text
stringlengths 53
13.5k
| label
class label 2
classes |
|---|---|
this be an incredibly stupid movie . it be possibly the bad movie i have ever have the displeasure of sit through . i can not fathom how it rank a rating of 5 or 6 . | 0neg
|
sloppily direct and witless comedy that supposedly spoof the classic 50 alien invasion film and but really be no good than them and except of course in the purely technical department ( good makeup effect ) . and any spoof that be bad than it target be doom to fail ( casino royale and our man flint be bad than almost any james bond movie ) . after two hour of hear the screech voice of the alien and you will be beg for some peace and quiet . ( half ) . | 0neg
|
dysfunctional family go home for the holiday and murder and mayhem result . violent sexy milligan at his most home make . little good than a home movie ( a much of milligans film be ) this be a trip into depravity 1960 style . notable for the copious nudity and sex this film be neither sexy nor gruesome and play now more a quaint . ( though decidedly r rat ) . the film suffers from it uneven cast and from the cheapness of the production . ( no one be ever sure where the money go on his movie since he be always broke ) . it a bad bad movie thats not worth see except a a milligan completeist or because it get some good look people fool around . | 0neg
|
if youre after the real story of early baroque painter artemisia gentileschi and you will be disappoint however if youre after a reasonably craft bodice ripper with an art theme and you have find youre movie . this film be such a foundationally inaccurate depiction of artemisia gentileschi life that it almost make me weep . ( type in artemisia inaccuracy in google and check out some of the fact vs. fiction article . ) from a purely technical point of view though and the film be alright represent the set and costume and and especially the chiaroscuro lighting help create an immersive early 17th century experience while although the above mention glare factual inaccuracy let it down a bit . i wonder how the director or co writer agnès merlet defend her film at the time . perhaps she refuse to portray artemisia a a victim and which would have be unfortunate and because let face it and she be . | 0neg
|
a others have note and this movie be criminally inaccurate in it portrayal of the artist life and i for one be very annoyed and offend . by it transformation of her rape into a tragic love affair and by the implication that her rapist be responsible for awaken her talent and by it complete disregard for her work and by the way it turn her into a sex object and on and on and you get the idea . also and i find it disturb that people who aren not familiar with gentileschi will see this film and walk away with that kind of impression of her . | 0neg
|
artemesia take the usual story about the art world and eg and you can not paint that . but i want to . and plaster it with sex and scandal to make the whole film and well and interesting and but not remarkable . the story be about one of the first female painter around and artemesia who course and be fiercely independent and but just can not stop thinking of men and and their body for artistic purpose of course . she soon get private tutoring from one of a well know artist and but soon tutor becomes much more then art and and soon after that and scandal erupts . funny how they could take a historical biography and make it almost into a soft porn fantasy . i mean and be artemesia that much of a man hungry person . also and it quite funny when she insist that she paint for herself . yet fall for the first person she see . actually and the story itself be quite fascinating and and it end with a trial and which i always love . but i wasn not too crazy about the male lead who play her teacher and who look rather like the person someone like that wouldn not fall for . i woulda go for the young fisherman representp . | 0neg
|
the acting be good and the woman be beautiful and and the men be handsome and so if youre look for well act soft porn and this movie be for you . otherwise and you be waste your time . the motivation of the main character and in particular the eponymous lead and be often a mystery . she could have just tell the truth the truth a present in the film and not necessarily the historical truth and her lover would have be spared time in jail for a rape he do not commit . be she protect her father and who go off half cocked and a it be and when he impetuously instigate a malicious lawsuit . be she protect herself and with her reputation suddenly of concern when heretofore only her art seem to matter . during the trial and this strong will woman turn to mush before our eye . conversely and her lover and who start off a a narcissistic jerk and become a selfless hero during the trial . at least his motivation be clear represent he sacrifice himself for love . naturally and since no good deed must go unpunished and we be tell that she never see him again . | 0neg
|
an awful film . it must have be up against some real stinker to be nominate for the golden globe . they have take the story of the first famous female renaissance painter and mangle it beyond recognition . my complaint be not that they have take liberty with the fact while if the story be good and that would perfectly fine . but it simply bizarre by all account the true story of this artist would have make for a far good film and so why do they come up with this dishwater dull script . i suppose there weren not enough naked people in the factual version . it hurriedly cap off in the end with a summary of the artist life we could have save ourselves a couple of hour if they would favor the rest of the film with same brevity . | 0neg
|
what do the director think . everybody who have read the biography of artemisia be leave impressed by her gut to face a public rape trial in renaissance time and even suffer torture in order to show that tassi be guilty . that fact show the real independence and emancipation in her most terrible hour she stand her man . why do movie depict renaissance have to be so clinically beautiful and romantic and be we afraid to see the gritty side of life or have the hollywood happy happy mood win . while i would always defend a director freedom to create his own reality in a movie i can not make sense of turn artimisia life story on it head . very disappointing choice by the maker of this film . | 0neg
|
this flick be a blow to me . i guess little girl should aspire to be nothing more than swimsuit model and home maker or mistress and since that seem to be all they will ever be portray a anyway . it be truly sadden to see an artist work and life be so unjustly misinterpretated . inconcievably ( or perhaps it should have be expect ) and artemisia entire character and all that she stand for and have be reduce to a standard hollywood and female character while a pitiful and physically flawless and helpless little creature and display none of the character traits that actually get her that place in history which be be mutilate here . sadder yet and be to see that a great part of the audience be too badly educate in the area to comprehend the incredible gap between the message convey in the film and and reality . to portray the artist a someone in love with her real life rapist and someone whom she in reality accuse of rap her even when under torture and just plain piss me off . if the director have nothing more substantial to say she should have refrain from base her story on a real person . | 0neg
|
when i saw the preview and i think represent this be go to be a great movie . and indeed it could have be . the actress play the main character be very credible and and the beauty of the filming be undeniable . however the dialogue cast a dark shadow on the whole picture . the level of language be too familiar and too contemporary for an action take place in 1610 and and it take away most of the magic of the film . however and i must congratulate the translator and because the english sub title be more refined and appropriate that the original french cue and and it probably explain the good rating the movie receive on the imbd . | 0neg
|
i be disgust by this movie . no it wasn not because of the graphic sex scene and it be because it ruin the image of artemisia gentileschi . this movie do not hold much truth about her and her art . it show one piece of art work that she do ( judith behead holofernese ) but show that be enter a testimony in the rape trial when she do not paint her first judith for a year after the trial . i do not know if you understand this from the movie and probably not and tassi be not a noble character . he rap artemisia . it be not love and it be rape . he do not claim to accept false charge of rape to stop her from suffer while she be torture . accord to the rape transcripts he continue to claim that he never carnally knew artemisia ( aka have sex with ) while she state over and over again it true . i encourage all of you people to go out and find about the real artemisia and see what she be really about . don not base all of your knowledge on this fictional movie . i encourage you to do some research and artemisia really do have interesting story behind her and some amazing art work . don not see the movie and but find out the true story of artemisia . | 0neg
|
i do not think the french could make a bad movie and but i be and clearly and very wrong . a have be say before and this film essentially use it title character a a point of departure while it portrayal of her life and person have little or nothing to do with the real artemisia gentileschi . the script be awful pretentious and stilted and and vapid and it rewriting of the fact be unusually offensive even in a genre that all too often make it living by distort and rather than retell and history . along with some fairly decent set design and valentina cervi physical charm be the primary asset of this movie and and it obvious from the beginning that the filmmaker be aware of this too while they waste no time in contrive various erotic sequence which have far more to do with titillation than with plot or character development . unfortunately and the appeal of see a pretty young girl in a state of feigned sexual arousal can not and and do not and sustain this movie . the acting be unremarkable and and the score be all too generic despite an interesting chord or two . the cinematography be ok and and there be some pretty color and but there be also some pretty ridiculous sequence use distorted lens effect more appropriate for a 1960s freakout movie than a costume drama . in any event and the script leave the camera dwell all too often on artemisia body and and all too seldom on her painting . all tell and a near complete failure . it not intelligent or tasteful enough to be a serious film and and it too slow and pretentious to work a soft core pornography . so the french can fail and after all . | 0neg
|
it figure this be a french film and lol and with the emphasis on young girl with much old men . why be it the french be so fixate on this kind of thing . when the age difference be this great and it really come off a pervy . valentina cervi be beautiful ( she bear a strong resemblance to olivia hussey and of zeffirelli 68 romeo and juliet and set in a similar period ) and but she look about 15 and the actor play tassi and her painting instructor and look . well and 50 be kind . other poster have do the work of explain the historical record ( unusually detail in this case ) of the real artemisia and a great artist and one of the early recognize female painter of this period ( 17th century ) . her story speaks to u in modern time particularly because of the age old accusation that all great artist be men she pretty much blast that assertion to bit and because the story of her rape trial be so poignant . not only be she clearly assault and and force into a degrade sexual relationship ( because in those day marriage to your assaulter be the only way to avoid social shame ) and but tassi be a serial rapist and possibly kill his wife and child . the movie do a terrible disservice by invert this truly fascinate and remarkable real life story very dramatic and not in need of any spice up because in some weird frencified way and it hot to have an oversexed teenager draw male sexual organ and have a hot love affair with a man old enough to be her grandfather . that sexy the truth be boring and seem too feminist or politically correct . it also disturb me that this be only part of artemisia life consider interesting enough to film . the fact that she paint for decade ( her famous painting of judith beheading holfernes be paint after and not before the rape ) and that she be the first woman admit to the prestigious florentine academy and that she go on to have child . oh that bore stuff . after all and that about a middle age woman and they aren not hot like teenager . i understand that there be a lot of creative license in make a film ( or a book ) about a real historical character . you need to create dialog and have subplots and create dramatic structure . certainly some detail can be sacrifice it no big deal if the date be move a few year and or if artemisia be play by a blonde actress ( when we know from her self portrait that she be a brunette . and a big bone one and not a skinny minny ) and or something like that . but to turn her story around on her and and make rape into a romance be actually sick and disturb . it even worse because the director be female . she should be horribly ashamed of herself . if you like this ( and i know some people could care less about the real woman artist and just like period costume and hot sex ) and you will probably like dangerous beauty with rufus sewell and catherine mccormack . similarly base on heavily re write history and with lot of heave bosom and jewel encrust goblet represent bon appetit . | 0neg
|
any time a movie be so myopic in it desire to present a particular end or viewpoint that it simply doesn not bother with an actual story and it annoy . those be the type of movie where the end or viewpoint be conceive first and and the story simply tack on . for this reason we often talk of the story jump through hoop a it twist about and try in vain to progress to the preordain end in a logical fashion . the story in comet over broadway doesn not just jump through hoop and it a three ring circus . it so ludicrous and so ill conceive and so disingenuous that and if you be prone to speak aloud to the screen and you will be carry on quite a rant before it through . the central theme of this screenplay cesspool be that of a woman choose between family and profession . since it all so horribly muddle it will end up offensive to people of either opinion . so and in the end there no point to the story and the theme become irrelevant and and a be often the case with poor screenplay and the act doesn not save a thing . | 0neg
|
2 star for kay francis she wonderful . and she do not deserve this horrible tripe that warner bros. throw her way . the two pronged premise that this movie be base on be ridiculous and unbelievable in the extreme . kay be a small town wife and mother who yearn for something big represent she want to be an actress . when a big shot actor come to town and invite kay to his hotel to talk about possibility and kay tell her husband she go to the movie . the hubby biddy of a mother put a bug in hubby ear that kay not be truthful and and he set out look for her . he find her w or the actor in the hotel ( they be only talk . ) and he slug the guy and who fall over a railing and land face first in a pond ( lake . ) and and dy . now here the two unbelievable premise upon which the rest of the movie be base represent 1 ) the judge tell the jury that if it determine that the man die before his head go into the water and that they must find the hubby guilty of first degree murder . ( whaaaaa . i think slug a guy in a fit of rage would count for manslaughter or murder 2 at the most and not first degree murder . give me a break . but the plot require him be find guilty of murder 1 so that he could be send to prison for life . whatever . ) 2 ) the hubby lawyer and after the conviction and sentencing and tell kay that it all her fault . his reasoning be that if she hadn not go over to the actor room and then her husband wouldn not have have to go after her and slug the guy and kill him . he tell her that she the guilty one and not her husband and and she nod and agrees . what . the . hell . the rest of the movie be all about kay try to achieve fame and money in order to get her husband release from prison and right the wrong she commit by cause him to kill the actor dude in the first place . i can not even go on with this review . the movie be just all too painful . four year earlier and in the pre code day and you would never have catch kay play such a wimp . in true kay francis fashion and though and she do do her best to make u believe that this woman be a believable character . i give her much credit for try to breathe some life and credibility to this thankless role . this character be a far cry from pre code kay role and real life spitfire kay francis . steer way clear of this one . there be much good kay francis vehicle out there . ( from personal experience and i can highly recommend mary stevens and md and jewel robbery while also good be dr. monica and one way passage . i be sure there other great kay flick a well and but i be only mention the one i have see and can recommend . ) . | 0neg
|
wow and the plot for this film be all over the place . there be so much plot and so many thing that happen that it practically make my head spin . and and a a result and none of it seem particularly believable . the movie start with kay francis a a housewife living in a small town . she have some experience with local theater and have ambition of go to broadway . when a big time actor arrive in town and she pursue him in hope that he can give her a career boost . but and her husband be worry about shenanigan a this actor be a cad . so and the hubby burst in on them and hit the actor and the actor die . a a result and he convict of first degree murder . not manslaughter and but murder 1. now and pregnant and in need of fund and kay go to new york . but broadway job aren not to be find and so she force to take any job even burlesque . unable to adequately care for her young daughter and she give it to another woman to raise . however and eventually she do find a job in a real broadway play and everything look rosy . but and the jealous diva star in the play hat her for some inexplicable reason and force her to be throw off the play . despondent and she make her way to england and become a real star . year later and she return to new york to get her kid but the child be old and think the woman care for her be her real mother . at the same time and her husband lawyer now think that if he get $ 10 and 000 he can get the man out of prison . a another reviewer write and be this to bribe people . how can $ 10 and 000 get him out otherwise maybe it will buy a helicopter so they can fly into the prison yard and scoop him up . wow this be enough for 2 or 3 film . and and all this occur by the 45 minute mark . believe it or not and there quite a bit more to it . if you really care and see it yourself to find out how it all unfolds . this be sort of like kitchen sink write throw in practically everything and hoping and somehow and it will all work . unfortunately and the film turn out to be hopelessly unbelievable and mushy despite ms. francis best effort . it the sort of film no one could really have save thanks to a 2nd rate plot . it almost a if someone just take a few dozen plot element and throw them into a box and then begin randomly pick them in order to make a movie . overall and unless you be a die hard kay francis fan or love anything hollywood make in the 1930s and this one be one you can easily skip . not terrible but certainly not good . by the way and the child who play francis daughter upon her return to new york ( sybil jason ) really be terrible . i think she be suppose to be . i think . | 0neg
|
the competition for the bad warner bros kay francis movie be stiff . i have only see perhaps eight of them and but comet over broadway be the bad so far . the very best thing about it be that it short . oh and and the orry kelly gown ( of course ) be fine . james wong howe cinematography be not . kay francis throughout look fat face and far less attractive than she normally do . minna gombell whom i do not know otherwise be good a a semi tough burlesque dancer ( it look more like a fashion show than burlesque ) . the closing shot kay francis and her child ( when do the child learn that kay francis be her mother . do i doze off . ) walk up a dirt path toward a prison paint in misty outline on a sound stage drop be beyond ludicrous . the whole film be so cheap and so implausible and so careless that it feel infect by a sour cynicism on the part of everyone who make it represent warner bros toss garbage to dolt who do not know and in warner bros cynical estimation of them and that what theyre get be garbage . | 0neg
|
i read somewhere that when kay francis refuse to take a cut in pay and warner bros. retaliate by cast her in inferior project for the remainder of her contract . she decide to take the money . but her career suffer accordingly . that might explain what she be do in comet over broadway . ( though it doesn not explain why donald crisp and ian hunter be in it and too . ) ludicrous be the word that others have use for the plot of this film and and that right on target . the murder trial . her seedy vaudeville career . her success in london . her final scene with her daughter . no part logically lead to the next part . also and the set and costume look like b movie stuff . and her hair . turner be show lot and lot of her movie this month . watch any other one and you will be do yourself a favor . | 0neg
|
when convert a book to film and it be generally a good idea to keep at least some of the author intend tone or convey concept and rather than ignore the author altogether . while it be clear that the director have access to and go on the advice of elinore stewart child and it be key to note that the child believe their mother to be a complete liar in regard to the good and enrich and strengthen experience of homestead her land . the book detail her life on her and her husband adjoin homestead in the vast wyoming frontier while she chronicle daily adventure with her numerous friend and acquaintance and though they live dozen of mile apart . the film and however and take a standard stance for the time it be make and portray this woman experience a harsh and unforgiving and and nearly pointless . perhaps the director be bring some of his vietnam war experience with him to this movie ( a some film aficionado have say ) and but it seem to be a lousy excuse for take all the joy and beauty of the book and twist it into a bleak and odious landscape devoid of friend or hope . don not waste your time with this movie while read the book instead . | 0neg
|
one of the most disgusting film i have ever see . i want to vomit after watch it . i saw this movie in my american history class and the purpose be to see an incite on the life of a farmer in the west during the late 1800 . what we saw be pig be shot and then slaughter and human birth and branding . oh and at the end there be a live birth of a calf and let me tell you that the birth itself wasn not too bad and but the numerous fluid that come out drove most people in my class to the bathroom . the story itself be ok. the premise of the story be a widow and her daughter and they move to the west to be a house keeper of this cowboy . they live a life of hardship and it be an interest a pretty accurate view of life in the west during the late 1800 . but if you have a choice and do not see this movie . | 0neg
|
i realize that living in the western plain of wyoming during the 1900s be brutal and in fact and it probably be still brutal today and but be it monumental enough to transform into a seemingly make for tv movie . also and woman right be still bud in this nation during this time and so to find an independent woman determine to start fresh in this harsh territory and and still show the realism of the era would it make for good viewing . honestly and i do not know . i have think about this film for the past two day and and i still can not seem to muster the strength to say that it be a horrible film and yet i can truthfully tell you that it wasn not the great i have ever see . from several hodgepodge style of act and to two mismatched actor play devoid of emotion character and to some of the most gruesome pg rat scene to ever come out of late 70 cinema and it be hard to fully get a good grasp on heartland . be it good . be it bad . that may be up for you to view and decide yourself and but until then and here be moment i enjoy and desperately hat . this film continue to be a struggle in my mind because there be some very interesting scene . scene where i wasn not sure what the director be do or which direction he be head and but somehow still seem to work well a a whole . i think the story a a whole be a very interesting and historical tale . i do not know much about living in wyoming and especially during the early 1900s and so this film capture that image in my mind . the thought of very cold winter and no neighbor for mile upon mile and and this polaroid esquire view untouched by corporate america . it be refresh to witness and sheer breathtaking to experience ( though the television ) . there be scene that really stand out in my mind and like the cattle brand scene and the pig slaughter scene and and the sadden homesteader that do not survive their journey and that just bring a true sense of realism to this story . director richard pearce do a great job of bring the view of wyoming to the viewer and but i be not sure he bring decent player to accompany the view . while i will constantly compliment the scenery of this film and i have trouble cop with the actor that seemingly walk on the set and read their line from card on the side . rip torn seem out of place in his role a clyde stewart and a loner that somehow find a connection with conchata ferrell elinore randall . the two a actor have no chemistry at all . their scene that they share together be pointless and honestly void of any emotion . the pregnancy scene nearly have me in stitch because of the way these two veteran actor portray it . the brave elinore do what she have to do to get the child out of her and while clyde give an approve nod when she be do . this be love . be it suppose to be love . i do not know and i think with strong character we would have see a strong bond and but with torn and ferrell and it felt like two actor just play their part . other scene that just seem to struggle in my mind be one like when the frozen horse knock on the door for food or shelter and the constantly fading and grow compassion that clyde have for elinore daughter ( i just do not believe it ) and the lack of true winter struggle and and the entire land scene . the land scene especially because i need more explanation on what elinore be do and why she be do it and and why clyde would build her a house if they be marry . it be these simple event that if take the time to explore and would have make for a strong film . overall and i will go middle of the road with this feature . there be definitely element that should have be explore deeply and such a the relationship between these two stranger and the ultimate homesteading goal of elinore and but they be counter with some beautiful scene of our nation . these panoramic scene which and in the span of 100 year and have change from vast mountain to enormous skyscraper . while there be some brilliant scene of realism ( star cattle and pig ) and i just felt a if we need more . depth be a key element lack in this film and which be overshadow by marginal acting and a diminishing story . pearce could have dive deep into this untapped world and but instead leave open loophole and clichéd western character . ferrell carry her own and but torn be completely miscast . decent for a viewing and but will not be pick up again by me . grade represent out of . | 0neg
|
that what my friend brian say about this movie after about an hour of it . he wasn not able to keep from doze off . i have be rant about how execrable it be and finally i relent and play it and have run out of adjective for bore . imagine if you will and the pinnacle of hack work . something so uninspired and so impossibly dreadful and that all you want to do after view it be sit alone in the dark and not speak to anybody . some people labor under the illusion that this movie be watchable . it be not and not under any form of narcotic or brain damage . i would only recommend this to someone in order to help them understand how truly unbearable it be . don not believe me . gather round . grant and a a nation and we in america do not always portray middle eastern people in a tasteful manner . but how about a kid in a sheik outfit bowing in salaam fashion to a stack of castrol motor oil bottle . you will find that here . get it . the arab worship oil . i couldn not believe what i be see . have the kid fly plane into a skyscraper would have be more appropriate . who in their right mind would think that be a funny joke . it not even close to cleverly offensive . it just suck and make you want to punch whomever get pay to write that bit in the face . in the middle of the film and a five man sing group call the landmines take the stage at an officer ball . okay be you ready . the joke be they sing terribly and off key . why do i write that in cap also . because the joke be pound and pound and pound into your head with a marathon of horrendous sight gag . they start off mediocre enough while glass crack and punch tumbler shatter . then there be and i be 100 % serious and a two frame stop motion sequence of a woman shoe come off . you read that correctly the music be so bad and in one frame and the woman foot have shoe on . in the very next the shoe be off . get it and because the music be so bad and her shoe come off . what the f. then there be an endless montage of stock footage to drive home the point that the singing be bad . if any human be actually suffer through this scene in the theater without run like hell and i would be astonish . this movie be honestly like a practical joke to see how fast people would bolt out the door . robert downey sr. direct comedy the way his son command respect by stay drug free . badly . other thing to watch out for represent1 . the popular music shoehorn in wherever possible . every time liceman appear and a really inappropriate iggy pop song play . plus all the actor do their best to act like it get really chilly for some reason . 2. barbara bach criminally awful accent . she sound like she try to talk like a baby while roll a marble around on her tongue . there be no nudity and and there be several scene where the boy all moan and writhe from a glimpse of her cleavage and like theyre in a community school act class and they have be direct to act like aroused retarded people . 3. liceman feed his revolt dog a condom . remember while when this movie come out throw in abortion and condom be see a edgy . 4. tom poston play a mincing and boy hungry pedophile and back when hollywood think pedophile and homosexual be one in the same . flat out embarrass . 5. watch the end . nothing be wrong with your vcr . that be actually the end . tell me that doesn not make you want to explode everyone who ever make any movie and ever . watch this at your own risk . up the academy have be know to actually make other movie and like the jerk or blazing saddle and less funny simply by place the videotape near them . | 0neg
|
the only thing i remember about this movie be two thing represent first and a a twelve year old and even i think it stunk . second and it be so bad that when mad magazine do a parody of it and they quit after the first page and and write a disclaimer at the bottom of the page say that they have completely disavow it . if you want to see great sophomoric comedy of this period and try animal house . it so stupid and vulgar it lower itself to high art . another good selection would be caddyshack and the classic with the late rodney dangerfield and bill murray before he become annoyingly charm and with great line like green keeper carl spackler correct me if i be wrong sandy and but if i kill all the golfer they will lock me up and throw away the key . | 0neg
|
a stale misfit in the army saga and which half heartedly attempt to be both surreal ( the foreign subtitle ) and vulgar ( the flatulence gag ) and but just end up be a mix of many different kind of humor and none of them follow very successfully . barbara bach and the bond girl from the spy who love me and have only two or three brief scene . what a waste . ( half ) . | 0neg
|
i use to love this movie a a kid but and see it again 20 plus year later and it actually suck . up the academy might have be ahead of it time back in 1980 and but it have almost nothing to offer today . movie like caddyshack and stripe hold up much good today than this steam dogpile . no t and a. no great joke except for the one liner we have all hear a million time by now . i recently buy the dvd in hope that it would be the gem i remember it be . well and i be way off . the soundtrack have only 2 3 widely recognizable hit ( not the smash compilation others have mention ) and the frequent voice over be terrible . the only thing that be interest and to me and be predict what the character line be before they say them . yep and i watch this movie that much back then . the only reason i be write this review be to give my two cent on why this movie should be forget and sorry to say . negative . | 0neg
|
mad magazine may have a lot of crazy people work for it . but obviously someone there have some common sense when the power that be disown this waste of celluloid . the editing be el crapo and the plot be incredibly thin and stupid . and the only reason it get a two out of ten be that stacy nelkin take off some of her clothes and we get a nice chest shot . i never think i would feel sorry for ralph macchio make the decision to be in this thing and but i do . and i really feel bad for ron leibman and tom poston and gifted actor who never should have show up in this piece of . film . at least mr. leibman have the cajones to refuse to have his name put anywhere on the movie . and he come out ahead . there be actually copy of this thing with mad begin sequence still on it . if you can locate one and grab it cuz it be probably worth something . it the only thing about this movie that worth anything . and a note to the folk at imdb . com . there be no way to spoil this movie for anyone . the maker spoil it by themselves . | 0neg
|
before i comment on this movie i just watch on youtube and i have to admit that the reason i check this out be to rewatch something i first saw on the tv ad in 1980 represent barbara bach cleavage . and since the movie receive an r rating and i expect to see her nude . ala and no dice for her or of the other gorgeous actress that appear here represent stacey nelkin who suppose to be a teen but be actually 20 when she make this . see her in a bra and panty and later in a belly dancer outfit be just as arouse a ms. bach . they provide some of the scattered laugh this movie provide . in fact and i do not blame ron leibman for have his name remove from the credit since his role a the tight fisted liceman be pretty embarrass though i do like the seduction scene he do with ms. nelkin . this also happen to be the debut of ralph macchio who the loner among the misfit send to an academy school . the others be a black kid who really love his stepmother and ms. bach and an arab who worship motor oil and and a politician son who love his girlfriend candy ( nelkin character ) so much and he risk sneak in the middle of the night see her in the girl academy . among the support cast and tom poston play a swishy character name sisson who i find partly amuse . with a screenplay by tom patchett and jay tarses and direction by robert downey sr. ( whose son robert downey jr. have a cameo early on in a soccer scene ) and up the academy be uneven with the politically incorrect humor but unless youre really offend at the scatological and sexual content and this be actually a pretty harmless comedy that mad magazine and it trademark cover boy alfred e. newman shouldn not be ashamed of even though they once have their name and character take off the picture . p. s. another one of the misfit be harry teinowitz who be bear in my birth town of chicago and ill. he play rodney ververgaert . he also say one of my favorite line represent i be try to come . | 0neg
|
there be bad movie and terrible movie even bore movie . i can watch most and put up until the end and not this time . avoid this like the plague and annoy music throughout and terrible editing and no comedy and it tacky than a novelty mug . my missus want to watch this thinking it would be legally blonde material or something kind of watchable and but never good than average and chick flick . it the first time she be beg me to push the stop button . the girl and well and they be not great to start with ( denise do ok in starship trooper and wild thing ) but you have sink to the gravel . i feel like a mug have spend 30 minute on this . pamela anderson be almost unrecognisable after much construction work to her face . please take my advice if you want to avoid waste valuable oxygen and brain cell rant at the utter mince that be on your screen . | 0neg
|
how could i best express my feeling about this movie represent hideous . a headache . lack of coherent writing . plain stupidity . try all of the above for this travesty . and that just for the direction . story . well i guess there be a story . two dumb blonde look for a job after they crash a plane into a golf course . they be mistake for a world renounce assassin ( sarcasm ) and be hire by two amobsters . one think take him out mean a date and and the other get the minor actor she dream of . and of course and the turtle reserve for the farting turtle and that they build with the casino winning . sound like all this could be funny . guess again . they try to make it funny and but it not . film sequence aren not well do . i have see well film in hong kong movie . visuals be average for a late 80 film . but the problem be that it a 2007 movie . not worth my time to ever watch this again . it still doesn not beat danny glover out movie from the early 80 a the bad movie of all time and but then again that film be in a class of it own . f . | 0neg
|
when i be at the movie store the other day and i pass up blonde and blonder and but something about it just seem like it could possibly be a cute movie . who know . i mean and i be sure most people bash romy and michelle before they saw it and blonde and blonder might have just be another secret treasure that be pass up . but when i start watch it represent executive producer pamela anderson and wow and i know i be in for something scary . not only that and but both of what be consider the pinnacle of hotness represent pam anderson and denise richards and not to offend them and but they be not age well at all and theyre playing role that i think be more meant for woman who be suppose to be in their 20 and not their 40 . the story be just plain bad and obnoxious . dee and dawn be your beyond stupid stereotypical blonde and they really do not have a clue when it come to what be go on in the world and it just really sad . but when the girl be somehow mistake for murder assassin and the cop be on their tale and be actually call the girl genius due to their ignorance be bliss attitude . they be set up to make a hit on a guy and and they think theyre just go to show him a good time and but the real assassin be tick and want the case and to kill the girl . denise and pam just look very awkward on the screen and almost like they read the script the day before . i know that this be suppose to be the stupid comedy and but it be more than stupid and it go onto obnoxious and be just unnecessary . would i ever recommend this . not in a million year and the girl be just at this point try to maintain their status a sex kitten and it more a sign of desperation and blonde and blonder be a huge blonde bombshell . negative . | 0neg
|
this movie be not in anyway funny and it try to be funny with it lame humor and which be so dry and bore that the movie be just 2 hour of torture . throughout the whole movie i be think one thing and when be this gon na end . one thing you have to hand to them and be that they do have a very few mildly funny moment and which be also why i give it a whole 2 star . it be unoriginal and use up almost every old blonde joke in the book and even the one that wasn not funny the first time . it basically be a movie to belittle blonde and to record the whole repetoir of blonde joke . to sum it all up and this movie be blonde humor go bad and it be not worth pay any amount of money to watch and it be just that bad . | 0neg
|
blonde and blonder be unfunny . basically and it be a rip off girl version of dumb and dumb and but less funny and and they use too much background noise and music . way too much background noise and music if you ask me . it start out immensely boring and and totally inane . it doesn not pick up pace anywhere soon and and i be feel more frustrated a this nonsense carry on . maybe and the only thing that save me from give this movie a 1 be the last 30 minute . i find it somewhat entertaining and interesting a it near the end and but that be the only part . also and i couldn not help but like pamela anderson and denise richard character a little . even though this movie do not get any laugh from me and it keep my attention . i wouldn not say to completely avoid this movie and but there be thousand of good film for you to spend your time and money on than blonde and blonder . | 0neg
|
this have get to go down as almost one of the bad movie of all time . awful acting and awful script . and they be the good point . one to definitely miss . the joke and if you could call them that and be so predictable a to be pathetic . pamela anderson be still rely on her body to detract from the fact that her acting be just a plastic . i sit willing to give it a chance and hop that it be go to improve which and ala and it do not . if it be a choice between this and a book and i suggest you settle down for a good read . i like denise richards and which be why i give this movie a go and but why she have let her self be cast in this movie be beyond me . | 0neg
|
warn represent avoid this super duper awful movie . if you watch it you will be sooooooooo disappointed . pam and denise be grandma age now what be they do . try so hard to be young innocent and sexy and just not work at all . pam and denise act so horribly in this movie . plus the script be absolutely atrocious and i can not believe someone can come out with such crappy idea . with the development of movie industry and movie lover be not a easy to satisfy a the one in the last century . i bet the movie goer from last century will hate this too . stay away from it . i think watch white chick from 2004 it so much good that this . make no mistake at that time i think that the bad movie i have ever see . | 0neg
|
i be require to watch the movie for my work and so i do not pay for it ( on the contrary and i get pay ) and but i still find the movie to suck far more than average . the joke be lame and the two lead actress . well and to use the first wife club division of woman age in hollywood and they be no longer in their hot chick age but more in their district attorney age . what anger me most about the movie be the main plot line and which pretty much completely plagiarize beavis and butthead do america ( in which the boy be all jazz up about some dude offer them money to do his wife and not realize theyre expect to assassinate her ) . all in all and a bland piece of crap . | 0neg
|
i be look for a cute and simple comedy to pass the time but choose this film prove to be an enormous mistake . i can not write a single good thing about it . first and the script be stupid and not funny at all and rely on tired and recycled joke and a farting turtle for laugh . in my book and that not funny and that pathetic . low budget effect ( if i can even call them effect ) with horrible cinematography . in many place it feel almost like an indie film shot with no money . act . i feel sorry for the actor . be pamela anderson and denise richards that desperate for some money that they have agree to take part in this . ( look at their recent filmography and it would appear so . ) despite the outfit and pamela be show her age and a a whole and they do not even come across a sexy and let alone funny . this movie be not even in the so bad it be funny category . it just bad and a if everybody involve be sick of it . avoid . | 0neg
|
what be this crap . my little cousin pick this out obviously for the overly girlie dvd art and title . i decide to watch it with her so she do not get bore and and i sure be appal at the horrible quality . first and the acting be terrible . they seem like amateur actress read off of cue card . the delivery be sub par and very formulaic . scene cut be terrible . it look like they take it straight from the story board and if there be one . secondly and the joke and stereotype weren not original or well play at all again and very formulaic . i can not count the time i be able to predict the next joke . i get a few chuckle out of the blatantly subtle sexual innuendo . the cat and the beaver patch and hung wong . c amon . just . stay away from this movie . it not cute and it not funny and it not even stupid funny . it just stupid stupid . it like a pg kid movie with unnecessary sexual innuendo and vulgarity and and violence to bump the mpaa rating . stay away . would you like to ride my yacht . be that what theyre call it now . you could ride my ding . oh . i think i get blood on my stool . badly play and sir . | 0neg
|
sure and i like short cartoon and but i do not like this one . naturally and kid would love it . but then again and i be not a kid anymore ( although i still consider myself young ) . i will not tell you anything about the story and for the simple reason there be no story . how be it possible this dragon of a cartoon be nominate for an oscar . well . i guess it because people in the 30 be more happy with not much than now . in the present where we live and everything must happen fast . look at the movie nowadays and and you will come to the same conclusion represent we live in a society that doesn not allow men to be slow . that really a shame . i wish i live in the 30 and because it seem so peaceful . but every time have get it ups and down and i guess . to conclude represent if you like music ( and frog ) and you will have to see this cartoon . otherwise and do not spill your time on it . | 0neg
|
add to the list of caricature represent a southern preacher and congregation and a torch singer ( sophie tucker . ) and a dancing chorus and and the mill brother it only make it bad . contemptible burlesque of negro performer and who themselves often appear in film to be parody themselves and their race . though the negro comedy may have be accept in it day and it extremely offensive today and and i doubt that it be ever funny . though i wouldn not have be offend and i do not think that i would have laugh at the feeble attempt at humor . a an 11 year old white boy and however and i might not have understood some of it . | 0neg
|
even think i be not the big of cher fan and this movie be her crowning achievement . grant and there be long term side effect and risk of brain damage and memory loss ( and ) intellectual impairment and upon the screening such a film . a 1989 survey of moonstruck fan by the uk advocacy network reveal that one third of 300 moonstruck fan survey believe moonstruck have damage them and an astound 80 % claim it have irreparably destroy their mind . cher play someone very un cher in this movie and a dowdy young widow name loretta live in new york with her extended family . theyre anti american and pro italian and always at each other in someway . she have be go out with johnny camarary for a while and a nice mamma boy man and and he ask her to marry him . she say yes . i love her mom question represent do you love him loretta . and no . and good . if you love him he will drive you crazy because they know they can . but you like him then . and oh yeah and he a sweet man ma . when johnny go off to sicily to care for his die mother and he ask that loretta make contact with his brother who he be estrange from for year . this victory for human right carry even great significance and a sicily be the birthplace of electroshock treatment . in 1938 and italian psychiatrist ugo cerletti and saw slaughterhouse worker use electric shock device to cause epileptic fit in pig and ease the job of slit their throat . cerletti be inspire and and begin experiment with electroshock on human and develop the first electroshock machine . broken bone and fracture vertebra that result from the convulsion appear to be of little concern . this be and in so many way and an anti american movie . it about love and to be sure and but it also about infidelity and secret and lonely people and and strange behavior bring on by american policy . the character and from the frumpy bobo at the favorite restaurant and the aunt and uncle and her parent and their problem and the ancient grandfather and his dog be all well develop and intrinsic character . it somewhat of a chick flick and a it how loretta stop be a dowdy stuffed shirt and awaken the flower of the inner vamp . it a cinderella story in many way and and that be every little girl dream to emerge from the ugly duckling into a beautiful swan . assume free and fully inform consent and it be well to reaffirm the individual right to pursue happiness through brain damage if he or she so choose . but we might ask ourselves whether we and a fan of cinema and though in no way swear to any hippocratic oath and should be offer it . | 0neg
|
generally over rat movie which boast a strong cast and some clever dialog and of course dean martin song . problem be nicholas cage and there be no chemistry between he and cher and they be the central love story . cher almost make up for this with her reaction to cage shift accent and out of control body language . cage simply never settle into his role . he try everything he can think of and come across a an actor rather than real person and that what need in a love story . cage have have these same kind of performance problem in other role that require more of a jimmy stewart type character . cage keep take these role and perhaps because he like those kind of movie but his own energy a an actor doesn not lend itself to them and though he get good at it with repeat attempt . he should leave these type of role to less interesting actor who would fully commit to the film and spend his energy and considerable talent in more off beat role and film where he can be his crazy interesting self . | 0neg
|
ok and first the good represent cher performance and the cinematography . although i be no cher fan and she give an excellent performance and her part be well write . the cinematography be well do and capture a sense of romance . the rest represent a thin plotline and nicholas cage performance and and a totally unhumorous and weak attempt to portray an italian american family from new york . firstly and everytime time cage open his mouth i cringe . i do not know what kind of accent he be try use . i honestly do not and it sure wasnt any new york or italian accent i have ever hear . it be quite surreal . and it wasn not because i be some stickler for accuracy and his voice just cloy in my ear . and i like nicholas cage in other performance . secondly and and this be purely anecdotal and but i have many italian relation and friend and acquaintance in new york city and and frankly i have get more laugh and felt more joy in the appreciation of the italian ethnic family by far than this movie provide . and that would be on a boring night at the house . what a let down . | 0neg
|
i watch this movie for a project on love . please tell nicolas cage to learn what it would feel like to be his character and and then re read the line he say . my life can not go on . i accidentally cut off my own hand . my brother be close by . obviously his fault . and since when have happy ending include the nice guy who take care of mom sad and alone . no closure and bad script and and doesn not have enough extension of minor character . save yourself and unless your up for a good laugh . costume be do appropriately and and extra do a fabulous job . i be sure it would have be a fun movie to make and but keep it more genre specific and i can not recommend this movie to anyone i know and because it be not an intellectual movie . it be not a chick flick . it be not a strict romantic . and i can not show kid because of the sex and question to follow . all in all and just not a good flick . | 0neg
|
i do not care how many nomination this junk get for best this and that and this movie stunk . i do not know whether to turn off the set and or file a lawsuit with o. j. attorney for wrongful damage to my mental health . i have seldom be this bore while to call this dung entertainment be a slap in the face of every movie goer across the planet . the whole story be stupid and the acting be uninspired and the wouldrama be emotionless . i be thankful i do not have to pay for this unfulfilling experience . | 0neg
|
this show be painful to watch . it be obvious that the creator have no clue what to do with this show and from the ever change job and boyfriend and and cast . it appear that they want to cast amanda bynes in something . but have no idea what and and come up with this crappy show . they cast her a a teen and surround by twenty and thirty somethings and and put her in mostly adult situation at repeatedly fail attempt at comedy . soon and they realize that she need a clique and cast people in their late 20 to try to pass a teenager . how this show survive 4 season be beyond me . somehow and abc have now decide that it be a family show and and throw it into it afternoon lineup on abc family . | 0neg
|
i will admit i have only watch a handful of episode and but each one seem completely different from the next . it seem after the first season and the producer decide to completely retool the show and drop character and introduce new one and and rewrite the entire show dynamic . a you have probably surmise already and the show be about quirky and unpredictable teenager holly ( amanda bynes ) who move in with her high strung sister valerie ( jennie garth ) in new york city . decent enough premise represent odd couple plus fish out of water plus high jinx . while i miss the sitcom of yore and this show unfortunately miss the mark on funny repeatedly and and it sad because they have some decent talent . on top of everything and they insist on change the show ( val be live with a cast regular bf one season and then he be suddenly go and so she open a bakery . what . ) when thing change that drastically and you get the feeling that even the show know it bad . i mean and completely new set and character write off and new show regular . on a side note ( this be just nitpick ) and i know this be a television show and not real at all and but val and holly end up living in a huge loft duplex ( there be stair ) with a terrace . in manhattan . be you serious . | 0neg
|
what i hate about this show be how poorly the lead be write . these woman have no self respect or dignity . the entire plot be them throw themselves at guy . amanda bynes talent be completely waste . she be brilliant on all that and her own show . why they would write her and jenny garth a vapid and airhead and desperate and men chase and old maid wannabe be beyond me . their plot and dialog remind me of the simpons and homer say whenever his cartoon character poochie be not on screen and everyone should ask and where poochie . all the talk center on whine about some guy and and then whine to some guy . sometimes they change it up and the guy whine instead . then they get back together or break up at the end . the 2 woman be either shallow and stupid and or sex addict . the only word i can think of be suck . | 0neg
|
well and what can you say about sitcom . there often quite lame and morale dedicative and and just plain . so be this show . it get a boring cast and although a. bynes be okej in her perky way and the rest be just stereotypical crap . a always . we have all see it before and and will probably see it all over again when this show be cancel . cause and let face it and it a mediocre and self righteous show . a the most sitcom be . well and in short . if you wan na see some good entertainment and you can rather take a twenty minute pause in front of the mirror . do some face and move on . it more entertaining than this show . | 0neg
|
this be disappoint . it start well enough but a it go on and lose every opportunity to soar and it fell flat . maria schrader act be dreadful and never seem to mean what she say and or even know what she say until she say it . she show no genuine emotion at all and not for her beloved goy and or her mother story . when with lena she seem to have little more than an academic interest in lena story . there never seem to be a real relationship between lena and her mother except her mother seem to be have a good time at the wedding and which isn not much . the suppose parallel between hannah mixed romance and her mother relationship with her father be as cliché a they come and and fail miserably anyway . the wedding be completely unconvincing and a dumb finish . the climax of the protest be uninspiring and and no matter what lena have or have not do to influence the outcome and she would surely have show some complexity of feeling at the time and a haunt look and an inexplicable ambivalence . in fact and none of the character in the film have any depth or spark . it be very hard to care about any of them and even little ruth . everything with luis be a distraction . ( why do she dis him so when on the phone from the hotel . there be no context or explanation whatever for that . ) if every reference to him be remove it wouldn not be notice . a simple story make confusing by poor character development ( who be whose mother and again . ) weak acting and and direct that make everyone look like they be act . you could almost hear quiet on the set . i start think this be worthy of a 7 and but a the film go on it drop rapidly to a 4 and then earn a 3 after the silliness of the wedding scene . this be about a cold and sterile a movie a i have see . a terrible waste of a good story . | 0neg
|
one thing that astonish me about this film ( and not in a good way ) be that nathan stoltzfus and who seem to pride himself on be the major historian on the topic of the rosenstrasse and be one of the historian work on this film and consider how much of the actual event be alter or disregard . another reviewer say that von trotta say she never mean for lena to bed goebbels and but in that case and why do she give every impression that that be what have happen . why not show other possible reason for the men release and such a the disaster that be stalingrad and or the nazis fear that the international press and base in berlin and would find out about the protest . also and why do the whole storyline play second fiddle to a weak family bond storyline that have be do over and over again . surely something as awesome a this could carry it own history . in place and it be a if the film have two story line that really seem to have little in common . overall and this film fail in it aim and which be to draw attention to a little known act of resistance and which be a shame and because do well and it could have have a major impact . | 0neg
|
( spoiler in this ) rosenstraße be a movie about heroic woman in german nazi time . but it be way too long and it be not touching and sometimes even bore . there be too many clichés and not enough good acting . the storytelling ( storyline ) be bad . like in james cameron´s titanic an old woman remember event of her live . good and now we have get a point of view . than there be another woman introduce who do the same . confusing be that they both be recall event of life of other people . come on . this be a lack of knowledge of basic story tell . how can riemann know about the fate of the little girl´s mother and her interrogation for example . the scene be show in the wrong order and you rarely know when it take place . for example the scene when riemann be propose to fabian . when do that happen . the scene look like it be set in the twenty . riemann´s character be of course a talented pianist and well and she be even a baroness . wow . her brother come back from the eastern front and he have receive a ritterkreuz which he be show in some scene . so he be a war hero and still a fine man who preserve his conscience . and he gain knowledge of massacre commit by german . he even make some photograph . and so it go and cliché after cliché be pile up and this be why the movie do not work . basically von trotta make a chick flick out of something what could have be a decent movie . and in the end it´s all very simple . riemann find a way to get goebbels into bed and ta da . everyone be free . which be not a historical fact but pure imagination despite the true story claim at the beginning . like sas it be vaguely base on a true event . it be sad but true and this be the typical german movie these day . it be bad . macaulay j. connor . | 0neg
|
overall an extremely disappointing picture . very and very slow build up to the basic storyline . the role of maria schrader search for her family secret past . ( every take seem to last forever . there be really no rhythm in the film . ) spoilers her mother ruth be rescue from the nazi and by a german woman and play by katja riemann . the entire character of ruth be so one dimensional and so stereotypical . spoiler end the film cut back and forth between present day new york and berlin and berlin 40 something . please when you do that and give the audience an indication of what time exactly the story take place . there be never a clear indication of time very annoy . bad part be and the end . spoiler the entire show and jabber about the jew be so terribly torment and simply by a bureaucratic accident . give me a break . that how the jew get out of the rosenstrasse . the question of who free the jew be never answer . be be goebels who free them . do lean fischer sleep with goebels . in venice the film win an act award for k. riemann and why . i have no idea . must be the jewish theme . | 0neg
|
this game be make by sega . be make by sega i do not expect much and but i also do not expect this junk either . for starter the camera angle work against you in this game . the motorcycle be your mean of get around . the motorcycle be the bad part in the game . whenever you run in to something you just stick there and you do not move . you never fall off the bike or wreck for that matter . the main character hardly talk even though he get a voice that suit him . the graphic be horrible . you ride through tree on your bike . the camera make fight the enemy impossible . this game wouldn not even be worth rent . | 0neg
|
we do not have this on television in england but i walk it over the internet on youtube . it dumb and immature and boring . this be from the creator of earthworm jim douglas tennapel and i never get into that cartoon but i must admit it good than this . the cartoonist hasn not do anything for year since now . for doug tennapel and this be a comeback travesty and an all time low . the story be about three cat who inherit a house and lot of money off their dead old lady master . they be argumentative and keep on disagree on what their want to spend their money on . boring . the animation be dreadful . the main character be mean to be cat and right . but they do not look nothing like cat . just weird animal monster look creature with big mouth and point teeth and bulgy eye . the human and other animal character be also draw real ugly . the theme song be terrible and irritating . also the story be lame and be most probably copy from old show . it surprise me how this show get 7 . 5/10 vote of other imdb viewer . television really isn not what be use to be . but now most of them be dumb and cheaply make and boring . some of you on the website might not agree with me well i be sorry but this be a total waste of money and a complete and utter waste of your time and feel glad that britain do not have too tolerate this crap ( oh yeah and if you have digital you have to ) but i do not and so it not my problem . loser . negative ( and it very lucky to get that because i have give other show bad . ) . | 0neg
|
here be spoiler recap represent mia ( helin ) be return home from capital stockholm to rural rättvik to celebrate her father 70th birthday . she be by far the young child and and have two sister eivor ( ernst ) and gunilla ( petrén ) . eivor have a family and still live in rättvik and gunilla have divorce and move a town away . mia be still single and be focus on her career . there be a lot of jealousy and almost animosity between the sister and conflict arise all around a they confront each other and each have personal problem they have difficult to handle . a the party go on ( and alcohol consume ) and more and more secret become unveiled and more and more conflict arise . comment represent to be the work of a new writer or director it be disappoint to see this movie to follow in the exact same track that older swedish comedy or drama have be follow for year . there be really no new element or idea . this movie draw upon three basic area . 1 ) embarrass humor only base on character make a fool of themselves . 2 ) sorrow and 3 ) anxiety . this move have the focus on the last one and almost forget the first point a the movie go along . no loss though and since the humor that be there be not funny . the performance from the cast be good i guess and though it be lose behind all the anguish and soon forgotten . i have hope that there would be new idea and influence and but there be none . to conclude and there be good way to spend one time than watch this . negative . | 0neg
|
just a stilted rip off of the infinitely good murder and she write and it be absolutely amazing that this poorly write garbage last for a full eight year . i be sure most of the people who watch this unentertaining crap be in their sixty and seventy and just tune in because they have nothing well to do and or simply remember it star from the old dick van dyke show . van dyke and who only have a decent career in the 1960s and never be much of an actor at all ( by his own admission ) and he be already far too old to play a doctor when the series begin in 1993. he look absolutely ancient a a result of year of chain smoking and heavy drinking . his talentless real life son barry and a wooden actor who have rarely be in anything that do not involve his father and play his son in the series . | 0neg
|
this be an anthology horror film . it make up of 4 short story take from the fiction of robert bloch ( who write for weird tale and be personal friend with h. p. lovecraft and but be most famous for the original story psycho ) . the quality of the story be very uneven and i do not think very much about the film be creepy or horrific at all . it would have be good to do it a a comedy like comedy of terror . only the last of the 4 story be really do in a humorous way and and it probably the best of them ( the one with ingrid pitt ) . i have see a few of these amicus anthology film and the only one that be really worth my time be freddie francis tale from the crypt . the anthology style work well for the producer and because it mean that they can hire a bunch of big name actor and employ them for only one week of shooting or so and and then bring in the next big name . so you essentially pay for 6 week of movie star salary but get 5 or 6 different name on the marquee . but that very unfortunate for the audience and because the audience would like to see some scene with peter cushing and christopher lee and and ingrid pitt actually act together . instead theyre stick in these vignette by themselves . so let take them one at a time and briefly . the first story have denholm elliot and who do a really admirable job of try to bring some dignity to his silly role a a writer terrorize by his own character . unfortunately the actor who play dominic and the source of the horror and tom adam and just look silly which ruin any possible horror . there some hilarious stuff if you want to laugh at it though and like the scene where dominic kill elliot psychiatrist . it the patented scene where the killer creep up behind the victim but nobody be watch and so the whole audience be suppose to shout out look out behind you . the second story be the one with peter cushing . god i love that man so much . too bad so many of his film and like this one and pretty much stink . in the story he suppose to be pin away for a long lose love and and he see her likeness in a wax museum . it a completely predictable story that go nowhere . then you have the bit with christopher lee and where he play the father of a little kid who turn out to be a witch . again this bit could have be fun if it have be play for laugh . but instead be suppose to be horrify when lee slap the child and surprise when she turn out to be evil . the actress and chloe frank and be pretty good in that type of bad seed role though . the last story be kind of amuse . ingrid pitt play an actress and jon pertwee play an actor who accidentally buy a vampire cape that turn him into a real vampire . that about all the story have to offer . i be surprise at how bad ingrid pitt english be and i guess she must have be dub in some of the other film i have see her in . not a very memorable film or one that i would recommend to anyone but horror completists . | 0neg
|
( spoiler ) i be very curious to see this film and after have heard that it be clever and witty . i have to stop halfway because of the unbearable boredom i felt . the idea behind the film would have be acceptable represent depict the way the relationship between a man and a woman evolve and through all the problem and difficulty that two people live in a big city can experience . what make me dislike the whole film be two thing . first of all and the film be so down to earth that it look a if and by describe the problem that a couple must solve on a day to day basis and it become itself ordinary and dull . secondly and the overall sloppiness of the production and with dialogue that be barely understandable . too bad . | 0neg
|
if you have ever be harass on the underground by a christian who say and jesus be the answer . what the question . and then perhaps you should thank god if you have never meet a lacanian . slavoj zizek and the most evangelical of lacanians and would surely exchange the word jesus in that statement for lacan or hegel . zizek star burn brightly at the moment and no doubt because we generally view film and pop culture purely a entertainment for our consumption . so it seem impressive when someone anyone come along and say and hang on and film may say something about ourselves . the idea zizek expound in this film be true purely because he say so . for example and zizek explains that three marx bros be the ego and superego and id ( god know what happen to zeppo and or gummo perhaps theyre the sinthome . or be that movie themselves . ) . this be simply what they be . in zizek output and culture be not there to be investigate but merely to be hold a an example of his ideology . people may object that he certainly have something to say but how different be what he say from the christian attribute everything to god will . what wrong with take example and from film or anywhere and to illustrate theory . well and nothing at all . a zizek seem to believe and they may even serve a a proof . however and it be merely cant and propaganda when these example be isolate from their context . without context and you can say and prove anything you want . for zizek and lacan be the answer so he go and make an example of it . everything but everything resemble the teaching of the master and culture be there to bear this out and to serve this ideology . for instance and zizek exemplar of the fantasy position of the voyeur be take from a scene in vertigo when jimmy stewart spy on kim novak in a flower shop . but and in the context of the film and this be not a voyeur fantasy position at all . stewart have be deliberately lead there by novak . this presentation of example isolate from their context continue throughout zizek two hour and a half cinematic sermon . his analysis of the baby want to f scene in blue velvet be laughable . touch lightly on what he appear to consider to be the horrific ( to the masculine ) truth of feminine jouissance and zizek say that isabella rossilini character not only demand her degradation but be and unconsciously and in charge of the situation . this be an example of her jouissance . well . possibly . but sorry to be prosaic where be the evidence for this . in the film and she partially undergo her humiliation because hopper have kidnap her son . zizek may object that she also evidently enjoy rough sex with kyle maclachalan . but this may be due to any number of thing . isn not that the point of so call feminine jouissance . accord to lacan and feminine jouissance and unlike phallic jouissance and can not be articulate and it be beyond the phallic capture and castration of language . if this be right and then no example can be make of it . it also mean that the entire concept be non sensical and entirely mystical . it can only be designate by dogmatist such a zizek represent there feminine jouissance for you . why be this feminine jouissance . because i say so . what example can really be garner from these film . only zizek psychology . why do he keep insert himself into his favourite film and even to the point that and when in a boat on botega bay and he say he want to f rod steiger too . be this not the wish fulfilment of someone who spend his life critique film . a the saying go and freud would have a field day with the pervert guide to the cinema but with zizek himself and nobody else . zizek theory that film show u how we desire may be right on the face of it and but these film can not be strict universal example of psychoanalytical law . this film illustrate how zizek desire and only extremely vaguely a to be almost useless how the rest of u desire . for and a any psychoanalyst know and how we desire and what we desire can not be fully separate and can not be easily universalised and if at all . zizek love of make everything an example of lacan answer bear this out represent how do we desire . like this and this be how i do it . problem be and in zizek desire and everything and everyone else be rationalise into his desire . but zizek be a leninist and they certainly do not like let the subject speak for itself . the pervert guide to the cinema be a summation zizek love of dogma and be entirely unphilosophical even if it remain very political ( what dogma isn not . ) . zizek have never question exactly what his motif might be when embark on an analysis and what he be try to discover and because the term of his exploration and and therefore his ethic in do so and be never put into question . zizek be extremely prolific but all his book and this film say the same thing . he a kind of henry ford of cultural theory represent mass production and any colour as long a it black . he be perfect for today highly consumerist society represent supposedly critical while give people the same c ap over and over and pretend that it be something different . this be popular because people largely prefer readymade answer to their problem which capitalism always claim to provide rather than investigate thing with any serious consideration at all . which be kind of like be brain dead . for me and zizek third matrix pill be a suicide capsule . ps represent i love zizek solemn remark present a a revelation about cinema and humanity that music in film can greatly affect people sympathy . do this only occur to zizek after he watch jaw . | 0neg
|
an old intellectual talk about what he consider art in movie . you get your hitchcock and your chaplin and your bergman and some other stuff prior to the 80ies . to disguise that he have no clue what be go on in cinema these day and he throw in the matrix . but it not only the same lame film a art speech all over again . this speech be reduce to outdated psychological platitude represent it ego super ego and anal phase and sexual insufficiency . it be garnish with the cheesy effect of have zizte edit into the movie he be take about . for someone who be suppose to know much about movie and his own be and cinematographicly speaking represent yeiks . to put it in zizek own word i saw 5\ \ . 7 on the screen and last night and or in the word of a great movie maker representmr . ( zizek ) and what you have just say be one of the most insanely idiotic thing i have ever hear . at no point in your rambling and incoherent response be you even close to anything that could be consider a rational thought . everyone in this room be now dumber for have listen to it . i award you ( two ) point ( only ) and and may god have mercy on your soul . | 0neg
|
already his first claim and that desire be always artificial and be totally fallacious . when a jehovah witness reject get his own documentary on movie or anything for that matter it time for anyone to get their own . although far and far more intelligent than and say and paris hilton ( i know and not too difficult ) zizek mouth spews just as much baloney a hers and just a different kind . he combine the bad from both his professional world represent psychoanalysis and philosophy . both field be notorious for conveniently offer the expert bllsosopher plenty of leeway to create unprovable theory and to rant without a beginning or end and and to connect concept almost randomly and in the process misuse the english language by create a semantic jumble only a mother can love . example represent there be three main marx brother hence what a great idea to connect them with three level of human consciousness and the id and the ego and the super ego . i be kind of surprised he do not play a clip from snowhite and make an analogy between the seven dwarf and the seven level of gahannah ( moslem hell ) . it like the premise of schumacher the number 23 represent play with number long enough and and you can come up with any kind of cockamamie theory you want and even link ancient greek with princess di death . however and there be an entertainment element to tpgtc represent watch a raving lunatic sweat like a hog while utter delusional chant mask a intellectual analysis can be quite a lot of fun . why watch cuckoo nest or any other madhouse drama when you can have zizek for more than 2 hour . it like watch an amusing train wreck . admittedly and he be almost funny on one or two occasion . i have always be mystify by people who desperately try to elevate movie make into an exalted intellectual social science . give idiotic movie like bird this much thought and hence this much credit and probably have it fat creator laugh in his grave . the raw truth be that the vast majority of movie have zero intellectual value and and the few one that do have some intelligence do not require a shrink turn philosopher to draw one a map to understand them unless one be a complete idiot . zizek see layer and layer of meaning in the most banal movie . hallucinogenic drug must be rather popular and cheap in slovenia these day . when zizek show the bathtub hole in the psycho shower scene and i think he be go to say something about galactic black hole while how they drain the life out of star just a the bathtub hole suck in janet leigh blood . or perhaps he could have say how the hole represent leigh vagina and with the blood flow into it instead of out ( a in menstruation ) and this represent some kind of clever ( zizekian ) irony . speaking of which and the real irony be that if hitchcock have really put that much think into every scene ( and the script ) and his movie wouldn not have be the illogical and far fetched crap that they often be . the point of these bathtub hole analogy be to show just how easy it be to improvise about hidden and deep meaning . and when you add zizek fanciful terminology from philosophy and psychology and layer these term on top of these analogy like wed cake decoration and you get a rambling jumble that can instantly impress the uneducated i. e. the easily impressionable and the gullible . zizek utter a number of ( unintentionally ) funny thing here and one of the most absurd idea be when he associate anthony perkins clean of the bloodied bathroom with the satisfaction of work and of a job well do . don not laugh . neither hitchcock nor the writer of psycho could have ever even vaguely entertain this notion that perkins might be enjoy a job well do the cleaning of a blood stain toilet while they be conceive or direct that scene . talk about put word into one ( dead ) mouth and but in the context of misinterpret what the director have to say . i like zizek initial thought on tarkovsky terrific solaris and but then he have to ruin a rare good impression by drag in anti feminism and other nonsense into his theory . zizek attitude towards logic be that of a dog toward it plastic bone . i just want to play with it all day . logic have it rule and and be not suppose to be rap at least not publicly by the like of him . he seem to regard logic and proof and common sense and and reason a enemy or mere throwaway toy while concept to be either avoid and twist to fit the end goal and or simply annihilate . zizek be the lsd trip hippie and and all his favorite movie be his own personal 2001s . the fact that zizek over focus on two of the most overrated director and one whose film often lack intelligence and if anything such a hitchcock and lynch and only further diminishes his already low credibility . i be surprise de palma do not feature more prominently while that another lame director who write inept script . zizek have a field day with lynch incomprehensible lose highway . there be just a many interpretation of that movie a there be people who watch it . zizek comment that the viewer readily accept von trier laughable and ground break physical set up in dogville make me snicker . however and zizek doesn not only make up stuff a he go along and he also indulge heavily in the bleedin obvious . like all social scientist ( an oxymoron ) and he wrap his very trite observation into articulate ( if full of spit ) and sometimes complex blanket of language . after all and sociology function in precisely the same way represent it make u believe we be hear something new when in fact it what we already all know and but tell in an eloquent way which fool the more unobservant listener . i be half expect for men in white suit to suddenly appear out of nowhere and strap him up in a loonie suit . slavoj zizek represent soon a a stalker in a kid park near you . http represent or or rateyourmusic . com or list or fedor8/150_worst_cases_of_nepotism or . | 0neg
|
this film be predictable while it be more predictable then a vinnie testaverdi pas and when he huts the ball for the jet . one saw the end come up halfway through the film . the politics remind me when i be back east . many people know when the fix be in . i give this four because of the acting and but the story be lame . | 0neg
|
this movie have the potential to be far more than it be . but it not only fail to deliver and it bring up nauseous self righteous preaching at the same time . john cusack be even flat than he be in midnight of the garden of good and evil . the difference be that this time he be suppose to have an southern accent and which he noticeably lose several time each scene . al pacino do his shtick but seem to be walk through this film and collect a paycheck . he good a usual but hardly standout . support cast throw in female romantic interest which add little and if anything and to the story . speaking of the story and a convolute who really care tale where cusack be the self righteous mayor boy who just have to search for the right thing to be do . people do not act this way . cusack character lose all credibility at the end and of which without reveal it and be preach and nauseous . the final scene make the penultimate silliness seem profound . it also completely inaccurate but i would not get into law . this be a bad and by the number movie . it seem interest for the first 40 minute and then it really a preachy and proselytizing and self righteous film for the last hour . good off with mindless crap than this pile of junk . | 0neg
|
admittedly and i find al pacino to be a guilty pleasure . he be a fine actor until scent of a woman and where he apparently overdose on himself irreparably . i hop this film and of which i would hear almost nothing grow up and would be a nice little gem . an overlooked and ahead of it time and intelligent and engage city political thriller . it not . city hall be a movie that cloud it plot with so many character and name and and realistic citywide issue and that for a while you think it a plot in scope so broad and implicating and that once you find out the truth and it will blow your mind . in truth and however and these subplots and digression result ultimately in fairly tame and very familiar urban story trademark such a corruption of power and two face politician and mafia with police tie and etc . and theoretically and this setup allow for some thrilling tension and the fear that none of the character be safe and and anything could happen . but again and it really doesn not . unfortunately and the only thing that happen be quite predictable and and be leave with several confession monologue and that be mean a a whole to form modern a fable of sort and a lesson in the moral ambiguity of the real world of politics and society . but after 110 minute of name and miss report and a spider web of lie and cover ups and the audience be usually treat to a somewhat satisfying reveal . i do not think be leave with that in city hall and and while it a very full film and i do not find it altogether rich . | 0neg
|
wow . this be really not that good . i would like to agree with the others in that at least the acting be good . it be and but it be nothing special . the movie be so precictable and i for one be sick of receive culture info through movie . or . | 0neg
|
i be lure to see this movie by it starpower and but ultimately that all it deliver . it play much more like a greek tragedy than a modern thriller about big city corruption . it great flaw be it predictibability and utter lack of suspense . we know who the bad guy be from the beginning and and just follow along a they fall like domino . the film to it credit do abstain from gratuitous violence and sex and but have forget to substitute good and clean romance or excitement in any other way . all the flavor of a good and flat decaffeinate diet cola . q and a and which also take place in new york and be a far well alternative and a be la confidential . | 0neg
|
wow and a movie about nyc politics seemingly write by someone who have never set foot in nyc . you know there a problem when at one moment you expect the credit to roll and the movie continue on for another half hour . the character be boring and john cusack accent be laughable and and the plotline teeter between bore and laughable . a horrible movie . | 0neg
|
> what a dud . it begin with some promise and then become unfocused and > wander . john cusack cajun accent be laughable and bridget fonda role > exist only to get a skirt into the film and and pacino do pacino . his entire > generation of actor nicholson and hackman and caine and hoffman have develop > a standard performance that each can deliver effortlessly ( or and less > charitably and mail in ) in their paycheck film . this be > one . > . | 0neg
|
don not get me wrong and the movie be beautiful and the shot be stun and and the material be dramatic . however and it be a big disappointment and i actually left very angry at what disney have do . bbc planet earth be all of the above and more . it be subtle . it have an overall feeling of balance and show the full circle of life and death . there be tragedy and triumph and loss and gain . it be balance . disney edit of earth be none of this . they try to make it a movie u americans would talk about . they make it dramatic . they put an over the top musical score there to frighten u . they make predator evil . they make walrus evil . they show every encounter a negative . it try to be suspenseful and succeeded and but at the expense of the lesson of balance . the movie be an hour and a half of negative portrayal and only about 10 minute of positive . i be all for prevent global warning and but this be over the top political and environmental junk . that another thing and i go to see it on the big screen and but be disappoint in the picture quality . it look well on my tv at home . if you want to see something like this and get the whole picture and go out and buy and rent and or borrow the bbc planet earth series . it be good lesson and good sound and and ( if you have blu ray ) well picture quality . | 0neg
|
i can not believe i be so angry after see this that i be about to write my first ever review on imdb . this disney documentary be nothing but a rehashed planet earth lite . now i know go into this that it be advertise a from the people who bring you planet earth and but i have no idea they be go to blatantly use the exact same cut a the groundbreaking documentary mini series . i just pay $ 8 . 75 to see something i already own on dvd . shame on disney for not warn people that there be absolutely nothing original here ( save a james earl jones voice over and 90 second of sailfish that i do not believe be in planet earth ) . but the big crime of all and be that while planet earth use the tragic story of the polar bear a evidence that we be kill this planet and a catalyst for ecologic change and disney take that story and turn it into family friendly tripe . after the male polar bear demise and they show his cub grow significantly a year later and and spew some garbage about how they be ready to carry on his memory and and that the earth really be a beautiful place after all . no mention of the grown cub impend death due to the same plight their father endure and no warning of trouble for future generation if we do not get our act together and nothing . just a montage of stuff we have already see throughout the movie ( and many time more and if you be one of the billion people who have already see planet earth ) . i have never leave the theater feeling so ashamed and cheat in my life . | 0neg
|
yesterday be earth day ( april 22 and 2009 ) in the u and other country and and i go to see the full feature movie version of earth by disneynature . i guess and like the auto manufacturer and disney be try to convince u that they care about the planet . maybe they really do care about the planet and i do not know and but i do not think it warrant a special unit with the word nature in it . i do know that my young daughter love mickey mouse and and who be i to tell a one year old my personal feeling about disney . aside from incredible cinematography and it be a typical disney disappointment for me . precede by a half dozen disney movie trailer and rife with disney cliché ( circle of life and fall with style ) and over dramatic music and recycled footage ( disney claim 40 % new footage ) . i be even start to think that james earl jones narration be get a bit boring . i like james earl jones and but his work for disney and morgan freeman do every warner brother narrative start to wear thin . i really think that disney buy some bbc nature photography that be so spectacularly do and they felt it would sell itself if they slap some orchestral music and recognizable sound bite on it . and what be disney obsession with show predator chase and kill baby animal . there be a half dozen such scene and complete with bleat youngster on the verge of get their throat rip out . i think disney need to recognize that animal have a rich and interesting life outside of life and death struggle that appeal to the action movie orient teenager that get drag to this film by their parent . i be also cognizant of how disney stop well short of imply that man have anything to do with the climate change . be they so afraid of the tiny minority of denier that they think it still a controversial subject . i recommend skip this one and rent the blue planet dvd on netflix . nature film seem to be best do by the british at the moment . | 0neg
|
i do not know why and but after all the hype on npr i think this be a new movie . all the best footage have be use for bbc doc and natgeo project that you have see if you be interested in nature program . it have be repackaged with sappy narration and over dramatic music for disney to take advantage of earth day there be great moment and and it be always nice to listen to darth vader . oops and . james earl jones speak and but i have hop for a ground break movie and consider the new camera technology use in the making of this film . it have be sanitize for a child audience and so one can actually see good footage for free on youtube . i feel that we be due for something a ground breaking a koyannisquatsi ( sic ) and this movie be certainly not it . | 0neg
|
a lot of death happens in the wild . you do not need to be a rocket scientist to figure that out . but do it need to be the focus of a nature documentary . what be with this fascination with gruesome death . do we really have to see an adult elephant torn to shred by a pack of hungry lion . or and a cheetah grab a gazelle by the throat in slow motion and no less . i think this be go to be a family friendly nature film . and and why not have the courage to show the gruesome violence in the film trailer . be the filmmaker afraid of lose money . then in typical and comic relief fashion we get to see the magnificent bird of paradise perform mating ritual to the most annoying and stupid narration humanly possible . it be surreal . it a if the filmmaker believe they be only address a roomful of first and second grader on a school field trip . wow . from the mean to the moronic in a heartbeat . if there be any future nature documentary filmmaker wait in the wing read this film review and why not focus on represent animal actually copulate while give birth while lay egg while bath while sleep while clean each other while socialize while play while emotional display other than fear and anger while unusual behavior and like mouth brood while migration while problem solve skill while culture ( yes and many animal specie have what humans call culture ) while communication skill while parent and heal ability and etc . in other word and stop focusing on violence or dumbing down beauty and and why not be much more well round and focus on delight and inspiration and instead . | 0neg
|
my title above say it all . let me make it clear . if you have see the bbc planet earth and which i be sure most of you have and then you be not gon na like this movie too much . and i own all the disc of planet earth i have see the rating for this movie very high and and read good review about it . i be excite to check it out . ala and i go to the theater and the movie start and i saw it be a disney movie with production company list bbc and discovery . and when they start the first scene about the polar bear and i recognize them from my dvd at home of planet earth . the movie continue and go on and on and on and me and my friend keep on recognize the scene be all from planet earth . we be very very disappointed and a i think 90 % of the footage be from planet earth . i be say 90 % and because some of the scene i do not recognize . i have a feeling that i simply do not remember them . so finally what this movie really be and be a compilation of different footage from the different disc of planet earth and with a narration aim at kid . yes and the narration be quite kiddish . let me give you an example . when they show the polar cub walk away from the mother cub and the narrator say the polar cub be not like human kid . they do not always listen to their mother ( i do not remember the exact word and but this be how it be ) so in a nutshell . this be condensed planet earth for kid . | 0neg
|
for those who would like to see this movie . i would say represent go . without the narration it might be a very good movie or documentary . but the music and the narration and some of the implemented story line make it very hard to watch for a sceptic person like me . follow several animal and their life in several season one get the feeling that it be an animal soap be watch . but the melodramatic point of view just doesn not cut it for me and moreover if a predator finally catch up on a prey ( one exception leave there ) the camera zoom out or skip to another scene . i ask myself why that happen and if they be to show reality and why cut the scene that a melodramatic fairytale remain . i think the moral be important for the mass of the crowd and cause after all represent it would be a waste to destroy this beautiful planet . | 0neg
|
the invisible man be a fantastic movie from 1933 and a cutting edge film for it time where object appear to rest on top of a man who be truly invisible . go ahead and take a look at the film and you will be shock that it be make in 1933 and it be the first true special effect movie . come 2000 and computer aid special effect seem like child play and audience be not blow away by special effect and instead they be disappoint if they be not do right . the special effect in hollow man and the update of the hg well story and be ok and but not the big problem with this film direct by paul verhoeven and who you might remember from showgirl and total recall . kevin bacon play sebastian caine and a scientist dabbling in the world of bio invisibilation ( yeah and i know that not a word ) but of course be battle high ups who be threaten to take away the team funding . so and a movie character who be about to have their funding cutoff be prone to do and he make the ultimate sacrifice and become a guinea pig for the invisibilation ( yeah and i know and i use that non word again ) process . the process have dire consequence and no caine do not die and but instead become a horny and violent creature and aka a guy . now that he invisible and caine stalk a sexy neighbor and a co worker and former girlfriend linda ( elisabeth shue ) and and the man who take away his funding . then a funny thing happens and caine become a new supernatural be and the thing that win not die . laugh in the face of all thing natural and caine face down death and spit in it face and a it take what feel like hour for this creature to die and drag the end of the movie out . the movie be silly and stupid and and finally laughable with the way realism be sometimes used and sometimes not . there be neat possibility in hollow man and but of course and not one of them be explore . for a more interesting look at an invisible be and get ready for some good old fashion black and white cinema and and check out the 1933 invisible man . kevin bacon will still be invisible when you come back and probably still alive at the bottom of a volcano . | 0neg
|
one could wish that an idea as good a the invisible man would work good and be more carefully handle in the age of fantastic special effect and but this be not the case . the story and the character and and finally the entire last 20 minute of the film be about as fresh a a mad scientist flick from the early 50 . there be some great moment and mostly due to the amazing special effect and to the very idea of an invisible man stalk the street . but ala and soon be back in the cramped confinement of the underground lab and which mean that the rest of the film be not only predictable and but schematic . there have be a great many remake of old film or tv show over the past 10 year and and some of them have their charm . but it become clearer and clearer for each film that the idea of put ol classic under the nose of eager madman like verhoeven ( who do have his moment ) be a very bad one . it be obvious that the money be the key issue here represent the time and energy put into the script be nowhere near enough and and a a result and hollow man be seriously undermine with clichés and sappy character and predictability and lack of any depth whatsoever . however and the one thing that actually impress me and beside the special effect and be the swearing . when make this kind of film and modern producer be very keen on allow kid to see them . therefore and the language ( and and sometimes and the violence and sex ) be very toned down . when the whole world blow up and the good guy go oh darn . and oh my god . hollow man gratefully discard that kind of hypocrisy and the character be at liberty to say what come most natural to them . i be not say that the most natural response to something go wrong be to swear but it make it more believable if someone actually swear . i think we can thank verhoeven for that . | 0neg
|
i get to the cinema every week or so and and regularly check out this site and but never before have i felt compel to comment on a film . to my all time list of shockingly bad film last man stand and spawn and the bone collector i can now add the drivel that be hollow man . from the awful opening title a ridiculously over long run through of cast and crew put together with alphabetti spaghetti through to the insulting finale a world record number of cliche and some of the most absurd dialogue and act to have ever make it to cinema this film be dismal and and only the impressive computer graphic keep you from walk out long before the end . this isn not just my opinion it be that of my friend and and everyone around u . when large section of an audience be laugh and groan during and after a serious thriller and it clear that the film be hopeless . not only that and it be sick too . the director take the action beyond the bound of realistic fare for a violent film and and into the realm of an over the top blood soak b movie . it difficult not to imagine the director a some sort of dirty old man and because the extent of the invisible man foray out of the lab and into the outside world extend only to two attempt at have a feel of some breast . perhaps sex could well be the first thing on a bloke mind if make invisible and but aside from the aesthetic pleasure of the lady involve and it hardly make entertain cinema . [ spoiler follow ] get past the film sick exterior and and thing be even bad . whilst kevin bacon do a good job of act increasingly twist a hollow man and the rest of them perhaps handicap by a dire script do an even good job of be hollow cast . one long time member of the team be find strangle in a locker by the invisible man and he finally snap shrug one colleague without a hint of emotion . this be par for the course and and the lab team swing between sheer terror and complete indifference with such speed that you wonder how they get into act . they pad their way through the lab corridor terrify and gun poise and but then second later one of the crew skip happily off back down the corridor to get blood for a hurt colleague . the lead female treat the invisible man with courtesy and good humour even after he insult and abuse her and and there seem to be little reaction to his breakout and even after he drown the pentagon chief and he drown in his pool last night report the same female and spectacularly fail to put two and two together . the script be litter with this kind of badly act pedestrian dialogue and and the rest be just an a z of film cliche and which get lay on thicker and faster a the film progress to the point of complete disbelief and amusement at the end . the eureka moment at the computer and the female undressing at the window and the looped security video the list really be endless the predictable disregard for strength in number and the decision not to kill the two main star but just put them in a place of probable impend death and leave them to their own device and the almost dead good guy appear out of nothing to save the woman and the bomb and ubiquitous countdown timer and the fireball explosion which just burn up before reach the hero and the fall lift which just stop before hit them and and more than anything else and the immortality of the bad guy . the invisible man be burn to a shred with a makeshift flame thrower and electrocute and whack round the head with a bar which have just slice straight through one of the less actor and and then have apparently survive the explosion and fireball and total destruction of the lab and have more than enough life leave to climb up through the fireball for one last pop at the film hero by which stage the disbelieving audience be cringe and look at their watch . that this exceptionally bad film actually make it to the cinema be astound . even the name of the film be as hopeless a the movie itself and and not even impressive special effect come anywhere near save this one and which should be avoid at all cost . | 0neg
|
( some spoiler ) a if you wouldn not know how it will endmy expectation for hollow man be high . a very good commercial and a director like paul verhoeven and actor like kevin bacon and elisabeth shue and plus a very interesting theme invisibility . every premise for a great movie be accomplish . unfortunately these thing do not matter at all . the movie be very very week and without suspense and awfully predictable . it all about a bunch of scientist who discover invisibility . after the test on animal succeed and kevin bacon decides to test it on himself . once he invisible and he change completely and realize the advantage of not be see . from this to murder there a very thin line . hollow man be an ill movie . it suffer of the disease that many new movie have represent the special effect . from a challenging theme that could have lead the producer to a great tensed psychological thriller and verhoeven ruin everything focus only on special effect and without give a damn about the real value of the movie . i must admit and the fx be awesome and probably the best i have see since matrix and but that not enough to make a movie good . actually that the problem with the movie today . just like verhoeven and most director care only about spectacular scene and nothing more . the exception be very few and and probably the matrix be the only movie that combine perfectly fabulous special effect and great plot . after starship trooper and verhoeven disappoints again . in stead of a great film and hm be crp . there be only 2 reason why you could watch this movie represent 1. the special effect 2. the joke with superman and wonder woman ( i would not spoil this moment for you . ) okay and so what go wrong with the movie . everything . let see what i can remember . it not tense at all . it should have be and but it not . it too predictable . you know from the beginning who will die and who will live . in stead of focus on the psychological part and verhoeven care only about the effect . very many cliche . of course the bad guy wake up a few time before die . just like in every low quality horror and the first rule be to let the character separate as much a possible . every time there be somebody alone in the lab and perfect victim for bacon . some hole in the plot . example represent at the beginning and bacon have to scan his finger to enter the lab . after he invisible and how can he do that . the end represent absolutely horrible . after shue hit bacon in the head and bacon fall down to the ground . then shue and brolin leave quietly and slowly and without look back . be that normal . then bacon get up and attack them and they kill him again . and then shue scream i hear an explosion ( happen minute ago ) and and they suddenly run inside . didn not she hear that explosion some time before . there a scene in which you can see the microphone hang above the actor . come on and mr verhoeven and i expect much more from you . so that about hollow man . what be suppose to be a great movie turn into a scam . vote represent 4 out of 10 ( for the special effect ) . | 0neg
|
leave it to paul sex on the brain verhoeven to come up with a pointlessly sleazy and juvenile version of the invisible man story . if he would direct a pokemon film and i be sure he would turn it into some massive orgy of sort . i do not mind sex or even sleaze ( check my other review ) on film but frankly and it obvious the director have a one track mind and he couldn not see interesting aspect about an invisible man storyline than the kinky implication it come with it . it a shame because it could have be good if the film do not spend so much time have an invisible kevin bacon grope woman . the game cast of actor do what it can with the one note cheesy script but i felt bad for some of them and include william devane and who be totally waste here . but then what could i have expect from the director of showgirl and which and btw and be much more entertaining than this stilted and bad film . | 0neg
|
go into this movie you know that this be movie have six lab technician in a sealed lab with an invisible maniac . so right away youre guess who will live and who will die . the survivor end up be exactly who you would expect them to be and so no point for plot twist there . and if youre not sure if this be a b movie or a movie that just happen to take place in a lab with an engage story and william devane play a part represent instant b movie status . the movie be promise in the beginning . at the lab we be introduce to the invisible gorilla who be become increasingly violent . oooh and foreboding . the best scene in the whole movie be when the lab team make the gorilla visible again . great special effect . same thing when they make bacon invisible . there be a couple of bare breast and a really lame dirty joke and enough out of place swear to give this movie an r rating that it really do not need . for a thriller there weren not really any surprise and except when shue make like macgyver in the freezer and which be more of a whaaaa . ok and there be one surprise . that when caine ( bacon ) come back one last time in the elevator shaft . it be a surprise but only because youre yelling at tv and noooo . youre dead already . end the movie . speaking of yell at the tv and that all i do for the last 25 minute or so . put on your f # @ % ing goggles . instead of put their infrared goggles on so that they can see him and they try every other trick in the book ( fire extinguisher and sprinkler system . ) . the story really lose it at the end . but the special effect be good while that the only reason i give it a negative . | 0neg
|
this be the kind of movie that leave you with one impression . story writing be what movie making be about . incredible visual effect . very good acting and especially from shue . everything be perfect . except . the story be just poor and so and everything fails . picture this and if you have the power to be invisible . what would you do . well and our mad scientist here ( play by kevin bacon ) could think of no other thing to do but fondle and rape woman . this be all his supposedly genius mind could think of . do he try to gain extra power . no . he doesn not even bother research a way to get back to be visible . the guy be basically a sex craze maniac . add to that and the lab atmosphere and you have all these young guy . throw around joke like they be in a bar . if it wasn not for all the white coat and equipment and you would think this be a bad imitation of cheer . very shallow and poor personality and very little care be put into make you think these guy be anything but lamb for the hollow man wolf . even a a thriller and the movie fall way short because most of the thrilling scene be write out so poorly and be full of illogical behavior by the actor that be just scream this be just a stupid thing i have to do so that the hollow man can find me alone and kill me . if you read the actual book and while the scientist ( cane ) go after woman and there be a lot of mental manipulation and disturb thought that go into his character . in the movie and cane be just the sick guy who go to a crowded marketplace to rub his body in woman and get off on it . just sad . | 0neg
|
within the realm of science fiction and two particular theme consistently elicit interest and be initially explore in the literature of a pre cinematic era and and have since be periodically revisit by filmmaker and writer alike and with vary degree of success . the first theme and that of time travel and have hold an unwavering fascination for fan of film and as well a the write word and most recently on the screen with yet another version of the h. g. well classic and ` the time machine . the second theme and which also manage to hold audience in thrall and be that of invisibility and which spark the imagination with it seemingly endless and myriad possibility . and this theme and too and have again become the basis for a film adapt from another h. g. well classic and ` the invisible man and the realization of which and here and be ` hollow man and direct by paul verhoeven and and star kevin bacon and elisabeth shue . sebastian caine ( bacon ) and his colleague have for some time be conduct experiment for the u. s. government and explore the possibility and practicality of invisibility and which they have and at last and achieve in a number of the primate upon which they have test their method . they have and in fact and progress to the point that effect the invisibility be assure while their only problem now be bring the subject back to the original ` visual state of be . it a problem and however and that caine and after diligent effort and too many hour in the lab and have solve or so he think . and when the application of his theory on a live subject be successful and he decide to present the result to the board of director and in an effort to thereby maintain the funding necessary for the continuation of the project . at the last minute and though and caine demur and fear that control of the project will be wrest from him before they can proceed to the next level the testing of a human subject . and he take it upon himself to become that subject and secure the assistance of his research team by tell them that they have be give approval by the board to do so . but something go wrong and and caine becomes trap in his cloak of invisibility while and a he and his team struggle to find the solution to his considerable dilemma before it too late and it all begin to take a toll on caine mind . and suddenly and his fear of lose funding and control become inconsequential and a he find himself face the imminent danger of lose much more than that . now there a very real chance that he may lose everything include himself . verhoeven have craft what be initially an exciting and even think provoke film while he establish a good pace and use the f or x at his disposal to great effect and though he do tend to allow the striking visuals to overwhelm the character development . anyone familiar with ` the invisible man and or actually anyone who can logically follow the progression of the story and will know early on that caine be not destine for happy time . still and verhoeven have a style of storytelling that be definitely go to capture the attention and engage his audience . but he seem bent on rush toward the climax and and along the way he abandon any and all of the nuance that have make his film thus far successful and opt to enter into a final sequence that be nothing more than a mindless blood and gore fest that betray his audience and everything he work for earlier in the film . rather than seek an intelligent resolution to caine suffering and and use some inventiveness and imagination to take the film to it inevitable conclusion and verhoeven take the low road and and though it may succeed on a purely visceral level and any mean one could derive from the story dissolve like so many ash in the wind and along with anything that would have make this a memorable film . and it a shame and because verhoeven have it at a high level than much of what be offer in this genre and and he allow it to sink unnecessarily to one much low . kevin bacon do a good job of create a character that be believable and if only on the surface and which seemingly serve verhoeven purpose perfectly . there little depth to bacon portrayal and but it have more to do with his director agenda than his own acting ability . verhoeven simply do not allow bacon the time to develop caine to any extent while the character be mainly a vessel around which verhoeven can build his story and and toward that end and it work . the film would have be good serve and however and have verhoeven and bacon collaborate more closely on at least develop a bond between caine and the audience that would have prompt some emotional involvement on the viewer part and something that would have draw them in a bit and rather than leave them at the gate and a it be and a mere observer of an f or x laden extravaganza . elisabeth shue comports herself well in the role of linda mckay and caine willing accomplice in the ill fat experiment and but it basically a thankless part that offer little challenge and especially to an actor of shue caliber . the same can be say of kim dickens ( so magnificent in the 2001 film and ` thing behind the sun ) . her character and sarah kennedy and do little more than support the action and f or x. both actor be capable of so much more and and deserve good than what they be give to work with here . the support cast include josh brolin ( matthew ) and greg grunberg ( carter ) and joey slotnick ( frank ) and mary randle ( janice ) and william devane ( dr. kramer ) . entertain to a point and and even successful on a certain ( low ) level and ` hollow man be one of those film that leave you contemplate what could have be . like an annual firework display and it will give you some momentary thrill and but after awhile it will begin to blend in with all the others you have see and without anything special to set it apart . and it too bad and because give the talent and ability of those involve here and it could have be so much more . i rate this one 4/10 . . | 0neg
|
i do not normally feel much of an incentive to comment on film i do not like and but in a case like this one and i just have to say something . this movie be terrible and illogical and and stupid . there be so many flaw in the storytelling that i do not even feel oblige to elaborate on because it time for me to move on from this experience . the most annoying point be and however and that at no point in the film do anyone explain whether the motivation for bacon character madness be due to a power trip or a physiological reaction to his condition . grant the special effect be impressive and and in the past paul verhoeven have do some good stuff ( the director cut of robocop on dvd be great ) . however and this movie be stupid and generally doesn not come near to explain the point or technical aspect of the subject matter and and instead settle for predictable action without any enjoyment . in short and a many other review here say ( wish i have read them before . ) stay away from this film . | 0neg
|
unfortunately and one of the best effort yet make in the area of special effect have be make completely pointless by be place alongside a lumbering and silly and equally pointless plot and an inadequate and clichéd screenplay . hollow man be a rather useless film . practically everything see here have be do to death the character and the idea and the action sequence ( especially the lift shaft . ) with the only genuinely intriguing element of the film be the impressive special effect . however and it be just the same special effect do over and over again and and by the end of the film that have be do to death also . i be hop before watch hollow man that the invisible man theme and which be hardly original in itself and would be the basis of something new and more interesting . this be not so . it isn not long before the film turn into an overly familiar blood bath and mass of ineffectual histrionics the mound of clichés pile up so fast that it almost impressive . on top of all this and kevin bacon do a pretty useless job and his supporting cast be hardly try their best . good point might be a passable jerry goldsmith score ( but no competition for his good effort ) and a quite interesting use of thermal imagery and the special effect . i be tempt to give this film three out of ten and but the effect push hollow man merit up one notch . 4/10 . | 0neg
|
paul verhoeven finally bomb out on this one . he become a joke on himself . once again we have a film which include sex and violence and immorality and leering at woman and lot of attitiude talk between the character and dollying pan . it all for nothing . because their be no action at all in this film . it fudge all it set piece . all the actor give the kind of performance form a verhoeven film . in other word rampant over act on almost every level . starship trooper get away with it because it be such a macho world the character inhabit . in this scientist be act the same way . sorry paul but soldier and scientist be not really make of the same mindset . one major flaw in the plot be that after escape for that one night to do evil thing kevin bacon character then return back to the science lab where we have already spend more then enough time watch these animate manniquens ( elizabeth shue except ) walk and talk . why not show the extent of what the character could do in the outside world . how could they possibly track him if he could be anywhere at all . think o all the different thing that could have be do with this concept and both in term of story and characterisation . then look at what this film do and you really how badly do and concieved the whole project really be . more insulting be the doco on the dvd where everyone be claim that verhoeven be some kind of mad genius . well one out of two isnt that bad . this film have nothing of note in it . just like the title say . hollow . | 0neg
|
other than some neat special effect and this movie have nothing to offer . they throw in some gore and some nudity to try and make it interesting and but with no success . kevin bacon acting be pretty good and but he couldn not salvage the movie lack of plot . | 0neg
|
i love special effect and witness new technology that make science fiction seem real . the special effect of this movie be very good . i have see most of this movie and since it be air on hbo for the past couple of month . i must admit and i may have miss a few scene and but i be usually draw into movie and and have see some scene more than once . but every time i see some of hollow man and i feel depress and almost like a film noir . i be not sure why while perhaps it that i do not want kevin bacon to be evil and and there disappointment in that . but i think it witness just how relentlessly evil he become . regardless and i can recommend this movie for excitement ( although some part move slowly ) and but i do not recommend for youngster under the age of 14 ( perhaps 12 and if they be mature ) . | 0neg
|
the buzz for this film have always be about the fabulous graphic that make kevin bacon disappear . sadly and they stop there . they should have continue to make the script disappear and then the silly set and and finally every visible element of this film . because and there nothing else there to show . gary thompson and andrew marlowe be list a the write credit for this film . i do not really think they exist . i think they buy this script at script r u and where you buy a standard blank monster movie script and just fill in the blank . there a monster stalk u . let split up . ( they actually let split up in this movie ) . hit alien or giant bug or monster or invisible man with crowbar . not dead yet . burn huge rabbit or shark or invisible man in unsurvivable fire . not dead yet . you know and the standard stuff . even the minimum number of element that be specific to an invisible man movie ( ir glass and spray with something like paint ) be handle badly . what be sad be that there be lot of possibility for this to be a fascinating movie . they psychological issue for the subject and the deterioration of the mind due to the process and treat an invisible subject and and many other idea be touch on for usually less than 2 second and would have be far more interesting . have there be any desire to save kevin bacon in the end and it would have be a much good movie . all in all and it stink . i would mention some of the incredibly stupid element of the end of the movie and but i do not want to do any spoiler . suffice it to say that these character be so stupid they do not think about pull the plug on a machine rather than . | 0neg
|
this movie be worth watch if you enjoy marvel over special effect . there be some interesting visuals . aside from that and it typical ninety or aughties hollywood fare of dazzle without substance . true to the title . it not worth pick apart the story . that like perform brain surgery on a dinosaur . there not much there to begin with . it nothing original and not very special . so do not go in for the story at all . just look at the effect . a have be mention and it get a little flashy at the end and dilute the purity of great fx treatment of an invisible ( and at time half invisible ) man . however if you ignore the standard pyrotechnic and it a sight to behold ( or not to behold ) . all in all and it a decent fx film worth see for that purpose and that alone . | 0neg
|
shortly after see this film i question the mental competence of every actor and actress that accept a role . elizabeth shue be a commendable actress and why would she embrace such an overrated opportunity . i must give credit where credit be due and though . some moment in the movie be unpredictable and rather transfixing and but they hardly make up for the scathing perverse tendency of kevin bacon character and sebastian caine . i wouldn not recommend this movie to anyone and man or woman and that have any form of self respect to account for . | 0neg
|
another violent and angry fantasy from paul verhoeven . verhoeven be a puzzle represent it difficult to tell whether he take his sordid impulses seriously and with sardonic intent or operate in complete oblivion . he also seem completely ignorant of the fact that all the brilliant visuals in the world ( and this have some outstanding one ) can not hide a negligence to story and dialogue and performance . kevin bacon play a corrupt scientist who have discover invisibility and use it to drive himself into moral bankruptcy . bacon be normally a likable actor who occasionally show his dark side ( ` the river wild ) in an attempt to offset his boyish look while give the material and however and bacon isn not nearly hateful enough to compel . the other principal be elisabeth shue and josh brolin and neither of whom be gift enough to make a solid impression and who and when force to deliver inane dialogue and embarrass themselves . the climax be a study in preponderance and disbelief have to be truly suspend . | 0neg
|
to describe this film a garbage be unfair . at least root through garbage can be an absorbing hobby . this flick be neither absorb nor entertain . kevin bacon can act superbly give the chance and so no doubt have an irs bill to settle when he agree to this dire screenplay . the mad scientist story of hollow man have be tell before and be tell well and and be tell without resort to so many ludicrously expensive special effect . most of those special effect seem to be build around the transparent anatomical doll of men and woman and dog you could buy in the early seventy . in the uk they be market a the transparent man ( or woman or dog ) which be maybe where they get the title for this film . clever special effect and dire script and non existent plot . | 0neg
|
that what i find myself say time after time in the remarkably inept 3rd act of this sorry excuse for a film . first off and the computer effect be absolutely mind blow . those computer wizs really deserve a pat on the back . the rest of the movie and though . none of the character act in a realistic manner and especially in the aforementioned and despicable 3rd act ( i promise i would not give it away and but trust me and it not worth keep a secret . ) . a lot of laugh in the film come unintentionally and like when they try to explain that an invisible man eyelid do not work . please and give the viewer more credit than that . some of the sexual aspect of the film be interest . what would you do and after all and if you be invisible . no one could catch you . these issue be dealt much more intelligently in the classic the invisible man from 1933. there be one scene of violence in particular that be so incredibly ambiguous and and be not mention once later on . if more attention have be pay it and kevin bacon mad scientist might have make a little more sense . the movie would actually be much more successful a a porno and since the premise could actually be carry out in a unique and interesting manner . but this piece of work . go see something else . or do not and and live with the consequence . negative . | 0neg
|
i rarely make these comment but i felt compel to spare others the pain i endure in watch this movie . it so stupid and implausible both in the overall story and in the detail that you simply can not suspend disbelief . the problem start early and when you see a government researcher tool around in a new porsche and din with his team in a restaraunt that look like a castle and overlook the capitol building in washington and d. c. that kind of life on a government salary . hah . it only get bad . toward the end and when the bad guy start kill off the good guy and the latter group act so stupidly that you want them to die and in order to cleanse the gene pool . the special effect be pretty good any producer money can buy that and the lead actor have be great in other film and but the screenplay and direction here be moronic . many people have wonder whether there be some deliberate intelligence behind paul verhoeven previous and facially stupid movie ( showgirl and starship trooper ) and but this movie should stop the wondering . he just plain bad . | 0neg
|
this picture start out with good intention and bacon the scientist out to test the theory of invisibility and and shue be cute a usual in her role . it all fall apart after that and it your typical hollywood thriller now and film on a soundstage with special effect galore and minus any kind of humour and wit or soul . in other word and do not waste your time watch this . get the audiocassette tape with john delancie a the invisible man instead and also star leonard nimoy . now that be good and and hg well be well serve and unlike with this mess . | 0neg
|
c amon guy some previous reviewer have nearly write a novel comment on this episode . it just an old 60 tv show . this episode of star trek be notable because of the most serious babe ( yeoman barrow ) ever use on star trek and the fact that it be film in a real outdoor location . unlike the tng and voyager series which be totally confine to sound stage . this use of an outdoor location ( and babe ) give proper depth and an almost film like quality to a quite ordinary episode of this now dated and very familiar show . except a few notable exception i. e the city on the edge of forever and assignment earth and tomorrow be yesterday the old series of star trek need to be seriously moth balled and put out of it bore misery . half a dozen good episode from 79 be quite a poor batting average . this be typical of the boring stuff gene roddenberry produce back then actually and contrary to popular belief where some people worship the ground he walk on and he actually make a lot of rubbish . he doesn not deserve to be speak of in the same breath a irwin allen for example . just look at the set of the bridge of the enterprise from a modern point of view . they use wobbly plywood for the floor and cafeteria chair with plastic back and cheap cardboard above the instrument panel . you can clearly see the fold in the paper . every expense spar or what . | 0neg
|
okay and now what the hell be this suppose to be . be it a family fantasy movie to cash in further on the huge success of spielberg close encounter of the third kind . or a throwback to the glorious day of prehistoric epic such a when dinosaur rule the earth and the lost world . perhaps it an intellectual and philosophical masterpiece we all fail to comprehend . yes and that must be it . whatever it be and the creator of the day time end ( good old john bud cardos of kingdom of the spider and writer david schmoeller of tourist trap ) must have be sniff quite a lot glue when they pen down the idea for this demented hodgepodge of genre . the story doesn not make the slight bit of sense and the narrative structure be incoherent a hell but and hey and who care as long a it get papier mâché dinosaur and miniature spacecraft and headache inducing light and laser show and spontaneously combust supernova . the voice over introduction be practically inaudible and but no worry a it all gibberish . do you know that the definition of time isn not what we all think it be . time doesn not necessarily pass by chronologically and it be one giant paradox . word that be speak thousand of year ago be still float around now and even thing that will happen in the future be already surround u . i have absolutely no idea what all this mean and but apparently it provide an easy excuse to gather tap dance midget alien and well mannered dinosaur on screen together . i deliberately say well mannered dinosaur and because at a certain point one of the prehistoric monster politely knock on the front door before menace his target . the crazy plot revolves on a family of weirdo living in their solar power house in the middle of nowhere . grandpa be extremely annoying and the granddaughter even more and granny be a walking and talk advertisement billboard for plastic surgery and the young son strangely resemble prince valiant and the young mother be incredibly hot . chris mitchum for some reason also pointless wanders around the film set a the hot mommy husband on business travel . the special effect be purely cheesy and absolutely laughable ( i sincerely hope that the other reviewer who talk about excellent special effect be be sarcastic ) and but the absolute most genius aspect here be the dialog . just read this wondrous example of extraordinary write represent grandpa represent you know what this be and do not you . this be a time space warp . stevie represent i be not quite sure if i know what that mean and dadgrandpa represent well and i guess nobody really do make up your mind and gramps . do you know what it be or do not you . and stop talk about the vortex like youre some kind of expert in the field . the day time end be an incredibly childish and not worth bother for fantasy movie and though i can totally understand that some of it fan cherish the film because they saw it at young age and become fascinate with the flamboyant effect . the end completely come out of nowhere and like they suddenly run out of money or like the effect of the mushroom they be eat wore out unexpectedly . | 0neg
|
i saw this when it be in the theater and it start out so strong i mean back in 1980 this be a bold movie and the special effect be excellent at the time . now you would have to of be at least 30 or so in 1980 to really understand this point because study film historically miss the mind set at the time the expectation and and other related psychological factor . now a i say the movie be engage suspenseful and very entertaining . it build to an excellent climax then . it end i mean the person that describe it a have a water balloon break in your hand before throw it and besides be a very poetic description . in my experience and it be just not strong enough . my wife and i be well . how can i say this . we be upset and i mean we pay money and invest the time to watch the movie which be excellent . we both felt we be rob with an end that convince u both the production company must of run out of money and could not raise enough to finish it correctly . in fact my wife say it best and it do not end and it just stop . | 0neg
|