Datasets:

Siki-77

/

Sub_test_diff_length

like 0

Rudolph Maté's film from 1950 is given a revamp for the 80's, Dexter Cornell(Dennis Quaid) is a university lecturer who used to have a successful writing career, but thats now gone down the tubes along with his marriage. The initial exposition plants the notion in the viewers mind that everybody has something against him, so when the revelation comes that he has been poisoned, we are not that surprised, unless of course you are familiar with the original. Dexter after being told he has less than 48hrs to live, decides to trace back his steps with the help of one of his students Sydney Fuller(Meg Ryan), but they find they have many obstacles in their way.<br /><br />The film begins promisingly in black and white, as Dexter staggers in the rain towards the local police station where he wishes to report a murder...his own, but the Huey lewis style 80's beat that accompanies this scene only serves to remove any sense of tension and tells the viewer that this is going to be pretty bad, its only a question of how bad? Sure enough we are soon using the old flashback medium, but now the film resorts to full Technicolor. There are some brief homages to Noir, as the embracing couple stand in front of a venetian blind, but there's really nothing here to recommend it, the performances are awful, Ryan in particular doing her usual dizzy blonde with a cutesy pie smile routine. The film is a lazy attempt to put some unneeded ooomph into an already fine movie premise, obviously trying to cash in one the Body Heat audience, the seeming results are undoubtedly aimed at a teen audience and to be sure, they are welcome to it. 4/10

I'm a fan of the 1950's original and about 20 minutes into this remake I started to think this was going to be as good as the original but it wasn't. The motive for the murders was incredibly stupid. Two of the lovers in the movie turn out to be brother and sister-excuse me while I barf. The main character stops in the middle of the movie to have sex which doesn't make sense considering the situation he's in. If the film makers wanted a sex scene they should have put it earlier in the movie before the main character (Dexter played by Dennis Quaid found he's about to die and that he's accused of a crime. There is a reason for where the sex scene is at. Early in the movie Dexter isn't living life to the fullest so he's not interested in sleeping with Meg Ryan. I still feel it would make more sense for the sex scene to have either been cut or earlier in the film and the two siblings not to have been lovers.<br /><br />One of the dumbest parts of the movie involves a gun fight, a couple people getting killed and one person being run over all within 15 yards of a crowded carnival and yet NOBODY AT THE CARNIVAL NOTICES!!! Also in the scene is the tar pits the university where the movie takes place is built on. If you fall into the tar you sink to the bottom and in a matter of seconds. Not only is it hard to believe stuff would sink that fast in tar, but more importantly who builds a university on tar pits. I would say more about how stupid the end of the movie is but I don't want to put a spoiler in my post.

As a flagship show, Attack of the Show (AOTS) is endemic of the larger fall of G4 TV; it is a show (and a station) that has fallen so far that it parades sex to try and cover its glaring faults. Its predecessor, The Screen Savers, was a venue for troubleshooting technology problems and scouting out the latest and greatest in technology. It was a nice show with a likable staff and it was fun to see some of the modding and other experiments the crew could put to together.<br /><br />The acquisition of TechTV by G4 bothered some longtime fans of the station, but early returns were actually promising. The emphasis on gaming was a nice addition and I really enjoyed a lot of the coverage of E3 and other big entertainment events.<br /><br />Unfortunately, AOTS now stands as but a shell of its former self. Those overseeing the channel have shifted the focus of the channel away from technology and gaming and toward anything that might elicit drool from young adult men. The result is that AOTS spends as much time parading Olivia Munn or touting the adult film industry as it does covering games. It is so bad it is practically unwatchable.<br /><br />While some may get puerile joy out of this sort of thing, those who genuinely enjoy gaming may wonder where the good coverage went. Equally troubling, young gamers who might tune into G4 thinking their getting gaming - that active gaming group between 10-15 - are instead being fed things aimed toward a more mature audience. On a channel like HBO or Cinemax, things like that are expected. On G4, it's tragic.<br /><br />At least SpikeTV, another male-aimed channel, has good programming like CSI. AOTS, and G4, has very little good left to offer.<br /><br />Too bad, really.

Synopsis: Kid is not accepted into any colleges. He creates a "college" where he and his friends can party by using their parent's tuition money. <br /><br />Wow. A Paean to ignorance. <br /><br />If you believe that we're all OK, man, then this movie is for you. Furthermore, you must understand that:<br /><br />1. Kids have it all inside them--they just need to let it out.<br /><br />2. Teaching really stifles the innate creativity that everyone is born with. <br /><br />3. Someone else should pay for you to follow your passion. <br /><br />4. 300 teenagers can live together in harmony, as long as you take away those restrictive rules. <br /><br />5. Extemporaneous speeches are often much more convincing than a prepared presentation. <br /><br />6. If the Board of Education allows you to open a "charter school" with "nontraditional teaching techniques," it's because they have your best interests at heart. (Not that they are willing to let go of low-functioning students who will end up working fast food anyways.) <br /><br />This movie is one in the college comedy genre, i.e. Animal House. It follows the pattern pretty closely. What's new here though, is a complete attack on higher education, not a parody of the bad elements. It's missing the sympathetic insider, a professor who embodies the worthwhile part of university life. <br /><br />This lack of balance will doom this film to the back rows of Blockbuster. It is so one sided, that I wondered if it was an ironic self-referential take on the whole genre--for about one minute. The movie has no deep meaning, no layers, no introspection. It's as if they let some kids who never went to class do what comes naturally. And what is natural is what the name of the school is: S***. <br /><br />(Never thought I'd say this: Go see something with Will Farrell instead. His comedies can be surprisingly sophisticated.)

This experimental silent film, made in Switzerland by an independent British film company, is chiefly remembered as Paul Robeson's first film. It's very artistic, with shots often seeming meaningless to the story, which is difficult to understand anyway because of the lack of enough inter-titles. From what I gathered, Robeson's wife, Adah, is in an inter-racial love affair with a white man called Thorne. It doesn't bother the cigar-chomping owner of the bar/hotel where Thorne lives (and she seems to be having a lesbian relationship with a barmaid), but an old lady expresses the town's point of view in an inter-title: "If I had my way, we wouldn't allow negroes in here." Thorne is also called "nigger lover" by someone in the bar. Adah tries a reconciliation with Pete (Robeson), but eventually leaves him. Thorne's wife, Astrid, goes off the deep end, brandishes a knife, cuts Thorne's arm and cheek, and somehow dies. Thorne must have been accused of murder because we learn he was acquitted. As for Pete, he gets a letter from the mayor telling him it is best for everyone that he leave town. So the film is more about racism than anything, but in an up note, the owner tells Pete "The sad thing is, they think they're right. That's the way we are." The meaning of the title is a mystery. It may refer to Adah being light-skinned (a borderline negro) or to the borderline behavior of of the main characters.

A long time ago, way back in the early '80s, a late-night TV show "Fridays" came to ABC, trying to steal the limelight away from NBC's badly-listing "Saturday Night Live". It didn't but it did introduce some repugnant sketches and semi-talented "comedians" to the world. Like Mark Blankenfield, for example.<br /><br />Which, in a roundabout way, brings us to "Jekyll and Hyde... Together Again". Which is repugnant in ways all its own.<br /><br />Blankenfield is about as subtle as a pew full of whoopee cushions going off after Communion. And about as tasteful, too. This is just his drugged-out druggist character he played on the ill-fated "Fridays" show stretched out to feature length. And if you didn't like him there, why are you reading this review?<br /><br />Any time it takes more than one or two writers to write a movie, that's a bad sign. Then when it goes for dunder-headed jokes that would get you thrown off every improv stage in the Western hemisphere and replaces gags with gross-out, things can only get worse.<br /><br />A comic take on a Robert Louis Stevenson story? About as good an idea as making a sitcom out of Poe's "Fall of the House of Usher".<br /><br />Aside from a few (VERY few) gags that give a slight grin, this whole film is an exercise in waste - wasted actors, wasted film, wasted opportunities.<br /><br />No wonder they showed original author Stevenson turning in his grave. What more observant a review could they give themselves?<br /><br />No stars. No, not even for Armstrong, who should have known better. <br /><br />"Hyde" from this one.

I saw Wicked Little Things as part of the "8 Films To Die For" Horrorfest, and this was the only film that disappointed me. To wit, a mom, her little girl and her teenage daughter settle down in an abandoned house in the Pennsylvania mountains. Every night, however, the vengeful spirits of children killed in a coal mine run about and slaughter anyone they find.<br /><br />I guess the director was banking on his viewers being repulsed that children would be capable of pickaxe murders and eating human flesh (of which there are lavish close-ups, as a nice homage to George Romero) because the film just isn't scary otherwise. Simply put, there are far too many establishing shots of the evil kids jogging to their next murder site. If someone's gonna get it in the barn, there will be a shot of the kids ARRIVING at the barn (oh the suspense) and then moving in for the kill.<br /><br />Come to think of it, why do the kids suddenly walk SO SLOWLY when they corner their prey? And not that I have any experience in this, but I think a shotgun blast will throw a child A LOT FARTHER than this film implies...? Nor does it help that the mom is one of the worst parents I've ever seen in any film. "The lock on the front door is busted"? You have an EIGHT-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER in the WOODS with BEARS and MOUNTAIN LIONS! FIX IT, you MORON!!! Plus, Mom and her oldest daughter look waaaay too close together in age- even for a teen pregnancy, and there's a pretty unbelievable death which involves sneaking up on somebody trying to push a car out of the mud with their butt.<br /><br />I'm giving this a 3 because it tried. As a splatter film it's not bad. But for good scares, go elsewhere.

In 1913, in Carlton Mine, Addytown, Pennsylvania, the cruel owner of a mine uses poor children in the exploration and after an explosion, a group of children is buried alive. On the present days, Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) has just lost her husband after a long period of terminal disease when the family savings have been spent in the treatment. Without any money, she moves with her daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) to an old house in the mountains that belonged to her husband. Karen is advised by her neighbors to stay at home in the night, and Sarah hears that there are zombies in the area. When Emma becomes friend of Mary, he mother believes she is an imaginary friend. However, when Sarah's friends are attacked and eaten alive by zombie children and Emma vanishes, Karen and Sarah chase her nearby the mine.<br /><br />"Wicked Little Things" is not a totally bad movie: the acting is good; the make-up is creepy; and the cinematography and the music score are excellent. However, the story, and consequently the screenplay, are very weak, indeed a bad collection of clichés. The beginning is reasonable, with a widow moving to a house in a remote location because the family spent all their resources with the illness of the patriarch. But when she arrives, coincidently the little zombies attack people without any consequences, for example, families do not search the missing persons. Then the wicked Mr. Carlton comes to the place with the most disgusting attitudes, a typical clichés that he will die in the end. There is no explanation why the children attacked innocent people and why they should stop after killing Mr. Carlton. When Sarah is running away with her mother and says that she is tired and cannot run anymore, it is one the most stupid lines that I have ever seen in a horror movie. My vote is four.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "Zombies"

Wicked Little Things has an excellent synopsis: empty house beside abandoned mine in woods with tragic past; family moves into house and strange things begin to happen; little creepy children begin to pop up here and there doing creepy-little-children-things. But that is where the cleverness and potential fun ends. This group of kids was sealed in the mine many decades earlier, and now appear roving the woods (poor make-up) with weapons looking for flesh to eat. Oh I get it, this is a ghost-zombie movie. Hmmm....while I can appreciate someone trying something new with this genre, this just didn't work. What was the children's motivation in seeking to devour flesh? Why did they need weapons? Did anyone else imagine the filmmakers all gathered around the daily footage giggling because they felt this was going to be a cool/scary movie? I found that after thirty minutes I felt the familiar resignation that I had just wasted my time on another modern crap-fest. While the acting was good, and the setting/cinematography of good quality as well, the script itself suffered from what seems to be a lack of knowledge about the supernatural horror genre altogether. A bunch of kids walking down the mall is scarier than this pack of poorly disguised rodents.<br /><br />This movie is not scary, and while I can appreciate the story, perhaps have even enjoyed it if I had read it instead of watched it, I still have to say that Wicked Little Things is more accurately called Wicked Little Turd.

This film is so copy-cat, cliché-ridden, clumsy, and laboured, I find it astounding that anyone could not feel cheated by the experience of sitting through it. <br /><br />Here is the range of idiotic clichés, ridiculous psychologising, and simply unfeasible storytelling in this "hard hitting" representation of high school: The tough guy jock is really a homosexual. The A-student is unhappy because his father pushes him and somehow this causes him to commit incest. A teacher is mean to a student who wets his pants in class. A girl who is going out with the above-mentioned jock is really in love with him and "just wants a family".<br /><br />Maybe the only saving grace is the student counsellor scenes which are vaguely interesting, but most of the devices in this film are so leaden that it beggars belief. <br /><br />This film shows me no insight into teenagers and I will not be surprised when it bombs, especially with teenagers. The people who like this film seem to be parents worried about their teenagers, and boy are they barking up the wrong tree if they think this film will help with "understanding" teen issues. I mean, what is the moral of this film? "Hey guys, let's all look out for each other and hug each other" GIVE ME A BREAK. Anyone who thinks you can get through to a 14 year old with that kind of message needs to think back. In the 1980s we were watching Kentucky Fried Movie, Xtro, Porky's, Evil Dead, Terminator, etc. This film will fall on deaf ears. <br /><br />2:37 is right up there with another Australian "indepedent" film, 'One Perfect Day,' which was as bad as this utter turkey of a film. Thank god no taxpayers money was spent on this boloney.<br /><br />AVOID!!!!

There is nothing original,humane or insightful in this film. The acting is average, images are amateurish, the writing lacks subtlety and the scenes are very basic...something close to a soap.<br /><br />In 2:37,a suicide is used to turn the film into a suspense drama. We watch, partly, because we want to know who dies. The various characters each have a problem, and the film shows how bad each problem is for them, but only as a way to get them each to a place where you think they might kill themselves. Despite the different points of view offered by the camera on the key events, there is NEVER another way of seeing the events themselves. So in 2:37, the arseholes are arseholes, the angels are angels. This is simple stuff.<br /><br />Without this complexity, the film emerges as a voyeuristic tale of youth sex and violence. You hardly get to know the kids as much as the breasts, bodies and limps that the filmmaker passes off as characterisation.<br /><br />In the end, if you know ANYTHING about film in the last 5 years, 2:37 is just an immature rip off of Elephant - not a meditation, not a progression. Yet while the filmmaker and distributor use the alleged suicide of a friend at every chance to give the film some legitimacy, they never talk about Gus Van Sant or Elephant. The positive posts on IMDb curiously avoid any mention of this, or simply don't value originality. If you do want something with heart and voice - avoid this piece of youth exploitation. I was surprised by the filmmakers age when I found out after seeing this film - I had assumed a 13 year old had made it. The Twenty Somethings I've always known are too busy trying to express something real in them to lift the work of an old man.

... Said the continuity announcer as TACTICAL ASSAULT was about to be broadcast . After seeing the first two minutes I started thinking Rutger might want to get a new agent . After seeing the next ten minutes I started thinking Rutger might want to retire thereby saving a potential audience from any more of his performances <br /><br />Yup this is a truly terrible movie . I wasn't expecting much and why should I if the name Rutget Hauer appeared in the credits , but within seconds of the opening title credits that featured NATO warplanes with USSR markings bombing Bosnia I realised I was going to be force fed inedible turkey three months after Christmas .<br /><br />The attention to detail is non existent . NATO planes carry USSR markings then were told Hauer's character spent six years in an Iraqi prison which would make the setting 1997 . What NATO were bombing the Serbs in 1997 ! I guess the producers didn't think the audience would have noticed this ridiculous inaccuracy but I know I did . The producers also probably hoped the audience wouldn't notice the lack of continuity such as dogfights with Iraqi jets that suddenly turned from Migs to F-4 Phantoms then back again but I did . Even stranger characters would take off in F-16s then when they arrive back at base there jet has changed into a Soviet built Mig <br /><br />Oh and if you're expecting a dumb action movie you're only half right because it's dumb but most of the plot centres around a BASIC INSTINCT revenge plot . I'll give the producers some credit ( Maybe credit is too strong a word ) because after seeing plots featuring nannies from hell , policemen from hell , flat mates from hell we now have a fighter pilot from hell which means every single occupation of the 20th century has featured in a from hell type plot with perhaps TATICAL ASSUALT being the worst movie of the lot

This really is a film of two halves. The first detailing the lives and friendship of two boys (one a privileged Pashtun and the other a down-trodden Hazara) in late 70s Afghanistan before the invasion by the USSR works extremely well. The young actors turn in convincing performances and seeing Afghanistan as it once was throws the present situation there into stark relief.<br /><br />The real problem comes when we move into the later phase of the story where we join the Pashtun as a man living in America. Ancient debts to his young friend lead him to return to his homeland and it is really at this point that things break down. The central adult character is clearly supposed to be sympathetic, but in fact comes across as wimpish and wallowing in self pity. It is hard to really care for him and one cannot help but feel that the really interesting story is the one we do not get to see - that of his boyhood friend.<br /><br />Once he returns to Afghanistan the narrative becomes bogged down in a series of highly contrived coincidences. Most remarkably he manages to come across his childhood enemy after all these years almost immediately (even though he is not looking for him), despite the chaos that has since consumed the country. This enables him to confront past demons in a way that is simply too convenient to be credible. The resolution of the narrative is also run through with an awful, mawkish sentimentality which undermines any really serious points the film may be trying to make.<br /><br />Although it is possible to start seeing characters and the abuses of their lives as symbols of a state which has been torn apart by world politics it is hard to really see this as a film which engages with any wider political discussion. Instead the narrative becomes reduced to one character's emotional journey of self discovery and healing. Unfortunately this character is so dull and wrapped up in himself that it is hard to really become engaged in his story, while opportunities to make a really interesting film about Afghanistan itself are wasted.

The Twilight Zone has achieved a certain mythology about it--much like Star Trek. That's because there are many devoted lovers of the show that no matter what think every episode was a winner. They are the ones who score each individual show a 10 and cannot objectively evaluate the show. Because of this, a while back I reviewed all the original Star Trek episodes (the good and the bad) because the overall ratings and reviews were just too positive. Now, it's time to do the same for The Twilight Zone.<br /><br />Now I was very surprised when I saw reviews for this bland episode that described it as being "among the best" and gave it scores of 10. If this is the case, then why is it that everyone I know who has seen this episode hates it as much as I do? It's possible that me and my family and friends are all cranks but it's also possible this is yet another case of rabid fans rabidly inflating the rating on an average or below average episode.<br /><br />The episode itself stars William Windom and others as various archetypes--a soldier, a dancer, etc. They are all stuck in a cylindrical room with no escape and only at the end do you realize the "shocking truth"--which isn't at all shocking and is in fact majorly lame. No, this is a badly written and unengaging episode. Yes, there were plenty of episodes of the series that deserved a 10, but few as undeserving as this one due to a shallow script and an unappealing resolution.

I saw this movie previewed before something else I rented a while back...and it looked decent. I've seen some good stuff from Full Moon video, and thought it was worth a shot... Unfortunately, this was not good stuff.<br /><br />The story is about a possessed bed. A couple moves into a new apartment, discovers the bed, and odd things start happening. Odd things like the woman discovers kinky sex. And the man discovers kinky sex. And the woman draws pictures of kinky sex. And the man photographs kinky sex. And they both start having dreams about dead people having kinky sex. You'd think a movie with so much kinky sex would be good, right?<br /><br />Well.... No. The problem is that this is supposed to be a scary movie, or at least a thriller, and it just doesn't deliver. There is little tension, no suspense, and no fear. Aside from some troubling dreams and visions, there really isn't anything for this couple to be worried about. The whole movie is basically the two of them having these visions and playing around in bed. Sure, you get a monster fight at the end...and some bloodshed...but nothing spectacular... There's only one murder, and one good scare, and that's it.<br /><br />And the kinky sex? Don't get your hopes up (or anything else for that matter). Their idea of kinky sex is woman on top, fully clothed, trying to strangle her mate with a necktie. Not exactly my idea of a good time.

Some people think of Sweden in a negative way: too neat, too clean, too serious, too organized and too Northern. A people tortured by their own religious fate and history, sometimes leading to depression and compulsive heavy-handedness. This need not be a problem for a filmmaker, as for example the late Bergman has shown us what can be cinematic possible under these conditions. Bergman used his identity as a starting point and did not explicitly comment on this identity as such.<br /><br />Andersson however does the reverse: He comments only on this identity hereby dissecting his people to the bone: In his world Sweden is equivalent for hell on earth. But he does not take this any further and for me this is just not art but merely annotation. Despite the exceptional amount of time it took to make this filmmaker has serious limitations he clearly cannot step out of.<br /><br />Compared to his previous movie Sånger från andra våningen / Songs from the Second Floor, there is also not much progress to be observed. The intention was that this was more accessible, but the difference is minimal and the few scenes that try to please a larger audience aren't the best in the movie. The same absurdism and minimalism also still apply, there is the one-shot camera position and the (lack of) action in front of this shot. Yes, the stills are well done, some of the scenes actually work and the coloring and positioning is amazing. But does that make an interesting movie? Thinking in a negative way, this is cinema taken a step backwards.<br /><br />Andersson's background as a maker of commercials shines through in the elaborate setup, but I find his movies about as empty as those commercials. There is a message about mankind, but it is trivial and without much depth.

Having just finished reading the book "One of a Kind" a week ago, I was thinking "This would make a great movie, especially now, when people know a little about poker and poker players". I was totally shocked to find it while browsing at the video store last night. I had no idea someone had actually turned this into a film. I grabbed it immediately and watched with much anticipation. What a major letdown!<br /><br />All of the intriguing things about Stu Ungar were skimmed over quickly, and instead I was left with a biopic that could have been about anybody. Ungar may have been a burnt-out jerk, but he was also a brilliant thinker that could read people instinctively. That is what made him so fascinating. Why not focus on that?<br /><br />And talk about watering down the real truth. This guy was excessive about absolutely everything: drugs, women, gambling, starvation, sleep-deprivation. He gambled on sporting events from dusk to dawn, he would go missing for days while hanging out in crack dens, his body was perpetually emaciated, and yet, if he ever needed money, he could always beat just about anyone at will playing cards. Now that's a story!<br /><br />Too much time spent on his childhood and personal relationships (although his ties with "Vincent" and his daughter were hardly touched on) and hardly anything about his drugs use (which was exorbitant), his insane gambling and his incredible card-playing abilities.<br /><br />Probably too late now, but I hope someone remakes this film properly. I had no problem with Imperioli. He is excellent. The script just left him with nothing interesting to say.

Okay, so I forgot to watch and only caught the last episode, thinking it was the first or second. Honestly, I thought CM would have at least one more installment to resolve plot points. The Rangers are left stranded on the plains ("We'll have to eat the horses"), for one thing. Little Newt is bereft, for another. What a downer ending! But my biggest complaint, esp. if this was the finale, is that the episode had no suspense, no big climax, no dramatic confrontations. Even the last fight between Blue Duck and Buffalo Hump was badly staged. The whole episode had terrible pacing, which is what drives a Western. Steve Zahn was watchable, Karl Urban (a ringer for Johnny Knoxville) played Call like a man with a terminal case of lockjaw. All glowering looks and jingling spurs and jutting chin. And what's with the Rangers? They talked big, about cleaning up Texas, then milled around aimlessly in the middle of town, getting drunk. And how nice of Hal Holbrook to loan Val Kilmer his Mark Twain wig and stache! The set of Austin was like the fake Rock Ridge from Blazing Saddles, all facade. I admit I was drawn into the plot, but that's mainly cause there were many things I didn't quite get, thanks to coming in late in story. If I'd watched from the beginning, I might not have gotten to episode three. Now I have to go watch Silverado to cleanse my palette.

This is a poor caricature of "Lonesome Dove" - and Larry McMurtry.<br /><br />I love your books, with "Lonesome Dove" among the top three. I have admired the way you view yourself, through your characters, with such unflinching honesty, balanced by never taking it all too seriously. I am, therefore, spoiled.<br /><br />Why have you come to this?<br /><br />"Comanche Moon" is not up to your standards. I see that you are credited with the screen-writing, but this is so unlike you, I prefer to think it is written by someone else.<br /><br />The dialogue makes me claustrophobic, wishing someone would break out with a naturally stated sentence. The part about 'genius' was agonizing. McCrae was unrecognizable - chiefly because of the inane words coming out of his mouth.<br /><br />Well, I miss Call, too.<br /><br />The most important missing factors are Gus and Call and the men they are: their matter-of-fact courage; the underlying vein comprised of ethics and honesty; their lack of self delusion. Hard men leading hard lives with a certain undeniable grace.<br /><br />Some blame has to attach to the labored direction here and throughout. All of the cast needed dialect AND dialogue coaching.<br /><br />While I try to imagine Robert Duvall as McCrae, speaking this same dialogue, it comes off better - but not much. It tries to sound cowboy-of-few-words shy, sly-grin witty, but doesn't half succeed...<br /><br />How can it be so different from "Lonesome Dove"? Can the writer have forgotten his characters? You have fooled some of the people, Mr. McMurtry - but not this one.

I, like many folks, believe the 1989 epic Lonesome Dove was one of the best westerns ever produced, maybe THE best. And, realizing that most sequels (in this case a prequel) are certain to disappoint, my expectations were low. Comanche Moon met that expectation with its marginal directing and acting, poor casting and frankly, a lousy script. <br /><br />Lonesome Dove created western heroes of Captains McCrae and Call due to incredibly strong performances by Robert Duvall and Tommy Lee Jones. Prior to living in Lonesome Dove, we believed they bravely fought to rid Texas of bandits and savage Indians during their rangering years. <br /><br />If I had only seen Comanche Moon, I would think these two boneheads were a couple of incompetent, cowardly idiots. In Lonesome Dove, Call and McCrae supposedly chased Blue Duck all over Texas and never managed to capture or kill him. In Comanche Moon, a shot to Call's boot heel convinced him to settle down and raise cattle. There wasn't a decent fistfight or gun fight in the entire miniseries. The best punch was McCrea sucker punching Inez Scull, a funny scene but out of character for McCrae.<br /><br />Where was McCrae's wit and charm? Clara's love for McCrae, a drunken, unshaven slob and philanderer was completely implausible. And Maggie's love for Call, a dispassionate and sullen loner, defies logic. <br /><br />The cinematography was excellent, superior to the original. Credit goes not only to HD technology, but the cinematographer. The Comanche Moon miniseries was better than anything else on TV for three nights, but sadly that's not saying much.

I am seldom motivated to write a review unless inspired by the quality of the movie. In the case of Comanche Moon I was so uninspired I felt the need to warn others how bad this TV mini series is. Here are a few thoughts.<br /><br />The Indians: They came across like they were in a Saturday Night Live Skit, making fun of how Indians talk. When McMurtry writes dialogue in his novels it reads so interesting; I am not sure how they ended up with what they got.<br /><br />Gus McCrae: Looks like Festus from the old Gunsmoke Series. Acting is OK and the mannerisms from Robert Duvall's McCrae are right on, but the look is pure comedy cowboy.<br /><br />Clara: Maybe you could use a little dirt or sweat on her next time. Ever been in Austin in the summer before Air conditioning? I promise you women did not look like that. Do you think they never saw any episodes of Dearwood?<br /><br />Gov. Elisha Pease: Again whenever they are in the Governor's office it feels like a Saturday Night Live Skit, and the skit is bombing.<br /><br />Woodrow Call: Call is the most reasonable character, of course He talks so little how can you screw up that? But hey, what about that hat?<br /><br />Blue Duck: See above and include the fact that he isn't even a tiny bit scary. They should have gotten Javier Bardem to play the part.<br /><br />The Rangers: Right out of "O Brother, Where Art Thou" I expected George Cloony to come riding up and them to break into a song.<br /><br />Perhaps I am premature because the miniseries isn't completed but I doubt I will watch any more of it any way.<br /><br />I would not expect anyone to be able to duplicate the enthralling feel of Lonesome Dove, but I watch this and it seems like they have no feel for the old west at all.

Was really looking forward to seeing a continuation of Lonesome Dove but this was total garbage. Cinematography was terrible. Shot way too tight. Was almost viewing the Grand Canyon through a stationary telescope. Editing was cut, cut, cut. Not even smooth. More like a bad student editor. Don't know if McMurtry did the screen play but the dialog was terrible. Really like Val Kilmer's portrayal of Doc Holiday in Wyatt Earp but what in heck was he doing with this character in Comanche Moon??? I have no idea. Even looked like it was shot on a sound stage using the old Bonanza sets. How can the director of the original Lonesome Dove gone so wrong with this? Where was his head.............. Can't say much for the acting either. It's a shame to have messed up such a beautiful western that could have been but more like they rushed this one just to get it in the can. Have read other reviews and see that others felt the same way. Not even curious to watch the next few nights cause it would be just a waste of time like the first night was.<br /><br />(2nd post)..................OK, since nothing else was on TV I must be honest and admit that I watched the last 2 nights of Comanche Moon. And I will be honest to tell you that I didn't make it to the end of either of the last 2 episodes because I fell asleep! I can only admit that I was watching the two main characters very closely and I could pick out some mannerisms that Steve Zahn did while portraying the character that Duval did such an excellent job with. So I must give Zahn credit for that. As for Karl Urban's portrayal....simple dead meat. Can only say again that I was very disappointed only because I cared so much for the original LD and like others .......have defended my feelings for a truly great western.

I like to think of myself as a bad movie connoisseur. I like to think that the films most people label as the worst of all time I can easily withstand.<br /><br />But...there are exceptions. I can only recall three movies I have had the misfortune to see that I have repeatedly used the fast-forward button for large chunks of the story. Those movies are The Mighty Gorga, Night of the Seagulls, and this little crap, Deep Blood.<br /><br />In the world of Jaws ripoffs, this falls off the scale. Deep Blood doesn't have the realistic storyline of the original Crocodile, nor the incredible effects of The Sea Serpent, nor the commentary of Tintorera. No, instead we are treated to a handful of teens from any random failed '80s public access sitcom battling bullies and the local sheriff.<br /><br />Shark attacks are realized by quick cuts of documentary footage with actors thrashing about in the water, occasionally with a bit of what appears to be orange-ish paint thrown into the water. Not a minute of original shark footage exists in this celluloid waste dump.<br /><br />Normally, I, or somebody like me, would read a dismal review like this one and say "cool, I gotta find a copy of this!" That's the same thought I had when I read another viewer's review on this very site. How wrong I was.<br /><br />So...from one bad movie fan to another...let this collect dust on the shelf...grab Up From the Depths or The Great Alligator instead to satisfy your need for something evil lurking in the water.

I have rarely laughed so hard at a movie. Notice that I laughed AT Iron Eagle, not WITH it, because this is probably the stupidest film I have ever seen (with the obvious exception of sci-fi monstrosity CyberTracker). You should also remember that this film is not a comedy!<br /><br />Even overlooking the preposterous plot (the idea that a 16-year-old could walk into a US Air Force base, steal an F-16, fly to the Middle East and kill about a thousand people without anyone noticing is beyond belief), the film is full of ridiculous action scenes that make little or no sense. For example, at various points, Doug Masters uses a machine-gun on his plane to shoot a steel girder, a control tower, and a tent. All of these things explode in a massive fireball. Why? The enemy aircraft also explode in a strange way reminiscent of a paper aeroplane being blown up with a firework.<br /><br />On the plus side, I did actually enjoy this film. Admittedly not in the way the makers probably wanted it to be enjoyed, but all the same I laughed at it and later bought the DVD. It's also improved by the awesome presence of David Suchet as the evil terrorist leader (maybe you'll recall him as mustachioed Belgian detective Poirot?) Overall, then, the film is a laugh and a light-hearted alternative to more serious fighter-plane movies like Top Gun. Even if it is just as subtly homo-erotic (check out the man-hug between Doug and Chappy. Something's going on between 'em!)

It became apparent in the first 25 mins of watching this that the writers really wanted to make a feature length film and they probably certainly enjoyed the whole process, but then seemed to forget the fact that it needed a decent plot! If the best they could do was have 3 of the dullest characters enter the real world and have 'all sorts of amusing capers' then they should have left well alone! I didn't laugh once, and that whole "Adventures of Baron Munchausen/Time Bandits" thing going on in the middle was very, very poor! Convaluted, contrived and very loose. It just seemed like a whistle stop tour of anything they thought 'might' work just to drag it out to a feature.<br /><br />Full of holes eg - the Royston Vasey characters needed the writers to carry on writing in order to save them, yet Jeff managed to write himself into the sub-story/time-filling William and Mary and era. If he could do this then why didn't they just carry on writing Royston themselves - duh?? And Herr Lipp's audition? What was that for? I mean what was the point? He did it, and we heard nothing else whatsoever about it? <br /><br />My main point is, that while I loved the series, this was an ill thought out, seemingly rushed project. Put it this way, the plot was so poor that if we didn't already know the characters (and as a fan I had a certain loyalty to carry on watching), and we relied solely on the the story itself, this would have fallen flat on its face! At best it would have gone straight to video, and at worst would never have been made in the first place! Or maybe that should be the other way round?? Truly dreadful....

As a massive fan of the three TV series, I was very interested to learn that LoG were moving onto the big screen. In my more honest moments though, I had my doubts about the likely success of the concept, and whether the writers would be able to sustain the high level of wit, comedy and horror that infuse the original series.<br /><br />Unfortunately my fears were not unfounded, and the film was a huge disappointment. I struggle to understand the other comments on this site. Obviously people are entitled to their opinions, but the guys I watched it with, all agree with me, and they are just as big fans as I am.<br /><br />The acting lacked conviction, but they are so good that even when not at their best, they are still highly watchable. The main problem was the plot - and the script. There were a few laughs, but not enough, a few moments of disgust, but not enough. Worst of all was the feeling of emptiness after walking out of the cinema. So rarely have I felt so utterly uninspired by a film and so unmotivated to discuss it with others.<br /><br />I write this comment as a warning to other League fans - get a wide range of opinion on this film before going to see it. If you love League, you might be able to convince yourself that they didn't totally mess up their move to cinema. If you can't convince yourself of this, then you will have tarnished in your mind the otherwise spotless genius that exemplifies the TV series.<br /><br />LoG at the cinema? More like log. (or little brown fish).

Ed Gein, one of the most famous serial killers of all time, he was the inspiration for famous movie killers like Norman Bates, Leatherface, and Buffalo Bill. He is also one of the most sick and disturbing killers of all time, I watched a documentary on him, so I know his story pretty well. When I saw this, I was curious because I thought it was supposed to be like a documentary re-enactment, but I have to say that this was just a pathetic waste of time. First off, the facts are completely wrong, with a few minor exceptions, and secondly, this was just a stupid Hollywood story when these horrific murders really happened and they just made it into a cheap buck. Not to mention that if they were going to make it into a horror movie, this was poorly acted! <br /><br />Ed Gein, he lives in a small town in Wisconsin called Plainfield, but he has a little secret that the whole town is being effected by, he digs up dead bodies, as well as brutally murdering people. Bobby, a deputy, is on the case to get Ed Gein, only, no one knows who the killer is at first, just finding crime scene after crime scene. But things get "personal" when Ed starts messing with the policemen's family and friends.<br /><br />Of course this movie was just ridicules and completely insulting to the true story. I always thought that bad acting is a necessary tool to a horror flick, but for this story, it should have been a better acted film, not to mention, it should have been more of a documentary than a stupid cliché'd horror film. Please, stay away from this film, it's completely pathetic and untrue to the story of Ed Gein.<br /><br />1/10

The story of Ed Gein is interesting, VERY interesting. This movie, however, interesting only in the fact that it was actually made. Kane Hodder's portrayal of Ed Gein is so far off, it's not even the slightest bit funny. Ed Gein did not behave psychotic in public, he was very calm and collected and always extremely polite to everybody and talked to anybody who would listen, this is one of the major things this movie failed to show the audience. But the biggest mistake of this movie, side from even one frame ever being shot, was that Ed never killed anyone without having been told to do so by his dead mother, whom he thought was speaking to him from beyond the grave. He killed only the people who his dead mother said he had to because it was God's will, and he was very remorseful about it, though that didn't stop him from experimenting with cannibalism and wearing people's flesh. I officially gave this movie a rating of "1" simply because "0" wasn't given to me as an option.<br /><br />I highly advise all to stay clear of this movie. If you want to see a movie that accurately depicts Ed Gein and doesn't try to put in a sub-plot love story between a cop and a fictional woman who never existed, i HIGHLY advise you see the original movie, which unfortunately seems to not be on IMDb.com though i could be wrong, but i have yet to find it here. The original doesn't stray from the actual events and doesn't try to twist the story. I can understand telling the story from a different perspective, but this movie just tried to straight change the true story itself, something that i find as horrible as if someone made a movie based on 9/11, but gave it a twist that Canada was behind it. Or a WWII movie saying Hitler was a good guy and helped fight the Nazi's.

If good intentions were enough to produce a good film, I would have rated the turgid, ponderous, obvious "Focus" a bit higher than 4. Macy does his best, but as an earlier poster commented, Miller's little parable asks us to suspend disbelief too often. Perhaps the novel gives us a bit more background on Newman, so we can understand how someone who is obviously not without intelligence could be so dense in perceiving the attitudes of those around him. I agree with another reviewer that if one is unaware of how bigoted average citizens were in America during this time period, then this movie might be an eye-opener. I grew up in the fifties, and the "good" pastors of my Lutheran church found nothing wrong with having the church picnic at a commercial beach, whose sign prominently indicated that no Jews or blacks would be admitted. It is difficult for young people today to understand that this was the norm, and not just in the South. As late as 1964, when I graduated from a somewhat racially integrated (but sexually segregated) public high school in Baltimore, my black classmates could not attend the traditional "father and son banquet," as it was held at a facility which did not admit blacks. Sadly, it was an establishment owned by a Jewish family. The subject matter of "Focus" is important, and we should never forget, despite the lingering signs of racism in modern America, how truly repulsive the attitudes of that previous generation were.(The "greatest generation," indeed). So, perhaps this film is somewhat valuable in countering the recent wave of sentimental crap about the forties from the likes of Steven Spielberg and Tom Brokow. But in the end, as in "Far From Heaven," the filmmakers' good intentions are undermined by having a protagonist so ridiculously oblivious to the social conventions of their time.

This was a character's movie. The plot wasn't that hot when it was there, but the characters were interesting and very well-acted. The story focuses on the Travis family in the wake of the eldest son's suicide. I say that loosely, because the story is mostly about the surviving son and the mother, because if the father WAS supposed to have the story focus on him too, they edited the movie pretty poorly. The acting on all parts was very good, particularly Emile Hirsch as the surviving, confused son. The characters were all very interesting and I didn't mind watching them until late in the film, when it just seemed to drag. <br /><br />My big complaint, however, was the story. The son killing himself was supposed to be the center of the plot. However, it really wasn't. It was something that happened at the start of the story, but then everything went every which way. Then they'd mention that the son killed himself to remind you that that was the central thread. The other thing was that the big plot twists, of which there were plenty, were never really explained or built up to, but just thrown in there randomly and often from far left field. In fairness, the ending was very, very cool. But it was also clear where the inspiration for the story came from: about half of it (the half that wasn't padding) was pretty much lifted from the story in the Pearl Jam song Alive. Which reminds me... <br /><br />There was a "poem" in the movie that was supposedly written by someone who killed themself. I could not have been the only one who recognized that said poem was lifted, word for word, from that very same song. I dunno, this was a movie I had hope for, and they really, really dropped the ball.

Kinda funny how comments for this film went consistently downhill, now add mine. I think the script could have been saved by better acting, and the acting by a better script. Together, it was difficult to watch, and I don't flinch from such subject matter.<br /><br />Sigourney was the best part (I thought the relationship between her and her surviving son was pretty much the only new thing this film offered to its genre) but even she lagged. Can't blame her, who knows what takes were left on the cutting room floor by the director and/or editor. The whole movie had an "okay, that's good enough, let's move on" feel to it, when I KNOW there was more to be mined from the actors and the script, which did have some good lines and some interesting themes.<br /><br />I don't think this counts as a spoiler, but a perfect example is the scene where Sigourney marches up to her son's supposed tormentor's house and has this look on her face and I thought "that's the face of someone who is overacting what it's like to see someone living in a mobile home" and sure enough, next shot, meant to shock us I'm sure, bully lives in a trailer as opposed to a nice house, like hers.<br /><br />As many other posters have pointed out, there are SO MANY better movies with similarly airy scripts about similarly messed up families that hit the notes better -- "Celebration" probably being the ultimate example that I've seen.

I thought "puppets making crank phone calls" was pretty low, but I don't believe that Carlos Mencia's show even qualifies as comedy. His main objective is to make the audience incredibly uncomfortable while using the word "beaner" as many times as he possible can. I have never felt compelled to write a review declaring the awfulness of anything on IMDb before, but I really do hope this show is never renewed or rerun.<br /><br />Mencia is trying to be the next Dave Chapelle, and perhaps he was only hired by the network because they hoped he would fill those shoes. It is obvious right down to the rip of Chapelle's intro (blues guys vs. mariachi band). However, Mencia has absolutely *no* attitude, and does not delve into popular views of the hispanic culture enough to come up with a creative poke at it each time. Instead he sticks to a small number of hardly-shocking nicknames for his fellow latinos and makes "jokes" about immigration. Every once in a while, he'll take advantage of the slight darkness of his skin to make fun of someone else, like middle eastern cultures. These jokes mainly consist of reiterating every joke or stereotype made against the culture, and perhaps some incredibly old topics (such as 9/11), in a watered down, stand-up style, while he laughs at himself to cover up the audience's style. I think he's too afraid of really offending anyone, so it just makes the viewer feel awkward. He also beats jokes to death. If you've ever seen "Why the f*** is this news?" you'll know what I'm talking about. It's funny at first, but he just rambles on and on and becomes Captain Obvious at some point. <br /><br />It's a trainwreck that is purely painful to watch.

What is it now-a-days that minority comedians feel its okay to slander their minority and expect to get away with it? <br /><br />Carlos Mencia is no George Lopez. There IS a difference. When watching comedian Carlos Mencia, I think he hates his own people. And more than that, I think he was forced to pattern his show as the "Hispanic/Latino/Spanish" version of the Dave Chappelle show. What a horrible mistake. (Note to Mencia: Please do not do a "Block Party" movie. As much as I would like to see Santana, Tierra, El Chicano, Christina Agullaria, Jennifer Lopez, Shakira and the reunion of the cast of "Xica da Silva" on one stage, don't.) <br /><br />Carlos Mencia likes to use the word "beaners" as much as Dave Chappelle liked using the "n" word. Neither is funny and neither is acceptable, even if it's from 'their own people'. Carols Mencia also likes to say, "If you're offended, too bad". It's not the offense, it's the defense because of what is being said and asked to be accepted.<br /><br />Carols Mencia goes further - he disrespects everyone for what he assumes is comedy. It's not comedy, it's not funny. There is a finesse to being able to look at yourself and make others laugh out of comedy and not laugh out of enforcing stereotypes that other races believed in the beginning.<br /><br />Mind of Mencia needs polishing because Carlos Mencia needs polishing. Find out what is funny and not what will set more prejudices in motion and then - do it. Until then, the show, Mind of Mencia is a pass.

...If you've been laughing too much for a long time, and need to take a break.<br /><br />After reading about 25 unfavorable reviews of this show, I decided to turn it on and check it out for myself. Everything that each of those people have said about this show is absolutely true. Mind of Mencia is like a half hour version of Mad TV, but with somehow worse jokes.<br /><br />One skit I had the displeasure of watching was "The Second Annual Stereotype Olympics". What's funny about black guy who has trouble swimming, or gay guy named "Sparkles" that wins a banana eating contest? Neither of these concepts is particularly novel, insightful, or amusing. Do we really need a joke about Star Wars every episode? That movie came out like 30 years ago. Mencia's solution to funny things up is toss in some stereotypes about Hispanics and throw a few "beaners" in there; and call it a day to go home to roll around in his pile of money. Pure comedic genius.<br /><br />Then he blatantly ripped off Jeff Foxworthy on a second show I watched, with a "Your gay if..." bit. You could just imagine the roaring laughter he got when he snook in a Ryan-Seacrest-is-gay joke. It's not like either of those has already been done to death.<br /><br />Unless you're a big fan of Jason Friedberg and Adam Seltzer movies, please stay away from this show. Especially when there are authentic comedians like Dave Chappelle out there who can joke about races and racism and still be insightful.

Carlos wants to make fun of affirmative action, racial stereotypes and related topics on his show which makes him a lot like Supreme Court Justice Thomas. He's there BECAUSE of his race and then denigrates it. He can supposedly make fun of Mexicans to no end because he is himself Mexican, and I would also contend he can get away with making fun of the mentally challenged because any lay person can tell he's not the sharpest tool....though he is definitely a tool of some sort. <br /><br />He is a hack comedian who, even with a staff of writers, can't put together 3 minutes of genuinely funny material in a 30 minute show. I can't think of a single comedian who is regularly on TV that Carlos can hold a candle to except maybe Larry the Cable Guy (not too surprisingly, he also has a show on Comedy Central to cater to the exact same audience no doubt.<br /><br />If you ever see the greats, Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, Jon Stewart etc. talk about comedy you really get a feeling for the amount of work and thought that goes into developing a funny interesting comedic voice. All that work was completely skipped by Mencia; his comedic voice is, in part, stolen from other better comics and in part hidden by his propensity for yelling his unfunny rehashed racist tripe. Mencia's show is beloved by some of the "at least I don't suck that badly crowd" who I firmly believe watch it to feel better from his rants about the dumbing down of society; unfortunately Carlos and his fans are part of the problem not the solution on that topic.

This show reminds me of an episode of "The Simpsons," where Smithers had just been fired by Mr. Burns and was forced to live a miserable life being unemployed. All he did to while the way the hours was to drink and watch Comedy Central. The implication was that Comedy Central was a pathetic TV channel for miserable people with nothing else to occupy their time. "Mind of Mencia" is slightly better than most of Comedy Central's programming, but it still serves as an example of why this channel is low-quality filler for people with absolutely no lives. <br /><br />Truth be told, Mencia is a fairly competent comedian who throws out trite, soft-ball ethnic jokes and cashes in on bland stereotypes of people based on their race, gender, or economic status, or a combination of two out of three of these characteristics. If you've heard one of these jokes by one of your friends at a bar or at work, believe me, you've heard what passes as comedy on "Mind of Mencia." Carlos also tries to make fun of current events, but lacks creativity or originality. This is not to say that Carlos is a washout all the time. I found some of his skits amusing, such as his rap video portrayal as an oil sheik. If you find bland, run-of-the-mill comedy up your alley, you'll probably enjoy "Mind of Mencia." For those people who are tired of repetitive, pedestrian comedians trotting out the same old time-worn jokes, stay away.

I saw this movie when it was first released in Pittsburgh Pa. I had traveled from Youngstown Ohio, a distance of approx. 85 miles. I knew nothing of the plot nor the players. I had read no reviews nor had I talked to anyone who had seen it. Believe me I will never make that mistake again. It was being touted I believe as the first feature length movie filmed in the new 3D process. That was what enticed me to make a 170 mile round trip.<br /><br />There was a waiting line two abreast that stretched (I kid you not) 2 or 2½ blocks long and moving very slowly. I could hardy wait to be seated. If I had only known at that moment what I soon would know, I could have been ¾ of the way back to Youngstown by the time the feature started.<br /><br />By the time the first 3D scene was shown, I was already nodding off. The novelty quickly wore thin and from then on it was pure agony.<br /><br />Without going into excruciating detail, I can only offer the following advice. If you have ever seen the famous film PLAN NINE FROM OUTER SPACE, supposedly the worst movie ever filmed, it in my humble opinion stands head and shoulders above this garbage.<br /><br />I don't know if this has ever been shown on tv, if it has I don't know why. If you ever get a chance to see it, do something else. Take a walk, cut the grass, wash the dog, have someone flog you with a rubber hose. ANYTHING. Your time will have been better spent.<br /><br />This has been my first movie review. It might well be my last unless a worse movie comes along and I wouldn't make book that will happen.<br /><br />Bill<br /><br />

I was very disappointed by this movie. Ms English who says that she is a fan of the original movie seemed to have taken a great piece of artistic work, and transformed it into a flat-lined "ho-hum" you've come a long way baby production. I tried to like Meg Ryan's Mary Haines, but she was just boring. She didn't seem to feel anything about her husband's affair. There was no emotional struggle, no deep hurt. In the original 1939 movie Norma Shearer's Mary Haines felt betrayed, shocked, vulnerable, confused and angry. The 2008 production was more about some fake sisterhood theme, (Actually my wife's words)and didn't make you shed a tear or even chuckle. The only performances that were note worthy we're of Debra Messing, and Bette Midler. (I wanted more of Bette.) There was really no protagonist in this movie. The Sylvia Fowler character had too many sub themes to it. And Crystal Allen had no fire. The remake of the department store encounter with Annette Benning, and Miss Mendez was Luke warm. Also the pacing was slow as well. Obviously the 1939 version needed to be updated, but this one wasn't it. The reason that the original version worked so well was that the characters were dealing with "man" problems. A subject by the way which isn't out-dated. The magic of the original movie was that the movie was about both sexes, while you never saw the men.

Imagine a film the complete opposite of Lawrence of Arabia, instead of having an all male cast, it has an all female cast. Instead of being set in the barren deserts of Arabia, it is set in the bulging metropolis of New York City. And instead of it being one of the greatest films ever made, it is one of the most pointless, boring and forgettable.<br /><br />The film concerns Mary Haines (Meg Ryan) a perfect wife and mother, the envy of all others in her high society Manhatten social circle. She is painted as a women bearing the weight of the world on her shoulders, despite the fact she needs a live in nanny and housekeeper to cope with her one child. But I don't want to be too hard on her, Mary does all this whilst taking a liassez-faire attitude towards the fashion designing job her father has given her. This idyllic lifestyle cannot last forever though and things start to crash in a very real way.<br /><br />Mary's husband is cheating on her and her father fires her for not working hard enough. She is quite naturally upset and breaks down a little.<br /><br />Mary needs to bounce back though, for the sake of her impressionable young daughter and for herself. She does this through rehab, hair straightening and designing her own line of clothes; though amazingly for this kind of film, not a montage. Mary succeeds; her daughter loves her, her mother loves her, her friends love her and her husband decides he loves her now. She decides to take her cheating husband back after realising it was her fault he cheated, as she didn't dote on him enough.<br /><br />The films one saving grace is that it doesn't go down the "all men are evil" route.

I have never seen the original 1930s version of the film, but this remake is one of the worst I have seen from a major production studio in years. Seeing actors such as Meg Ryan and Annette Bening, once near A level talents, sleepwalk their way through poorly scripted roles is painful. There appeared to be no desire to be in front of the camera for anyone in this film.<br /><br />Jada Pinkett Smith and Debra Messing play worthless roles that have no bearing on the plot and add no entertainment value. Jada Pinkett Smith's character is used as nothing more than a ploy to appear modern, having an African American lesbian character, but in actuality she is there to just look cool. There is no actual reason why Messing in this film other than to fill out the amount of women in the original I take.<br /><br />The side characters played by Eva Mendes and Debi Mazar are stereotypical female characters, with Mendes portraying the vixen looking to steal the wealthy but bored and mildly neglected husband and Mazar covering the gossip roles.<br /><br />The movie is boring, lacking charm, humor, or sympathy for any characters. It almost felt like the movie was a punishment for everyone involved, whether in front of or behind the camera.<br /><br />There is one glimmering hope in the film, however little it is allowed to shine surrounded by the dim and dying stars around it is Cloris Leachman. Leachman is still an amazing talent that brings her remarkable charm and humor to the film, in the small role that she has.

I went along to this movie with some trepidation; the original is a masterpiece of both writing and acting and unfortunately my fears were realized. This is a humorless piece of work and I sat in the theater waiting for the wit and humor to begin- I'm still waiting, it seems. Updating the storyline to the present time just didn't work and the altering of characters an absolute travesty- why did they introduce Bette Midler's character when she disappeared just as quickly as she arrived; the related character in the 1939 original was an integral part of the plot. The women in the cinema laughed a few times but nothing touched me as being funny with the exception of a line from Meg Ryan talking to her mother about her situation and telling her that 'it's not like a 1930's movie'- I sorely wished I was viewing the 1930's version. It was all too touchy feely 'sisters stick together' and really needing some of the acerbic wit and clever dialog from the original play- I still watch the original movie and pick up a line that I have never caught before. There is no sense of closure to this new version, and whilst the 1939 movie is politically incorrect by todays standards, each thread was tied up and when the movie ended- it did so strongly. This remake should be labeled with a warning for any viewers- if you know the original, don't bother: I felt cheated by losing part of my life in a cinema watching this unmemorable piece of fluff. Bring on the Jungle Red!!

'Flood' is a prime example of how throwing good actors and cgi at a film will do little to compensate for a rubbish script. The basic premise is fine: what if a freak storm threatened to send the sea straight over the Thames flood barriers and engulf London so fast that most of the inhabitants would probably never get out in time? It's basically the New York segment of 'The Day After Tomorrow', but that shouldn't make it any less of a film. However, the script just isn't there. It's merely functional, flat, and lacking in depth. Great British talents like Robert Carlysle and David Suchet to name but two do their level best with what they've got, but their characters are two-dimensional cyphers, like something out of an old Marvel comic. and it'd be frankly easier to turn back the tide. Not that every actor gets let off the hook - Tom Courtenay seemed capable of only one emotion throughout the film, but then he wasn't given much of a challenge.<br /><br />I applaud any opportunity to see some non-Hollywood disaster flicks for a change, and I don't expect zillions of dollars spent on rendering ultra- realistic graphics. However there's no excuse for shonky writing - especially from a country that has produced some of the best science- fiction ever made on next to no budget at all. This is the kind of half- hearted B-grade fluff the Sci-Fi channel produces, and that's hardly a target to aim for. If like me you are such a fan of disaster films you're still tempted, do yourself a favour and watch it with some friends. Better still; don't bother.

Topical? Certainly. Entertainment? Probably - but only on removal of any shred of the viewer's common sense. Reality? Only in so much that it was made on this planet.<br /><br />How thousands of people were supposed to have died as a result of a 5-metre wall of water in a city liberally littered with buildings in excess of 25 metres high is quite beyond me. Carlyle's line to the effect of "How could anyone survive that?" when the shot shows forests of buildings with several floors above the water is completely laughable. Further, if someone commits themselves to an area (under water) where one cylinder of air is not enough (i.e. they are going to die), why not use the simple expedient of taking more than one cylinder? Clearly, the writer thinks that people in stressful situations cannot count beyond one (one cylinder, one floor).<br /><br />Rather than watching this tripe, you would be more informed and entertained by throwing the DVD away and reading the pricing information on the cellophane outer wrapper.<br /><br />Pitiful, truly pitiful, and a terrible waste of the on-screen talent.<br /><br />As for the sexist propaganda suggesting that only women can see through the problems to illuminate the solutions to be effected by the expendable men: yet more PC 'tosh'. Small wonder that First Blood, Delta Force, Navy Seals and other such movies of little or no merit will always have a following while this blatantly politically-motivated bilge is peddled.

I'm sorry, but this movie is just way to shallow for me. In it, Perez is a taxi dancer with boyfriend Keitel trying to make it as an actress. First of all, what the hell is a taxi dancer? Even after sitting through this, I still don't know. Oh yeah, Perez also inspires DeLorenzo to follow her like a lovesick puppy. There's no reason behind the love, it just kind of happens. There are times when the characters and events really try to pull at your heartstrings, but it rarely works. The only character you really do feel anything for or with is Keitel's character, and that's only because he does such a good job with it. Any other actor and the character would have been just like the others.<br /><br />The script is basically an uninspired rehashing about how hard it is to make it as an actor/actress. It's been done and said before, the language and dialog sounds like it was written by a street pimp. The ending is...well, I don't want to spoil it. Let's just say it feels unsatisfying. I'd be more upset if the story was any good to begin with. The directing is average with nothing truly wonderful, but nothing that is really painful to watch either. To reiterate the acting, the only one that does anything worth watching is Keitel. Though I could have lived on without seeing him in tiger print bikini underwear.<br /><br />Oh yeah, Eddie Bunker shows up. As random as that mention is, that's how random it is in the film. And Tarantino does his director buddy a favor by showing up for about 20 seconds.

ALL GROWN UP is basically a spin off and not much else of the original Nickalodeon RUGRATS cartoon that featured the babies Tommy Pickles, Chucky Finster, Lil and Phil DeVille, Angelica, Susie and (later) Kimi (Chuckies sister) and Dill (Tommy's brother). I grew up with RUGRATS and thought it was a great cartoon. It had excellent humor, nice stories and the show's creators, Klasky & Csupo, were obviously very original and creative with the concept of the adventures of babies. The new show ALL GROWN UP tries to recapture the magic of the original cartoon. I was disappointed when I saw it. I found the "all-grown-up" Chuckie just annoying and the whole "pre-teen-acting-mature/trying-to-be-popular" that applied to (unfortunately) *all* of the characters dull and washed out. There still are some funny scenes and jokes in the new series and it was interesting how the artists would make the whole baby gang of RUGRATS look ten years from their age in the original show. Overall, this show is 'fair' and only watchable if a) you're a die-hard fan of the RUGRATS, b) have never seen the original show, c) you're a pre-teen that has nothing to do, or d) your so bored that your somehow forced to see this show. This show is not that good. It doesn't compare to the older RUGRATS episodes in quality, humor, and everything else.

OK end of the story is - all the kills were a joke on the main character and no one is actually dead. Yes I know Cry Wolf did it and did it well, but this isn't "Cry Wolf", it's "Scream Crap"! Even though the "characters" don't apparently die, we SEE them get stabbed to death (and other ways they are killed) even though these "kills" do NOT take place as anyone can see them. Mr. Director, if you're gonna show people getting killed, someone needs to see it, if they're off camera and the character getting faked killed is alone it doesn't work - and until the end I liked a couple of scenes but your end ruined the whole thing.<br /><br />The acting is horrid (especially the kid at the beginning who really thinks he tricked his friends into believing they were playing with his dead grandmothers brains) the script is less-than half baked (though if you're half baked you might like the movie) the only reason I gave this movie a 3 is because a) they actually made something b) they got it released and c) they shot on film Yes you read right, they wasted (at least) $5,000 on film stock for this crap. Sad, if they'd shot DV they'd had some cash for a better cast and another writer to go through the script and make it good.<br /><br />I admire the fact that the director made something (as most don't) but HATWE the fact that he comes on IMDFB talking about how "original" the movie is.<br /><br />Avoid the movie if it means buying it to see, if a friend has it, it might be a funny movie to borrow.

I was very disappointed with this series. It had lots of cool graphics and that's about it. The level of detail it went into was minimal, and I always got the feeling the audience was being patronized -- there was a lot of what seemed to me as "This is extremely cool but we're not going to explain it in further detail because you won't get it anyway. Let's just show you some pretty pictures to entertain you." The host would drop interesting-sounding words such as "sparticles" and "super-symmetry" without any attempt at explaining what it was. We had to look it up on Wikipedia.<br /><br />Furthermore, I know quite a bit about superstrings (for a layman) and I found their explanations were convoluted and could have been so much better. They could have chosen MUCH better examples to explain concepts, but instead, the examples they used were confusing and further obscured the subject.<br /><br />Additionally, I got so sick of the repetitiveness. They could easily have condensed the series into one episode if they had cut out all the repetition. They must have shown the clips of the Quantum Café about 8 times. The host kept saying the same things over and over and over again. I can't remember how many times he said "The universe is made out of tiny little vibrating strings." It's like they were trying to brainwash us into just accepting "superstrings are the best thing since sliced bread."<br /><br />Finally, the show ended off with an unpleasant sense of a "competition" between Fermilab and CERN, clearly biased towards Fermilab. This is supposed to be an educational program about quantum physics, not about whether the US is better than Europe or vice versa! I also felt that was part of the patronizing -- "Audiences need to see some conflict to remain interested." Please. Give me a little more credit than that.<br /><br />Overall, 2 thumbs down :-(

Like many western Pennsylvania history buffs, I had been really looking forward to this much-heralded PBS program that was produced by Pittsburgh's WQED. However, I must say now that I was somewhat disappointed. On the positive side, I believe that overall this film did a fair job of explaining the main issues and describing the events of the so-called French and Indian War. In particular, its presentation of the Indians' point of view was somewhat new and quite interesting, although it certainly was at time over-emphasized. Also on the positive side, the blend of narrative and action scenes was well done and came across somewhat better than many of these typical documentaries made up of "experts" interviews and picture stills (a la Ken Burns). On the negative side, many of the battles did have a somewhat "staged" look and many important aspects of the war were overlooked. Most of all I was very disappointed and frustrated by how little importance was given to Forbes's successful campaign of 1758 against Fort Duquesne as compared to the earlier failures of 1754 by Washington and 1755 by Braddock. In particular, I was somewhat incredulous that there was NO mention of Colonel Henry Bouquet, the Swiss mercenary in the British service who was most responsible for Forbes' success. Finally I could not believe the complete omission of the 1763 Battle of Bushy Run that started as a re-run of Braddock's defeat but ended up as the victory that decided the outcome of Pontiac's War thanks to the wiles of the same Colonel Bouquet who certainly must rank as one of the most successful British commanders of this war.

... And it's a not very good documentary either American MOVIE seems to have confused some people into thinking this is a spoof documentary ( " Mockumentary ) and even some newspaper TV listings described it as such . I'll not laugh out loud at that because it's easy to mistake this documentary as one big wind up ala THIS IS SPINAL TAP <br /><br />What seems to have caused the confusion is that the documentary centres around budding film maker Mark Borchardt who is .... How can I put it ? Rather self deluded ? Yes but that's not necessarily a bad thing since if we had no dreams we'd all still be living in caves and the fact that Mark is obsessed with horror movies is not to be taken as a criticism since both Sam Raimi ( Yes that one ) and Peter Jackson ( yes that one ) both started out doing low budget horror comedies so again it's not a criticism . No it's just that Mark Borchardt ( yes that one ) is a parody of American trailer trash <br /><br />Remember in THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT MARY Ben Stiller gives a lift to a dodgy hitch hiker ( " Come into my office because you're f***in' fired " ) ? Well that's who Mark resembles along with most of Jerry Springer's guests so it's very easy to see why some people thought this wasn't a real documentary . It's also not a very good documentary since Mark and co give me the creeps . Did you know that someone thought Mark would grow up to be a serial killer ? Does anyone else think there's plenty of time left for this to happen ?

It opens - and for half an hour, runs - like an educational programme on the Old Testament, although not without humour. The movie finally begins to grow wings when the biblical cant gets dropped. In a scene of mixed success Martin Donovan (Jesus) decides to renege on kicking off the Apocalypse and the final quarter of an hour is a sort of humanist 'what's all the fuss about?' play-out, gilded with optimistic conjecture against a (retrospectively, miserably ironic) long shot of the WTC twin towers.<br /><br />Apart from Donovan's authority, the acting is split. There's the thespian melodrama of the rest of the cast: this, though formally contrived for biblical presentation, is appropriate for the modern, paranoid comedy that Hartley's aiming at. But I was also pleasantly surprised at the contribution of PJ Harvey (credited thus, and in danger of existing within the film solely as the pop star entity she is, not least in a set piece scene in a record store and a perilously patchy soundtrack to which contributes). She remained cool - a sort of disingenuous lack of focus - in the manner of many pop icons who have taken to film (I'm thinking the Jagger of Performance here) but nonetheless maintained a convincing integration with both cast and project.<br /><br />Ultimately affirmative, but this bittersweet essay is a bit too much like one and relies more on the perseverance than the imagination of its audience. 4/10

Wow...This movie really really sucks...'Nuff said.<br /><br />The Story: A psychopathic internet predator stalks and lures young men and women into torturous traps...It goes like this, kidnaps people, they find him, he becomes a changed man and is released on the world yet again, reverts back to his old ways and starts the torture again....The story is stupid, it's implausible. The characters are stupid, they're implausible...Or at the very least way over the top. It's got some very violent imagery, and if you have a week stomach you might just want to stay away...But than again, even if you don't have a week stomach, you might want to stay away...It's that stupid.<br /><br />The Cast: Dee Snider, Kevin Gage...If you're a die hard fan of Twisted Sister and Dee Snider, you might find this one interesting, since he's the writer and star of this film. His acting is laughably bad, and you can tell that he's the one that wrote the God-awful script. Kevin Gage...Well they say he's been in numerous other movies that I've seen, but I don't remember him from any of them...And you won't remember him from this...These two sadly, make the film...They don't make it good mind you...They just make it...<br /><br />One to Five Scale: 1 It's bad...It's very very very bad...In fact it's so bad, that this movie should come with a clip loading pistol to play Russian Rullet with...

I saw a screening of this movie last night. I had high expectations going into it, but was definitely disappointed. Within 5 minutes of the opening, Williams is already campaigning for his presidency. And he becomes president in the first 40 minutes. So there goes all that aspect of the movie. The first half hour are hilarious. Don't get me wrong, the movie has its moments. But after the first half hour, it takes a turn for the worst. It becomes less of a comedy, and more of a thriller/drama/love story...which is pointless. the movie goes nowhere and stands still for a good 30 minutes. there are laughs interspersed here and there, but the consistently funny part is in the beginning and only the beginning. at one point, the biggest cheer i heard in the audience is when a person in the crowd yelled 'boooo' during a very confusingly emotional scene. Williams gives a great performance, right on par with his comedic style. Walken also delivers a strong supporting role as only he can. I think the one character that goes underrated is Lewis Black. Consistently vulgar and political, its funny to see him tone it down for a PG-13 rating. Overall, I would not pay to see the movie. Afterall, I saw it for free and even I was disappointed. The first half hour is solid, and its all downhill from there. Not really fitting into a category, the movie realizes half way through that it should not have been anything more than a one-hour comedy central special. 4.5/10

I was kinda looking forward to Man of the Year, a couple girls at my work said it was a pretty good movie, and my mom said that she liked it, so I waited for the rental, and watched it last night. I have to honestly say that this movie was a huge disappointment. I barely made through it, because to be honest the beginning was pretty good and very well paced, but then it got too dark and not into the movie I saw from the trailer. It looked like a good comedy, then it turned into a very dark drama, that wasn't even that interesting, considering how many of these types of stories we've had about government conspiracy.<br /><br />Tom Dobbs is a very popular comedian with a top ranks show and has an act where many people would want him to get involved with politics, just because it seems like he has a good grip on what should be improved. So he does it, he runs for presidency, but many people doubt that he can win due to the fact that he's a comedian, but he does win! But Elenore Green who makes sure all the votes are accounted for tries to fix a computer glitch, but when the government tells her not to fix it, they try to get rid of her, and Tom soon realizes that this may not be the job he wanted.<br /><br />The acting was fine, the direction was OK, it was just the story that didn't work in my opinion. Like I said, it just turned into a dramatic change of genres, because if you see the trailer, you'd think it was a comedy, and when you start watching it, that's what you get, but then it just turns into a very dark and somewhat scary drama. I wouldn't really recommend this movie, it was one of the biggest disappointments I have seen so far.<br /><br />2/10

This is one of the worst pieces of cinema I have seen in some time. This is also my first review so you can tell I must hate this film at lot.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I like my serious films. I don't like Hollywood too much, I tend to like French, Italian, offbeat US or anything that tries to communicate something sensible.<br /><br />But this was awful. Why? 1. The plot (such as it was) was entirely unbelievable, even though the director seems to be hinging everything on a feeling of realism.<br /><br />2. The main character has nothing to recommend him. Does he smoke for coolness or to show us his angst? For goodness sake this guy is meant to be an ex-dodgy mafia lawyer. Are we meant to care more because that he is also one of the meanest unfriendly people you could ever meet? And he smokes...so he must have deep personal issues. Pop psychology at it's best. In the final moments, I almost cheered as he gets buried in the cement. Best place for him. And I thought that was about the only good scene. Or maybe that was because it was so close the final credits.<br /><br />3. The entirely tired and unbelievable interest in the main character from the beautiful girl. She was there simply because beautiful girls always have odd sexual relationships with old, old men with a deep and meaningful personality (as demonstrated by smoking). Happens all the time. In really bad films that is.<br /><br />4. The pace was so leaden. I like slow, I like careful. But this was just deathly.<br /><br />5-50 a bunch of other stuff that I really can't be bothered to write.<br /><br />Awful.

Here's another of these modern-day ultra-sleaze comedies in which dysfunctional families are supposedly hilarious. Know wonder people once asked, "What ever happened to Pauly Shore?" Well, Shore didn't disappear, but his career took a nose-dive, that's for sure. Movies like this one, didn't help.<br /><br />In "Son-In-Law," Shore plays an incredibly-obnoxious character called "Crawl," and yet he's the most likable of the family! His father is a profane idiot; his mother is totally incompetent, his young brother is a sex maniac and his college-age sister is a real snot.<br /><br />Watching an hour and a half of totally-unlikeable people was tough to do. I certainly wouldn't watch this again, or recommend it to anyone but die-hard Shore fans. Adam Sandler took Pauley's shtick and went a lot further with it.<br /><br />The following is an excerpt from the IMDb title page here under "biography" and it explains why I am not the only one who was disgusted with this movie.<br /><br />"........but his lunacy was dismissed as crude, dumb and, for the most part, unfunny. His film career quickly tanked. This downhill spiral was not helped by the failure of his failed Fox sitcom "Pauly" (1997) in 1997. Lambasted unmercifully by both critics and media alike, he was soon becoming a running joke and forced to lie low and ride out the storm...."

There are plenty of reviews that describe this movie as the worst ever made. For sure there are plenty of mistakes: lackluster acting, rather boring and cliched and at times paradoxical script, and the stock B-movie sound and "special" effects. As noted, there are plenty of glosses of plot, making _Cave Dwellers_ a tissue of fantasy film, especially in comparison with the Lord of the Rings trilogy. However, this movie is not the worst movie ever. Most, if not all, (including this review) of these reviews are written by fans of MSTK3. Therefore, many of these reviews are pretty much summaries of the MSTK3 episode of _Cave Dwellers_.<br /><br />In the episode, Joel, Tom Servo, and Crow remark to the Mad Scientists that this is the worst movie ever sent to them. Of course, loyal fans have taken this quote and ran with it. I have found this movie endearing-not in a way that one finds _Forrest Gump_ endearing-but in the effort put into this movie by some the cast. Also, this movie is laughable without its MSTK3 treatment. That is because _Cave Dwellers_ does not take itself seriously, and it is not trying to import into its viewers some sort of righteous theme. For all of the monster puppets, medieval hang gliding, and continuity lapses-this movie does not advertise to be any more that what it is, a shallow depiction of a rather shallow genre.<br /><br />Likewise, I can't bring myself to hate Miles O'Keeffe or Lisa Foster. Instead this hatred is for Coleman Francis, Tony Cardoza, Jennifer Lopez, Arch Hall, Jr., and so on.<br /><br />

Another in the long line of Conan wannabes that tired to cash in on that movie's success, this Italian monstrosity is about as bad as they came. You know it's a bad sign when your heroes fight invisible enemies because the movie was made so cheaply there wasn't money for either adequate special effects or to hire real people. I won't even bother going into the plot as I defy anyone to follow it and make sense of the storyline. Maybe it's the television cut I watched, but I can't imagine any version being that much better. It all seems so random to me. Evil sorcerers, cavemen, giant snakes, medieval castles, grenades, and hang gliding – none of it fits together. It's as if director Joe D'Amato had an epileptic fit while making Cave Dwellers (or any of the other half-dozen names the movie goes by) and threw everything he could think of onto the screen regardless of how unrelated it was or how it fit into the film's already puzzling plot. The acting is sufficiently bad. Miles O'Keeffe could never act his way out of a wet paper bag and he proves that once again in this movie. The rest of the cast is equally atrocious. Then there's the . . . well, you get the idea. It's late, I'm tired, and I've already wasted more than enough time writing about this piece of garbage. Take my word for it – avoid Cave Dwellers (or whatever you want to call it) at all costs.

Why was this movie made? Are producers so easily fooled by sadists that they'll give them money to create torture methods such as this so called "film"? I love a bad movie as much as the next masochist, but "Cave Dwellers" is pushing it. It's seriously physically painful to watch. The plot is something about a dude name Ator - a buffed-up numbnuts whom I will refer to as Private Snowball for the rest of this review - who has to fight invisible warriors and rescue a princess in order to beat the bad guy who needs to find a better hair stylist. I might have gotten the plot wrong since it's been a while since I watched this excrement, but really, do you care that much? Oh yeah, Private Snowball also has a mute Asian sidekick (who hasn't?). Who's not funny.<br /><br />Anyway, Private Snowball fights invisible people, visits some caves, all in the name of a good king so personality-free he makes Al Gore look like Jim Carrey. Then Private Snowball builds a hang-glider (yes, I'm serious) and gets the girl. Yippie-kee-yay. It's cheap, unintentionally silly, and mind-numbingly dull. Why am I not surprised that the director ended up making porn?<br /><br />Bottom line: AVOID. Ator will steal a part of your life and you will have no funny "so-bad-they're-good" catchphrases to take with you from the experience. Bad Ator! BAD! Aak! *gags*

The storyline of "The Stranger" mirrors somewhat the 1969 film "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" (made by Gerry & Sylvia Anderson of 'Thunderbirds' and 'Space: 1999' fame). A parallel-universe Earth is the premise of both films. But there is a difference. Where the world in "The Stranger" features a totalitarian regime out to squash the freedom of the citizenry, "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun" merely showed a true mirror world where handwriting, roads, houses, machinery of every kind, and of course internal organs were all in reverse (or mirrored) order. So, the similarity of parallel Earths is the only connection of both films.<br /><br />Similarly, the TV series "Land of the Giants" came before both of those films, having run from 1968 to 1970. It featured a world that was nearly parallel to the Earth with the exception that the planet was populated by giants 12 times the size of the humans who crash-landed there. The idea of a totalitarian government out to capture and contain the 'little people' was similar to the premise of "The Stranger" more-so than the premise of "JTTFSOTS". Perhaps because of the similarly to "LOTG", a series to "The Stranger" was shelved. Had it turned into a TV series it would have been a sci-fi version of "The Fugitive," with star Glenn Corbett being chased by the baddies from week to week, hiding out in different locations, etc. BTW, a stronger script could have helped this film along.

if i could rate it a zero i would , coming from someone who likes shock/exploitation films of the time and Waters overall i must say this is useless.<br /><br />It does nothing , serves nothing , an idiot with a camera and a urge to prove his cleverness by rebeling against social standards is all this comes off as.<br /><br />Its entirely amateur , both in principle and execution , it doesn't have a point , its digusting for the sake of disgusting ,obscene with the wit of a neanderthal , its useless.<br /><br />Someone said Waters was probably "chuckling" over all the bad press and disgust others gave with this film , but why? If i made a short film depicting a man in a bathroom taking a sh*t for ten minutes straight surely it would receive the same accomidations but why would i be proud or "chuckle" at that? <br /><br />Would it be because i am so unintelligent that i have to resort to this so i can say "HA! Take that censors and mainstream! Im so rebellious ill do whatever i want and film it!" No.<br /><br />Waters shouldn't be proud of this mess , fans of waters shouldn't watch it , its useless , that is , without any use.<br /><br />Its doesn't even fit under the criteria of art for arts sake.<br /><br />To like or defend this movie is to defend something that was designed purposely as being anti-culture to be pushed for the mainstream audience , in modern terms this film is the Hot Topic of films.<br /><br />Useless and Obsolete. A Poser film that demands it be acknowledged as rebellion .

I am a big fan of The ABC Movies of the Week genre. I am only 27, meaning I wasn't even born until after the series ended, but I am trying to collect as many of them on DVD as possible. I have about a dozen or so. I had read such wonderful things about this film, both on here and elsewhere, that I was really excited to see it. I just received my DVD in the mail today and watched it anxiously. I'll admit that the first one or two phone calls did give me the creeps - that boy's voice would give anyone the creeps! But it began to ware off fast and the entire divorce subplot was stupid. I also figured out that Michael Douglas was the antagonist about a half an hour before the movie ended. As soon as that story was told about how Elizabeth Ashley's character had locked up his mother, I knew something was fishy. Plus, didn't anyone ever think to ask him why he happened to suddenly appear that night when the fire occurred in the barn? I'll admit that I thought he was coaching a boy at the school to make the phone calls. I didn't guess the mute boy part or the pre-recorded tapes (did they ever say whose voice that actually was? I doubt Douglas could ever get his voice that high?).<br /><br />I am only giving this movie a four out of ten because I actually liked most of the acting in it. Ashley especially is great.<br /><br />It's a shame, because this movie has such a great premise, but oh well, thats what happens sometimes when one gets his or her hopes up for a movie too much.

Such a highly-anticipated remake of a cherished musical classic and such a bitter pill it was to have to take. Very, very hard to swallow...all of it. It didn't have an ounce of believability anywhere. And when you don't have a Rose, you don't have a show.<br /><br />Bette Midler seemed born to play this part. Yet, all she was able to produce was a cute, funny, glitzy, trademark Bette Midler...weighed down with all the familiar Midlerisms. Roz Russell has nothing to worry about. She can rest in her grave knowing she is still the definitive Mama Rose (of film, anyway).<br /><br />I thought Midler was really going to put it across this time...to throw herself into what is one of the greatest musical roles of all time...like she did in "The Rose." But, no, she played it safe. She played herself. She made Rose a total dinner-theatre cartoon. Even her songs were uninspired. It was maddening to watch, knowing Midler has the talent to rise above her money-making schtick. She showed promise only once in this "Gypsy" and that was with "Rose's Turn." But, by then it was too little, too late.<br /><br />A sincere Cynthia Gibb as the titular heroine gave the film its only true spark and when the role of Gypsy outshines that of Rose, you know there's trouble in River City.<br /><br />A huge, huge letdown.

I remembered this awful movie I bought at Camelot music store in the summer of 1989 when I was visiting my Grandparents. It was a time when I had just discovered movies like Re-Animator, From Beyond, The Return of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead. I was ready for all the horror/gore genre had to offer.... or so I thought! I was only about 12 years old at the time so I really don't remember it all that well. I remember a psycho running around with a corkscrew killing people, and a couple of cops (I think) who were riding in a car that wasn't actually moving, but being rocked side to side to look like it was... true cinemagic. I also remember it being the worst film I had ever seen up to that point and I promptly threw it in the garbage.<br /><br />Something tonight made me think of that movie (I can't believe I actually remembered the name), so I jumped on imdb to see if it was listed. To my surprise... IT WAS! And a full other 5 people have seen it.... Amazing. Even though I remember hating the film at the time I sort of wish I had kept it hidden away somewhere because I'd love to check it out again for a laugh (it would probably make a good drinking game movie). Anyway, I'm glad I'm part of the elite few that's seen this little "treasure". I would love to pick it up somewhere for a couple of bucks.... but beware, this is not a recommendation... it is awful... it's just for nostalgia.

Having been pleasantly surprised by Sandra Bullock's performance in Miss Congeniality, I decided to give Murder By Numbers a shot. While decent in plucky, self-effacing roles, Ms. Bullock's performance in "serious" roles (see Hope Floats, Speed 2, 28 Days) leave much to be desired. Her character is at the same time omniscient, confused, and sexually maladjusted (the sub-plot of Sandra's past comes across as needless filler that does little to develop her already shallow character). The two teenage boys gave decent performances, although their forensics expertise and catch-me-if-can attitude is belied by stupid errors that scream "We did it!" Chris Penn as the all-too-obvious suspect is wasted here, as is Ben Chaplin's token partner/love interest character.<br /><br />***Spoilers Ahead*** Mediocre acting aside, the biggest flaws can be traced to a TV-of-the-week plot that never has you totally buying into the murder motives in the first place, and as mentioned, the stupid errors (vomiting up a rare food on the murder scene, an all too convenient and framing of the school janitor, the two boys hanging out together in public, a convenient love interest to cause friction, etc. etc) cause the view to go from being intrigues to being bored and disappointed by the murderers. The ending was strictly "By the Numbers" and was probably the most disappointing aspect of the movie. Using the now-cliched tactic of almost showing the climactic scene at the beginning of the film, and then filling the audience in how we arrived at that moment, the final scenes surprise no one and lacked any of the so-called intelligence the film purported to arrive at it's conclusion. A somewhat promising concept, but poorly executed and weak in nearly every way. * out of ****.

well, the writing was very sloppy, the directing was sloppier, and the editing made it worse (at least i hope it was the editing). the acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't that good either. pretty much none of the characters were likable. at least 45 minutes of that movie was wasted time and the other hour or so was not used anywhere near its full potential. it was a great idea, but yet another wasted good idea goes by. it could have ended 3 different places but it just kept going on to a mostly predictable hollywood ending. and what wasn't predictable was done so badly that it didn't matter. the ending was not worth watching at all. sandra bullock was out of her element and should stay away from these types of movies. the movie looked rushed also. the movie just wasn't really worth seeing, and had i paid for it i would have been very mad. maybe i was more disappointed because i expected a really good movie and got a bad one. the movie over all was not horrifibly bad, but i wouldn't reccomend it. i gave it 2 out of 10 b/c i liked the idea so much and i did like one character (justin i believe, the super smart one). and it also had some very cheap ways to cover plot holes. it was like trying to cover a volcano with cheap masking tape, it was not pretty. anyway, if you see it, wait for the $1.50 theater or video, unless you like pretty much every movie you see, then i guess you'll like this one.

Some giant scorpions are on a submarine and kill everybody. Two months later, some Marines and the scientists in charge of the scorpion project go to the sub to retrieve their cargo. After finding 200 dead bodies, the Marine commander tells the doctor "I need to know if there's anything down here that could be a danger to my men". Uh, gee...ya think? She refuses to tell him what is down there, citing "need to know". Yup, that pretty well sizes it up. One of the scientists is apparently some sort of idiot savant - real heavy on the idiot, light on the savant. He's given the task of fixing the lights. He finds the control panel for the lights, cuts a wire, and shrieks like a banshee. Then he does it again. Then he takes a hammer and smashes the control panel to pieces, which causes all the lights on the submarine to start working.<br /><br />And so it goes. Apparently this was made in Sweden; I'm not sure if the Swedes have a really weird sense of humor or if they're just really awful movie makers. I'm inclined to think they're awful movie makers. If you guessed that there's a huge explosion at the end of this thing, well, sorry, but that's on a need-to-know basis, so I can't tell you.<br /><br />If you've absolutely got to see a giant scorpion movie, let me suggest Tail Sting, which is a cheesy and fun movie about scorpions on a plane, or Bugs, which is a fairly descent B movie about scorpions in a tunnel. Look at this movie as an absolute last resort. Oh, it's watchable, it's hard to turn it off just because of the sheer lunacy of it, but that's about all it's got going for it.

This movie was so bad, I thought I was going to scream in the middle of it. It was all I could do to sit through it. The beginning of the movie where they are at war was promising. Only it smacked of "Saving Private Ryan" to me...or at least an attempt at it. Only we don't care for these people. There was no build up to the characters. The kid that dies I guess was suppose to make us cry...but for some reason it just irritated everyone. Then we have to listen to line after line of sappy dialog that tried desperately to mimic "Wuthering Heights", which of course was also quoted in the movie. Go figure. There was nothing original about the movie at all, it was like sitting through the most mundane parts of every war movie ever made, with a little bit of humor thrown in to keep you hoping that it was going to get better. Sadly it doesn't. 3 hours later, I leave the theater feeling cheated. Anthony Menghilla should be shot for trying to duplicate the English Patient, which for it's time was a good movie, but now I wonder....should I rent it and make sure I wasn't just caught up in the HYPE??? Maybe I was, but I definitely wasn't caught up in the hype of this film. I really went to the theater wanting to like this movie. I am a die hard Nicole Kidman fan. Save your money, rent it on DVD and laugh through it, as I did.

Critics are falling over themselves within the Weinstein's Sphere of Influence to praise this ugly, misguided and repellent adaptation of the lyrical novel on which it's based. Minghella's ham-fisted direction of the egregiously gory and shrill overly-episodic odyssey is one of the many missteps of this "civil-war love story". Are they kidding? After Ms. Kidman and Mr. Law meet cute with zero screen chemistry in a small North Carolina town and steal a kiss before its off to war for Jude and his photo souvenir of the girl he left behind, it's a two hour test to the kidneys as to whether he will survive a myriad of near-death experiences to reunite with his soulmate. Who cares? Philip S. Hoffman's amateurish scene chewing in a disgusting and unfunny role pales to Renee Zelweger's appearance as a corn-fed dynamo who bursts miraculously upon the scene of Kidman's lonely farm to save the day. Rarely has a performance screamed of "look at me, I'm acting" smugness. Her sheer deafening nerve wakes up the longuers for a couple of minutes until the bluster wears painfully thin. Released by Miramax strategically for Oscar and Golden Globe (what a farce) consideration, the Weinsteins apparently own, along with Dick Clark, the critical community and won 8 Globe nominations for their overblown failure. The resultant crime is that awards have become meaningless and small, less powerful PR-driven films become obscure. Cold Mountain is a concept film and an empty, bitter waste of time. Cold indeed!!!

OK, let me start off by saying this isn't a horrible movie by any means. It's just not good. I recall one poster saying the acting isn't campy it's just nuanced. No. I've seen nuanced Japanese and Asian acting. I'm sorry, you're wrong. This is camp.<br /><br />The characters are totally unsympathetic, the deaths are totally random and utterly meaningless. The writing is bad. I'm fine with suspending disbelief, I'm fine with not having everything handed to me in terms of plot. But this movie has no plot. One reviewer stated "This movie is set in a small town where people are going nuts over vortexes and spirals." That's not a blurb, that's the entire freaking film. Congratulations, I've just saved you nearly an hour and a half. There is nothing more to it. No character development, no plot development, no explanations, no resolution. And not even the "Acceptable within the realm of J-Horror" lack of resolution. Just nothing.<br /><br />In addition, the musical score is done by someone who obviously wasn't actually watching the movie at the time because it's random enough to cause whiplash. Cognitive dissonance is one thing and done well it can be brilliant (see Dark Water), but here it just seems as if the score was designed to go with another movie all together.<br /><br />The best example I can give is it's as if the Japanese remade Evil Dead without any of the clever bits or good acting. It just falls flat. It's J-horror without the horror.

This movie (even calling it a movie is an overstatement) is ridiculously horrible. Normally a huge fan of Eric Roberts in "B" list movies, this tragedy of a flick makes me question his real B list clout! And Charlie, please go back to hoping for a Diagnosis Murder revival rather than this.....you can't blame the nameless eye candy (uhhum...beauty pageant members) for participating in this weak movie, but YOU are a former TV star man! Pull yourself together. Don't even get me started on Stuart Pankin. For the sake of all that is good Stuart, you should have seen this was not necessarily a real movie! Bryan Michael Stoller exemplifies absolute genius only in the fact that he was able to dupe anyone into investing in this picture (money or time).<br /><br />Really, this was no parody or spoof movie although it tries on a 2nd grade level. Mostly, it is poor writing and acting and camera work and editing and....well poor everything. I watched it because I read an article in some mag about agent MJ's involvement and my interest was peaked due to the lawsuit in which he was involved. I now wonder if the only reason they show him from the shoulders up in the movie is because he, like at the trial, showed up wearing pajama bottoms and barely lucid (wait a second, is he ever really considered lucid?...I digress). And Agent MJ? Is that the best they could come up with for a name for his character? Sheez. What a startling piece of originality! Or, maybe that was supposed to be funny? Putting Marriott into the movie was a nice touch at first, but overdone and annoying after all is said and done.<br /><br />Spare yourself the grief of watching......don't say I didn't warn you.

Do the following: Get a copy of this movie and a friend. Wager the friend $10 that they can't sit through this entire movie. They cannot divert their gaze or be distracted by anything. Now watch your friend. Win or lose, you get $10 of entertainment.<br /><br />It angers me to no end when people see a movie and are quick to give it 1 out of 10, or sum up their thoughts with "it sucked". (And when asked "Why?", they respond, "Just because." Arrgh.) That is why this movie exists. It's sole purpose is for me to say, "There! THIS is a horrible movie! THAT is 1 out of 10!".<br /><br />This movie is absolutely appalling.<br /><br />While the recent trend of movie parodies has forced them to become increasingly formulaic, this movie falls short in every single aspect. It's not funny. It's not entertaining. And for some of the parodies, it's completely inaccurate! Horrible acting. Unfunny dialogue. A witless story. Terrible "special effects". One INANE gag after another. And to make matters even worse, there isn't even gratuitous nudity to somehow make it even fleetingly worthwhile.<br /><br />This movie leaps past idiotic, stumbles over stupid, and lands face first on moronic. Even I, who loves a good "check your brain at the door" movie, found myself physically agitated watching this. This movie isn't even "Hard Ticket To Hawaii" so-terrible-it's-good bad... IT'S JUST BAD.<br /><br />NOTE: I actually challenged a friend to watch this as described above. Not only couldn't he make it all the way through, but he had a headache and needed a couple minutes afterward because he felt a little ill. True story.<br /><br />I could not accentuate this rating any more... a resounding 1 out of 10!

There was a time when Michael Jackson was revered as the King of Pop. Then came a time when he attracted negative publicity as much as lemonade attracts wasps. Finally, it is now the time that we feel truly sorry for this man.<br /><br />This 'movie' is another reason to. I promised a rabid Michael Jackson fan to watch it with her. You know the type of fan -- someone who tells him- or herself to like everything the object of affection ever did. While watching this movie, which she had seen twice already, I realized how far this fandom goes. Probably far enough to rate this movie above a 1/10, as some people miraculously did.<br /><br />The movie attempts to be a parody of many other movies and series, most notably Cast Away, Lost and Jurassic Park. Unfortunately, it fails miserably at any level. The acting does not save the absolutely horrible story, the filming has the quality of a too-often played video tape, the special effects were better executed in Be Kind Rewind (for those who do not now this movie: with aluminum foil)... All this would be funny if the movie managed to be, well, funny. Unfortunately, it is not. It hurts to watch this.<br /><br />And then there is Michael Jacksons appearance in this garbage. He appears on a projection screen to deliver an important message, and manages to come across as mobile as Jabba the Hutt and as serious as a 4-year old. Just when I thought "who is the terrible person that lured this poor man into participating in this movie and yet again making a total fool of himself", I (finally) reached the ending credits and discovered that the movie was actually partially shot at Jackson's Neverland ranch. In other words: He. Likes. It.<br /><br />This movie, and Jackson's involvement in it, is truly disturbing. Do not watch it even for the "haha, a movie in the IMDb Bottom 100" effect. Or be warned.

The most irritating thing about "Dies d'agost" (August Days) is not simply that NOTHING HAPPENS in this film but that director Marc Recha has the nerve to pretend that this film is some sort of homage to leftist Catalan journalist Ramon Barnils. Unless mentioning Barnils' name a few times constitutes an "homage," this pretense is an utter fraud. You will learn virtually nothing about Barnils in this film nor about the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) nor about the special role of Catalunya in that war. You also will not learn about the collective punishment inflicted on the heroic Catalan people for years afterward by the victorious and vindictive Franco.<br /><br />The footage of the Catalan countryside is very beautiful, of course, but "Dies d'agost" does not have an extensive and varied enough collection of such scenes to qualify as a travelogue. The large number of stills shown -- not very illuminating images of the forest floor, for example -- is the clearest indication of the paucity of ideas here. The aimless drift of brothers Marc and David during their camping trip does not produce compelling cinema. On the contrary, one's strongest impression is of a film made by and for spaced-out, middle-aged hippies. Don't waste your time. Read a good book about the Spanish Civil War instead. (I recommend Felix Morrow's scathingly anti-Stalinist "Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Spain," which contains a gripping account of the 1937 Barcelona Uprising.)<br /><br />Barry Freed

I never really started watching the show until it was canceled and started showing re-runs. I actually enjoyed it for the first to third season. Once I saw the fourth and fifth one I was beginning to get irate. The first problem was that they did that irrelevant, scenario of history repeating itself (Jr having a kid like his parents did). The second had to be the one where they had everyone paired up with someone (ex: Katie and franklin) . The third one was when they made Jr even more idiotic than before which was beginning to be tedious and vexing to the point where I wanted to go into the T.V. and beat the stupidity out of him until he's unconscious . The fourth one had to be that zealous dork that Clarie claimed as a boyfriend. The fifth one had to be Katie, she was beginning to be too good for herself and was treated her "boyfriend" Franklin like the pushover he was. The last but not least was Noah Gray-Cabey!! Franklin, Franklin was just scary. It was like watching a terrible combination of Urkle and TJ Henderson only more annoying!!! They seriously jumped the shark when came he to the show. There was little to no realism to his character and the way he laughed was a sign of obvious force showing that Noah can't act. Eveytime I saw that kid just made me want slap he silly. However, B.F.(before frank) this show was funny and very entertaining.

An elite American military team which of course happens to include two good looking women and a guy who can't quite grasp teamwork, lots of bats, some terrorists, and a Spetznaz team that acts like the gang that can't shoot straight -- all thrown together in a jumbled plot with mediocre acting. This one has nothing much going for it. The characters are not compelling. Even the setting, which has great possibilities, looks like something out of the middle of rural Pennsylvania, not an exotic Boreal forest in Eastern Europe.<br /><br />The bats are certainly ferocious looking. They can even pick up a man and fly with him for a few feet (harpies?) or chop off an arm. You see Delta force surrounded by hundreds of bats with a guys shooting assault rifles and pistols at them and bat flopping to the ground. It would be like trying to shoot skeet with a rifle from a distance of 3 feet. Utterly clueless. The dialogue is rancidly unrealistic, with boy/girl jokes and flirts in the middle of tense parts of the mission. One of the team is blown up by a mine and the first one on the scene just stares sadly at his body, stunned, not even bothering to take cover or secure the area. In fact AFTER the rest of the group shows up he talks about how the area is laid out like a minefield -- thanks for the heads up bub.<br /><br />If you want a contrast in how a horror movie involving a small military group can be done well on a low budget check out Outpost. Harvest is not the movie you want to see. In fact I think I'm going to give it a two instead of a three if I can make it through the second half. Seems unlikely at this point.

I don't know if this type of movie was as cliché then as it seems to be now.<br /><br />Considering how many "Bad News Bears" films had already been released by 1980, however, I think that this sort of movie was already a tired idea.<br /><br />A former football player is partially paralyzed in Vietnam and is confined to a wheelchair. The Chicago Bears offer him a PR job but he wants to coach. At the same time, his underage nephew is picked up for armed robbery. We are told that he has already been arrested over a dozen times before and he must now serve some hard time...which turns out to be less than a year! <br /><br />Of course, the kid is actually a good kid who only needs a tough male role model in his life. The same goes for all of the kids in the detention facility. Yes...even the one locked up for attempted murder! I'm sure you already know what happens so I'll try and keep the rest of this brief.<br /><br />Our protagonist becomes the coach of the kids' football team. He overcomes the delinquents' cynicism and earns their respect. His team faces off against a local high school team (yeah right!) and they get their butts kicked. Now determined more than ever to prove himself a worthy coach, he demands a rematch. Will these underprivileged, scrappy kids with hearts of gold be able to improve enough to win the rematch? Awful execution of the football sequences ruins any possibility of excitement in this film. "Coach Of The Year" should get penalized for roughing my brain. 1/10

What a truly moronic movie, all I can say is the writer must be very fond of magic mushrooms and LSD because this must be the result of one of his 'trips'.<br /><br />You follow the whole movie thinking alright this is very weird but hey I'm sure at the end there will be a perfectly good explanation for all of this... Only to be disappointed to find erm no there's no explanation at all and the twist at the end makes it even more confusing. At the end of the movie you'll probably have the same facial expression as if you were standing in a Que paying for you groceries and the merchant told you, that'll be 11.95 please and proceeded to elbow you in the balls for no apparent reason. There are so many factors in this movie that go unexplained and I think it leaves it to the imagination of the viewer in an entirely bizarre way. Don't get me wrong I like weird movies, 'The Cell' could easily be described as weird and twisted but in my eyes it's a brilliant movie (despite casting J-Lo who I dislike to the maximum even that didn't manage to sway my opinion). This isn't one of those movies, and I think you should take in to consideration the characters of those who praise this movie. I can tell you they are probably the sort of people that would go to an art exhibition, see a splat of pigeon excrement on a white board and say "Oooooh what a masterpiece, the artist has truly found a unique way to portray eternity" when in actual fact all it is, is bird excrement on a board.<br /><br />Keep that last bit in mind when watching this movie, <br /><br />Thanks for reading!

One can always tell if I'm enjoying a movie by the number of times I cross my legs, switch positions, make slight rustling noises, etc., etc. The lesser = the better. I moved so many times throughout this movie that I succeeded in knocking over my friends giant tub of popcorn and getting a huge thigh-strengthening workout.<br /><br />Sobieski, a young actress who at some points in "A Soldier's Daughter Never Cries" gave some promise for her thespian talents, played poorly in a poorly-written part. Depressing fact number one. Number two: Chris Klein was in it. Depressing fact number three: Chris Klein had lines. Number four: Chris Klein played a valedictorian. Woah. Dummies from rich families unite! Even worse, he actually tries to act, but only succeeds in sounding like a mentally disabled overactor in an increasingly sappy independent version of a Cecille B. DeMille film. Go back to humping your American Pies.<br /><br />This movie was terrible in almost every sense, save Josh Hartnett's mildly endearing performance as LeeLee's stiffed boyfriend Jasper. Luckily, he refrains from trying to have too many "moments," unlike all the other characters. Of course, this is why he's much better than the rest and he actually shows some mettle here. If you like Josh or are thinking of casting a kid who knows a few things, he's your man. <br /><br />Hartnett is a sharp actor, but the rest need no further lambasting.<br /><br />2 out of 10 (for poor Hartnett in this terrible film)<br /><br />

This was one of Christie's later stories. Throughout her long career, she was interested in the shifting narrative and the notion of conflicting agents. Both are essentially the same thing and boil down to questions of who it is that controls or creates the situation.<br /><br />In detective fiction, the game is a matter of conflicting realities. The murderer intends to change reality to fool the detective, the writer intends to do the same to the reader. Both the reader and the detective are in similar battles to create what they see. That's why her stories often include a writer.<br /><br />In her works, she explores every combination of tricks she can think of that deal with this. Along the way, we often have bodies that are not who they seem, and times, and intended victims and such. But the real magic of the books is this notion of control. In 'Bertram's' it was literally a building.<br /><br />Here, it is a dead man. Well, sometimes that happens, but not like this. It is as if the writer were the famous Mr. Rafiel. This is particularly sweet to Marple readers who remember this same character from the 'Carribean Mystery,' which in a way was also framed by her nephew. In that story, Rafiel was the conveyor of the story to the authorities.<br /><br />The producers of this series have an almost wacky commitment to using a different creative team on each one. Sometimes it produces bland work. The 'Bertram's' episode was rather brilliantly staged. This one is the most lavish of the lot, and has an active camera. But unlike the 'Bertram's' work, it has nothing to do with the story.<br /><br />The camera moves and captures merely because it can. The 'Citizen Kane' quote at the beginning was a little too literal and blunt. This story is good, but the adapter took out some pretty critical stuff, and that irrelevant camera annoys.<br /><br />Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

This is not a good film by an standards. It is very poorly written and the acting is just a little above par (some performances are well below par, but Swayze and Grey do a very good job with little to work with).<br /><br />What was good:<br /><br />The dance sequences were choreographed very well and, as stated above, Swayze and Grey were high points.<br /><br />What was bad:<br /><br />The script. The "bad" guys were simply too evil to be believable. The best villains are the ones who aren't so obviously evil. These guys (the owner's nephew, the waiter who impregnates the girl) do and say NOTHING that would leave me to believe they could be real people (perhaps there are guys like them, but I sure don't want to see a movie about it).<br /><br />Another scene, the first where Grey and Swayze meet when the employees at the resort are "dancing". Swayze and Grey dance together and seem to enjoy themselves. The next time they meet, Swayze is hostile towards her. Why? What happened in between to make him dislike her so when they danced well together?<br /><br />And some of those lines, I mean COME ON (I cringed at the end when Swayze muttered the line "Nobody puts baby in the corner". How did he EVER do that with a straight face.)<br /><br />Another thing wrong, the setting of the 1960's. Everyone looked and dressed like the 1980's! Who was in charge of the costumes and hairstyles?<br /><br />The music (original music for the film) was laughable (with the exception of "I Had the Time of My Life" which was a good song).<br /><br />Not the worst film I've ever seen, but DEFINITELY the most over-rated

Jerry Angell, owner of zombie-horror's finest mullet, returns for more undead action in the sequel to director Todd Sheets' atrocious home-made gore-fest Zombie Bloodbath. This time around, Jerry plays a sleazy low-life thug who, along with his equally despicable partner-in-crime, some escaped convicts, several teenagers, and a bunch of screaming girls, comes face-to-face with a horde of shambling, flesh-eating corpses.<br /><br />Obviously having learnt zilch about improving his craft in the two years since Zombie Bloodbath, Sheets delivers another shoddy mess of a film that somehow manages to be even worse than the original—a feat that I thought was almost impossible to achieve. The acting is uniformly lousy, the effects amateurish and cheap (most of the gore appears to be nothing more than a selection of offcuts, offal and blood from the local butcher's shop), the story incomprehensible (as far as I could fathom, the zombies rise from the dead because a scarecrow commands them to!!!), and the direction frustratingly laden with cheap looking video effects and completely meaningless cuts to black-and-white.<br /><br />And as if that wasn't enough to convince you of this film's complete lack of redeeming features, the simply mind-bogglingly moronic ending should do the trick: the few remaining survivors stumble upon an abandoned truck that conveniently happens to have a stash of flesh-eating bacteria laying on its passenger seat—just the thing for dissolving the undead (but, strangely enough, not at all detrimental to the living).

The real surprise of this effortlessly lightweight movie is how such a top notch cast got assembled for what is nothing more than a hammy uninspiring affair. Presumably it was a proverbial snowball rolling down a hill gathering pace and size and shape. One can imagine that by the time Miranda Richardson got contacted by her agent, the conversation went along the lines of: 'Do you want to shoot a movie in Dublin scripted by Neil Jordan? Michael Caine and Michael Gambon are already in!' This is a dull 'comedy' that sees Michael Caine and Dylan Moran try and pull off a well-planned hustle where Moran must imitate a London gangland boss (whose arrival is imminent) to collect a sizeable sum of cash from local kingpin Michael Gambon. The rest is simply a forgettable romp that is thankfully over quite quickly. Moran is mildly amusing in places but on this evidence is better suited to life on the small screen in hit comedies such as Black Books. Caine is unchallenged in his role and gives a steady performance without being overstretched. One can only imagine what made him sign up for this movie - it can't even have been a summer in Dublin given that many of the scenes look positively autumnal in the background. Gambon actually steals the show, and anyone who has caught some of his performances in the likes of Have I Got News For You will know that he is a wonderfully funny man. But overall the result is disappointing, and it seems a lifetime ago that Neil Jordan was making quality movies of the likes of Mona Lisa.

INFERNO starts off with a fairly impressive for a TVM starscape effect . We`re also introduced to a scientist who`s called Heller . Don`t you get it ? Heller , Hell-er , Inferno . So I guess someone on the production had some intelligence . However it does become more and more obvious as the TVM progresses that intelligence has been discarded throughout the storyline in order to appeal to an American TVM audience <br /><br />The story itself is overwhelmed by subplots featuring umpteen stock TVM characters like the tough liberal schoolteacher who`s trying to save a home boy from a life of crime , the doctor who`s lost his medical licence etc . In fact the story concentrates far more on these characters than the approaching disaster that all the potential tension and drama the scenario might have had soon goes up in a puff of smoke , and being a TVM we just know that there won`t be a downbeat ending <br /><br />There is an onscreen problem I noticed and that is everytime there`s an explosion there`s a massive fireball which looks ridiculous not to mention physically impossible . Look at the scene where the national guard are in a fight with a gang . A soldier fires a grenade into a tower block and the whole building explodes in a fire ball . What a small greanade containing no more than a few ounces of high explosive can do that ! No it can`t . There`s also another scene of army engineers blowing up a dam with plastic explosive and the same fireball effect is seen . Can directors please note that high explosive is not the same as napalm <br /><br />Having said that I did find INFERNO highly watchable for a TVM and at no time did I find myself wanting to turn it off . It did have some potential and let me repeat the special effects are fairly good considering the budget and it`s not as bad a TVM as some people are making out

When I first saw a glimpse of this movie, I quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of Lucille Ball. Rachel York's portrayal of Lucy is absolutely awful. Lucille Ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. To think about a legend like Lucille Ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. I cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better Lucy, the producers decided to get Rachel York. She might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of Lucille Ball is tough. It is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble Lucille Ball, but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. If you noticed York's portrayal of Lucy in episodes of I Love Lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin, nothing is similar in any way-her expression, voice, or movement.<br /><br />To top it all off, Danny Pino playing Desi Arnaz is horrible. Pino does not qualify to play as Ricky. He's small and skinny, his accent is unreal, and once again, his acting is unbelievable. Although Fred and Ethel were not similar either, they were not as bad as the characters of Lucy and Ricky.<br /><br />Overall, extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. If people want to understand the real life situation of Lucille Ball, I suggest watching A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi, read the book from Lucille Ball herself, or PBS' American Masters: Finding Lucy. If you want to see a docudrama, "Before the Laughter" would be a better choice. The casting of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in "Before the Laughter" is much better compared to this. At least, a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.

The concept for this movie was quite good. But somehow the execution failed on many parts. There aren't many horror movies that I can think of that used dolls that looked so realistic. Especially when these dolls start blinking their eyes or moving hands. So much could have been done with this premise. There were a lot of scenes where there was room for tension and suspense. And I really was expecting creepy things to happen. But never did the movie managed to be scary. One of the main reasons is that the story is too minimal and predictable. I actually thought that they did this on purpose in order to surprise us with some wonderful twist. Sadly this doesn't happen. Well at least not in the way that I hoped for. The cast also failed to make it all believable. It would have been nice if more background was given on the characters. In the beginning when we get introduced to the main character. It seems that she and other characters are invited by some sort of artist. But it also is apparent that they don't have an idea themselves what they are invited for. Of course this is part of the mystery. But it does seem unlikely. If I got an invitation without having a clue what the deal is I simply would not go. Furthermore most characters aren't real likable with the end result that you never actually care for them. Another flaw is that the director deviates from the basic premise which is scary enough and brings up new elements that never get explained and aren't even relevant to the "Doll Master mystery". Overall this movie has been a big disappointment to me. If you want to see a good horror movie involving dolls go see "Dead Silence"!

Firstly, this movie works in the fact that it is disturbing. I really did not like seeing all these scenes where people get cut up alive, etc. The weirdly erotic introduction gives one a sense of necrophiliactic wonder. It is somewhat... distastefull to me personally. But the movie really works in that respect, and it is suppposed to be scary, so I give it credit for that. Yup, a few points there for those scalpels and....well, damned disturbing idea of getting disected alive.<br /><br />But what this movie lacks is an interesting plot, characterization, or real surprises. The whole teen-flick horror genre usually goes in a very simple, predictable way. Lots of 'tense' moments, creepy guys who are insane, and the big question of all: is the boyfriend the murderer? This movie fits into the category of "Scream" and countless others which have spawned over the 90s. Well, I won't spoil it for you, but it's not exactly interesting who is the killer. We find out who it is half way through... and from there on, the movie drudges on, trying to fill in some time... rather boringly to say the least. I was looking at the clock a bit on this movie.<br /><br />The lead actress is great, as usual, but the carboard acting box she is placed into makes one groan in pain... the college girl who is a detective who everyone thinks is insane, but she is the one who really knows whats going on. And the cops? Ahhh, they just laugh and eat donuts. Very predictable, flat, disturbing at times, and most of all, boring and dull... It's like an American film company took a flight to Germany to shoot a movie to make it foreign..... hmmm..... or did they?<br /><br />

Okay, I had reasonably high expectations for this. The controversial subject matter was a good concept. As a horror fan I admit I was fascinated and very excited about this.<br /><br />It turns out they had a great idea, but it was terribly executed. Let's see. This movie seems to run in 3 modes: Happy, Sex and Dark. The problem is that the movie never decides what it wants to be. The "Happy" parts I believe were meant to contrast with the "Dark" parts, but it doesn't work. The soundtrack is one of the reasons.<br /><br />The movie transitions between these 3 modes very badly, I can't even begin to say how much the directing and editing suck. There's sex in the most unappealing and unerotic way. I'm not complaining but even for Horror standards they were unnecessary and filler.<br /><br />The characters are all unlikeable with the exception of Paula (Potente). Her friend from Munich is a slut and possibly one of the most annoying characters in movies I've come across recently.<br /><br />There's a bit of plot which I won't go into detail... It's not stupid and in more talented hands would make a good movie. There's even a nice twist and a cool conspiracy going on. Don't try to understand everything because there are giant plot holes here.<br /><br />It's all so shoddily done that you don't care for the victims, the perpetrators, anyone. And to think this could have been great. I can say ONE good thing about it which is, the movie shed some light on today's unethical medical procedures. With genetics and controversial sciences advancing, this could have been a great philosophical film that raises and discusses these questions. But you won't find that here, just a series of scenes loosely pasted together with people and things that you don't care about.<br /><br />Skip this and go watch Flatliners instead, you're welcome.<br /><br />3/10

1st watched 6/24/2007 - 4 out of 10(Dir-Stefan Rujowitzky): OK thriller, but a little too predictable. This story is based in Germany, which is also where the movie is made. It is about a young medical student who gets a shot to go to a premiere school in Heidelberg and arrives seeing some strange things occurring. Someone she met on the train there and saved, shows up on the school's experimentation table and she's suspecting foul play right away. She does some investigation and the disappearance of her friend leads her to a secret society called AAA(and no it's not Alcoholics Anonymous) that has something to do with the anti-Hippocratic oath and is used to perform experimentations on live people that doctor's wouldn't normally be able to do. She finds out her grandfather(who was a dean at the school) was a big part of establishing it and it's pretty readily filled by members of the school. It's an interesting story but the problem with this movie is how quickly the audience is told what's going on and then it's kind of a horror movie with the heroine fighting off the bad boy of the group that's taking things to the next psychotic level. Although this movie was made in Europe, it plays to a young American audience with it's focus on gore, sex and the horror film premise(which is really it's big downfall) and explains why it probably made good money and spawned a sequel but doesn't necessarily make for a good movie.

I watched this basically for the sole reason that it was supposed to have Third Reich references in it. It turned out a pretty brainless and predictable slasher film that appeared to be made to appeal to feminists or something.<br /><br />Let me tell you something, if you wait an entire movie to see the attractive female lead's breasts, the last thing you want is a "tastefully" done sex scene with annoying camera angles that don't show anything. Her busty friend didn't get hers out either, but we saw plenty of men's butts and pubic hair and guys with their shirts off. And at the end you have our heroine magically dodging the scalpel thrusts and swings of the villain (who turns out to be the hunk, funnily enough) and she easily out fights him (uh huh) while her male love interest is tied down and waiting to be rescued. The funniest part was when she picks up a chair and "swings" it at the guy and it breaks over him. Now it'd be about as much as she could manage to lift the chair let alone smash it against a person with enough force to break it! It looks ridiculous, she basically brushes it against him and it falls apart. If you are going to do this sort of "role reversal" rubbish (which has already been done to death) then you have to at least make it semi plausible.<br /><br />There was one good bit though. The bad guy did get the better of her slutty friend, teaching her a lesson for being such a tramp and sleeping around. That's not exactly something feminists would like.<br /><br />Pretty stupid really. Not that American slasher flicks are generally much better, but you have to wonder why they bothered. It brought nothing new to the genre at all.<br /><br />5/10

To be honest, I've never been to the Congo or even Africa, and after watching the made for television movie Heart of Darkness, I do not think I'd want to. The movie completely shames the book to the highest level possible. Though the book was not the best I have read, after watching the movie, I seemed to appreciate the book a hundred times more. Nicolas Roeg, the director of the movie, did a horrible job portraying Joseph Conrad's novella into a movie. I give Roeg some credit for trying to attempt the impossible by making the book into a movie, but this may not have been the job for him. The movie was unsuccessful to express any part of the novella other than the basics of the plot. The set and scenery also lacked the beauty Conrad portrayed of Africa in the book. In the book Marlow had seen so many great wonders, but in the movie you did not get that same experience. No, I'm not blaming everything on the director; the acting in the film was just terrible. All of the actors were dull and uninteresting. Throughout the whole movie I felt as if the actors were not putting forth any emotions, as if they were reading from the script the entire time. Tim Roth, who plays Marlow, did not portray Marlow's sense of adventure for his journey into the Congo well. Marlow's journey to find Kurtz was supposed to venturesome, but I didn't experience that in the movie. I would not recommend watching this movie, especially if you have read the book already. It does not come close to doing justice for Joseph Conrad's novella. Conrad's words capture the reader and take them on the journey with Marlow, on his quest to find Mr. Kurtz, where as the film did not. A great novella, but a very poor film. Heart of Darkness, the movie, is based on the book written by Joseph Conrad also called Heart of Darkness.

Heart of Darkness Movie Review Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness is pretty dark, deep, and very profound. I would have to say reading the novel is way better than the movie. The character Mr. Kurtz, played by John Malcovik was totally the wrong actor to do the part. He fit the character in "Of Mice and Men." The movie left out man key parts that I consider important to get the true message of the story.<br /><br />The movie is poorly edited. It shows a lot of non-important and annoying flashes. In the novel it has a very suspenseful atmosphere, but in the movie it lacks that kind of feeling. In the book there is so much that was left to the imagination of the reader. For example when Marlow spent timeless hours and days waiting for rivets and that entire scene was left out of the movie. In the novel Marlow waited very long time for the rivets to come for him to fix his boat. This was a big source of futility in the novel. The movie added more parts that were useless and kind of didn't make sense. For example, when Kurtz was talking to Marlow at the end of the book and Kurtz snapped the monkey's neck and killed him. That kind of just ruined everything, didn't make any sense to me what so ever. So my suggestion to you is don't view the movie, just read the book. You will understand more and have a better interpretation of the story.<br /><br />~Chris C.

Heart of Darkness, a short novel written by Joseph Conrad about greed, corruption, and traveling through Africa was, to say the least, a tedious read. The Narrator follows Marlow, a seaman who travels into the deep of Africa to rescue Kurtz, somewhat of a prodigy Ivory trader who supposedly went crazy, this conclusion arose when the Ivory stopped coming into the main port. The basis of the story is Conrad writing lavishly of the surroundings, he sets the scene wonderfully, but possibly a bit to extensively. The story seemed more like a water color painting, as apposed to the slow creeping mild action story that Conrad might have intended to pan out.<br /><br />It sometimes happens that after you read a book, maybe watching the feature film might help correspond some thoughts with those in the book, or vise versa. Not so with Heart of Darkness, even with the supporting role of masterpiece actor John Malkovich the movie only confused me more, there seemed to be no real main characters in the film, no one stood out to the others, non of the extensive symbolism was explained. It was rather bland and drudging to say the least.<br /><br />In all do respect to the Author, The Heart of Darkness is a true short novel masterpiece, it touches on some very severe subjects, the lies of Marlow, and the greed of Kurtz. It is not a book to be taken lightly, and will put you in a rather somber mood. A book like this I feel might be to heavy for a lot of people. I would however recommend this book to those who crave a sad pseudo action story without a textbook happy ending.

The thing that's truly terrifying about this is that the filmmakers thought they were making something intelligent and sexy. Instead they made probably the stupidest horror picture of the year!<br /><br />This movie starts with a bunch of art snob friends at a gallery. This trashy European weirdo walks up and starts talking pretentious fruitiness to the main character, sounding like he just walked out of an episode of Dark Shadows. He then offers her up some stick to smoke(yes, a freakin' stick), which she eagerly agrees! He picks off some red crap and puts it in a spoon for her to freebase! If this ever happens to you in real life, don't do it!<br /><br />She's transported to some weird wannabe Jean Rollin netherworld that's supposed to be sexy but isn't, where there's this thing that looks like a rotted creature from the black lagoon!<br /><br />Soon she turns all her artsy sleazeball friends onto her new form of supernatural crack. No matter how much these idiots freak out and turn blue they can't leave it the hell alone. At one point she even makes out with the rotten creature!<br /><br />After the final battle and the stupid woman is vaporized or whatever, the so called hero is left alone to pack up his copy of Michael Moore's Dude Where's My Country and can't resist smoking that stick one more time to try to rescue his moron lady friend. What a dope.<br /><br />Rates four stars for sheer unintentional humor.

Out of the handful of alternative titles in English, "The Sexorcist" is definitely the most appropriate one, since this is basically just a shameless rip off of William Friedkin's classic horror film in which they replaced 13-year-old Linda Blair with the 19-year-old Stella Carnacina only so that she could gratuitously show her ravishing naked body. I'm not sure what exactly Satan tries to accomplish here, but he exclusively seems to possess the young girl to play sexual tricks on her! Poor Danila masturbates around the clock and tries to seduce priests and even her own father into having sex with her. The young girl is introduced as a smart and ambitious theology-student with an odd-looking boyfriend (driving a stupid yellow car) and loving, albeit adulterous parents. When she takes a peculiar crucifix home to renovate, the ancient relic comes to life and no less than Satan himself (played by Ivan Rassimov of "Jungle Holocaust" and "Planet of the Vampires") starts to torment her. The overlong masturbation sessions and some bizarre nightmare sequences cover about three quarters of the movie, and then finally director Mario Garriazzo begins with the actual exorcism. That final segment is even more embarrassing and amateurish! The priests don't really do anything apart from saying some vague prayers but, somehow, Danila seems cured all of a sudden. There isn't much gore, the dialogues are horrible and the producers seem to compensate every little flaw by adding more sleaze! This is one of the strangest Italian exploitation efforts of the seventies (why the hell are they referring to "The Rocky Horror Picture Show"?), but definitely not one of the best. If you fancy clones of "The Exorcist", I recommend "Demon Witch Child", "Beyond the Door" and "The Antichrist".

The Wind. Easily one of the worst films ever made. The only good that comes from this kind of pointless drivel, is the fact that seeing films like this get distribution makes indy horror filmmakers like me confident that my upcoming feature will make the cut too. I mean, if this represents the market for indy horror, I could make a fortune videotaping myself taking out the garbage for 83 minutes. <br /><br />A complete list of what this film lacks would take way too long to write out. But, the highlites are: no story, terrible acting, awful cinematography, and virtually no editing. That last one bothered me the most. As an editor myself, this film drove me absolutely crazy because it had almost no editing at all. Every scene was shot in a master. They had absolutely no coverage at all. For anyone who doesn't know..."coverage" is shooting a scene from multiple angles to have cutting options when editing to make for a desirable viewing experience. Yeah, this movie had none of that. I'm talking about even the simplest of scenes. Example: an ordinary conversation scene between two people sitting at a table would typically start out with a master establishing who's in the scene and where they are. Then, as the conversation goes on, you would cut back and forth to over-the-shoulder shots as the conversation continues. You may even throw in a cutaway shot or two of something on the table, or in someone's hand. Anything. This is "Film 101" stuff guys. It seems as though these people had no idea this is how films work. Every shot was a camera lock-down. No movement, no cutting, no nothing. If I was teaching a course in filmmaking, this would be the visual aid for my "What not to do" lesson.<br /><br />In closing, don't waste your time folks. The only amazing this about this film is that it ever scored distribution at all.<br /><br /> <br /><br />

Considering that they wanted to do a vampire movie in space, I thought, "Well, it'll probably be pretty cheesy, but at least interesting enough to see a different take on the whole genre." Whoops. I don't care what kind of movies you like; even if you're the biggest vampire, horror, thriller, or suspense fan in the world, or adversely, if you've never seen a horror movie before and would expect that your first would be impressive in any way whatsoever...you're wrong. I don't think I've ever seen a "made for TV movie" or after-school special this bad. I've never seen a TV pilot show this bad. I've never seen footage of animals sleeping or shitting that's as bad as this. This is, by far, the single biggest waste of hours you could otherwise spend contemplating the importance of dish towels and their effect on your life. I would far rather be trapped in a bathroom for weeks with nothing to consume but my own urine and excrement than watch even a single clip of this movie again. Watching this made me wish for the fates that the characters fell to instead of dealing with knowing that I paid money to watch it. It was, however, like a train wreck: so bad you just couldn't help but watch, hoping something good might happen. It didn't. Please, for the love of God, if you or your friends - even if using illicit substances while doing so - even consider watching this movie, choose instead to have a contest to see who can shoot a snot-rocket farther. It will bring you far greater enjoyment and entertainment.

My goodness. And here I thought that there were no directors worse than Uwe Boll.<br /><br />Imagine the number of decisions necessary to produce a motion picture. Conceptual approval. Scriptwriting. Dialogue editing. Casting. Set and prop design. Location selection. Acting. Timing. Cinematography. Lighting. Music. Sound and video editing. Direction.<br /><br />Now imagine that every single one of those decisions was made wrong.<br /><br />Result: Dracula 3000.<br /><br />For a film supposedly set in the 2900s, this movie looks surprisingly like a cheap gangsta flick of the 1970's. The set is ridiculous for the period. The dialogue is atrocious. The timing of each scene is ludicrous. The acting is beyond abysmal. Everything stinks.<br /><br />Let's just take props, for example. If you have a movie set on a space freighter built in 2900, how likely is it that it will have the exposed piping and hydraulic doors of a 1960's era oil tanker? What, technology hasn't changed in 900 years? The 'Professor' uses a standard tandy keyboard and Radio-Shack flipswitches to "reprogram" the computer. What, they haven't figured out voice control yet? Of course, the Prof is tethered to a wheelchair. With wheels. Even though, you know, they've got intergalactic hyperdrive...but apparently not even a motorized wheelchair, much less a floating one, or bionic legs or something. And apparently this freighter was carrying an intergalactic consignment of rosewood caskets. How convenient. Then there are the weapons -- the crew carry standard late 20th-century firearms. In a ship. In the vacuum of space, where one bullethole would kill them all. Nice planning there, prop department.<br /><br />Oh, why go on.

My original comment on this particular title was deleted, by a IMDb user or the staff, only because I just happen to dislike this film to the point I had to sincerely write what I felt after seeing this poor excuse for a film. where's my freedom of word?<br /><br />Obviously this movie was made by students, 'cos so lame and amateurish it felt. Of course even they have to start from somewhere? The script was incoherent mess and so was the acting. With low budget and b- class actors, what can you expect? There's some CGI in places, so poor, it looks like done with an old PC. Some may say, this is sort of an "Alien" clone, only this time it's Dracula (in a vintage costume) who's sucking the other cast dry, one by one. The sets are unconvincing, cheap and small (boiler rooms), although the story takes place in a large space craft. <br /><br />It would be fun to know what the stars (Erika Eleniak, Casper Van Dien, Coolio and Udo Kier) thought about the film after it was released... Coolio must be the worst rapper turned actor ever!<br /><br />It was a total waste of my time and money, don't know why I even bothered to rent this flick. Honestly, I just hate this film. With Uwe Boll's House Of The Dead, Dracula 3000 shares the questionable honor of being the worst movie ever. (Well, I've seen even worse than these two)<br /><br />Avoid! Any other film will do better.

Wow, there's a lot of venom directed at this movie, and a lot of it is deserved, but it's not the WORST movie of all time. (That's probably "Zoolander".)<br /><br />Anyway, if you're high on something, really drunk, or just in the mood for a "B-minus- minus" movie that you can make fun of, this may be your cup of tea.<br /><br />Yes, as others said, the first part of the movie makes you think you're watching an updating of the Bram Stoker novel. Two of the main characters are named Van Helsing and Mina, the ship is the Demeter, and they're in the Carpathian galaxy. You later find that Van Helsing is a descendant of the original, and he just happens to be on a ship in the 30th century with Dracula. Suuuuuuuuuuure.<br /><br />Oh yeah, and to add to the originality, this "spooky ghost ship" movie has another character named Ash. Sound familiar?<br /><br />There's paper-thin character development and anachronisms like the aforementioned manual wheelchair, and Coolio and Tom Lister talking 20th century black slang. But what really makes the movie ridiculous is the ending. If THAT's what happens to the characters, then the previous two hours have been a waste.<br /><br />Like I said, it you want a dumb movie to play "Mystery Science Theater" with, and your mind is in approximately the same mode required for viewing the "Great Vegetable Rebellion" episode of LOST IN SPACE, then you may find this diverting. Otherwise, put a stake in it, it's done.

This was on SciFi this past weekend, and I had to check it out. After all... it was science fiction, with vampires and Erika Eleniak. What could go wrong with this B-movie?<br /><br />A lot.<br /><br />To start with: It can't even be classified as a "B-movie," because that would put it in the same league as Roger Corman... and this movie doesn't even meet his expectations. The most money they spent was on the contact lenses for the vampires.<br /><br />Secondly: The casting was horrible. Yes, casting Udo Kier as the captain of the Demeter was a smart move... but the director clearly couldn't even get Kier to memorize his lines. Casting Eleniak, in a vampire movie, is also a smart move because it means a bunch of horny guys are going to buy/rent/record this flick to watch her get seduced by a vampire. But, the director, writer and producer screwed that one, too. Granted, they got some money out of the poor, unfortuate souls who enjoy watching vampire movies with hot women in them... but no one is going to remember this movie in another two or three years.<br /><br />Thirdly: Little things that just emphasize the laziness in this movie. For example, Van Helsing calls a cross a "crucifix," and, when Mina is staked in the coffin, the viewer can clearly see the fact that her "chest" is nothing more than pillows.<br /><br />Oh, and one other thing: Why did they go for the George Hamiltion-type Dracula instead of something that would look decently scary? Does George Hamilton have an overwhelming hold on our future? Why didn't everyone who saw Dracula just laugh at him for his get-up?<br /><br />A waste of time. Even with a TiVo remote in your hand.