and a cliché with a the one good white man trying to save the day.<br /><br />I have no doubt that racism still flourishes. The FBI is currently investigating a white school bus driver in the back woods of Louisana who forced the black kids to get to the back of the bus. But this town is a cartoon, and it is hard to believe anything you see or hear.<br /><br />There a few subplots in a weak attempt to try to make the main character more three-dimensional, but for the most part, they also fail miserably.<br /><br />For the truly masochistic, the DVD contains some deleted scenes that will leave you running for cover.<br /><br />The is probably the first movie that makes me believe that writer/directors should have to pass a test and get licensed before they can make a film. Although I would look forward to seeing several of the cast members in better films, I would be hard-pressed to witness anything else from this director.