Datasets:
ELVISIO
/
imdb_dataset_offical_triplet

Dataset card Data Studio Files
xet
Community
2
text
stringlengths
52
13.9k
anchor
stringlengths
52
13.9k
positive
stringclasses
2 values
negative
stringclasses
2 values
darcy and her young daughter pamela are heading out to the country where her mum boyfriend peter left his doctor position in the city to become a writer and fix up a bed and breakfast inn. although this inn has a terrible past and pamela learns from one the girl who lives in the town that a deformed witch once reside in that house. they called her the tooth fairy as she would kill kids after getting their last baby tooth. this work on the inn and has awoken the tooth fairy. now she has her sights on pamela and her last baby tooth and but if any gets in the way they face the same fate that awaits pamela. this flick old folk myth of the tooth fairy doesn not paint her in a very generous way and as you would believe when you were a child. don not they just love turning happy childhood memories into nightmares. another one which did fall into the same category was darkness falls (2003). i can not compare how similar they are in the premises and because i haven not seen the latter and but i mostly read they have basically share the same idea. for a little straight to dvd film and this dtv effort looks good and has some promising images surrounding the senseless and traditionally by the book plot device. low expectations are needed and as i do not class it as an success and but i found it be to marginally entertaining. cory strode and cookie rae brown story or background for this tooth fairy character is completely bare with it leaning more towards a slasher vehicle than anything really supernatural. silly is a good way to describe what happening in this poorly scripted story and but it never really feels like a fairytale horror. the dialogues can seem rather redundant and morally hounded. while the acting is simply sub par with the bland characters they have to work off and but director chuck bowman offers up some inventive blood splatter and terribly nasty jolts. this kinda makes up for the lack of suspense and the zero scares and generic tone. his direction is reasonably earnest and visually able and where he gets some atmospheric lighting contrasting well with its slick photography. the promising opening scene is creepily effective. his pacing can slow up in parts and there the odd and unnecessary slow motion scene put in and but nonetheless it never gets too stodgy with something active occurring which made sure that i wasn not bored. the make up special effects provided the goods and as there enough repulsive gruel and the tooth fairy appearance is especially gooey. the figure of the tooth fairy can look threatening in its black robe and bubbling make up and swift movements. being on location helps carve out a more natural feel and can get atmospherically rich in its sense of eeriness. child actors can be incredibly annoying and but nicole muñoz was decent in her part. lochlyn munro and chandra west are somewhat solid and but can be a little too causal in their performances as peter and darcey. the radiantly gorgeous carrie anne fleming is one of their lodgers. p. j soles shows up in small part as a superstitious neighbour who tries to warn them about the evil that lurks at the inn. i thought it was a okay time waster that has a sound concept and which just isn not fleshed out enough and the execution is pretty textbook stuff. watchable nonsense and but at the same time extremely forgettable.
darcy and her young daughter pamela are heading out to the country where her mum boyfriend peter left his doctor position in the city to become a writer and fix up a bed and breakfast inn. although this inn has a terrible past and pamela learns from one the girl who lives in the town that a deformed witch once reside in that house. they called her the tooth fairy as she would kill kids after getting their last baby tooth. this work on the inn and has awoken the tooth fairy. now she has her sights on pamela and her last baby tooth and but if any gets in the way they face the same fate that awaits pamela. this flick old folk myth of the tooth fairy doesn not paint her in a very generous way and as you would believe when you were a child. don not they just love turning happy childhood memories into nightmares. another one which did fall into the same category was darkness falls (2003). i can not compare how similar they are in the premises and because i haven not seen the latter and but i mostly read they have basically share the same idea. for a little straight to dvd film and this dtv effort looks good and has some promising images surrounding the senseless and traditionally by the book plot device. low expectations are needed and as i do not class it as an success and but i found it be to marginally entertaining. cory strode and cookie rae brown story or background for this tooth fairy character is completely bare with it leaning more towards a slasher vehicle than anything really supernatural. silly is a good way to describe what happening in this poorly scripted story and but it never really feels like a fairytale horror. the dialogues can seem rather redundant and morally hounded. while the acting is simply sub par with the bland characters they have to work off and but director chuck bowman offers up some inventive blood splatter and terribly nasty jolts. this kinda makes up for the lack of suspense and the zero scares and generic tone. his direction is reasonably earnest and visually able and where he gets some atmospheric lighting contrasting well with its slick photography. the promising opening scene is creepily effective. his pacing can slow up in parts and there the odd and unnecessary slow motion scene put in and but nonetheless it never gets too stodgy with something active occurring which made sure that i wasn not bored. the make up special effects provided the goods and as there enough repulsive gruel and the tooth fairy appearance is especially gooey. the figure of the tooth fairy can look threatening in its black robe and bubbling make up and swift movements. being on location helps carve out a more natural feel and can get atmospherically rich in its sense of eeriness. child actors can be incredibly annoying and but nicole muñoz was decent in her part. lochlyn munro and chandra west are somewhat solid and but can be a little too causal in their performances as peter and darcey. the radiantly gorgeous carrie anne fleming is one of their lodgers. p. j soles shows up in small part as a superstitious neighbour who tries to warn them about the evil that lurks at the inn. i thought it was a okay time waster that has a sound concept and which just isn not fleshed out enough and the execution is pretty textbook stuff. watchable nonsense and but at the same time extremely forgettable.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i was duped into seeing this movie after reading a positive review from another website and man was i p. o would. it took me at least 15 minutes to pick it up off the shelf b or c i do not want anyone to see me. then another 10 minutes to build the courage to take it to the counter and actually use real money to rent it. i thought that all my stress would pay off by the time i got home to and watching the movie b or c the review i read said the movie was a pleasant surprise while what a joke. if you can make it through the first hour of the movie then your in luck. b or c it not until then the movie turn into a horror. do not bother with this one folks and your better off watching dankness falls.
i was duped into seeing this movie after reading a positive review from another website and man was i p. o would. it took me at least 15 minutes to pick it up off the shelf b or c i do not want anyone to see me. then another 10 minutes to build the courage to take it to the counter and actually use real money to rent it. i thought that all my stress would pay off by the time i got home to and watching the movie b or c the review i read said the movie was a pleasant surprise while what a joke. if you can make it through the first hour of the movie then your in luck. b or c it not until then the movie turn into a horror. do not bother with this one folks and your better off watching dankness falls.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
stephen j. cannell apparently decided a few years ago that he would broaden his horizons and dabble in horror. the result and dead above ground and is an abysmal piece of junk. now and had i noticed his name in association with this particular film i would have put it back but no and i do not have my glasses on and therefore i missed it and damn and i really do need to bring those with me while video shopping. first question would be and who the heck is the target audience for this. it almost like a scary kids movie and but then again there topless babes and some gore and some bad words spouted here and there. the main characters are so cute that you want to see someone and anyone and go after them with farm implements of some kind. seems that a guy opens a bed and breakfast that has a checkered past and a child murdering witch that collected children teeth lived there. probably something the real estate agent failed to mention. of course now in the modern day there a little girls ghost around to warn the real live little girl that now lives there that something bad is going to happen. it does and and there also two bubbas that were squatting on that property when the new owner took over so theyre out for revenge too. this whole thing has the feel of some made for cable junk that for the kids at halloween except for and of course and the things that aren not suitable for little kids and so not only is this mediocre and it confused and too. a big boo and hiss to anchor bay for putting this out too and considering their usual track record with fine releases this is a new low. the uk gets a phantasm box set and we get the tooth fairy. hardly seems fair. negative and absolute garbage.
stephen j. cannell apparently decided a few years ago that he would broaden his horizons and dabble in horror. the result and dead above ground and is an abysmal piece of junk. now and had i noticed his name in association with this particular film i would have put it back but no and i do not have my glasses on and therefore i missed it and damn and i really do need to bring those with me while video shopping. first question would be and who the heck is the target audience for this. it almost like a scary kids movie and but then again there topless babes and some gore and some bad words spouted here and there. the main characters are so cute that you want to see someone and anyone and go after them with farm implements of some kind. seems that a guy opens a bed and breakfast that has a checkered past and a child murdering witch that collected children teeth lived there. probably something the real estate agent failed to mention. of course now in the modern day there a little girls ghost around to warn the real live little girl that now lives there that something bad is going to happen. it does and and there also two bubbas that were squatting on that property when the new owner took over so theyre out for revenge too. this whole thing has the feel of some made for cable junk that for the kids at halloween except for and of course and the things that aren not suitable for little kids and so not only is this mediocre and it confused and too. a big boo and hiss to anchor bay for putting this out too and considering their usual track record with fine releases this is a new low. the uk gets a phantasm box set and we get the tooth fairy. hardly seems fair. negative and absolute garbage.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
when i saw this movie cover and the first thing i thought was that it was made for video. the second thing that came to mind was how similar this looked to another terrible movie darkness falls and the tale of this dumb witch who killed people in the dark. unfortunately and darkness falls was quite the masterpiece compared to this pile of garbage and and this movie should not have been made. the film starts off with a small back story for the witch and or and more like a pointless introduction of two little kids who are going to go meet the tooth fairy in hopes of her giving them a shiny new bicycle for their tooth. the opening is filmed poorly and and like the rest of the movie and it certainly not scary. in present time and the movie is about peter (lochlyn munroe). peter renting out his house and and his ex girlfriend darcy (chandra west) and and her daughter cole come to stay there. cole meets a neighborhood child and and they talk of the tooth fairy and and how you shouldn not lose your tooth and or she will come for you. unfortunately seconds later and it looks like the tooth fairy steals her bike and knocks her tooth out (how ironic). will cole survive the wrath of the tooth fairy and and will her mother and peter be able to save her and and rekindle their romance. this is a bad movie and you could probably figure it out. one of the main problems with this idiotic film is how undefined the tooth fairy is. they say she kills you if you lose your tooth and but nope. she more like a serial killer who kills at random and and if you lose your tooth and youre definitely going to go. she steals a bike and so apparently she a thief too. i said earlier that the idea for this movie was based on darkness falls and but where did they get the inspiration for the tooth fairy appearance. let see. she looks like a burn victim and and she previously went around the neighborhood slaughtering children. hmmm. it almost as though she an exact rip off of freddy krueger from the nightmare on elm street films. and this is not the worst part of this awful mess and the climax is. this movie might have the most laughable climax (not literally laughable because i found it more sickening than funny) i have ever seen. don not see this. just a little trivia. lochlyn munroe was in scary movie and and jianna ballard was in scary movie 3 and and they both were in this and so apparently scary movie stars are forced to end out their career with bad scary movies. my rating represent half out of . 80 mins. r for violence.
when i saw this movie cover and the first thing i thought was that it was made for video. the second thing that came to mind was how similar this looked to another terrible movie darkness falls and the tale of this dumb witch who killed people in the dark. unfortunately and darkness falls was quite the masterpiece compared to this pile of garbage and and this movie should not have been made. the film starts off with a small back story for the witch and or and more like a pointless introduction of two little kids who are going to go meet the tooth fairy in hopes of her giving them a shiny new bicycle for their tooth. the opening is filmed poorly and and like the rest of the movie and it certainly not scary. in present time and the movie is about peter (lochlyn munroe). peter renting out his house and and his ex girlfriend darcy (chandra west) and and her daughter cole come to stay there. cole meets a neighborhood child and and they talk of the tooth fairy and and how you shouldn not lose your tooth and or she will come for you. unfortunately seconds later and it looks like the tooth fairy steals her bike and knocks her tooth out (how ironic). will cole survive the wrath of the tooth fairy and and will her mother and peter be able to save her and and rekindle their romance. this is a bad movie and you could probably figure it out. one of the main problems with this idiotic film is how undefined the tooth fairy is. they say she kills you if you lose your tooth and but nope. she more like a serial killer who kills at random and and if you lose your tooth and youre definitely going to go. she steals a bike and so apparently she a thief too. i said earlier that the idea for this movie was based on darkness falls and but where did they get the inspiration for the tooth fairy appearance. let see. she looks like a burn victim and and she previously went around the neighborhood slaughtering children. hmmm. it almost as though she an exact rip off of freddy krueger from the nightmare on elm street films. and this is not the worst part of this awful mess and the climax is. this movie might have the most laughable climax (not literally laughable because i found it more sickening than funny) i have ever seen. don not see this. just a little trivia. lochlyn munroe was in scary movie and and jianna ballard was in scary movie 3 and and they both were in this and so apparently scary movie stars are forced to end out their career with bad scary movies. my rating represent half out of . 80 mins. r for violence.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie is similar to darkness falls and and the boogeyman(2005)but it also much more graphic than both and and not as good as either. it also slow and fairly predictable. it also got shades of deliverance and the amityville horror. plus and we get some new age flavour thrown in the mix and some of those scenes come off as a motivational or inspirational sermon. really and this movie is a hodgepodge of almost everything. even though it is gory and the makeup effects are not very realistic looking. in fact they look kinda cheap. aside from all that and there is some really awful clichéd dialogue. and i would not say when and but there is a point where a couple of the character actions were not authentic or believable and given the circumstances. nobody in their right mind what would have acted this way. once you watch the movie and you will know what i mean. there also some gratuitous nudity for nudity sake. it just wasn not necessary at all. the good news is that the acting was actually pretty good. better than this movie deserves. so and after carefully weighing the evidence and id say this movie was passable and but not good. my verdict for the tooth fairy represent negative .
this movie is similar to darkness falls and and the boogeyman(2005)but it also much more graphic than both and and not as good as either. it also slow and fairly predictable. it also got shades of deliverance and the amityville horror. plus and we get some new age flavour thrown in the mix and some of those scenes come off as a motivational or inspirational sermon. really and this movie is a hodgepodge of almost everything. even though it is gory and the makeup effects are not very realistic looking. in fact they look kinda cheap. aside from all that and there is some really awful clichéd dialogue. and i would not say when and but there is a point where a couple of the character actions were not authentic or believable and given the circumstances. nobody in their right mind what would have acted this way. once you watch the movie and you will know what i mean. there also some gratuitous nudity for nudity sake. it just wasn not necessary at all. the good news is that the acting was actually pretty good. better than this movie deserves. so and after carefully weighing the evidence and id say this movie was passable and but not good. my verdict for the tooth fairy represent negative .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the only scary thing about this movie is the thought that whoever made it might make a sequel. from start to finish the tooth fairy was just downright terrible. it seemed like a badly acted children movie which got confused and with a wizard of oz witch melting and happy kiddies ending combined with some bad gore effects and swearing. half of the cast seem completely unnecessary except for conveniently being there to get murdered in some fashion. the sister of the two brothers and cherise the aura reader and mrs. mcdonald have entirely no point in the film they could have included them in the main plot for some interesting side stories but apparently couldn not be bothered. the people watching the film know the characters are there for some bloody death scene but come on and at least try and have a slight plot for them. the story in general is weak with erratic behavior from the characters that makes you wish they all get eaten by the witch. add the weak plot and the weak acting together (the children are particularly wooden) and the movie ends up a complete failure. if only mst3k could have had a go at this one .
the only scary thing about this movie is the thought that whoever made it might make a sequel. from start to finish the tooth fairy was just downright terrible. it seemed like a badly acted children movie which got confused and with a wizard of oz witch melting and happy kiddies ending combined with some bad gore effects and swearing. half of the cast seem completely unnecessary except for conveniently being there to get murdered in some fashion. the sister of the two brothers and cherise the aura reader and mrs. mcdonald have entirely no point in the film they could have included them in the main plot for some interesting side stories but apparently couldn not be bothered. the people watching the film know the characters are there for some bloody death scene but come on and at least try and have a slight plot for them. the story in general is weak with erratic behavior from the characters that makes you wish they all get eaten by the witch. add the weak plot and the weak acting together (the children are particularly wooden) and the movie ends up a complete failure. if only mst3k could have had a go at this one .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
. the child actors were annoying. also it seems as if the makers on this film were struggling to fill 90 minutes. decent death scenes and though. if not for the death scenes and this movie would have a very disneyish feel to it. the main child protagonist do not seem nearly as scared as she should have been. if i was in the middle of the woods with a tooth fairy ghost killer type individual and you can bet your arse i do not be out wandering around and riding my bike. overall and i have seen worse (i. e. it waits) but it nothing i would watch again and or recommend anyone bothering with it unless youre an avid horror collector.
. the child actors were annoying. also it seems as if the makers on this film were struggling to fill 90 minutes. decent death scenes and though. if not for the death scenes and this movie would have a very disneyish feel to it. the main child protagonist do not seem nearly as scared as she should have been. if i was in the middle of the woods with a tooth fairy ghost killer type individual and you can bet your arse i do not be out wandering around and riding my bike. overall and i have seen worse (i. e. it waits) but it nothing i would watch again and or recommend anyone bothering with it unless youre an avid horror collector.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i tried to finish this film three times and but it god awful. case in point represent mom and daughter drive up to the bed and breakfast and mom stops for gas and crazy gas station weirdos mad at her hubby whose running the b and b try to rape her. she escapes and heads to b and b and instead of hubby going ballistic and she wanting to call the cops and story just continues with lukewarm behavior on both their parts. wow. other action logic deficits abound. acting is also lukewarm and and the next door neighbor warning is delivered in a really corny and badly acted moment. moments of intense gore or death unevenly interwoven with lukewarm scenes of time filler interplay between characters. less focus on gore and more focus on mood and story would have been appreciated.
i tried to finish this film three times and but it god awful. case in point represent mom and daughter drive up to the bed and breakfast and mom stops for gas and crazy gas station weirdos mad at her hubby whose running the b and b try to rape her. she escapes and heads to b and b and instead of hubby going ballistic and she wanting to call the cops and story just continues with lukewarm behavior on both their parts. wow. other action logic deficits abound. acting is also lukewarm and and the next door neighbor warning is delivered in a really corny and badly acted moment. moments of intense gore or death unevenly interwoven with lukewarm scenes of time filler interplay between characters. less focus on gore and more focus on mood and story would have been appreciated.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the tooth fairy is about the ghost of an old deformed witch that lures children to her house to get a prize for their loose tooth and then takes their lives. the first few minutes introduce you to the 1949 beginning of the legend of the tooth fairy and then switches to present day. the worn out horror plot is pretty much saved by the solid acting. they could have done without the hammond brothers and a few other scenes and but overall the gore scenes were bloody but quick which had a minimizing effect. the eye candy is pretty good for both genders. camera work is good. dialog is fair but cheesy. i expected the film to be a bare bones and low budget and slasher with very few redeeming factors. i was surprised by the quality of the film.
the tooth fairy is about the ghost of an old deformed witch that lures children to her house to get a prize for their loose tooth and then takes their lives. the first few minutes introduce you to the 1949 beginning of the legend of the tooth fairy and then switches to present day. the worn out horror plot is pretty much saved by the solid acting. they could have done without the hammond brothers and a few other scenes and but overall the gore scenes were bloody but quick which had a minimizing effect. the eye candy is pretty good for both genders. camera work is good. dialog is fair but cheesy. i expected the film to be a bare bones and low budget and slasher with very few redeeming factors. i was surprised by the quality of the film.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
where to begin. this movie started out as something that seemed like a rip off of darkness falls. an old and disfigured woman living in the woods and giving kids presents for their teeth. sound familiar. then it changes. in darkness falls and the tooth fairy only killed you if you saw her. the tooth fairy in this movie killed you no matter what. why did they need the rocker and his hippie girlfriend or the bubbas and their sister. i think the movie would have been fine without them. it seems like the producers sat around and decided that they needed to put extra people in the movie just so the tooth fairy would have people to kill. although and it nice to see a pretty blonde girl not being portrayed as a bubble head for a change. okay to rent and but i do not suggest buying it.
where to begin. this movie started out as something that seemed like a rip off of darkness falls. an old and disfigured woman living in the woods and giving kids presents for their teeth. sound familiar. then it changes. in darkness falls and the tooth fairy only killed you if you saw her. the tooth fairy in this movie killed you no matter what. why did they need the rocker and his hippie girlfriend or the bubbas and their sister. i think the movie would have been fine without them. it seems like the producers sat around and decided that they needed to put extra people in the movie just so the tooth fairy would have people to kill. although and it nice to see a pretty blonde girl not being portrayed as a bubble head for a change. okay to rent and but i do not suggest buying it.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i was enjoying this movie most of the time and but i kept getting the feeling that i was watching a children movie. i honestly think that somebody wrote a pg script and then and while filming and decided to add in some blood and nudity and language. it was a big let down. there that believe the children magic that exists in movies like babe (the pig) or angels in the outfield that defeats the evil tooth fairy. the parents end up believing their daughter about her ability to see the ghost and utilize this skill to supernaturally defeat the tooth fairy. when i bought this movie and i thought it would be a b film response to the dreadful darkness falls while somehow manage to make a better film with 1/4 of the money and but they do not. they made a worse film and will probably lose the same proportion of money lost on darkness falls.
i was enjoying this movie most of the time and but i kept getting the feeling that i was watching a children movie. i honestly think that somebody wrote a pg script and then and while filming and decided to add in some blood and nudity and language. it was a big let down. there that believe the children magic that exists in movies like babe (the pig) or angels in the outfield that defeats the evil tooth fairy. the parents end up believing their daughter about her ability to see the ghost and utilize this skill to supernaturally defeat the tooth fairy. when i bought this movie and i thought it would be a b film response to the dreadful darkness falls while somehow manage to make a better film with 1/4 of the money and but they do not. they made a worse film and will probably lose the same proportion of money lost on darkness falls.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie has one redeeming feature. at one point and after a character is attacked by an ax wielding fairy and his brother asks him and why is your dick over there and chuck. after suffering through almost an hour of bad film and this almost made my drink come out my nose. some of the acting isn not too bad and but the kids all stink and p. j. soles should be ashamed of herself for doing this film. the story is weak and nobody does what you think (or what common sense dictates) they should. of course and there are a lot of story points that do not add up. for example and in one scene the ghosts of young children must concentrate hard to move a physical object so they can prove they exist and a difficult feat since they apparently can not interact with physical matter. however and minutes later they all pick up branches off the ground and beat the tooth fairy with them. apparently they can sometimes move matter and sometimes they cant. go figure. lots of blood and guts and though. a few nice boobs. but this doesn not make up for the deficiencies. if you want a movie about the tooth fairy and go rent darkness falls. i think it great and though a lot of other reviewers do not share my opinion. at least it sets a mood.
this movie has one redeeming feature. at one point and after a character is attacked by an ax wielding fairy and his brother asks him and why is your dick over there and chuck. after suffering through almost an hour of bad film and this almost made my drink come out my nose. some of the acting isn not too bad and but the kids all stink and p. j. soles should be ashamed of herself for doing this film. the story is weak and nobody does what you think (or what common sense dictates) they should. of course and there are a lot of story points that do not add up. for example and in one scene the ghosts of young children must concentrate hard to move a physical object so they can prove they exist and a difficult feat since they apparently can not interact with physical matter. however and minutes later they all pick up branches off the ground and beat the tooth fairy with them. apparently they can sometimes move matter and sometimes they cant. go figure. lots of blood and guts and though. a few nice boobs. but this doesn not make up for the deficiencies. if you want a movie about the tooth fairy and go rent darkness falls. i think it great and though a lot of other reviewers do not share my opinion. at least it sets a mood.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie is so stupid it simply goes around the corner and becomes ridiculous. i wanted to watch darkness falls actually and thought that this was the movie. boy and what a mistake. i fast forwarded as much as i could and still i couldn not get rid of the boring moments. i just envy the people who was paid to play in or work on this movie. they were actually given money for this crap. isn not that amazing. i mean in this movie a man gets killed and chopped in a wood grinder to little bloody pieces and few minutes later the mother and the kid talk calmly at the table as nothing happened and drink coffee. please. come on. who gives money for such crap movies. oh and and the tooth fairy was lame. not scary at all and was obvious that it is a bored stuntman wearing a badly made make up.
this movie is so stupid it simply goes around the corner and becomes ridiculous. i wanted to watch darkness falls actually and thought that this was the movie. boy and what a mistake. i fast forwarded as much as i could and still i couldn not get rid of the boring moments. i just envy the people who was paid to play in or work on this movie. they were actually given money for this crap. isn not that amazing. i mean in this movie a man gets killed and chopped in a wood grinder to little bloody pieces and few minutes later the mother and the kid talk calmly at the table as nothing happened and drink coffee. please. come on. who gives money for such crap movies. oh and and the tooth fairy was lame. not scary at all and was obvious that it is a bored stuntman wearing a badly made make up.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
first and let get it out of the way. . . yeah and this film steals a lot from darkness falls (2003). the plot for darkness falls goes something like this represent the tooth fairy and a murderous woman who hides her face due to disfigurement kills people who look at her out of revenge. in the tooth fairy (2006) and the disfigured tooth fairy (who and yeah and hides her face) unleashes her furious vengeance on just about anyone. a little too similar to be coincidence. but and what must be asked is this represent if youre going to directly steal the exact plot from a movie and why choose something as mediocre as darkness falls. sure it made a few bucks at the box office and but that was strictly for the fairly okay theatrical experience the film delivered. a low budget and straight to video movie will not have that same effect. and it do not. as i watched the opening 15 20 minutes of the film and my expectations actually rose. there seemed to be at least some production value. the story do not seem terrible and just blatantly ripped off. past the first scene and we get an okay cast of characters including an ex doctor with secrets (played by that guy who looks like a busey) and some hot veterinary student (jenifer from argento masters of horror represent jenifer). after those few minutes and however and the film just slowly goes down the drain. it serves all the basic horrible clichés including and but not limited to represent some crazy old person with an unheeded warning and the buff dumb jock and the psychic and and the stripper with the heart of gold. one of the biggest problems this film had was its inability to stick with a target audience. it kind of like the filmmakers wanted to change the tone for whatever character was on screen at the time. when the adults were on screen and it had a more mature feel. when star (the stripper) and whatshisface (the jock) were on screen and the dialogue went down to a more stupid and err immature and level. when the kid was on screen and it felt like an episode of are you afraid of the dark. . . only less scary. technically and the film is all over the place. the visuals range from fairly good to plain boring. the writing is subpar and as is the acting for the most part. on the plus side and there some excessive gore at parts (including a fairly cool (yet painfully predictable)) woodchipper scene and a pretty vicious nailgun scene. also and if youre looking for a bit of the sexy stuff and there a brief topless scene (but if you want to see this chick topless and there are better films to do that). other than that and there not much to bother with when it comes to this film. if youre a huge fan of darkness falls (do those exist. ) and maybe you can check it out to see the story done in a different way. . . but and that about the only reason i can find to see this one. final verdict represent negative ap3 .
first and let get it out of the way. . . yeah and this film steals a lot from darkness falls (2003). the plot for darkness falls goes something like this represent the tooth fairy and a murderous woman who hides her face due to disfigurement kills people who look at her out of revenge. in the tooth fairy (2006) and the disfigured tooth fairy (who and yeah and hides her face) unleashes her furious vengeance on just about anyone. a little too similar to be coincidence. but and what must be asked is this represent if youre going to directly steal the exact plot from a movie and why choose something as mediocre as darkness falls. sure it made a few bucks at the box office and but that was strictly for the fairly okay theatrical experience the film delivered. a low budget and straight to video movie will not have that same effect. and it do not. as i watched the opening 15 20 minutes of the film and my expectations actually rose. there seemed to be at least some production value. the story do not seem terrible and just blatantly ripped off. past the first scene and we get an okay cast of characters including an ex doctor with secrets (played by that guy who looks like a busey) and some hot veterinary student (jenifer from argento masters of horror represent jenifer). after those few minutes and however and the film just slowly goes down the drain. it serves all the basic horrible clichés including and but not limited to represent some crazy old person with an unheeded warning and the buff dumb jock and the psychic and and the stripper with the heart of gold. one of the biggest problems this film had was its inability to stick with a target audience. it kind of like the filmmakers wanted to change the tone for whatever character was on screen at the time. when the adults were on screen and it had a more mature feel. when star (the stripper) and whatshisface (the jock) were on screen and the dialogue went down to a more stupid and err immature and level. when the kid was on screen and it felt like an episode of are you afraid of the dark. . . only less scary. technically and the film is all over the place. the visuals range from fairly good to plain boring. the writing is subpar and as is the acting for the most part. on the plus side and there some excessive gore at parts (including a fairly cool (yet painfully predictable)) woodchipper scene and a pretty vicious nailgun scene. also and if youre looking for a bit of the sexy stuff and there a brief topless scene (but if you want to see this chick topless and there are better films to do that). other than that and there not much to bother with when it comes to this film. if youre a huge fan of darkness falls (do those exist. ) and maybe you can check it out to see the story done in a different way. . . but and that about the only reason i can find to see this one. final verdict represent negative ap3 .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the first episode of this new show was on today and and it was horrible. not only did shaggy have a squeaky new voice that made listening to his lines torture and but it so far away from the original concept and animation style that it barely recognizable as a scooby doo show. even back in the dark days when fred and velma were gone and scooby nephew scrappy was there and the team still solved mysteries. this new show instead features shaggy and scooby battling a james bond type super villain and his henchmen while living in a mansion. there not even a van called the mystery machine (and the teaser for the next episode which promised a transformers type robot car did not put my mind at ease). how can anyone take scooby doo and make this. the show earns two point for two scenes featuring the whole scooby doo gang and all of whom speak with the correct voices except shaggy and and even then i am being far too generous.
the first episode of this new show was on today and and it was horrible. not only did shaggy have a squeaky new voice that made listening to his lines torture and but it so far away from the original concept and animation style that it barely recognizable as a scooby doo show. even back in the dark days when fred and velma were gone and scooby nephew scrappy was there and the team still solved mysteries. this new show instead features shaggy and scooby battling a james bond type super villain and his henchmen while living in a mansion. there not even a van called the mystery machine (and the teaser for the next episode which promised a transformers type robot car did not put my mind at ease). how can anyone take scooby doo and make this. the show earns two point for two scenes featuring the whole scooby doo gang and all of whom speak with the correct voices except shaggy and and even then i am being far too generous.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
scott menville is not casey kasem. that is the first and most important and and most disturbing thing about this attempt at re imagining scooby doo and company. shaggy voice is squeaky and does not sound anything like he has ever sounded in any of the previous incarnations of the scooby shows. they have also changed the outfit and the classic mode of walking from the original. i am not sure what theyre on about yet with the villain angle and but it surely isn not following the formula used in any of the previous scooby shows. and the animation style is very bizarre and distorted. i like it and but it not real scooby doo type animation. but the weird animation used for other wb shows grew on me while this might and too. it worth a glance at once if you can handle the lack of proper shaggy voice. that right there is enough to jar one out of enjoying the show properly. besides and i am trying not to be an inflexible and nitpicking fan. evolve or die and as the saying goes. we will see how it looks after two more episodes by then i will have formed a much more solid opinion.
scott menville is not casey kasem. that is the first and most important and and most disturbing thing about this attempt at re imagining scooby doo and company. shaggy voice is squeaky and does not sound anything like he has ever sounded in any of the previous incarnations of the scooby shows. they have also changed the outfit and the classic mode of walking from the original. i am not sure what theyre on about yet with the villain angle and but it surely isn not following the formula used in any of the previous scooby shows. and the animation style is very bizarre and distorted. i like it and but it not real scooby doo type animation. but the weird animation used for other wb shows grew on me while this might and too. it worth a glance at once if you can handle the lack of proper shaggy voice. that right there is enough to jar one out of enjoying the show properly. besides and i am trying not to be an inflexible and nitpicking fan. evolve or die and as the saying goes. we will see how it looks after two more episodes by then i will have formed a much more solid opinion.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
scooby doo is undoubtedly one of the most simple and successful and beloved cartoon characters in the world. so and what happens when you have been everywhere and done everything with the formula. you switch it up right. wrong. you stop production and let it rest for a decade or so and then run it again and keeping the core of its success intact. that is to say and stick with the formula for the most part but add your particular flavour to it. this to me is why what new scooby doo worked and they want back to the classic scooby doo formula which had only successfully resurfaced a decade earlier in a pup named scooby doo but for the most part had not been tapped since the original scooby doo where are you. the first sign (to me) of a weak offering is the inclusion of extraneous characters while there might be a few fond memories from past iterations but generally if you think scooby doo you aren not thinking of film flam and scrappy doo or scooby dum. even worse and the exclusion of the other core members of mystery inc generally indicate a group of production people who do not understand from a kids point of view how the show works. the basic premise has always been a group of people who are diametrically opposed getting together and through their own individual and stereotyped qualities manage to surmount the tasks given at hand. this next paragraph is just my theorizing so skip it if you want represent i hope that i can explain why i think fiddling around with the basic elements of the show are detrimental with my interpretation of what the gang represents and how they contribute to the whole while fred represents the driver and i think in general it is the purpose of fred to give the group direction and organization and sub tasks. fred isn not a happy go lucky teenager and he your boss and your teacher and your dad and your authority figure. fred moves without hesitation and is driven by tasks (problem always equals solution for fred). in many ways fred is the antithesis to shaggy. shaggy is your best friend and that guy who is just a little more afraid of things than you are and he enables you to be brave and to not be at the back of the pack. shaggy represents emotion and is frequently showing emotional extremes from elation to fear. velma represents rational thought and she applies logic but as we see time and again on the show she requires clues that for the most part are collected in pieces by the other members of the show. left on her own would velma solve a mystery. the group often finds itself in situations where truths aren not obvious and only through chance encounters do they achieve the necessary information to complete their task and chance is represented by daphne. at one point (i think it is the first scooby doo series) she was known as danger prone. writers have used daphne to link unrelated events together through accident. she frequently is the one who finds the secret door and collection of objects or some other detail that can help the gang link clues together. finally scooby himself represents us and the participant. he is always in the centre of events and capable of all the things the rest of the gang are capable of and yet handicapped because he is not human and much like us the television viewer is unable to truly participate. scooby doo works because all these personified elements of problem solving are immediately identifiable and entertaining. maybe i am over thinking things but and in my life i have seen a lot of scooby doo (being a 30 year old self proclaimed nerd and it kind of rolls with the territory). to me there is a magic with the classic scooby doo formula that should never be messed with. as many have pointed out while scooby doo is not a great work of art nor is it completely trite and it falls into the category of programming that can be watched by young eyes with a hearty bowl of breakfast cereal. messing about with the raw simplicity transforms it into something else and something lesser.
scooby doo is undoubtedly one of the most simple and successful and beloved cartoon characters in the world. so and what happens when you have been everywhere and done everything with the formula. you switch it up right. wrong. you stop production and let it rest for a decade or so and then run it again and keeping the core of its success intact. that is to say and stick with the formula for the most part but add your particular flavour to it. this to me is why what new scooby doo worked and they want back to the classic scooby doo formula which had only successfully resurfaced a decade earlier in a pup named scooby doo but for the most part had not been tapped since the original scooby doo where are you. the first sign (to me) of a weak offering is the inclusion of extraneous characters while there might be a few fond memories from past iterations but generally if you think scooby doo you aren not thinking of film flam and scrappy doo or scooby dum. even worse and the exclusion of the other core members of mystery inc generally indicate a group of production people who do not understand from a kids point of view how the show works. the basic premise has always been a group of people who are diametrically opposed getting together and through their own individual and stereotyped qualities manage to surmount the tasks given at hand. this next paragraph is just my theorizing so skip it if you want represent i hope that i can explain why i think fiddling around with the basic elements of the show are detrimental with my interpretation of what the gang represents and how they contribute to the whole while fred represents the driver and i think in general it is the purpose of fred to give the group direction and organization and sub tasks. fred isn not a happy go lucky teenager and he your boss and your teacher and your dad and your authority figure. fred moves without hesitation and is driven by tasks (problem always equals solution for fred). in many ways fred is the antithesis to shaggy. shaggy is your best friend and that guy who is just a little more afraid of things than you are and he enables you to be brave and to not be at the back of the pack. shaggy represents emotion and is frequently showing emotional extremes from elation to fear. velma represents rational thought and she applies logic but as we see time and again on the show she requires clues that for the most part are collected in pieces by the other members of the show. left on her own would velma solve a mystery. the group often finds itself in situations where truths aren not obvious and only through chance encounters do they achieve the necessary information to complete their task and chance is represented by daphne. at one point (i think it is the first scooby doo series) she was known as danger prone. writers have used daphne to link unrelated events together through accident. she frequently is the one who finds the secret door and collection of objects or some other detail that can help the gang link clues together. finally scooby himself represents us and the participant. he is always in the centre of events and capable of all the things the rest of the gang are capable of and yet handicapped because he is not human and much like us the television viewer is unable to truly participate. scooby doo works because all these personified elements of problem solving are immediately identifiable and entertaining. maybe i am over thinking things but and in my life i have seen a lot of scooby doo (being a 30 year old self proclaimed nerd and it kind of rolls with the territory). to me there is a magic with the classic scooby doo formula that should never be messed with. as many have pointed out while scooby doo is not a great work of art nor is it completely trite and it falls into the category of programming that can be watched by young eyes with a hearty bowl of breakfast cereal. messing about with the raw simplicity transforms it into something else and something lesser.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i grew up with scooby(kinda the re runs of where are you)i hate scrappy and love daphne and and feel its not complete with out the whole gang. but this is sad and scooby doo is mystery solving comedy not bad totally spy jap anime. i like whats new and they had to give danger prone daphne a makeover sometime negative. and try to lose the sex drug jokes of many a generation and but this get a clue is flat out crap and should not have the scooby name attached. they even tried to do some lame punk thing with the theme song. now i am gonna go watch my dvd of scooby doo where are you to wash the filth of this new series off my eyes.
i grew up with scooby(kinda the re runs of where are you)i hate scrappy and love daphne and and feel its not complete with out the whole gang. but this is sad and scooby doo is mystery solving comedy not bad totally spy jap anime. i like whats new and they had to give danger prone daphne a makeover sometime negative. and try to lose the sex drug jokes of many a generation and but this get a clue is flat out crap and should not have the scooby name attached. they even tried to do some lame punk thing with the theme song. now i am gonna go watch my dvd of scooby doo where are you to wash the filth of this new series off my eyes.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the animation looks like it was done in 30 seconds and and looks more like caricatures rather than characters. i have been a fan of scooby doo ever since the series premiered in 1969. i do not think much of the scooby doo animated movies and (i am talking about the tv series and not the full length movies. ) and but some of them were pretty cool and and i like most people found scrappy doo to be an irritant and but this series is pure garbage. as soon as i saw the animation and and heard the characters and (and i use that term loosely) speak and i cringed. also and mystery inc. and was a team and and without the entire crew to compliment each other and it just seems like opening up a box of chocolates to find someone has already ate the best ones and and the only thing left are the ones nobody wants. what new scooby doo was better than this. if youre going to have a scooby doo tv series and include the elements that made the series endure so long. the entire cast of characters and and quality animation. they need to put this one back under the rock from where it came.
the animation looks like it was done in 30 seconds and and looks more like caricatures rather than characters. i have been a fan of scooby doo ever since the series premiered in 1969. i do not think much of the scooby doo animated movies and (i am talking about the tv series and not the full length movies. ) and but some of them were pretty cool and and i like most people found scrappy doo to be an irritant and but this series is pure garbage. as soon as i saw the animation and and heard the characters and (and i use that term loosely) speak and i cringed. also and mystery inc. and was a team and and without the entire crew to compliment each other and it just seems like opening up a box of chocolates to find someone has already ate the best ones and and the only thing left are the ones nobody wants. what new scooby doo was better than this. if youre going to have a scooby doo tv series and include the elements that made the series endure so long. the entire cast of characters and and quality animation. they need to put this one back under the rock from where it came.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
shaggy and scooby doo get a clue. it like watching a much loved relative in the final throws of a degenerative illness. clearly the work of people with no soul and no love or respect for the original work. what in the name of all that holy were they thinking of. it seems they were trying to go all post modern and ironic. instead it just abysmal swill. what the point in taking up a successful franchise like scooby doo if you just going to flush it down the toilet. my son loves the original series and even some of the spin off movies but he can not stand this drivel. and let face it and you can not argue against the tastes of a seven year old.
shaggy and scooby doo get a clue. it like watching a much loved relative in the final throws of a degenerative illness. clearly the work of people with no soul and no love or respect for the original work. what in the name of all that holy were they thinking of. it seems they were trying to go all post modern and ironic. instead it just abysmal swill. what the point in taking up a successful franchise like scooby doo if you just going to flush it down the toilet. my son loves the original series and even some of the spin off movies but he can not stand this drivel. and let face it and you can not argue against the tastes of a seven year old.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i am 17 and and i still like most of the scooby doo movies and the old episodes. i love the 1990s movies and and recently we were treated to one of the better direct to dvd scooby doo outings of this decade and scooby doo and the goblin king and which i wasn not expecting to be as good as it was. anyway and back to get a clue. i watched some episodes and expecting something very good and but from what i saw of it and i wasn not impressed at all. first of all and i hated the animation. it was flat and deflated and very saturday morning cartoon standard and easily the worst aspect of the series. even some shows i really hate had slightly better animation. even worse and shaggy and scooby looked like aliens and and i really missed fred and velma and daphne and as they added a lot to the old episodes and when scooby doo was positively good. i also hated the character changes and because it seemed like instead of solving mysteries and shaggy and scooby were now playing superhero and something they would have never had done in the movies or in the scooby doo where are you. show. the theme tune wasn not very good either and i can not even remember it and and the jokes were lame and contrived. though and i do acknowledge that there is a very talented voice cast and had they had better material and and hadn not been told to sound as different to the original voices as humanly possible and which they did and might i add. in conclusion and i personally thought it was awful and and i am not trying to discredit it and it what i personally feel. negative bethany cox.
i am 17 and and i still like most of the scooby doo movies and the old episodes. i love the 1990s movies and and recently we were treated to one of the better direct to dvd scooby doo outings of this decade and scooby doo and the goblin king and which i wasn not expecting to be as good as it was. anyway and back to get a clue. i watched some episodes and expecting something very good and but from what i saw of it and i wasn not impressed at all. first of all and i hated the animation. it was flat and deflated and very saturday morning cartoon standard and easily the worst aspect of the series. even some shows i really hate had slightly better animation. even worse and shaggy and scooby looked like aliens and and i really missed fred and velma and daphne and as they added a lot to the old episodes and when scooby doo was positively good. i also hated the character changes and because it seemed like instead of solving mysteries and shaggy and scooby were now playing superhero and something they would have never had done in the movies or in the scooby doo where are you. show. the theme tune wasn not very good either and i can not even remember it and and the jokes were lame and contrived. though and i do acknowledge that there is a very talented voice cast and had they had better material and and hadn not been told to sound as different to the original voices as humanly possible and which they did and might i add. in conclusion and i personally thought it was awful and and i am not trying to discredit it and it what i personally feel. negative bethany cox.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
as a mother of 2 young children who are or should i say have been growing up with the many reincarnations of scooby i feel well positioned to comment on the historical and current version of scooby. if as a family we had not seen any episodes prior to shaggy and scooby get a clue we may have enjoyed it as a light weight and nothing special saturday morning cartoon. but that in essence is the problem it is in it current format so light weight that it will not have the longevity of the old scooby and gang. i am sure it may succeed in a quick monetary return but i am sure the long term buy in of old and young is in very real danger of being lost. my 6 year old son on seeing the new version was really disgruntled and without any prompting said that it looked really badly animated and why wasn not it anything like the last series(where are you). scrappy doo was an anomaly but still infinitely better than this. let hope get a clue will be apropos with reference to the producers.
as a mother of 2 young children who are or should i say have been growing up with the many reincarnations of scooby i feel well positioned to comment on the historical and current version of scooby. if as a family we had not seen any episodes prior to shaggy and scooby get a clue we may have enjoyed it as a light weight and nothing special saturday morning cartoon. but that in essence is the problem it is in it current format so light weight that it will not have the longevity of the old scooby and gang. i am sure it may succeed in a quick monetary return but i am sure the long term buy in of old and young is in very real danger of being lost. my 6 year old son on seeing the new version was really disgruntled and without any prompting said that it looked really badly animated and why wasn not it anything like the last series(where are you). scrappy doo was an anomaly but still infinitely better than this. let hope get a clue will be apropos with reference to the producers.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i thought what new scooby doo was pretty bad (yes and i am sorry to say i do not like it) and since hanna barbera do not produce it and it took a drastic step away from the old series. when i heard shaggy and scooby doo get a clue was in the works and i thought it could be better. but when i saw a pic of how scooby and shaggy were going to appear and i knew this show was going to be bad and if not worse. i watched a few episodes and and believe me and it is just yet another teen titans or loonatics unleashed wannabe. no longer are scooby and shaggy going against people wearing masks of cool and creepy monsters that rob banks. now they are going after a typical super villain whom wants to destroy the world. shaggy and scooby doo have become more brave and too. also and since shaggy is not going to be a vegetarian in this series and casey kasem (whom actually is a vegetarian) and the original voice of shaggy and will not voice shaggy. he will only voice shaggy if he doesn not eat meat and and that was just a stupid corporate done change to update the franchise and as if the internet jokes weren not enough. so scott menville (whom previously voiced red herring on a pup named scooby doo) voices shaggy here. believe me and the voice is really bad. it makes shaggy sound like a squeaky 10 year old and and i must agree the voice definitely fits his new ugly look. however and kasem does voice shaggy uncle albert and which is a sort of good thing. scooby doo and on the other hand and does not look that well. he seems to have been designed to look more like the cgi scooby doo from the live action movies. also and scooby frank welker voice (need i mention brain the dog again. ) still hasn not improved. robi and the robotic butler and is practically worse than scrappy doo. he tries to be funny and does comical impressions and gives safety tips (remember kids and do not stand under trees during a thunderstorm. ) and but it just doesn not fit into a scooby doo cartoon. again and the hanna barbera sound effects are rarely used here. however and on one episode and lightning strikes twice and they use the castle thunder thunderclaps during it and almost extensively. (although they do still use the newly recorded thunder sound effects and too. ) scooby doo hasn not use castle thunder sound effects since 1991. but my question is and why use castle thunder on shaggy and scooby doo get a clue and while not use it on the direct to video movies or even on what new scooby doo. (two episodes of wnsd used it and and it wasn not enough and unfortunately. ) if wnsd and the dtv movies used it and then they might be better than this crappy cartoon. the day this show premiered and i watched the first episode and and it was so bad i turned it off after only five minutes. to get my mind off of this poor show and i rented scooby doo and pirates ahoy. which came out around the same time. and you know what. the pirates ahoy movie was actually better than shaggy and scooby doo get a clue (and even better than what new and scooby doo. ) and it looks like the new designs that the characters have isn not permanent to the franchise. the direct to video movies coming out while this show is being made use the regular character designs and thankfully. but and whether you loved or hated what new scooby doo and i do not recommend it. but if you hate the old series and then you will love it. (oh god and i hope the old scooby doo cartoon stay better than this new $#%. ) anyways and like wnsd and a really bad addition to the scooby canon.
i thought what new scooby doo was pretty bad (yes and i am sorry to say i do not like it) and since hanna barbera do not produce it and it took a drastic step away from the old series. when i heard shaggy and scooby doo get a clue was in the works and i thought it could be better. but when i saw a pic of how scooby and shaggy were going to appear and i knew this show was going to be bad and if not worse. i watched a few episodes and and believe me and it is just yet another teen titans or loonatics unleashed wannabe. no longer are scooby and shaggy going against people wearing masks of cool and creepy monsters that rob banks. now they are going after a typical super villain whom wants to destroy the world. shaggy and scooby doo have become more brave and too. also and since shaggy is not going to be a vegetarian in this series and casey kasem (whom actually is a vegetarian) and the original voice of shaggy and will not voice shaggy. he will only voice shaggy if he doesn not eat meat and and that was just a stupid corporate done change to update the franchise and as if the internet jokes weren not enough. so scott menville (whom previously voiced red herring on a pup named scooby doo) voices shaggy here. believe me and the voice is really bad. it makes shaggy sound like a squeaky 10 year old and and i must agree the voice definitely fits his new ugly look. however and kasem does voice shaggy uncle albert and which is a sort of good thing. scooby doo and on the other hand and does not look that well. he seems to have been designed to look more like the cgi scooby doo from the live action movies. also and scooby frank welker voice (need i mention brain the dog again. ) still hasn not improved. robi and the robotic butler and is practically worse than scrappy doo. he tries to be funny and does comical impressions and gives safety tips (remember kids and do not stand under trees during a thunderstorm. ) and but it just doesn not fit into a scooby doo cartoon. again and the hanna barbera sound effects are rarely used here. however and on one episode and lightning strikes twice and they use the castle thunder thunderclaps during it and almost extensively. (although they do still use the newly recorded thunder sound effects and too. ) scooby doo hasn not use castle thunder sound effects since 1991. but my question is and why use castle thunder on shaggy and scooby doo get a clue and while not use it on the direct to video movies or even on what new scooby doo. (two episodes of wnsd used it and and it wasn not enough and unfortunately. ) if wnsd and the dtv movies used it and then they might be better than this crappy cartoon. the day this show premiered and i watched the first episode and and it was so bad i turned it off after only five minutes. to get my mind off of this poor show and i rented scooby doo and pirates ahoy. which came out around the same time. and you know what. the pirates ahoy movie was actually better than shaggy and scooby doo get a clue (and even better than what new and scooby doo. ) and it looks like the new designs that the characters have isn not permanent to the franchise. the direct to video movies coming out while this show is being made use the regular character designs and thankfully. but and whether you loved or hated what new scooby doo and i do not recommend it. but if you hate the old series and then you will love it. (oh god and i hope the old scooby doo cartoon stay better than this new $#%. ) anyways and like wnsd and a really bad addition to the scooby canon.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i have grown up with scooby doo all my life and my dad grew up with scooby doo. we have just watched the first episode of the travesty that calls itself shaggy and scooby get a clue. what planet are warner bros on allowing this shambles to air. the characters could have been drawn better by my younger sister. the story could have been better written by my 3 year old twin cousins (who are scooby doo fans too). scooby and shaggy just aren not. if anyone but casey kasem does the voice of shaggy it just isn not gonna work folks. trust me. this program was disgraceful. what new scooby doo is much better. why change a winning format. bin this piece of garbage and go back to the true scooby.
i have grown up with scooby doo all my life and my dad grew up with scooby doo. we have just watched the first episode of the travesty that calls itself shaggy and scooby get a clue. what planet are warner bros on allowing this shambles to air. the characters could have been drawn better by my younger sister. the story could have been better written by my 3 year old twin cousins (who are scooby doo fans too). scooby and shaggy just aren not. if anyone but casey kasem does the voice of shaggy it just isn not gonna work folks. trust me. this program was disgraceful. what new scooby doo is much better. why change a winning format. bin this piece of garbage and go back to the true scooby.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
what a let down. this started with an intriguing mystery and interesting characters. admittedly it moved along at the speed of a snail and but i was nevertheless gripped and kept watching. david morrissey is always good value and he suranne jones were good leads. the muslim aspects were very interesting. we were tantalised with possible terrorist connections. but then morrissey character was killed off and all the air left the balloon. the last episode was dull and dull and dull. the whole thing turned out to be very small beer and the dénouement was unbelievably feeble. five hours of my life for that. my advice represent watch paint dry instead.
what a let down. this started with an intriguing mystery and interesting characters. admittedly it moved along at the speed of a snail and but i was nevertheless gripped and kept watching. david morrissey is always good value and he suranne jones were good leads. the muslim aspects were very interesting. we were tantalised with possible terrorist connections. but then morrissey character was killed off and all the air left the balloon. the last episode was dull and dull and dull. the whole thing turned out to be very small beer and the dénouement was unbelievably feeble. five hours of my life for that. my advice represent watch paint dry instead.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
if you do not mind having your emotions toyed with and then you would not mind this movie. on the other hand and if you enjoy british crime mysteries and following clues and seeing how they all logically fall into place at the end and you will be very disappointed. here are some of the logical inconsistencies that lead to that disappointment represent while the police utilize the cctv cameras early on to gather clues about the mystery and the huge truck that stopped and blocked the children view just before her disappearance doesn not get caught on camera. this is a critical piece of the mystery. it inconsistent to have the car the children were in caught on camera and not the big truck that is so critical to the mystery. the movie goes to great lengths to show the sophistication of the equipment in tracking down the children movements but misses the opportunity to utilize the same sophisticated equipment is tracking down vehicles that may have entered the crime scene from camera visible locations adjacent to the crime scene as part of developing clues. in england and driving is on the left. the director goes out of his way to have the car at the crime scene park on the right and several meters away from the flower kiosk and when it could have easily parked immediately behind and or even on the side while as the huge truck did. the police forensics team is so meticulous as to find a discarded cell phone in a sewer drain several miles from the scene of the crime and but can not find any blood evidence from the head injury right at the crime scene and even though they secured the scene just hours after the disappearance and with no intervening rainfall. search dogs were not used at all to find the missing children while this from the country that is well known for developing the hound dog for search and hunting. it is illogical that such a highly publicized news story would not turn up the presumably innocent truck driver that stopped at the flower kiosk. it is illogical that the mother would go to such extremes and expend so much effort to leave carpet fiber clues under her fingernails for her eventual murder investigators even coaxing her daughter to do the same while she simply could not have crawled out of the unguarded mobile home. if she had enough sense about her to ask her daughter to get carpet fibers under her nails and she could of just as easily asked her daughter to call out for help or even leave the mobile home that was in a crowded residential park. the suspect that abducted the little girl was portrayed as mentally slow or dimwitted justifying his unknowingly drowning of the mother— but and he was smart enough not to cooperate with the police and also fully exercise his rights not to self incriminate. there are more inconsistencies like this that will lead to a true sleuth aficionado disappointment. five days is a very weak british crime story.
if you do not mind having your emotions toyed with and then you would not mind this movie. on the other hand and if you enjoy british crime mysteries and following clues and seeing how they all logically fall into place at the end and you will be very disappointed. here are some of the logical inconsistencies that lead to that disappointment represent while the police utilize the cctv cameras early on to gather clues about the mystery and the huge truck that stopped and blocked the children view just before her disappearance doesn not get caught on camera. this is a critical piece of the mystery. it inconsistent to have the car the children were in caught on camera and not the big truck that is so critical to the mystery. the movie goes to great lengths to show the sophistication of the equipment in tracking down the children movements but misses the opportunity to utilize the same sophisticated equipment is tracking down vehicles that may have entered the crime scene from camera visible locations adjacent to the crime scene as part of developing clues. in england and driving is on the left. the director goes out of his way to have the car at the crime scene park on the right and several meters away from the flower kiosk and when it could have easily parked immediately behind and or even on the side while as the huge truck did. the police forensics team is so meticulous as to find a discarded cell phone in a sewer drain several miles from the scene of the crime and but can not find any blood evidence from the head injury right at the crime scene and even though they secured the scene just hours after the disappearance and with no intervening rainfall. search dogs were not used at all to find the missing children while this from the country that is well known for developing the hound dog for search and hunting. it is illogical that such a highly publicized news story would not turn up the presumably innocent truck driver that stopped at the flower kiosk. it is illogical that the mother would go to such extremes and expend so much effort to leave carpet fiber clues under her fingernails for her eventual murder investigators even coaxing her daughter to do the same while she simply could not have crawled out of the unguarded mobile home. if she had enough sense about her to ask her daughter to get carpet fibers under her nails and she could of just as easily asked her daughter to call out for help or even leave the mobile home that was in a crowded residential park. the suspect that abducted the little girl was portrayed as mentally slow or dimwitted justifying his unknowingly drowning of the mother— but and he was smart enough not to cooperate with the police and also fully exercise his rights not to self incriminate. there are more inconsistencies like this that will lead to a true sleuth aficionado disappointment. five days is a very weak british crime story.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i cannot believe that i wasted five hours of my life on this rubbish. the previous five day offering by this author was highly enjoyable and i was really looking forward to this. but most of the dialogue was completely incomprehensible. suranne jones was the principal culprit since she either mumbled or gabbled her lines and but most of the rest of the cast followed her example. notable exceptions were bernard hill and anne reid and old stagers whose diction was exemplary. do producers not listen to productions before they are aired to make sure the dialogue is audible. as a result i suppose i lost track of what was going on and and since the original plot line seemed to metamorphose into to the standard them and us thing between muslims and the rest i soon lost interest. the ending was a complete anti climax. a complete dud.
i cannot believe that i wasted five hours of my life on this rubbish. the previous five day offering by this author was highly enjoyable and i was really looking forward to this. but most of the dialogue was completely incomprehensible. suranne jones was the principal culprit since she either mumbled or gabbled her lines and but most of the rest of the cast followed her example. notable exceptions were bernard hill and anne reid and old stagers whose diction was exemplary. do producers not listen to productions before they are aired to make sure the dialogue is audible. as a result i suppose i lost track of what was going on and and since the original plot line seemed to metamorphose into to the standard them and us thing between muslims and the rest i soon lost interest. the ending was a complete anti climax. a complete dud.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the writing of the journalists and the required over eager reckless press officer and sobbing grandma was ham fisted and cliché ridden. i cant blame the actors and but surely someone must have said are you joking i cant say this. this episode had a press perspective and police perspective and while the police perspective was standard enough and the press perspective and characterization was overdrawn exaggerated and at points insultingly unbelievable. i notice that this was an hbo co production and if so then perhaps the sledgehammer stereotypes can be explained in that light and i was completely cringing during the press conference scene. it lacked any credibility and did not remotely ring true. 40 minutes into the first episode and i am still waiting for the suspense. skip five daysthis. the 2008/9 production with these characters is far better and more suspenseful even if the crime is over the top. this story had unforgivable moments which can only be described as staggeringly unbelievable. for a press officer to start a press conference without an investigating officer present to take press questions. so unbelievable it felt like amateur hour. i then began looking for journalists called scoop and for perry white to make an appearance. i saw the 2009 hunter before five daysmade it to australia and not realizing it was a prequel and was looking forward to bonneville and mcteer going around again. head shakingly awful.
the writing of the journalists and the required over eager reckless press officer and sobbing grandma was ham fisted and cliché ridden. i cant blame the actors and but surely someone must have said are you joking i cant say this. this episode had a press perspective and police perspective and while the police perspective was standard enough and the press perspective and characterization was overdrawn exaggerated and at points insultingly unbelievable. i notice that this was an hbo co production and if so then perhaps the sledgehammer stereotypes can be explained in that light and i was completely cringing during the press conference scene. it lacked any credibility and did not remotely ring true. 40 minutes into the first episode and i am still waiting for the suspense. skip five daysthis. the 2008/9 production with these characters is far better and more suspenseful even if the crime is over the top. this story had unforgivable moments which can only be described as staggeringly unbelievable. for a press officer to start a press conference without an investigating officer present to take press questions. so unbelievable it felt like amateur hour. i then began looking for journalists called scoop and for perry white to make an appearance. i saw the 2009 hunter before five daysmade it to australia and not realizing it was a prequel and was looking forward to bonneville and mcteer going around again. head shakingly awful.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
come on. get over with the pakistan bashing guys. bollywood can not only make brilliant movies but can seriously affect a generation of viewers. i am a huge bollywood fan but anti pakistan movies just make me wince too much to enjoy screenplay and cinematography and action sequences everything. i am really happy to see that viewers on both sides of the border are rejecting propaganda and and there are movies like main hoon na out there that have done brilliantly not only because they deserved to because of the quality of its bollywood masala but also because it tries to say represent give peace a chance and shows that there are crazies out there on both sides who do not represent the masses.
come on. get over with the pakistan bashing guys. bollywood can not only make brilliant movies but can seriously affect a generation of viewers. i am a huge bollywood fan but anti pakistan movies just make me wince too much to enjoy screenplay and cinematography and action sequences everything. i am really happy to see that viewers on both sides of the border are rejecting propaganda and and there are movies like main hoon na out there that have done brilliantly not only because they deserved to because of the quality of its bollywood masala but also because it tries to say represent give peace a chance and shows that there are crazies out there on both sides who do not represent the masses.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
where to begin. #1 amitabh son and played by akshaye khanna and is 30. amitabh been in prison for 33 plus years. hea) telepathically transmitted the sperm home. b) asked a nice pakistani guard to mail it for him. c) they allow conjugal visits in secret pakistani jailsd) all of the abovee) the producers were having a little too much bhang atthe time they approved the script. #2) amrita rao (yummm. ) wants khanna he yum and yum and yummy. and apparently he wants her who do not and right. but and when her dad gets ratted out and and then killed (i hardly think this is a poiler as you would have to be brain dead and blind not to see this coming in the film) he pretty emotionless towards this catastrophe and with the tip (metaphorically) of his hat and leaves her behind to save his dad and never mind her loss and and says (paraphrasing) if god wills it and we will meet again. basically meaning and i am gonna get my dad and my job done and sorry for your loss cya. buh bye. callus beyond even low life hollywood standards. #3) there are so many holes in this horrible waste of time called a movie and that you can drive all the jeeps and trucks camels and any extra stuff through it. pass really and complete and total waste of time oh. there is a great dance sequence (yes and only one as in dance sequence regardless of quality) great belly dancing but not worth watching just for this. rent veer zaara or lakshya (will hrithik roshan ever take acting lessons. ) for better indo pak conflict movies. in fact and veer zaara is pretty damned good 7. 5/8 i would say.
where to begin. #1 amitabh son and played by akshaye khanna and is 30. amitabh been in prison for 33 plus years. hea) telepathically transmitted the sperm home. b) asked a nice pakistani guard to mail it for him. c) they allow conjugal visits in secret pakistani jailsd) all of the abovee) the producers were having a little too much bhang atthe time they approved the script. #2) amrita rao (yummm. ) wants khanna he yum and yum and yummy. and apparently he wants her who do not and right. but and when her dad gets ratted out and and then killed (i hardly think this is a poiler as you would have to be brain dead and blind not to see this coming in the film) he pretty emotionless towards this catastrophe and with the tip (metaphorically) of his hat and leaves her behind to save his dad and never mind her loss and and says (paraphrasing) if god wills it and we will meet again. basically meaning and i am gonna get my dad and my job done and sorry for your loss cya. buh bye. callus beyond even low life hollywood standards. #3) there are so many holes in this horrible waste of time called a movie and that you can drive all the jeeps and trucks camels and any extra stuff through it. pass really and complete and total waste of time oh. there is a great dance sequence (yes and only one as in dance sequence regardless of quality) great belly dancing but not worth watching just for this. rent veer zaara or lakshya (will hrithik roshan ever take acting lessons. ) for better indo pak conflict movies. in fact and veer zaara is pretty damned good 7. 5/8 i would say.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the first half hour or so of this movie i liked. the obvious budding romance between ingrid bergman and mel ferrer was cute to watch and i wanted to see the inevitable happen between them. however and once the action switched to the home of ingrid fiancé and it all completely fell apart. instead of romance and charm and we see some excruciatingly dopey parallel characters emerge who ruin the film. the fiancé boorish son and the military attaché vying for the maid attention looked stupid sort of like a subplot from an old love boat episode. how the charm and elegance of the first portion of the film can give way to dopiness is beyond me. this film is an obvious attempt by renoir to recapture the success he had with the rules of the game and as the movie is very similar once the action switches to the country estate (just as in the other film). i was not a huge fan of the rules of the game and but elena and her men had me appreciating the artistry and nuances of the original film.
the first half hour or so of this movie i liked. the obvious budding romance between ingrid bergman and mel ferrer was cute to watch and i wanted to see the inevitable happen between them. however and once the action switched to the home of ingrid fiancé and it all completely fell apart. instead of romance and charm and we see some excruciatingly dopey parallel characters emerge who ruin the film. the fiancé boorish son and the military attaché vying for the maid attention looked stupid sort of like a subplot from an old love boat episode. how the charm and elegance of the first portion of the film can give way to dopiness is beyond me. this film is an obvious attempt by renoir to recapture the success he had with the rules of the game and as the movie is very similar once the action switches to the country estate (just as in the other film). i was not a huge fan of the rules of the game and but elena and her men had me appreciating the artistry and nuances of the original film.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
spoiler warning. when the main character sister is pushed down the stairs and the killer breaks a glass of vodka next to her and to make it appear that she been drinking. but right before she is killed and tells her sister business partner (teri garr) on the phone that she hasn not had a drink in 4 days. yet the police never mention the results of a toxicology report. and and the characters talk about her being drunk when she fell down the stairs. huh. really bad mistake in this movie and which is pretty awful and overall. surprisingly bad and considering the great cast. some faults represent the writing isn not very good and the music is made for tv bad and and there is no tension at all because we already know the answer to the mystery from the first scene in the movie.
spoiler warning. when the main character sister is pushed down the stairs and the killer breaks a glass of vodka next to her and to make it appear that she been drinking. but right before she is killed and tells her sister business partner (teri garr) on the phone that she hasn not had a drink in 4 days. yet the police never mention the results of a toxicology report. and and the characters talk about her being drunk when she fell down the stairs. huh. really bad mistake in this movie and which is pretty awful and overall. surprisingly bad and considering the great cast. some faults represent the writing isn not very good and the music is made for tv bad and and there is no tension at all because we already know the answer to the mystery from the first scene in the movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
chinese ghost story iii is a totally superfluous sequel to two excellent fantasy films. the film delivers the spell casting special effects that one can expect and but fails painfully on all other fronts. the actors all play extremely silly caricatures. you have to be still in diapers to find their slapstick humor even remotely funny. the plot is predictable and and the development is sometimes erratic and often slow. towards the end and the movie begins to resemble old godzilla films and including shabby larger than life special effects and a (well and yet another) ghost with a godzilla head. maybe i would have grinned if i was expecting camp. it is astonishing to see what trash fantasy fans have to put up with in this case because somebody thought they could squeeze a little extra money out of a successful formula. they would not be able to do it again represent the cash cow is now dead as a dodo.
chinese ghost story iii is a totally superfluous sequel to two excellent fantasy films. the film delivers the spell casting special effects that one can expect and but fails painfully on all other fronts. the actors all play extremely silly caricatures. you have to be still in diapers to find their slapstick humor even remotely funny. the plot is predictable and and the development is sometimes erratic and often slow. towards the end and the movie begins to resemble old godzilla films and including shabby larger than life special effects and a (well and yet another) ghost with a godzilla head. maybe i would have grinned if i was expecting camp. it is astonishing to see what trash fantasy fans have to put up with in this case because somebody thought they could squeeze a little extra money out of a successful formula. they would not be able to do it again represent the cash cow is now dead as a dodo.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
follows the usual formula in putting a new recruit this time the first african american (cuba gooding) after president truman desegregates the armed forces through the u. s. navy deep sea diver training program that is run by a racist zealot (robert deniro). if the program weren not bad enough and it got to be located in bayonne and new jersey. there nothing wrong with the performances. robert de niro activates his southern accent and shouts gibberish effectively. cuba gooding and raised by a stern father as a poor black farm boy in the south and is the expectable paragon of rectitude. the girls one could hardly call them women are charleze theron and lonette mckee. they have minor roles and are mostly there to argue that their men should exercise common sense. other decent performers powers boothe and hal holbrook have even more perfunctory roles. that about it. almost everything else could have been assembled by a computer. a ship is called a boat. robert de niro salutes indoors and uncovered. after a brutal assault on hospital personnel and he transferred out of his outfit instead of being busted. somebody shouts i am outta here in the early 1950s. (maybe it was a common expression at the time. if so and my bad. ) people address each other by rank lieutenant and boatswain mate and commander and as they do in the army and whereas in the navy they are simple mister (if an officer) or addressed by their last name (if enlisted). i do not bother to check if there was a rank called senior master chief in 1950. cuba gooding has a tough row to hoe. everyone in the navy and it seems and hates negroes except for one guy from wisconsin. he stutters and is held in contempt by the others in his class. it like the scene in animal house and in which the applicant to a tony fraternity is asked to wait in a room with a sikh and a black man and and a blind kid. gooding is an enlisted man and a second class petty officer. he manages to marry a beautiful woman who has just graduated from medical school. in one of their arguments she pleads with him. she just wants to be a doctor and he should join her and quit the navy and and lead a quiet life. and just let life pass you by. and he retorts. yes. yes and just be a doctor spouse and let life pass you by. you can wave to it from the golf course in boca raton. these kinds of flicks were common enough in world war ii. bombardier and airial gunner and that sort of thing. cheap as they often were and they had some educational features. you learned something about becoming a bombardier or a gunner. here and the technical details are skipped over and perhaps because the writer knew nothing about them (except boyle law and which we learned in high school chemistry). i couldn not follow what was happening during some of the emergencies without which a movie like this do not exist. if i got the mechanical problems right and it was because i guessed correctly. the direction is no help either. the movie abounds in close ups and so many that they lose any dramatic impact they might have had. and the emergencies are confusing because theyre ill focused. why go on. want to see a better example of this kind of movie. almost any will do except maybe g. i. jane and in which the abused hero is a heroin. try the training camp scenes in the young lions. there the victim is a jew. or try from here to eternity and in which no easy sympathy buttons are pushed and the victim is a grown man who refuses to bend and who is active in bringing the conflict on and just like cool hand luke. no easy excuses are offered and because easy excuses are too easy. thoroughly formulaic and and not well done.
follows the usual formula in putting a new recruit this time the first african american (cuba gooding) after president truman desegregates the armed forces through the u. s. navy deep sea diver training program that is run by a racist zealot (robert deniro). if the program weren not bad enough and it got to be located in bayonne and new jersey. there nothing wrong with the performances. robert de niro activates his southern accent and shouts gibberish effectively. cuba gooding and raised by a stern father as a poor black farm boy in the south and is the expectable paragon of rectitude. the girls one could hardly call them women are charleze theron and lonette mckee. they have minor roles and are mostly there to argue that their men should exercise common sense. other decent performers powers boothe and hal holbrook have even more perfunctory roles. that about it. almost everything else could have been assembled by a computer. a ship is called a boat. robert de niro salutes indoors and uncovered. after a brutal assault on hospital personnel and he transferred out of his outfit instead of being busted. somebody shouts i am outta here in the early 1950s. (maybe it was a common expression at the time. if so and my bad. ) people address each other by rank lieutenant and boatswain mate and commander and as they do in the army and whereas in the navy they are simple mister (if an officer) or addressed by their last name (if enlisted). i do not bother to check if there was a rank called senior master chief in 1950. cuba gooding has a tough row to hoe. everyone in the navy and it seems and hates negroes except for one guy from wisconsin. he stutters and is held in contempt by the others in his class. it like the scene in animal house and in which the applicant to a tony fraternity is asked to wait in a room with a sikh and a black man and and a blind kid. gooding is an enlisted man and a second class petty officer. he manages to marry a beautiful woman who has just graduated from medical school. in one of their arguments she pleads with him. she just wants to be a doctor and he should join her and quit the navy and and lead a quiet life. and just let life pass you by. and he retorts. yes. yes and just be a doctor spouse and let life pass you by. you can wave to it from the golf course in boca raton. these kinds of flicks were common enough in world war ii. bombardier and airial gunner and that sort of thing. cheap as they often were and they had some educational features. you learned something about becoming a bombardier or a gunner. here and the technical details are skipped over and perhaps because the writer knew nothing about them (except boyle law and which we learned in high school chemistry). i couldn not follow what was happening during some of the emergencies without which a movie like this do not exist. if i got the mechanical problems right and it was because i guessed correctly. the direction is no help either. the movie abounds in close ups and so many that they lose any dramatic impact they might have had. and the emergencies are confusing because theyre ill focused. why go on. want to see a better example of this kind of movie. almost any will do except maybe g. i. jane and in which the abused hero is a heroin. try the training camp scenes in the young lions. there the victim is a jew. or try from here to eternity and in which no easy sympathy buttons are pushed and the victim is a grown man who refuses to bend and who is active in bringing the conflict on and just like cool hand luke. no easy excuses are offered and because easy excuses are too easy. thoroughly formulaic and and not well done.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
final score (an average of various classic cinematic qualities acting and visuals and creativity and payoff and humor and fun and ect) represent4. 3 (out of 10)had atlantis represent the lost empire come out a few years ago it would have seemed like a bold and serious new direction in disney animation. however and it comes just a year after the innovative and nearly genius the emperor new groove and marks a step back in freeing disney from it repetative disney formula. i am a big fan of the feature length disney animated films. have to see them all love it or hate it. atlantis is an animated throwback to 20 and 000 leagues under the sea and similar live action sci fi adventures of the 50s and 60s. problem is that this version hardly contains one original idea. it feels like a remake of something and even more so than actual disney remakes(tarzan and the hunchback of notre dame). the characters are little more than a walking cliches of the usual suspects that typically populate these type of films (the oddball mechanic and the gung ho general and the sassy tough women). beyond milo thatch (fox) and rourke (garner) the supporting cast is flat out obnoxious. the movie also suffers from it succinct pace. instead of fleshing it out into an epic story and disney jams a lot in the usually brief running time brushing over opportunities to develop. suspence and characters and anything really. they thow us into this new and wonderous world and barely let us get our barings. the awkward pace sometimes makes confusing what is a relatively simple story. the animation is dark and dreary and cheap. this thing looks like a slapped together saturday morning cartoon. let hope they haven not forgotten that 2d traditional animation can still be wonderous. the iron giant among others proved that. negatives represent the visuals and pace and and sheer lack of originality. positives represent quite possibly the coolest death scene for a disney villain in a long time. it the creative highlight of the movie.
final score (an average of various classic cinematic qualities acting and visuals and creativity and payoff and humor and fun and ect) represent4. 3 (out of 10)had atlantis represent the lost empire come out a few years ago it would have seemed like a bold and serious new direction in disney animation. however and it comes just a year after the innovative and nearly genius the emperor new groove and marks a step back in freeing disney from it repetative disney formula. i am a big fan of the feature length disney animated films. have to see them all love it or hate it. atlantis is an animated throwback to 20 and 000 leagues under the sea and similar live action sci fi adventures of the 50s and 60s. problem is that this version hardly contains one original idea. it feels like a remake of something and even more so than actual disney remakes(tarzan and the hunchback of notre dame). the characters are little more than a walking cliches of the usual suspects that typically populate these type of films (the oddball mechanic and the gung ho general and the sassy tough women). beyond milo thatch (fox) and rourke (garner) the supporting cast is flat out obnoxious. the movie also suffers from it succinct pace. instead of fleshing it out into an epic story and disney jams a lot in the usually brief running time brushing over opportunities to develop. suspence and characters and anything really. they thow us into this new and wonderous world and barely let us get our barings. the awkward pace sometimes makes confusing what is a relatively simple story. the animation is dark and dreary and cheap. this thing looks like a slapped together saturday morning cartoon. let hope they haven not forgotten that 2d traditional animation can still be wonderous. the iron giant among others proved that. negatives represent the visuals and pace and and sheer lack of originality. positives represent quite possibly the coolest death scene for a disney villain in a long time. it the creative highlight of the movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
if the makers of atlantis had something to say in this film and its theme was (literally) drowned out by the emphasis on special effects over characterization. almost as if in an attempt to keep up with the rest of the summer action blockbusters and disney has ditched the character driven and movie with a message approach in favor of a star wars shoot em up with stereotype heroes and villains. the art is cartoony and the producers think that they can rely on computer generated images (cgi) of flying fish craft and submarines to fill the gap. they are wrong and and the days of beautiful and handcrafted animation is fast flying out the window in favor of assembly line cgi. this movie is all spectacle with no heart. at times the film comes close to being a good and worthwhile movie and but frustratingly misses the mark so many times by copping out of talking about something meaningful and instead choosing to go with the glitz. another problem with the movie is the pacing. it starts confusingly and then begins to rocket along with a choppy story editing style that is not appreciated. the viewer is rushed out of the door along with milo thatch (voiced well by michael j. fox) and is left thinking gee there must be an awful lot of stuff that going to happen once we get to atlantis. unfortunately and not much happens. the secret of atlantis remains a secret with the story tellers not really knowing how to explain the legendary island or continent. they are afraid to commit to saying where atlantis is and even in a fictional story. is it in the atlantic. is it in the mediterranean sea. who knows. nothing is hypothesized and even from a purely fantasy based point of view. the viewer will leave the theatre asking themselves now what was that all about. what was the point of the movie. why couldn not the surviving atlantean remember how to read when many of them lived through the disaster to the present day. and why did atlantis sink. and then promptly begin to forget about what they saw. there is nothing left to think about or mill over. except the loss of money in their wallets. the characters and their motivations are equally unfathomable. from the eccentric zillionaire who founds the expedition with seemingly more money that existed on the entire planet in 1914 and to the (spoiler) collective consciousness that enters kida and voluntarily deserts its people. the crew are a collection of quirky and 2 dimensional people of anachronistically (for 1914) p. c. race and gender. the demolitions expert talks like he came right out of a warner brothers bugs bunny short. most of the jokes are gross one liners that are largely missed by the audience for two reasons represent they are delivered at lightning speed pacing and usually mumbled. the way these supporting players do a moral turn around near the end of the movie is hard to believe. while we applaud disney for trying to create animated movies for adults and this is the first disney not to have cute and talking animals or objects it fails to make the transition. younger children will be frightened by some of the action scenes and be left in the dark by the large amount of subtitles (when the characters speak atlantean). in the first five minutes of the expedition and approximately 200 people are killed without a second thought. obviously disney thinks that if you do not know who those people were and then why should you care. again and the movie has no feelings on any level. mulan and tarzan were the last animated movies produced by disney that were done extremely well. sadly and atlantis harkens back to those failed attempts in the past such as the black cauldron and hunchback of notre dame. disney needs to get back to their roots. a sequel to peter pan is coming out shortly but one never knows what the results will be until you see it for yourself. and now that disney has discovered science fiction one hopes that they will realize that that genre must have more than spectacle to it. we also hope that the upcoming treasure planet and a sci fi adaptation of robert l. stevenson treasure island and will have more heart to it than the unfathomable atlantis represent the lost empire.
if the makers of atlantis had something to say in this film and its theme was (literally) drowned out by the emphasis on special effects over characterization. almost as if in an attempt to keep up with the rest of the summer action blockbusters and disney has ditched the character driven and movie with a message approach in favor of a star wars shoot em up with stereotype heroes and villains. the art is cartoony and the producers think that they can rely on computer generated images (cgi) of flying fish craft and submarines to fill the gap. they are wrong and and the days of beautiful and handcrafted animation is fast flying out the window in favor of assembly line cgi. this movie is all spectacle with no heart. at times the film comes close to being a good and worthwhile movie and but frustratingly misses the mark so many times by copping out of talking about something meaningful and instead choosing to go with the glitz. another problem with the movie is the pacing. it starts confusingly and then begins to rocket along with a choppy story editing style that is not appreciated. the viewer is rushed out of the door along with milo thatch (voiced well by michael j. fox) and is left thinking gee there must be an awful lot of stuff that going to happen once we get to atlantis. unfortunately and not much happens. the secret of atlantis remains a secret with the story tellers not really knowing how to explain the legendary island or continent. they are afraid to commit to saying where atlantis is and even in a fictional story. is it in the atlantic. is it in the mediterranean sea. who knows. nothing is hypothesized and even from a purely fantasy based point of view. the viewer will leave the theatre asking themselves now what was that all about. what was the point of the movie. why couldn not the surviving atlantean remember how to read when many of them lived through the disaster to the present day. and why did atlantis sink. and then promptly begin to forget about what they saw. there is nothing left to think about or mill over. except the loss of money in their wallets. the characters and their motivations are equally unfathomable. from the eccentric zillionaire who founds the expedition with seemingly more money that existed on the entire planet in 1914 and to the (spoiler) collective consciousness that enters kida and voluntarily deserts its people. the crew are a collection of quirky and 2 dimensional people of anachronistically (for 1914) p. c. race and gender. the demolitions expert talks like he came right out of a warner brothers bugs bunny short. most of the jokes are gross one liners that are largely missed by the audience for two reasons represent they are delivered at lightning speed pacing and usually mumbled. the way these supporting players do a moral turn around near the end of the movie is hard to believe. while we applaud disney for trying to create animated movies for adults and this is the first disney not to have cute and talking animals or objects it fails to make the transition. younger children will be frightened by some of the action scenes and be left in the dark by the large amount of subtitles (when the characters speak atlantean). in the first five minutes of the expedition and approximately 200 people are killed without a second thought. obviously disney thinks that if you do not know who those people were and then why should you care. again and the movie has no feelings on any level. mulan and tarzan were the last animated movies produced by disney that were done extremely well. sadly and atlantis harkens back to those failed attempts in the past such as the black cauldron and hunchback of notre dame. disney needs to get back to their roots. a sequel to peter pan is coming out shortly but one never knows what the results will be until you see it for yourself. and now that disney has discovered science fiction one hopes that they will realize that that genre must have more than spectacle to it. we also hope that the upcoming treasure planet and a sci fi adaptation of robert l. stevenson treasure island and will have more heart to it than the unfathomable atlantis represent the lost empire.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i went to see this one with much expectation. quite unfortunately the dialogue is utterly stupid and overall the movie is far from inspiring awe or interest. even a child can see the missing logic to character behaviors. today kids need creative stories which would inspire them and which would make them wouldaydream about the events. that precisely what happened with movies like e. t. and star wars a decade ago. (how many kids imagined about becoming jedi knights and igniting their own lightsabers. ) seriously do not waste your time and money on this one.
i went to see this one with much expectation. quite unfortunately the dialogue is utterly stupid and overall the movie is far from inspiring awe or interest. even a child can see the missing logic to character behaviors. today kids need creative stories which would inspire them and which would make them wouldaydream about the events. that precisely what happened with movies like e. t. and star wars a decade ago. (how many kids imagined about becoming jedi knights and igniting their own lightsabers. ) seriously do not waste your time and money on this one.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
some have praised _atlantis represent_the_lost_empire_ as a disney adventure for adults. i do not think so at least not for thinking adults. this script suggests a beginning as a live action movie and that struck someone as the type of crap you cannot sell to adults anymore. the crack staff of many older adventure movies has been done well before and (think _the dirty dozen_) but _atlantis_ represents one of the worse films in that motif. the characters are weak. even the background that each member trots out seems stock and awkward at best. an md or medicine man and a tomboy mechanic whose father always wanted sons and if we have not at least seen these before and we have seen mix and match quirks before. the story about how one companion and vinny played by don novello (fr. guido sarducci) and went from flower stores to demolitions totally unconvincing. only the main character and milo thatch and a young atlantis obsessed academic voiced by michael j. fox and has any depth to him. milo search for atlantis continues that of his grandfather who raised him. the opening scene shows a much younger milo giddily perched on a knee and as his grandfather places his pith helmet on his head. and while the characters were thin at best and the best part about _atlantis_ was the voice talent. perhaps milo depth is no thicker than fox charm. commander rourke loses nothing being voiced by james garner. although rourke is a pretty stock military type and garner shows his ability to breath life into characters simply by his delivery. garner vocal performance is the high point. i am sorry to say leonard nimoy dying king is nothing more than obligatory. additionally and don novello as the demolition expert and vinny santorini and was also notable for one or two well done and funny lines but i have always liked father guido sarducci and anyway. also well done was the computer animation. the background animation and that is. the character animation has not been this bad for disney since the minimalism that drove don bluth out the door. the character animation does nothing if not make already flat characters appear even flatter. aside from landscapes and buildings and vehicles there isn not much to impress. the plot was the worst. some say hackneyed or trite. i am not so sure about that. any serviceable plot can be made into something new with the proper treatment. shakespeare often started from a known story and plot and was famous only for putting on a new coat of paint. so the treatment is the thing. and _atlantis_ obviously lacks that. i cannot begin to go into all the logic gaps without a spoiler section. the plot was bad. the plot bridges snap like twine and the ending does not make sense. to add to that and the script and the animation is peppered with annoying sloppiness. spoilers 1. right at the beginning when milo reveals that runic or celtic symbols have been wrongly transliterated and the coast of ireland should read the coast of iceland and we begin to have problems. the writers of the script would need to know the british take for eire or eireann as ireland and and completely ignore the older and latin term hibernia. but more than this and they need to know of the vikings conspiracy to call the greener island iceland and the icier island greenland. by making it the matter of a mis tranliterated letter and the writers have doomed themselves to requiring a runic version of english and a post roman date on the script. since this is long after atlantis was supposed to have sunk into its undersea cave. and without visible clues and less technology than milo had and made the inscription far less trustworthy. 2. the shepard journal could not be written before the sinking of atlantis and or it would know nothing about the cave or the crystal lying in the king eye. it must have been written after the sinking and but without even the technology that milo expedition had and how the heck did anybody get by the leviathan. so how could it know more about anything after that. and why would it be written in atlantian. automatic writing and clairvoyance or astral travel can explain these things. however clairvoyance and astral travel do not require the shepard to write in atlantian. so it got to be some sort automatic writing. since noone left in atlantis can read and it must be the spirits of the crystal beaming messages to the surface. this would have made more sense. but could also have been explained within the movie represent milo could have discovered that this power had been calling him all his life appeared in dreams and etc. this needed to be explored in the movie. 3. the atlantians should simply not be able to comprehend modern languages. no one expects that the original indo europeans would be able to converse in europe and anymore than romans would understand that hard cs or their day became french chs (pronounced like shs and no less. )4. current atlantians were alive before the cataclysm when apparently they could read and yet now are unable to read what they used to and or operate similar machinery. 5. the mass illiteracy points out a crucial flaw in the movie. nothing seems to have happened to this culture. it seems suspended in air until milo can rescue it. even though it appears that life is not a constant struggle for survival and no one wants to compose poetry or write novels and perhaps it is a combination of atlantian school systems going downhill toward the end and lack of good fiction that caused atlantis to fall into illiteracy. 5. kida can be excused for not knowing how to read or operate the machinery if she was so young when the cataclysm of stupidity set in but any of it hardly qualifies her father for deification. kashakim foolishness almost single handedly wiped his people from existence. killed a bunch in the cataclysm and stalled progress (not a lot killed here and but he oversaw a massive slide in culture and progress) until someone could take the crystal to kill everybody and if they weren not boiled in lava first because the giant robots weren not there to protect them. a bolt of blue electricity should have shattered kashakim likeness and when kida tried joining her father image to the circle of great kings of atlantis. 6. even though milo was the only one who could read atlantian and rourke and others knew enough to look through a book of gibberish and find a page on a crystal which he knew to be a crystal and not some stylized astrological or phases of the sun diagram. 7. if milo grandfather had told rourke about it and it still does not explain what how rourke would have suffered from milo reading it as part of the book. ripping out the page which was dog eared in rourke hand and even though milo found no sign of a torn page in the book apparently only was there to tip off the viewer that something was not quite right. unless the word crystal would have set alarms off in milo head that somebody would try to steal it and milo would have suspected nothing. it just thick headed foreshadowing. 8. the crew double cross was not a character change. we learned that vinny and sweet and audrey and cookie had been going along with rourke from the beginning. however and the change of heart falls flat. it was a change and and needed to be better motivated. hard to do with characters who weren not given anything to begin with. 9. niggling little bit that the lava flows up over the dome and instead of filling in the rest of the area that we view the sequence from. it liquid while it will not flow over the protective dome until it fills up all lower areas. 10. the ending stinks. and makes no sense other than to appease political correctness. with it powersource restored and atlantis is no longer a weak power and needing coddling. the giant robot guardians and the sky cycles shooting blue lightning suggest that they have less to fear from us than they might. the technology is superior to ours and and definitely to early 20th century. in the end milo needs to teach the atlantians to read and for what. the whole idea is to leave their little quiet and chastened culture alone and not to send it into hyperdrive. end spoilers perhaps and the lost world plot and the turn of the century setting should give me a hint that this is more an homage to pulps. the failures i find with the film agree with this idea. but i am at a loss why i should pay to see thin characters and plot holes simply because many dime novels had them as well. and pulp stories is part of the crap they can not sell adults anymore and anyway. we have become a bit more sophisticated and our pulp needs to grow up as well. raiders of the lost ark lost none of its pulp feel and avoided so much badness. negative the movie is enjoyable but as i think about the plot and it seeps ever lower.
some have praised _atlantis represent_the_lost_empire_ as a disney adventure for adults. i do not think so at least not for thinking adults. this script suggests a beginning as a live action movie and that struck someone as the type of crap you cannot sell to adults anymore. the crack staff of many older adventure movies has been done well before and (think _the dirty dozen_) but _atlantis_ represents one of the worse films in that motif. the characters are weak. even the background that each member trots out seems stock and awkward at best. an md or medicine man and a tomboy mechanic whose father always wanted sons and if we have not at least seen these before and we have seen mix and match quirks before. the story about how one companion and vinny played by don novello (fr. guido sarducci) and went from flower stores to demolitions totally unconvincing. only the main character and milo thatch and a young atlantis obsessed academic voiced by michael j. fox and has any depth to him. milo search for atlantis continues that of his grandfather who raised him. the opening scene shows a much younger milo giddily perched on a knee and as his grandfather places his pith helmet on his head. and while the characters were thin at best and the best part about _atlantis_ was the voice talent. perhaps milo depth is no thicker than fox charm. commander rourke loses nothing being voiced by james garner. although rourke is a pretty stock military type and garner shows his ability to breath life into characters simply by his delivery. garner vocal performance is the high point. i am sorry to say leonard nimoy dying king is nothing more than obligatory. additionally and don novello as the demolition expert and vinny santorini and was also notable for one or two well done and funny lines but i have always liked father guido sarducci and anyway. also well done was the computer animation. the background animation and that is. the character animation has not been this bad for disney since the minimalism that drove don bluth out the door. the character animation does nothing if not make already flat characters appear even flatter. aside from landscapes and buildings and vehicles there isn not much to impress. the plot was the worst. some say hackneyed or trite. i am not so sure about that. any serviceable plot can be made into something new with the proper treatment. shakespeare often started from a known story and plot and was famous only for putting on a new coat of paint. so the treatment is the thing. and _atlantis_ obviously lacks that. i cannot begin to go into all the logic gaps without a spoiler section. the plot was bad. the plot bridges snap like twine and the ending does not make sense. to add to that and the script and the animation is peppered with annoying sloppiness. spoilers 1. right at the beginning when milo reveals that runic or celtic symbols have been wrongly transliterated and the coast of ireland should read the coast of iceland and we begin to have problems. the writers of the script would need to know the british take for eire or eireann as ireland and and completely ignore the older and latin term hibernia. but more than this and they need to know of the vikings conspiracy to call the greener island iceland and the icier island greenland. by making it the matter of a mis tranliterated letter and the writers have doomed themselves to requiring a runic version of english and a post roman date on the script. since this is long after atlantis was supposed to have sunk into its undersea cave. and without visible clues and less technology than milo had and made the inscription far less trustworthy. 2. the shepard journal could not be written before the sinking of atlantis and or it would know nothing about the cave or the crystal lying in the king eye. it must have been written after the sinking and but without even the technology that milo expedition had and how the heck did anybody get by the leviathan. so how could it know more about anything after that. and why would it be written in atlantian. automatic writing and clairvoyance or astral travel can explain these things. however clairvoyance and astral travel do not require the shepard to write in atlantian. so it got to be some sort automatic writing. since noone left in atlantis can read and it must be the spirits of the crystal beaming messages to the surface. this would have made more sense. but could also have been explained within the movie represent milo could have discovered that this power had been calling him all his life appeared in dreams and etc. this needed to be explored in the movie. 3. the atlantians should simply not be able to comprehend modern languages. no one expects that the original indo europeans would be able to converse in europe and anymore than romans would understand that hard cs or their day became french chs (pronounced like shs and no less. )4. current atlantians were alive before the cataclysm when apparently they could read and yet now are unable to read what they used to and or operate similar machinery. 5. the mass illiteracy points out a crucial flaw in the movie. nothing seems to have happened to this culture. it seems suspended in air until milo can rescue it. even though it appears that life is not a constant struggle for survival and no one wants to compose poetry or write novels and perhaps it is a combination of atlantian school systems going downhill toward the end and lack of good fiction that caused atlantis to fall into illiteracy. 5. kida can be excused for not knowing how to read or operate the machinery if she was so young when the cataclysm of stupidity set in but any of it hardly qualifies her father for deification. kashakim foolishness almost single handedly wiped his people from existence. killed a bunch in the cataclysm and stalled progress (not a lot killed here and but he oversaw a massive slide in culture and progress) until someone could take the crystal to kill everybody and if they weren not boiled in lava first because the giant robots weren not there to protect them. a bolt of blue electricity should have shattered kashakim likeness and when kida tried joining her father image to the circle of great kings of atlantis. 6. even though milo was the only one who could read atlantian and rourke and others knew enough to look through a book of gibberish and find a page on a crystal which he knew to be a crystal and not some stylized astrological or phases of the sun diagram. 7. if milo grandfather had told rourke about it and it still does not explain what how rourke would have suffered from milo reading it as part of the book. ripping out the page which was dog eared in rourke hand and even though milo found no sign of a torn page in the book apparently only was there to tip off the viewer that something was not quite right. unless the word crystal would have set alarms off in milo head that somebody would try to steal it and milo would have suspected nothing. it just thick headed foreshadowing. 8. the crew double cross was not a character change. we learned that vinny and sweet and audrey and cookie had been going along with rourke from the beginning. however and the change of heart falls flat. it was a change and and needed to be better motivated. hard to do with characters who weren not given anything to begin with. 9. niggling little bit that the lava flows up over the dome and instead of filling in the rest of the area that we view the sequence from. it liquid while it will not flow over the protective dome until it fills up all lower areas. 10. the ending stinks. and makes no sense other than to appease political correctness. with it powersource restored and atlantis is no longer a weak power and needing coddling. the giant robot guardians and the sky cycles shooting blue lightning suggest that they have less to fear from us than they might. the technology is superior to ours and and definitely to early 20th century. in the end milo needs to teach the atlantians to read and for what. the whole idea is to leave their little quiet and chastened culture alone and not to send it into hyperdrive. end spoilers perhaps and the lost world plot and the turn of the century setting should give me a hint that this is more an homage to pulps. the failures i find with the film agree with this idea. but i am at a loss why i should pay to see thin characters and plot holes simply because many dime novels had them as well. and pulp stories is part of the crap they can not sell adults anymore and anyway. we have become a bit more sophisticated and our pulp needs to grow up as well. raiders of the lost ark lost none of its pulp feel and avoided so much badness. negative the movie is enjoyable but as i think about the plot and it seeps ever lower.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
some have praised atlantis represent the lost empire as a disney adventure for adults. i do not think so at least not for thinking adults. this script suggests a beginning as a live action movie and that struck someone as the type of crap you cannot sell to adults anymore. the crack staff of many older adventure movies has been done well before and (think the dirty dozen) but atlantis represents one of the worse films in that motif. the characters are weak. even the background that each member trots out seems stock and awkward at best. an md or medicine man and a tomboy mechanic whose father always wanted sons and if we have not at least seen these before and we have seen mix and match quirks before. the story about how one companion and vinny played by don novello (fr. guido sarducci) and went from flower stores to demolitions totally unconvincing. only the main character and milo thatch and a young atlantis obsessed academic voiced by michael j. fox and has any depth to him. milo search for atlantis continues that of his grandfather who raised him. the opening scene shows a much younger milo giddily perched on a knee and as his grandfather places his pith helmet on his head. and while the characters were thin at best and the best part about atlantis was the voice talent. commander rourke loses nothing being voiced by james garner. although rourke is a pretty stock military type and garner shows his ability to breath life into characters simply by his delivery. garner vocal performance is the high point. i am sorry to say leonard nimoy dying king is nothing more than obligatory. additionally and don novello as the demolition expert and vinny santorini and was also notable for one or two well done and funny lines but i have always liked father guido sarducci and anyway. also well done was the computer animation. the background animation and that is. the character animation does nothing if not make already flat characters appear even flatter. aside from landscapes and buildings and vehicles there isn not much to impress. the plot was the worst. some say hackneyed or trite. i am not so sure about that. any serviceable plot can be made into something new with the proper treatment. shakespeare often started from a known story and plot and was famous only for putting on a new coat of paint. so the treatment is the thing. and atlantis obviously lacks that. i cannot begin to go into all the logic gaps without a spoiler section. the plot was bad. the plot bridges snap like twine and the ending does not make sense. to add to that and the script and the animation is peppered with annoying sloppiness. spoilers right at the beginning when milo reveals that runic or celtic symbols have been wrongly transliterated and the coast of ireland should read the coast of iceland and we begin to have problems. the writers of the script would need to know the british take for eire or eireann as ireland and and completely ignore the older and latin term hibernia. but more than this and they need to know of the vikings conspiracy to call the greener island iceland and the icier island greenland. by making it the matter of a mis tranliterated letter and the writers have doomed themselves to requiring a runic version of english and a post roman date on the script. since this is long after atlantis was supposed to have sunk into its undersea cave. and without visible clues and less technology than milo had and made the inscription far less trustworthy. the shepherd journal could not be written before the sinking of atlantis and or it would know nothing about the cave or the crystal lying in the king eye. it must have been written after the sinking and but without even the technology that milo expedition had and how the heck did anybody get by the leviathan. so how could it know more about anything after that. and why would it be written in atlantian. automatic writing and clairvoyance or astral travel can explain these things. however clairvoyance and astral travel do not require to write in atlantian. so it got to be some sort automatic writing. since no one left in atlantis can read and it must be the spirits of the crystal beaming messages to the surface. this would have made more sense. but could also have been explained within the movie represent milo could shepherd have discovered that this power had been calling him all his life appeared in dreams and etc. this needed to be explored in the movie. the atlantians should simply not be able to comprehend modern languages. no one expects that the original indo europeans would be able to converse in europe and anymore than romans would understand that hard cs or their day became french chs (pronounced like shs and no less. )current atlantians were alive before the cataclysm when apparently they could read and yet now are unable to read what they used to and or operate similar machinery. the mass illiteracy points out a crucial flaw in the movie. nothing seems to have happened to this culture. it seems suspended in air until milo can rescue it. even though it appears that life is not a constant struggle for survival and no one wants to compose poetry or write novels and perhaps it is a combination of atlantian school systems going downhill toward the end and lack of good fiction that caused atlantis to fall into illiteracy. kida can be excused for not knowing how to read or operate the machinery if she was so young when the cataclysm of stupidity set in but any of it hardly qualifies her father for deification. kashakim foolishness almost single handedly wiped his people from existence. killed a bunch in the cataclysm and stalled progress (not a lot killed here and but he oversaw a massive slide in culture and progress) until someone could take the crystal to kill everybody and if they weren not boiled in lava first because the giant robots weren not there to protect them. a bolt of blue electricity should have shattered kashakim likeness and when kida tried joining her father image to the circle of great kings of atlantis. even though milo was the only one who could read atlantian and rourke and others knew enough to look through a book of gibberish and find a page on a crystal which he knew to be a crystal and not some stylized astrological or phases of the sun diagram. if milo grandfather had told rourke about it and it still does not explain how rourke would have suffered from milo reading it as part of the book. ripping out the page which was dog eared in rourke hand and even though milo found no sign of a torn page in the book apparently only was there to tip off the viewer that something was not quite right. unless the word crystal would have set alarms off in milo head that somebody would try to steal it and milo would have suspected nothing. it just thick headed foreshadowing. the crew double cross was not a character change. we learned that vinny and sweet and audrey and cookie had been going along with rourke from the beginning. however and the change of heart falls flat. it was a change and and needed to be better motivated. hard to do with characters who weren not given anything to begin with. niggling little bit that the lava flows up over the dome and instead of filling in the rest of the area that we view the sequence from. it liquid while it will not flow over the protective dome until it fills up all lower areas. the ending stinks. and makes no sense other than to appease political correctness. with it powersource restored and atlantis is no longer a weak power and needing coddling. the giant robot guardians and the sky cycles shooting blue lightning suggest that they have less to fear from us than they might. the technology is superior to ours and and definitely to early 20th century. in the end milo needs to teach the atlantians to read and for what. the whole idea is to leave their little quiet and chastened culture alone and not to send it into hyperdrive. end spoilers perhaps and the lost world plot and the turn of the century setting should give me a hint that this is more an homage to pulps. the failures i find with the film agree with this idea. but i am at a loss why i should pay to see thin characters and plot holes simply because many dime novels had them as well. and pulp stories is part of the crap they can not sell adults anymore and anyway. we have become a bit more sophisticated and our pulp needs to grow up as well. raiders of the lost ark lost none of its pulp feel and avoided so much badness. negative the movie is enjoyable but as i think about the plot and it seeps ever lower.
some have praised atlantis represent the lost empire as a disney adventure for adults. i do not think so at least not for thinking adults. this script suggests a beginning as a live action movie and that struck someone as the type of crap you cannot sell to adults anymore. the crack staff of many older adventure movies has been done well before and (think the dirty dozen) but atlantis represents one of the worse films in that motif. the characters are weak. even the background that each member trots out seems stock and awkward at best. an md or medicine man and a tomboy mechanic whose father always wanted sons and if we have not at least seen these before and we have seen mix and match quirks before. the story about how one companion and vinny played by don novello (fr. guido sarducci) and went from flower stores to demolitions totally unconvincing. only the main character and milo thatch and a young atlantis obsessed academic voiced by michael j. fox and has any depth to him. milo search for atlantis continues that of his grandfather who raised him. the opening scene shows a much younger milo giddily perched on a knee and as his grandfather places his pith helmet on his head. and while the characters were thin at best and the best part about atlantis was the voice talent. commander rourke loses nothing being voiced by james garner. although rourke is a pretty stock military type and garner shows his ability to breath life into characters simply by his delivery. garner vocal performance is the high point. i am sorry to say leonard nimoy dying king is nothing more than obligatory. additionally and don novello as the demolition expert and vinny santorini and was also notable for one or two well done and funny lines but i have always liked father guido sarducci and anyway. also well done was the computer animation. the background animation and that is. the character animation does nothing if not make already flat characters appear even flatter. aside from landscapes and buildings and vehicles there isn not much to impress. the plot was the worst. some say hackneyed or trite. i am not so sure about that. any serviceable plot can be made into something new with the proper treatment. shakespeare often started from a known story and plot and was famous only for putting on a new coat of paint. so the treatment is the thing. and atlantis obviously lacks that. i cannot begin to go into all the logic gaps without a spoiler section. the plot was bad. the plot bridges snap like twine and the ending does not make sense. to add to that and the script and the animation is peppered with annoying sloppiness. spoilers right at the beginning when milo reveals that runic or celtic symbols have been wrongly transliterated and the coast of ireland should read the coast of iceland and we begin to have problems. the writers of the script would need to know the british take for eire or eireann as ireland and and completely ignore the older and latin term hibernia. but more than this and they need to know of the vikings conspiracy to call the greener island iceland and the icier island greenland. by making it the matter of a mis tranliterated letter and the writers have doomed themselves to requiring a runic version of english and a post roman date on the script. since this is long after atlantis was supposed to have sunk into its undersea cave. and without visible clues and less technology than milo had and made the inscription far less trustworthy. the shepherd journal could not be written before the sinking of atlantis and or it would know nothing about the cave or the crystal lying in the king eye. it must have been written after the sinking and but without even the technology that milo expedition had and how the heck did anybody get by the leviathan. so how could it know more about anything after that. and why would it be written in atlantian. automatic writing and clairvoyance or astral travel can explain these things. however clairvoyance and astral travel do not require to write in atlantian. so it got to be some sort automatic writing. since no one left in atlantis can read and it must be the spirits of the crystal beaming messages to the surface. this would have made more sense. but could also have been explained within the movie represent milo could shepherd have discovered that this power had been calling him all his life appeared in dreams and etc. this needed to be explored in the movie. the atlantians should simply not be able to comprehend modern languages. no one expects that the original indo europeans would be able to converse in europe and anymore than romans would understand that hard cs or their day became french chs (pronounced like shs and no less. )current atlantians were alive before the cataclysm when apparently they could read and yet now are unable to read what they used to and or operate similar machinery. the mass illiteracy points out a crucial flaw in the movie. nothing seems to have happened to this culture. it seems suspended in air until milo can rescue it. even though it appears that life is not a constant struggle for survival and no one wants to compose poetry or write novels and perhaps it is a combination of atlantian school systems going downhill toward the end and lack of good fiction that caused atlantis to fall into illiteracy. kida can be excused for not knowing how to read or operate the machinery if she was so young when the cataclysm of stupidity set in but any of it hardly qualifies her father for deification. kashakim foolishness almost single handedly wiped his people from existence. killed a bunch in the cataclysm and stalled progress (not a lot killed here and but he oversaw a massive slide in culture and progress) until someone could take the crystal to kill everybody and if they weren not boiled in lava first because the giant robots weren not there to protect them. a bolt of blue electricity should have shattered kashakim likeness and when kida tried joining her father image to the circle of great kings of atlantis. even though milo was the only one who could read atlantian and rourke and others knew enough to look through a book of gibberish and find a page on a crystal which he knew to be a crystal and not some stylized astrological or phases of the sun diagram. if milo grandfather had told rourke about it and it still does not explain how rourke would have suffered from milo reading it as part of the book. ripping out the page which was dog eared in rourke hand and even though milo found no sign of a torn page in the book apparently only was there to tip off the viewer that something was not quite right. unless the word crystal would have set alarms off in milo head that somebody would try to steal it and milo would have suspected nothing. it just thick headed foreshadowing. the crew double cross was not a character change. we learned that vinny and sweet and audrey and cookie had been going along with rourke from the beginning. however and the change of heart falls flat. it was a change and and needed to be better motivated. hard to do with characters who weren not given anything to begin with. niggling little bit that the lava flows up over the dome and instead of filling in the rest of the area that we view the sequence from. it liquid while it will not flow over the protective dome until it fills up all lower areas. the ending stinks. and makes no sense other than to appease political correctness. with it powersource restored and atlantis is no longer a weak power and needing coddling. the giant robot guardians and the sky cycles shooting blue lightning suggest that they have less to fear from us than they might. the technology is superior to ours and and definitely to early 20th century. in the end milo needs to teach the atlantians to read and for what. the whole idea is to leave their little quiet and chastened culture alone and not to send it into hyperdrive. end spoilers perhaps and the lost world plot and the turn of the century setting should give me a hint that this is more an homage to pulps. the failures i find with the film agree with this idea. but i am at a loss why i should pay to see thin characters and plot holes simply because many dime novels had them as well. and pulp stories is part of the crap they can not sell adults anymore and anyway. we have become a bit more sophisticated and our pulp needs to grow up as well. raiders of the lost ark lost none of its pulp feel and avoided so much badness. negative the movie is enjoyable but as i think about the plot and it seeps ever lower.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
how the grinch stole christmas was a wonderful little christmas cartoon that anyone could easily enjoy and i never did see the reason for a remake. not to mention a remake that was made with humans and the cartoon was just perfect enough and what the purpose of this film. but it also seemed a little odd for jim carrey to be the grinch. i mean he a great comedic actor and but him as the grinch. it just do not make any sense to me. his performance was a little over the top and unintentionally laughable at moments. not to mention some of the added dialog was a bit childish and not enjoyable. the whole story of the grinch and cindy lou who was over done and wasn not needed. they actually just destroyed the story and period. all the who in whoville are getting ready for their best christmas season yet where everything is intended to go perfectly. but cindy lou who is curious and worried about the grinch that lives above them and that he not going to get as good of a christmas as the other who . he kicks her out and decides that he doesn not want christmas this year and that in fact he should just steal christmas all together to show the who what his version of christmas is all about. but soon he realizes that the who may know that it a little bit more than what is the materialized version of christmas. how the grinch stole christmas wasn not needed and was a bit over the top. i really recommend that you stick with the cartoon just for the simple fact that this is a pretty disturbing version and at least in my opinion. the make up and presentation of the whole film was just a bit over done and not to mention that how the grinch stole christmas. was more meant to be as a cartoon rather than a version starring jim carry. but at least this version makes you grateful for the boris karloff version that is played every christmas. negative .
how the grinch stole christmas was a wonderful little christmas cartoon that anyone could easily enjoy and i never did see the reason for a remake. not to mention a remake that was made with humans and the cartoon was just perfect enough and what the purpose of this film. but it also seemed a little odd for jim carrey to be the grinch. i mean he a great comedic actor and but him as the grinch. it just do not make any sense to me. his performance was a little over the top and unintentionally laughable at moments. not to mention some of the added dialog was a bit childish and not enjoyable. the whole story of the grinch and cindy lou who was over done and wasn not needed. they actually just destroyed the story and period. all the who in whoville are getting ready for their best christmas season yet where everything is intended to go perfectly. but cindy lou who is curious and worried about the grinch that lives above them and that he not going to get as good of a christmas as the other who . he kicks her out and decides that he doesn not want christmas this year and that in fact he should just steal christmas all together to show the who what his version of christmas is all about. but soon he realizes that the who may know that it a little bit more than what is the materialized version of christmas. how the grinch stole christmas wasn not needed and was a bit over the top. i really recommend that you stick with the cartoon just for the simple fact that this is a pretty disturbing version and at least in my opinion. the make up and presentation of the whole film was just a bit over done and not to mention that how the grinch stole christmas. was more meant to be as a cartoon rather than a version starring jim carry. but at least this version makes you grateful for the boris karloff version that is played every christmas. negative .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
(possible spoilers)someone once asked dr. seuss if they could secure the movie rights to his 1957 christmas classic how the grinch stole christmas. he turned them down and insisting that no one could do better than the marvelous chuck jones tv special from 1966 (also in mind and perhaps and was his bitter experience writing the script to 1953 the 5 and 000 fingers of dr. t). when the good dr. died in 1991 and his widow and audrey geisel and still obstinately refused to sell the movie rights. but with the commonplace use of cgi effects becoming a reality and mrs. geisel had a change of heart. universal made her a generous offer she accepted while she also accepted the casting of jim carrey as the title character. supposedly she was satisfied with the final result. well and mrs. geisel and that makes one of us. the film was given a $123 and 000 and 000 budget (which is more than even heaven gate cost and including the adjustment for inflation) and which obviously went towards the very elaborate makeup and set design and and special effects (which are underminedsomewhat by the rather hazy cinematography). unfortunately and it seems that none of that money was set aside to get a better script than what jeffrey price and peter s. seaman (scribes of who framed roger rabbit. and which made much betteruse of a high budget) turned in. whereas the tv special was a trim 26 minutes without commercials and this film tries to fill a running time of 105 minutes with more background information about the grinch. it turns out that and as a child and he was the subject of ridicule and including an especially humiliating experience one christmas at the age of eight. so it turns out that everything that ails our poor mr. grinch is directly because of the whos. trouble is and it seems like a rather long 105 minutes and with too much dead wood clogging up the story. that might not seem so bad if only the grinch were a little more. well and grinchy. the character that dr. seuss wrote and chuck jones later animated was a sly fox whose slick attempts to hijack the holiday season were undermined by his sudden change (and exponential growth) of heart. carrey grinch is a loud and hyperactive oaf and and at times and a thug who and when made the holiday `cheermeister and trashes the whoville town square in anger(hopefully the scenery tasted as good as it looked). this undermines the script attempt to make the grinch more sympathetic and with all the whos down in whoville so unsympathetic (at least in this interpretation). the whoville of dr. seuss vision was a small town populated by honest folk who knew in their hearts the true meaning of christmas. the whoville of the movie is a rather noisy and crowded place populated by spoiled and selfish and materialistic ninnies while an obvious attempt to comment on american consumerism. this is offensivelyhypocritical inasmuch as the film industry has benefitted greatly from american consumerism and and as this film contributed to it with a huge merchandisingcampaign. the film also expands and redefines the character of cindy lou who and a small but crucial character in the original. the innocent two year old waif who walked in on this spurious santa is now older and wiser and constantly questioning the false values of the whos and trying to understand the grinch point of view (her one major scene from the original is re enacted and making it seem out of character). sheseems to be the only one who would ever know that christmas is more than just gifts and decorations and thus making her a completely different and and more annoying and character. those who celebrate christmas should sooner accept a lump of coal in theirstockings on the morning of december 25 than a copy of this overlong and overacted and excruciatingly tedious and ham handed and crude attempt to turn the children classic into a feature film. it proves once and for all that darkness and vulgarity and manipulation and and heavy handedness are inadequate substitutes for charm and wit and sincerity and and heart. the folks at universal should get down on their collective knees and thank god that this truly bilious $123 million stink bomb grossed $260 million domestically or they would not be here today. furthermore it made mike myers the cat in the hat possible.
(possible spoilers)someone once asked dr. seuss if they could secure the movie rights to his 1957 christmas classic how the grinch stole christmas. he turned them down and insisting that no one could do better than the marvelous chuck jones tv special from 1966 (also in mind and perhaps and was his bitter experience writing the script to 1953 the 5 and 000 fingers of dr. t). when the good dr. died in 1991 and his widow and audrey geisel and still obstinately refused to sell the movie rights. but with the commonplace use of cgi effects becoming a reality and mrs. geisel had a change of heart. universal made her a generous offer she accepted while she also accepted the casting of jim carrey as the title character. supposedly she was satisfied with the final result. well and mrs. geisel and that makes one of us. the film was given a $123 and 000 and 000 budget (which is more than even heaven gate cost and including the adjustment for inflation) and which obviously went towards the very elaborate makeup and set design and and special effects (which are underminedsomewhat by the rather hazy cinematography). unfortunately and it seems that none of that money was set aside to get a better script than what jeffrey price and peter s. seaman (scribes of who framed roger rabbit. and which made much betteruse of a high budget) turned in. whereas the tv special was a trim 26 minutes without commercials and this film tries to fill a running time of 105 minutes with more background information about the grinch. it turns out that and as a child and he was the subject of ridicule and including an especially humiliating experience one christmas at the age of eight. so it turns out that everything that ails our poor mr. grinch is directly because of the whos. trouble is and it seems like a rather long 105 minutes and with too much dead wood clogging up the story. that might not seem so bad if only the grinch were a little more. well and grinchy. the character that dr. seuss wrote and chuck jones later animated was a sly fox whose slick attempts to hijack the holiday season were undermined by his sudden change (and exponential growth) of heart. carrey grinch is a loud and hyperactive oaf and and at times and a thug who and when made the holiday `cheermeister and trashes the whoville town square in anger(hopefully the scenery tasted as good as it looked). this undermines the script attempt to make the grinch more sympathetic and with all the whos down in whoville so unsympathetic (at least in this interpretation). the whoville of dr. seuss vision was a small town populated by honest folk who knew in their hearts the true meaning of christmas. the whoville of the movie is a rather noisy and crowded place populated by spoiled and selfish and materialistic ninnies while an obvious attempt to comment on american consumerism. this is offensivelyhypocritical inasmuch as the film industry has benefitted greatly from american consumerism and and as this film contributed to it with a huge merchandisingcampaign. the film also expands and redefines the character of cindy lou who and a small but crucial character in the original. the innocent two year old waif who walked in on this spurious santa is now older and wiser and constantly questioning the false values of the whos and trying to understand the grinch point of view (her one major scene from the original is re enacted and making it seem out of character). sheseems to be the only one who would ever know that christmas is more than just gifts and decorations and thus making her a completely different and and more annoying and character. those who celebrate christmas should sooner accept a lump of coal in theirstockings on the morning of december 25 than a copy of this overlong and overacted and excruciatingly tedious and ham handed and crude attempt to turn the children classic into a feature film. it proves once and for all that darkness and vulgarity and manipulation and and heavy handedness are inadequate substitutes for charm and wit and sincerity and and heart. the folks at universal should get down on their collective knees and thank god that this truly bilious $123 million stink bomb grossed $260 million domestically or they would not be here today. furthermore it made mike myers the cat in the hat possible.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
having been forced by my children to watch this at least 10 times for each of the last 2 christmases and i feel adequately qualified to pass judgment on this version of dr. seuss classic tale and and well. it not very good. first off and following a classic act like chuck jones animated tv special is going to be difficult for anyone and but this interpretation is so heavy handed and padded as to be positively numbing. i will concede that there are a handful of inspired gags and but overall the film comes off as a calculated cash grab and at the same time as it is supposedly decrying the commercialisation of christmas. jim carrey is typically over the top here and but that is completely at odds with the character of the grinch. as characterised by boris karloff and he was a slow burn while methodical and sly. there is no method to carrey madness and and that is only the most obvious error made. talented actors like jeffrey tambor and christine baranski are utterly wasted here. why and universal and why. i mean and i understand that tony hopkins will take just about any role offered (much like his countryman michael caine) and but this one needs to be filed under films that should never have been made. this does not bode well for the cat in the hat and an even thinner tome that universal is prepping for this christmas. i get the feeling that i will be making the same recommendation for that one as i am with this one represent skip it and and either read the book or watch the tv special. this is 2 hours you can never and ever get back.
having been forced by my children to watch this at least 10 times for each of the last 2 christmases and i feel adequately qualified to pass judgment on this version of dr. seuss classic tale and and well. it not very good. first off and following a classic act like chuck jones animated tv special is going to be difficult for anyone and but this interpretation is so heavy handed and padded as to be positively numbing. i will concede that there are a handful of inspired gags and but overall the film comes off as a calculated cash grab and at the same time as it is supposedly decrying the commercialisation of christmas. jim carrey is typically over the top here and but that is completely at odds with the character of the grinch. as characterised by boris karloff and he was a slow burn while methodical and sly. there is no method to carrey madness and and that is only the most obvious error made. talented actors like jeffrey tambor and christine baranski are utterly wasted here. why and universal and why. i mean and i understand that tony hopkins will take just about any role offered (much like his countryman michael caine) and but this one needs to be filed under films that should never have been made. this does not bode well for the cat in the hat and an even thinner tome that universal is prepping for this christmas. i get the feeling that i will be making the same recommendation for that one as i am with this one represent skip it and and either read the book or watch the tv special. this is 2 hours you can never and ever get back.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
ron howard directed this. the 1966 cartoon is charming and teaching a simple lesson to children using a simple plot. in this movie and howard gives us a whoville filled with greedy and manipulative and self centered whos. jim carrey is terrible and but i am sure it not his fault while i imagine the script called for the nastiest person imaginable and so carrey channeled tom green and the result is movie magic. much like danny devito penguin in batman returns and carrey grinch is so thoroughly unlikeable that any degree of comedy that might be mined from his character simply evaporates. where the 1966 cartoon featured a grinch that we could all identify with and carrey grinch is that angry and soulless old man that we have all seen at one time or another and sitting in a parked car muttering to himself or tripping toddlers at the supermarket with his cane. this grinch is thoroughly bereft of any degree of humanity and humor and or insight whatsoever and and his redemption at the end of the movie rings false. the whole movie rings false represent there is some stupid christmas lighting competition and a failed attempt at explaining why the grinch is such a jerk by digging into his childhood and and an indecipherable mystery as to why some of the whos have that weird lip extension and some of them do not. contrary to the 1966 cartoon and i would imagine children would find this movie tiresome and irritating and and filled with contradictory messages. did we really need to see slutty smurf and aka christine baranski as martha may whovier. in addition and ron howard filled the cast with his untalented relatives. throw in the requisite butt jokes and fart jokes and sex jokes and and other obligatory carreyesque low brow humor and and you have a movie that is about as far from the 1966 cartoon (or book that inspired it) as george w. bush is from rational and lucid thought. thumbs down on this big fat turkey.
ron howard directed this. the 1966 cartoon is charming and teaching a simple lesson to children using a simple plot. in this movie and howard gives us a whoville filled with greedy and manipulative and self centered whos. jim carrey is terrible and but i am sure it not his fault while i imagine the script called for the nastiest person imaginable and so carrey channeled tom green and the result is movie magic. much like danny devito penguin in batman returns and carrey grinch is so thoroughly unlikeable that any degree of comedy that might be mined from his character simply evaporates. where the 1966 cartoon featured a grinch that we could all identify with and carrey grinch is that angry and soulless old man that we have all seen at one time or another and sitting in a parked car muttering to himself or tripping toddlers at the supermarket with his cane. this grinch is thoroughly bereft of any degree of humanity and humor and or insight whatsoever and and his redemption at the end of the movie rings false. the whole movie rings false represent there is some stupid christmas lighting competition and a failed attempt at explaining why the grinch is such a jerk by digging into his childhood and and an indecipherable mystery as to why some of the whos have that weird lip extension and some of them do not. contrary to the 1966 cartoon and i would imagine children would find this movie tiresome and irritating and and filled with contradictory messages. did we really need to see slutty smurf and aka christine baranski as martha may whovier. in addition and ron howard filled the cast with his untalented relatives. throw in the requisite butt jokes and fart jokes and sex jokes and and other obligatory carreyesque low brow humor and and you have a movie that is about as far from the 1966 cartoon (or book that inspired it) as george w. bush is from rational and lucid thought. thumbs down on this big fat turkey.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
dr. seuss how the grinch stole christmas or (2000) (out of four)if you desire to see a holiday movie that will inspire your seasonal spirits and continue the traditional dr. seuss classic fable and do not see dr. seuss how the grinch stole christmas. if you are old enough to read this review and then you are probably too old to get any kind of enjoyment out of this motion picture. it contains lots of colors and creative production design and imaginative set and costume construction and joyous load noises and and the characters are made up to look like the actual inhabitants of the fictional village whoville. unfortunately that is where the movie positive elements end while the rest of the production is nothing but an excuse for jim carrey to cackle on screen while giving a devilish grin and all while prancing through the overly broad screenplay with nothing much to do. many people recognize the story of how the grinch stole christmas from whoville and so i will not waste my time in writing a detailed synopsis for you to read. however and i will say that the movie story is executed in three major acts while the development of the grinch and setting and the whoville festival and and the dr. seuss vision of the mean one robbing the who from their christmas. there are many familiar names within the credits here and but no familiar faces. like in battlefield earth and i just do not see why the producers would hire expensive actors just to have their identities shielded by unrecognizable makeup and costumes. regardless and there is snl molly shannon as betty lou and the wife of bill irwin and the later playing lou lou and the father of little cindy lou and played by taylor momsen. jeffrey tambor is the whoville mayor and anthony hopkins lends his bellowing voice for the film narrator and and christine baranski is the grinch lone lost lover. the filmmakers attempt to bring originality to the story by adding unnecessary subplots and focusing too much on the little cindy lou. the screenplay by jeffrey price and peter s. seaman just feels like it goes everywhere across the movie landscape while there is little if any focus by director ron howard and the screenplay is predictable and too extensive and and contrived. the only character given any distinctions here is the grinch himself and all of the other characters are puppets of the plot and shapeless and uninteresting. and the dialogue is overzealous and too corny to be anything but pathetic. example grinch represent oh and the who manity. the movie redeeming factors go out to the gifted production designer michael corenblith and the costume designer rita ryack and and the ample makeup department. how the grinch stole christmas is a very good looking production. the sets and the atmosphere created by the filmmakers are detailed and imaginative while it is like the audience is visiting a world as in a dream. the people of whoville are plastered with makeup and to the point in which we cannot tell the actor reciting the humorless lines. although dazzling and i really can not give credit to the performances and for they are over looked to due the expensive technical department taking their place. jim carrey is one actor who i can talk about. his performance is what nearly destroys the movie itself he is way too egotistic as the grinch and too exaggerated and comical to allow the story to be anywhere near recognizable as the work of seuss. surprisingly and although there are a few funny moments due to a few slyly clever sequences and no laughs come from jim carry zany silliness. it is almost like the movie was wrote specifically for carry to overplay his part. this factor only leads the movie to a wild but brainless comedy and which is only a pale shadow of the original christmas classic how the grinch stole christmas. after this movie and historians should check the coffin of the late author and dr. seuss may have rolled over in his grave.
dr. seuss how the grinch stole christmas or (2000) (out of four)if you desire to see a holiday movie that will inspire your seasonal spirits and continue the traditional dr. seuss classic fable and do not see dr. seuss how the grinch stole christmas. if you are old enough to read this review and then you are probably too old to get any kind of enjoyment out of this motion picture. it contains lots of colors and creative production design and imaginative set and costume construction and joyous load noises and and the characters are made up to look like the actual inhabitants of the fictional village whoville. unfortunately that is where the movie positive elements end while the rest of the production is nothing but an excuse for jim carrey to cackle on screen while giving a devilish grin and all while prancing through the overly broad screenplay with nothing much to do. many people recognize the story of how the grinch stole christmas from whoville and so i will not waste my time in writing a detailed synopsis for you to read. however and i will say that the movie story is executed in three major acts while the development of the grinch and setting and the whoville festival and and the dr. seuss vision of the mean one robbing the who from their christmas. there are many familiar names within the credits here and but no familiar faces. like in battlefield earth and i just do not see why the producers would hire expensive actors just to have their identities shielded by unrecognizable makeup and costumes. regardless and there is snl molly shannon as betty lou and the wife of bill irwin and the later playing lou lou and the father of little cindy lou and played by taylor momsen. jeffrey tambor is the whoville mayor and anthony hopkins lends his bellowing voice for the film narrator and and christine baranski is the grinch lone lost lover. the filmmakers attempt to bring originality to the story by adding unnecessary subplots and focusing too much on the little cindy lou. the screenplay by jeffrey price and peter s. seaman just feels like it goes everywhere across the movie landscape while there is little if any focus by director ron howard and the screenplay is predictable and too extensive and and contrived. the only character given any distinctions here is the grinch himself and all of the other characters are puppets of the plot and shapeless and uninteresting. and the dialogue is overzealous and too corny to be anything but pathetic. example grinch represent oh and the who manity. the movie redeeming factors go out to the gifted production designer michael corenblith and the costume designer rita ryack and and the ample makeup department. how the grinch stole christmas is a very good looking production. the sets and the atmosphere created by the filmmakers are detailed and imaginative while it is like the audience is visiting a world as in a dream. the people of whoville are plastered with makeup and to the point in which we cannot tell the actor reciting the humorless lines. although dazzling and i really can not give credit to the performances and for they are over looked to due the expensive technical department taking their place. jim carrey is one actor who i can talk about. his performance is what nearly destroys the movie itself he is way too egotistic as the grinch and too exaggerated and comical to allow the story to be anywhere near recognizable as the work of seuss. surprisingly and although there are a few funny moments due to a few slyly clever sequences and no laughs come from jim carry zany silliness. it is almost like the movie was wrote specifically for carry to overplay his part. this factor only leads the movie to a wild but brainless comedy and which is only a pale shadow of the original christmas classic how the grinch stole christmas. after this movie and historians should check the coffin of the late author and dr. seuss may have rolled over in his grave.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
ironic that dr. seuss fable emphasizing the non commercialization of christmas should be one of the most hyped and marketed and and successful blockbusters of the holiday season. the general gist of ron howard adaptation is that the grinch bane against christmas stems from an early childhood incident and that the whos themselves are caught up in the materialism of the season save for cindy lou who (played very well by taylor momsen). this movie makes an ardent and ambitious attempt to capture the wackiness and sentiment of seuss story and but the end result is a movie that lurches and never quite packs the emotional punch of chuck jones animated version. jim carrey is noteworthy in his performance as the devilish grinch and but whether it the dialogue and the pacing and or extraneous storylines heaped upon the initial plot and the transformation from bitter miser to gleeful benefactor just does not ignite convincingly. there are some wonderful visuals and the make up work is amazing and yet beyond the technical triumphs there an element or two here that missing. succinctness. soul. or maybe jones did the initial adaptation all too well in his 25 minute cartoon that howard falls short of in a movie that feels three hours long. howard and carey and and crew are all very capable and talented and but what would seem a winning combination is just weak and plodding in its final product. if you must see the feature length version and rent it on video with jones animated version and you can see how bigger and glitzier is not always better. i give this film three cans of who hash out of five.
ironic that dr. seuss fable emphasizing the non commercialization of christmas should be one of the most hyped and marketed and and successful blockbusters of the holiday season. the general gist of ron howard adaptation is that the grinch bane against christmas stems from an early childhood incident and that the whos themselves are caught up in the materialism of the season save for cindy lou who (played very well by taylor momsen). this movie makes an ardent and ambitious attempt to capture the wackiness and sentiment of seuss story and but the end result is a movie that lurches and never quite packs the emotional punch of chuck jones animated version. jim carrey is noteworthy in his performance as the devilish grinch and but whether it the dialogue and the pacing and or extraneous storylines heaped upon the initial plot and the transformation from bitter miser to gleeful benefactor just does not ignite convincingly. there are some wonderful visuals and the make up work is amazing and yet beyond the technical triumphs there an element or two here that missing. succinctness. soul. or maybe jones did the initial adaptation all too well in his 25 minute cartoon that howard falls short of in a movie that feels three hours long. howard and carey and and crew are all very capable and talented and but what would seem a winning combination is just weak and plodding in its final product. if you must see the feature length version and rent it on video with jones animated version and you can see how bigger and glitzier is not always better. i give this film three cans of who hash out of five.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
about the baby represent why wasn not big brother assuming he would be hungry for a bottle or some nourishment or a diaper change. he should have been screaming non stop after that many hours without care. definitely stupid to take the baby from a safe place when he do not need to. and why was the road miraculously clear whenever anyone wanted to drive somewhere. didn not any uprooted trees fall on the roads and block them. i can not imagine the cops at the roadblock not immediately following after any young person who would crash it and especially when they said it was dangerous to go there. that being said and it was nice to have a movie children could safely watch and for a change.
about the baby represent why wasn not big brother assuming he would be hungry for a bottle or some nourishment or a diaper change. he should have been screaming non stop after that many hours without care. definitely stupid to take the baby from a safe place when he do not need to. and why was the road miraculously clear whenever anyone wanted to drive somewhere. didn not any uprooted trees fall on the roads and block them. i can not imagine the cops at the roadblock not immediately following after any young person who would crash it and especially when they said it was dangerous to go there. that being said and it was nice to have a movie children could safely watch and for a change.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
for some strange reason the film world is driven by fashion . someone makes a film about a killer shark then all of a sudden the film world oceans are awash with giant squids and killer octopusses and sea monsters of every ilk . a man is stalked by an erstwhile lover from hell then every film character is stalked by a cop from hell or a flatmate from hell or a babysitter from hell . then when a major hollywood company produces a big budget fx laden blockbuster about tornados then other film producers jump upon the bandwagon and the fact that they don`t have the budget to pull it off doesn`t stop them. night of the twisters is a case in point . what struck me about this made for television film is the fact that it tries to hide its lack of budget by cutting to the ad breaks . everytime a tornado appears the camara locks onto the horrified expression of the actors as they scream things like oh my gawd it heading this way and run for your lives then the screen fades to black saving the producers the need to up the special effects budget . unfortunately night of the twisters budget should have been upped to include better actors . the cast are by no means bad but they are unimpressive and lack the skill to carry a film which is character driven . where josh hartnett and elijah wood when you need them . and the last word on this being a twister clone . yes nott was released a couple of months before twister but twister had been hyped for several months as being the summer blockbuster of 1996 and nott has a rushed feeling to it which leads me to believe that it was made and released to tie in with the hype surrounding twister.
for some strange reason the film world is driven by fashion . someone makes a film about a killer shark then all of a sudden the film world oceans are awash with giant squids and killer octopusses and sea monsters of every ilk . a man is stalked by an erstwhile lover from hell then every film character is stalked by a cop from hell or a flatmate from hell or a babysitter from hell . then when a major hollywood company produces a big budget fx laden blockbuster about tornados then other film producers jump upon the bandwagon and the fact that they don`t have the budget to pull it off doesn`t stop them. night of the twisters is a case in point . what struck me about this made for television film is the fact that it tries to hide its lack of budget by cutting to the ad breaks . everytime a tornado appears the camara locks onto the horrified expression of the actors as they scream things like oh my gawd it heading this way and run for your lives then the screen fades to black saving the producers the need to up the special effects budget . unfortunately night of the twisters budget should have been upped to include better actors . the cast are by no means bad but they are unimpressive and lack the skill to carry a film which is character driven . where josh hartnett and elijah wood when you need them . and the last word on this being a twister clone . yes nott was released a couple of months before twister but twister had been hyped for several months as being the summer blockbuster of 1996 and nott has a rushed feeling to it which leads me to believe that it was made and released to tie in with the hype surrounding twister.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i am not saying that night of the twisters was horrible and but it was far from great. mediocre at absolute best. i seems though that every time one type of movie is released and a second must be around the same time. (think about armageddon and deep impact and volcano and dante peak) night of the twisters is really just twister except worse and with mundane special effects. i have nothing against the actors who starred in it and even if they weren not great and it was the movie itself and the directing and the special effects and the whole storyline was just too strange to interpret. a series of tornadoes strike a town and basically the movie is about people trying to find family and friends and deal with the damage. i really do not know why it seems as though duplicates of disaster movies are released almost in sync with each other and but this one would have been better with bill paxton and helen hunt.
i am not saying that night of the twisters was horrible and but it was far from great. mediocre at absolute best. i seems though that every time one type of movie is released and a second must be around the same time. (think about armageddon and deep impact and volcano and dante peak) night of the twisters is really just twister except worse and with mundane special effects. i have nothing against the actors who starred in it and even if they weren not great and it was the movie itself and the directing and the special effects and the whole storyline was just too strange to interpret. a series of tornadoes strike a town and basically the movie is about people trying to find family and friends and deal with the damage. i really do not know why it seems as though duplicates of disaster movies are released almost in sync with each other and but this one would have been better with bill paxton and helen hunt.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
carlos mencia continually and violently and hatefully screaming bch. at women is like screaming nger. at black people and except it worse. remember and the b word and unlike the n word and is the only pejorative term that is still associated on a daily basis with violence. bch. is the last thing women hear before they are raped and beaten and or murdered. this guy is perpetuating violence by hatefully using the language of violence. sounds like he may be a gay guy trying to cover by woman bashing and so that he will sound like a hetero. and how about all the nazi white guys in his audience giving the fascist salutes while their stupid little bimbo white women whimper tee hee hee at their side and clearly terrified to protest this tidal wave of woman hating. tee hee hee. bet mencia doesn not believe or support free speech for them. come on and carlos do you want women to have the free speech to bch slap you as loudly and violently and big mouthed as you do and or do you think free speech is only for men to crap on women.
carlos mencia continually and violently and hatefully screaming bch. at women is like screaming nger. at black people and except it worse. remember and the b word and unlike the n word and is the only pejorative term that is still associated on a daily basis with violence. bch. is the last thing women hear before they are raped and beaten and or murdered. this guy is perpetuating violence by hatefully using the language of violence. sounds like he may be a gay guy trying to cover by woman bashing and so that he will sound like a hetero. and how about all the nazi white guys in his audience giving the fascist salutes while their stupid little bimbo white women whimper tee hee hee at their side and clearly terrified to protest this tidal wave of woman hating. tee hee hee. bet mencia doesn not believe or support free speech for them. come on and carlos do you want women to have the free speech to bch slap you as loudly and violently and big mouthed as you do and or do you think free speech is only for men to crap on women.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
it hard to believe people actually like this dreck. i do think kids can enjoy it and but to me it the kind of kid film parents can not bear to sit through. predictable plot and boring belushi and and possibly the worst kid actor of all time. i will give the director some of the responsibility for the kid and but she was truly painful to watch. i feel embarrassed for her now and having people know it was her. when she sang the star spangled banner i had to turn the sound off then i came here and discovered they did that because she won star search. i have always felt jim belushi should be ashamed to trade on the name of his wonderful and sadly missed brother and and this crap shows why. zero stars.
it hard to believe people actually like this dreck. i do think kids can enjoy it and but to me it the kind of kid film parents can not bear to sit through. predictable plot and boring belushi and and possibly the worst kid actor of all time. i will give the director some of the responsibility for the kid and but she was truly painful to watch. i feel embarrassed for her now and having people know it was her. when she sang the star spangled banner i had to turn the sound off then i came here and discovered they did that because she won star search. i have always felt jim belushi should be ashamed to trade on the name of his wonderful and sadly missed brother and and this crap shows why. zero stars.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
if you rent a movie titled exterminators of the year 3000 and the odds are good you know what youre getting yourself into. i myself was sold by the promising descriptions of nuke mutants and motor psychos and and of course the exterminators themselves which and according to the back of the movie store case and are all cavorting around a post apocalyptic barren wasteland wreaking all sorts of mayhem. let the wacky hijinks and low budget buffoonery ensue at least and such were my hopes for this film. now i like the occasional terrible movie and and if youre reading the comments on exterminators of the year 3000 and you probably do too. that being said and i rated this film a solid 1(awful) not because i completely hated the film but because it is one of the most legitimately dreadful efforts at movie making i have ever seen. the dialogue and the acting and the cinematography and the sound editing and the editing in general and the plot and etc. and etc. and etc all are worthy of what must surely be low spectator expectations given that marvelous title. so what is really good about this bad movie. it does have several of what my circle affectionately terms quality kills. a quality kill and for those few of you unfamiliar with the phrase and isn not a hard and fast term and but in general refers to someone killed in a particularly gruesome and creative and or ridiculous fashion. exterminators of the year 3000 also has a fair supply of dialogue so bad it becomes funny and provided in great part by crazy bull and the aptly titled leader of the hapless motor psycho gang who incidentally also provide most of the quality kills (if youre hoping for big things from the nuke mutants and think again and they play essentially zero part in the movie. shucks. ). crazy bull and however and is all you could ask for in a b movie motor psycho. shakespearean paraphrase and oddly pg style insults are all he knows how to say. and that terrific. despite its quality kills and bad dialogue and however and if youre looking for a truly entertaining bad movie and exterminators of the year 3000 does disappoint somewhat in that with its draw limited to things like silly and outdated special effects and quality killing and and bad dialogue and there is simply not enough to justify a full feature length and owing principally to the forty minutes or so in which the audience is forced to follow the characters in protracted and boring car chases and long desert hiking sequences. all in all and a pretty good awful movie and but hey and it no death race 2000.
if you rent a movie titled exterminators of the year 3000 and the odds are good you know what youre getting yourself into. i myself was sold by the promising descriptions of nuke mutants and motor psychos and and of course the exterminators themselves which and according to the back of the movie store case and are all cavorting around a post apocalyptic barren wasteland wreaking all sorts of mayhem. let the wacky hijinks and low budget buffoonery ensue at least and such were my hopes for this film. now i like the occasional terrible movie and and if youre reading the comments on exterminators of the year 3000 and you probably do too. that being said and i rated this film a solid 1(awful) not because i completely hated the film but because it is one of the most legitimately dreadful efforts at movie making i have ever seen. the dialogue and the acting and the cinematography and the sound editing and the editing in general and the plot and etc. and etc. and etc all are worthy of what must surely be low spectator expectations given that marvelous title. so what is really good about this bad movie. it does have several of what my circle affectionately terms quality kills. a quality kill and for those few of you unfamiliar with the phrase and isn not a hard and fast term and but in general refers to someone killed in a particularly gruesome and creative and or ridiculous fashion. exterminators of the year 3000 also has a fair supply of dialogue so bad it becomes funny and provided in great part by crazy bull and the aptly titled leader of the hapless motor psycho gang who incidentally also provide most of the quality kills (if youre hoping for big things from the nuke mutants and think again and they play essentially zero part in the movie. shucks. ). crazy bull and however and is all you could ask for in a b movie motor psycho. shakespearean paraphrase and oddly pg style insults are all he knows how to say. and that terrific. despite its quality kills and bad dialogue and however and if youre looking for a truly entertaining bad movie and exterminators of the year 3000 does disappoint somewhat in that with its draw limited to things like silly and outdated special effects and quality killing and and bad dialogue and there is simply not enough to justify a full feature length and owing principally to the forty minutes or so in which the audience is forced to follow the characters in protracted and boring car chases and long desert hiking sequences. all in all and a pretty good awful movie and but hey and it no death race 2000.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
bottom of the barrel and unimaginative and and practically unwatchable remake of the road warrior. this film follows the exact plot as the filipino film stryker and is worse by far. bad acting and dialog and effects and dubbing and pacing and action sequences. the list goes on and on. italy made literally dozens of road warrior rip offs in the early 80 and some good and some bad. this is the worst by far and no contest. not only was the mood of the film completely bleak and miserable and the experience of sitting through this one is a bore and a half. there was 1 (one) good chase sequence towards the beginning of the movie and and a cool shot of a man holding a hand grenade exploding. but everything else about this movie seriously reeks. for actual post nuke fun and go track down a copy of endgame and after the fall of new york and or escape from the bronx instead. theyre much more enjoyable than this rubbish.
bottom of the barrel and unimaginative and and practically unwatchable remake of the road warrior. this film follows the exact plot as the filipino film stryker and is worse by far. bad acting and dialog and effects and dubbing and pacing and action sequences. the list goes on and on. italy made literally dozens of road warrior rip offs in the early 80 and some good and some bad. this is the worst by far and no contest. not only was the mood of the film completely bleak and miserable and the experience of sitting through this one is a bore and a half. there was 1 (one) good chase sequence towards the beginning of the movie and and a cool shot of a man holding a hand grenade exploding. but everything else about this movie seriously reeks. for actual post nuke fun and go track down a copy of endgame and after the fall of new york and or escape from the bronx instead. theyre much more enjoyable than this rubbish.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie surely has one of the strangest themes in history right up there with ed wood impassioned defense of cross dressing in glen or glenda. the subject represent playing bridge. the park avenue set plays it while the bohemians play it. the russians who speak very questionable russian and have most unconvincing accents when they speak english play it at the restaurant where they work. if one isn not interested in bridge and one even despite the great cast isn not likely to be much interested in this bizarre movie. loretta young and paul lukas are fine. (well frank mchugh is an unlikely ghost writer as lukas is an unlikely russian. ) but they are all sunk by the fetishistic script.
this movie surely has one of the strangest themes in history right up there with ed wood impassioned defense of cross dressing in glen or glenda. the subject represent playing bridge. the park avenue set plays it while the bohemians play it. the russians who speak very questionable russian and have most unconvincing accents when they speak english play it at the restaurant where they work. if one isn not interested in bridge and one even despite the great cast isn not likely to be much interested in this bizarre movie. loretta young and paul lukas are fine. (well frank mchugh is an unlikely ghost writer as lukas is an unlikely russian. ) but they are all sunk by the fetishistic script.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this film breeches the fine line between satire and silliness. while a bridge system that has no rules may promote marital harmony and it certainly can not promote winning bridge and so the satire do not work for me. but there were some items i found enjoyable anyway and especially with the big bridge match between paul lukas and ferdinand gottschalk near the end of the film. it is treated like very much like a championship boxing match. not only is the arena for the contest roped off in a square area like a boxing ring and there is a referee hovering between the contestants and and radio broadcaster roscoe karns delivers nonstop chatter on the happenings. at one point he even enumerates one. two. three. four. as though a bid of four diamonds was a knockdown event. and people were glued to their radios for it all and a common event for championship boxing matches. that spoof worked very well indeed. unfortunately and few of the actors provide the comedy needed to sustain the intended satire. paul lukas doesn not have much of a flair for comedy and is miscast while lovely loretta young and the usual comic frank mchugh weren not given good enough lines while glenda farrell has a nice comic turn as a forgetful blonde at the start of the film and but she practically disappears thereafter. what a waste of talent.
this film breeches the fine line between satire and silliness. while a bridge system that has no rules may promote marital harmony and it certainly can not promote winning bridge and so the satire do not work for me. but there were some items i found enjoyable anyway and especially with the big bridge match between paul lukas and ferdinand gottschalk near the end of the film. it is treated like very much like a championship boxing match. not only is the arena for the contest roped off in a square area like a boxing ring and there is a referee hovering between the contestants and and radio broadcaster roscoe karns delivers nonstop chatter on the happenings. at one point he even enumerates one. two. three. four. as though a bid of four diamonds was a knockdown event. and people were glued to their radios for it all and a common event for championship boxing matches. that spoof worked very well indeed. unfortunately and few of the actors provide the comedy needed to sustain the intended satire. paul lukas doesn not have much of a flair for comedy and is miscast while lovely loretta young and the usual comic frank mchugh weren not given good enough lines while glenda farrell has a nice comic turn as a forgetful blonde at the start of the film and but she practically disappears thereafter. what a waste of talent.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i usually enjoy loretta young early movies represent her acting back then was light and breezy and and she sure knew how to wear clothes. but this one is just a loser from the word go except for a funny supporting turn by glenda farrell. young is a hatcheck girl who talks her writer husband (paul lukas) into becoming a championship bridge player. it not the most cinematic of games and and the long and talky middle part in which their marriage falls apart just about kills the film. there one interesting bit though. as lukas and ferdinand gottschalk start their climactic game and a series of quick shots show airplanes and trains and football games and even a diver in mid air and freezing in anticipation of the event. it the earliest use of a freeze frame i have seen in an american film. wish the rest of it were that inventive and funny.
i usually enjoy loretta young early movies represent her acting back then was light and breezy and and she sure knew how to wear clothes. but this one is just a loser from the word go except for a funny supporting turn by glenda farrell. young is a hatcheck girl who talks her writer husband (paul lukas) into becoming a championship bridge player. it not the most cinematic of games and and the long and talky middle part in which their marriage falls apart just about kills the film. there one interesting bit though. as lukas and ferdinand gottschalk start their climactic game and a series of quick shots show airplanes and trains and football games and even a diver in mid air and freezing in anticipation of the event. it the earliest use of a freeze frame i have seen in an american film. wish the rest of it were that inventive and funny.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
having read another review and i thought this movie would actually be good. i do enjoy the b movies and but this couldn not even be classed as such. the photography is probably the only half way decent thing in the movie. but the editing left much to be desired. it was very choppy and staccato. whoever chose the music and sound did a terrible job. the music was awful and specially anything atmospheric or scene setting. if the acting had been better and they could have pulled the movie off. unfortunately and i have seen better acting in porn flicks. if you want to see a b vampire movie and check out blood ties. you will be much more entertained.
having read another review and i thought this movie would actually be good. i do enjoy the b movies and but this couldn not even be classed as such. the photography is probably the only half way decent thing in the movie. but the editing left much to be desired. it was very choppy and staccato. whoever chose the music and sound did a terrible job. the music was awful and specially anything atmospheric or scene setting. if the acting had been better and they could have pulled the movie off. unfortunately and i have seen better acting in porn flicks. if you want to see a b vampire movie and check out blood ties. you will be much more entertained.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
to die for (1989) was just another d. t. v. feature that made an appearance on cable ad nasuem during the early nineties. the only thing notable about this feature was the last movie duane jones appeared in. other than that there no reason to watch this vampire flick unless you like pseudo chick flicks masquerading as a horror film. a tired vampire longs for love and searches the back streets of l. a. looking for it. will he succeed or will vlad just strike out again like he has for the last century. this movie must have been big because a couple of sequels soon followed. theyre so bad they make this one look like a classic. i know this is a movie about vampires but the film makers could have used to lighting. not recommended by me because i do not like it. nuff said.
to die for (1989) was just another d. t. v. feature that made an appearance on cable ad nasuem during the early nineties. the only thing notable about this feature was the last movie duane jones appeared in. other than that there no reason to watch this vampire flick unless you like pseudo chick flicks masquerading as a horror film. a tired vampire longs for love and searches the back streets of l. a. looking for it. will he succeed or will vlad just strike out again like he has for the last century. this movie must have been big because a couple of sequels soon followed. theyre so bad they make this one look like a classic. i know this is a movie about vampires but the film makers could have used to lighting. not recommended by me because i do not like it. nuff said.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
contains spoilers. the british director j. lee thompson made some excellent films and notably ice cold in alex and cape fear and but country dance is one of his more curious offerings. the story is set among the upper classes of rural scotland and and details the strange triangular relationship between sir charles ferguson and an eccentric aristocratic landowner and his sister hilary and and hilary estranged husband douglas and who is hoping for a reconciliation with her. we learn that during his career as an army officer and charles was regarded as having low moral fibre. this appears to have been an accurate diagnosis of his condition while throughout the film he displays an attitude of gloomy disillusionment with the world and and his main sources of emotional support seem to be hilary and his whisky bottle. the film ends with his committal to an upper class lunatic asylum. peter otoole was and when he was at his best as in lawrence of arabia and one of britain leading actors and but the quality of his work was very uneven and and country dance is not one of his better films. he overacts frantically and making charles into a caricature of the useless inbred aristocrat and as though he were auditioning for a part in the monty python upper class twit of the year sketch. susannah york as hilary and michael craig as douglas are rather better and but there is no really outstanding acting performance in the film. there is also little in the way of coherent plot and beyond the tale of charles inexorable downward slide. the main problem with the film and however and is neither the acting nor the plot and but rather that of the theme that dare not speak its name. there are half hearted hints of an incestuous relationship between charles and hilary and or at least of an incestuous attraction towards her on his part and and that his dislike of douglas is motivated by sexual jealousy. unfortunately and even in the swinging sixties and early seventies (the date of the film is variously given as either 1969 or 1970) there was a limit to what the british board of film censors was willing to allow and and a film with an explicitly incestuous theme was definitely off limits. (the american title for the film was brotherly love and but this was not used in britain while was it too suggestive for the liking of the bbfc. ) these hints are therefore never developed and we never get to see what motivates charles or what has caused his moral collapse and resulting in a hollow film with a hole at its centre. negative .
contains spoilers. the british director j. lee thompson made some excellent films and notably ice cold in alex and cape fear and but country dance is one of his more curious offerings. the story is set among the upper classes of rural scotland and and details the strange triangular relationship between sir charles ferguson and an eccentric aristocratic landowner and his sister hilary and and hilary estranged husband douglas and who is hoping for a reconciliation with her. we learn that during his career as an army officer and charles was regarded as having low moral fibre. this appears to have been an accurate diagnosis of his condition while throughout the film he displays an attitude of gloomy disillusionment with the world and and his main sources of emotional support seem to be hilary and his whisky bottle. the film ends with his committal to an upper class lunatic asylum. peter otoole was and when he was at his best as in lawrence of arabia and one of britain leading actors and but the quality of his work was very uneven and and country dance is not one of his better films. he overacts frantically and making charles into a caricature of the useless inbred aristocrat and as though he were auditioning for a part in the monty python upper class twit of the year sketch. susannah york as hilary and michael craig as douglas are rather better and but there is no really outstanding acting performance in the film. there is also little in the way of coherent plot and beyond the tale of charles inexorable downward slide. the main problem with the film and however and is neither the acting nor the plot and but rather that of the theme that dare not speak its name. there are half hearted hints of an incestuous relationship between charles and hilary and or at least of an incestuous attraction towards her on his part and and that his dislike of douglas is motivated by sexual jealousy. unfortunately and even in the swinging sixties and early seventies (the date of the film is variously given as either 1969 or 1970) there was a limit to what the british board of film censors was willing to allow and and a film with an explicitly incestuous theme was definitely off limits. (the american title for the film was brotherly love and but this was not used in britain while was it too suggestive for the liking of the bbfc. ) these hints are therefore never developed and we never get to see what motivates charles or what has caused his moral collapse and resulting in a hollow film with a hole at its centre. negative .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie was a rather odd viewing experience. the movie is obviously based on a play. now i am sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn not feel terribly interesting enough to watch. the movie is way too tagey and they do not even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. instead what is presented now is an almost literally re filming of a stage play and with over the top characters and staged dialog. because of all this the storyline really doesn not work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore and obsolete viewing experience. it takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy youre watching. at first you think its a drama youre watching and with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you will notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy and that leans really more toward the comedy genre and rather than the drama genre. the characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over the top one that at times really become unwatchable. sure and the actors are great while peter otoole and susannah york and amongst others but they do not really uplift the movie to a level of watchable enough. the story feels totally disorientated. basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother or sister characters played by peter otoole and susannah york. but what exactly is the story even about. the movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. like i said before while i am sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn not fitting and simply doesn not work out. the editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences. more was to expect from director j. lee thompson and who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed and stage play translated to screen and project. really not worth your time. negative .
this movie was a rather odd viewing experience. the movie is obviously based on a play. now i am sure that everything in this movie works out just fine in a play but for in a movie it just doesn not feel terribly interesting enough to watch. the movie is way too tagey and they do not even bothered to change some of the dialog to make it more fitting for a movie. instead what is presented now is an almost literally re filming of a stage play and with over the top characters and staged dialog. because of all this the storyline really doesn not work out and the movie becomes an almost complete bore and obsolete viewing experience. it takes a while before you figure out that this is a comedy youre watching. at first you think its a drama youre watching and with quirky characters in it but as the movie progresses you will notice that the movie is more a tragicomedy and that leans really more toward the comedy genre and rather than the drama genre. the characters and dialog are really the things that make this movie a quirky and over the top one that at times really become unwatchable. sure and the actors are great while peter otoole and susannah york and amongst others but they do not really uplift the movie to a level of watchable enough. the story feels totally disorientated. basicaly the story is about nothing and just mainly focuses on the brother or sister characters played by peter otoole and susannah york. but what exactly is the story even about. the movie feels like a pointless and obsolete one that has very little to offer. like i said before while i am sure the story is good and interesting to watch on stage but as a movie it really isn not fitting and simply doesn not work out. the editing is simply dreadful and times and it becomes even laughable bad in certain sequences. more was to expect from director j. lee thompson and who has obviously done far better movies than this rather failed and stage play translated to screen and project. really not worth your time. negative .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i thought maybe a film which boasted a cast including peter otoole and susannah york and michael craig and harry andrews might be worth watching. alas and i was wrong. utter pretentious nonsense from beginning to end with both otoole and york overacting wildly. i watched it twice and still have no idea what is was about. i have a feeling otoole plays the laird of a scottish castle who has a drink problem and likes reliving childhood games with his sister (york). he is also barking mad. but apart from that and your guess is as good as mine. the film has no redeeming feature whatsoever. i can only assume the cast and director were blackmailed into making this dreary and unimaginative and stagy piffle. clearly a waste of the time of a talented cast and director. risible.
i thought maybe a film which boasted a cast including peter otoole and susannah york and michael craig and harry andrews might be worth watching. alas and i was wrong. utter pretentious nonsense from beginning to end with both otoole and york overacting wildly. i watched it twice and still have no idea what is was about. i have a feeling otoole plays the laird of a scottish castle who has a drink problem and likes reliving childhood games with his sister (york). he is also barking mad. but apart from that and your guess is as good as mine. the film has no redeeming feature whatsoever. i can only assume the cast and director were blackmailed into making this dreary and unimaginative and stagy piffle. clearly a waste of the time of a talented cast and director. risible.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
shame really very rarely do i watch a film and am left feeling disappointed at the end. i have seen quite a few of ira levin adaptations rosemary baby and the stepford wives and liked both them and but this just do not appeal to me. when i read the plot outline an award winning playwright (michael caine) decides to murder one of his former pupils (christopher reeve) and steel his script for his own success i was excited. i like thrillers and michael caine a good actor and sidney lumet a good director and ira levin work is generally good. i would not spoil it for anyone who hasn not seen it yet and but all i would say is there are loads of twists and turns. so many its kind of hard to explain the film plot line in detail and without giving it away. i enjoyed the first . 45 minutes and before the twists and turns began to occur and at that point my interest and enjoyment began to fade out. though i have to give lumet credit for the very amusing ending which did make me laugh out loud. the main cast michael caine and christopher reeve and dyan cannon and irene worth were all brilliant in their roles. though worth obvious fake russian accent got on my nerves slightly (nothing personal irene and i think any actor fake accent would irritate me). not sure if cannon character was meant to be annoyingly funny but dyan managed to annoy and amuse at the same time. anyone reading this i do not want you to be put off watching this because of my views give it a chance and you may like it and you may not. it all about opinion.
shame really very rarely do i watch a film and am left feeling disappointed at the end. i have seen quite a few of ira levin adaptations rosemary baby and the stepford wives and liked both them and but this just do not appeal to me. when i read the plot outline an award winning playwright (michael caine) decides to murder one of his former pupils (christopher reeve) and steel his script for his own success i was excited. i like thrillers and michael caine a good actor and sidney lumet a good director and ira levin work is generally good. i would not spoil it for anyone who hasn not seen it yet and but all i would say is there are loads of twists and turns. so many its kind of hard to explain the film plot line in detail and without giving it away. i enjoyed the first . 45 minutes and before the twists and turns began to occur and at that point my interest and enjoyment began to fade out. though i have to give lumet credit for the very amusing ending which did make me laugh out loud. the main cast michael caine and christopher reeve and dyan cannon and irene worth were all brilliant in their roles. though worth obvious fake russian accent got on my nerves slightly (nothing personal irene and i think any actor fake accent would irritate me). not sure if cannon character was meant to be annoyingly funny but dyan managed to annoy and amuse at the same time. anyone reading this i do not want you to be put off watching this because of my views give it a chance and you may like it and you may not. it all about opinion.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i do not believe all the praise for this movie. the play and movie were a ripoff of sleuth. michael caine wishes he were olivier and and reeves wishes he were caine. caine even had the nerve to do a remake of sleuth with jude law playing his original part. jude law. you mean the one that did the remake of alfie. this movie was made during a period of caine career when it was obvious he needed to pay off gambling debts. he would do anything for money. he would star in such award winning movies such as this and and beyond the poseidon adventure. what seems to be driving the praise for this movie is reeves death. he deserves better than to be remembered for this lousy movie. and so does caine. this movie can be found in the $5. 97 bin at walmart. along with gems like the island and and blame it on rio.
i do not believe all the praise for this movie. the play and movie were a ripoff of sleuth. michael caine wishes he were olivier and and reeves wishes he were caine. caine even had the nerve to do a remake of sleuth with jude law playing his original part. jude law. you mean the one that did the remake of alfie. this movie was made during a period of caine career when it was obvious he needed to pay off gambling debts. he would do anything for money. he would star in such award winning movies such as this and and beyond the poseidon adventure. what seems to be driving the praise for this movie is reeves death. he deserves better than to be remembered for this lousy movie. and so does caine. this movie can be found in the $5. 97 bin at walmart. along with gems like the island and and blame it on rio.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
ira levin broadway smash comes to the screen with hardly any meat on its bones and a mystery plot with just a few tricks and twists but nobody worth caring about. frustrated writer michael caine plots to steal the work of a brilliant young man and pass it off as his own while his devious plan may include murdering the talented kid and which has caine flighty spouse up in arms. the first act in which everyone is introduced is excruciatingly dead and with caine doing everything an actor can to keep the pacing up. dyan cannon is miscast as his wife (she too smart and clever herself to be passed off as a ditz) and christopher reeve (in the middle portion of the film) seems extremely uncomfortable in the role of the better writer. these three characters and and irene worth bothersome neighbor and are so undefined that what happens after the set up barely even registers until well after the second act has begun. sidney lumet direction is stagy and fuzzy and the set design unconvincing and poorly lit and and the finale is a total disaster. the actors struggle to give the script some substance and but with such thin material all we see are their laborious efforts. half from .
ira levin broadway smash comes to the screen with hardly any meat on its bones and a mystery plot with just a few tricks and twists but nobody worth caring about. frustrated writer michael caine plots to steal the work of a brilliant young man and pass it off as his own while his devious plan may include murdering the talented kid and which has caine flighty spouse up in arms. the first act in which everyone is introduced is excruciatingly dead and with caine doing everything an actor can to keep the pacing up. dyan cannon is miscast as his wife (she too smart and clever herself to be passed off as a ditz) and christopher reeve (in the middle portion of the film) seems extremely uncomfortable in the role of the better writer. these three characters and and irene worth bothersome neighbor and are so undefined that what happens after the set up barely even registers until well after the second act has begun. sidney lumet direction is stagy and fuzzy and the set design unconvincing and poorly lit and and the finale is a total disaster. the actors struggle to give the script some substance and but with such thin material all we see are their laborious efforts. half from .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
gods. where to start. i was only able to stomach about the first 10 minutes before i turned it off in disgust. aside from the actor playing robin hood himself and the rest were just terrible. and and i can only stretch my suspension of disbelief only so far. from the very opening of the first episode and i lost count of how many errors and plot holes and and horrible costumes there were. it began with some poor peasant trying to hunt for a deer to feed his family. all well and good. however and the poor blighter must have been mostly deaf and because a handful of soldiers and in full armour and on horseback and were able to sneak up on him to within about 10 feet. then and as he running away and he goes from having them 10 feet behind him and to a shot where you cannot even see them at all and immediately followed by them about 20 feet behind him again. then and he runs into some bushes and and is immediately manhandled by two of the soldiers. who just mere seconds before and were galloping on horseback and dozens of feet behind him. the armour on the soldiers is so painfully obviously cloth which they tried to make look like maille and and miserably failed. not to mention and the lead soldier armour being about 5 sizes too big for the poor fellow. seriously and he looks like he is a small child wearing his father over sized armour. finally and robin manages to fire about 5 and perfectly aimed shots all around one soldier hand and in the span of about 2 seconds and from what appears to be a recurve bow. no human alive could make those kinds of shots and in that short amount of time and with a scoped rifle and much less a bow. after that and they escape the soldiers and stop to help an amazingly well dressed and clean peasant with digging a ditch. something that all noblemen were willing to do all the time and right. how this sorry excuse for a series ever got a second season is beyond me. the production costs (at least for what i saw) must have soared in the dozens of dollars (or euros). seriously i think a highschool drama class could have put on a better rendition. this was so bad and even that terrible kevin costner version of robin hood was better. i highly suggest you skip this monstrosity and and go rent or buy the mid 80 robin of sherwood series. much better written and acted and costumed and and produced. for shame and bbc. for shame.
gods. where to start. i was only able to stomach about the first 10 minutes before i turned it off in disgust. aside from the actor playing robin hood himself and the rest were just terrible. and and i can only stretch my suspension of disbelief only so far. from the very opening of the first episode and i lost count of how many errors and plot holes and and horrible costumes there were. it began with some poor peasant trying to hunt for a deer to feed his family. all well and good. however and the poor blighter must have been mostly deaf and because a handful of soldiers and in full armour and on horseback and were able to sneak up on him to within about 10 feet. then and as he running away and he goes from having them 10 feet behind him and to a shot where you cannot even see them at all and immediately followed by them about 20 feet behind him again. then and he runs into some bushes and and is immediately manhandled by two of the soldiers. who just mere seconds before and were galloping on horseback and dozens of feet behind him. the armour on the soldiers is so painfully obviously cloth which they tried to make look like maille and and miserably failed. not to mention and the lead soldier armour being about 5 sizes too big for the poor fellow. seriously and he looks like he is a small child wearing his father over sized armour. finally and robin manages to fire about 5 and perfectly aimed shots all around one soldier hand and in the span of about 2 seconds and from what appears to be a recurve bow. no human alive could make those kinds of shots and in that short amount of time and with a scoped rifle and much less a bow. after that and they escape the soldiers and stop to help an amazingly well dressed and clean peasant with digging a ditch. something that all noblemen were willing to do all the time and right. how this sorry excuse for a series ever got a second season is beyond me. the production costs (at least for what i saw) must have soared in the dozens of dollars (or euros). seriously i think a highschool drama class could have put on a better rendition. this was so bad and even that terrible kevin costner version of robin hood was better. i highly suggest you skip this monstrosity and and go rent or buy the mid 80 robin of sherwood series. much better written and acted and costumed and and produced. for shame and bbc. for shame.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
well and it robin hood as geezer all right. just as advertised. that do not sound very hopeful and and alas and it was worse than i would suspected. a laddish robin i can take while a robin who tangles with a pert dyer daughter i can credit while but a robin who exchanges not very funny banter with his single henchman is harder to swallow and and a robin and entire cast who seem to be having difficulty managing their lines is the kiss of doom. how could anyone let such laboured delivery pass without re shooting the scenes. again and again and much sounds as if he struggling with half comprehended shakespeare rather than letting loose with a salty quip while i hoped at the onset that it was just a failed comedy trait in a character clearly destined for the role of comedy sidekick and but then it started spreading throughout the rest of the cast. whatever else you say about errol flynn in the role and he had the knack of delivering high flown dialogue as naturally as if he would just thought it up on the spur of the moment. and as this production shows and that not at all as easy as it sounds. if they were going to cast the characters as cheeky chappies and the actors in question should have been given appropriate lines represent they sound as if they haven not a clue how to handle them. i am afraid i do not even like the pantomime sheriff and for a similar reason while the lines are clearly not intended to be taken seriously but delivered (and in this case written) with a nudge and a wink at the audience. theyre out of place all right fourth wall busting stuff but really not that funny. this much promised production reminded me of a limping school play. the only actor and character i felt any appreciation for at all was the one playing guy of gisbourne and who was the sole one who appeared to have any handle on (a) credible villainy and (b) credible characterisation but frankly and i do not have said that was a very good augury for the future of the series. as of the time of writing and i will give it another shot in the hopes that things may improve and bed down a bit by next week and with less stilted scene setting required and perhaps the actors more at ease with the dialogue represent after all and the opening episode of doctor who wasn not exactly a show stopper and though it was nowhere near as bad as this. but if i see no improvement after episode 2 and i am afraid the series has almost certainly lost one viewer. which would be a pity and because i have got a soft spot for the robin hood legend on screen and from the adventures of douglas fairbanks to the sturdy reliance of richard greene. but this robin fails to stir my blood in the slightest.
well and it robin hood as geezer all right. just as advertised. that do not sound very hopeful and and alas and it was worse than i would suspected. a laddish robin i can take while a robin who tangles with a pert dyer daughter i can credit while but a robin who exchanges not very funny banter with his single henchman is harder to swallow and and a robin and entire cast who seem to be having difficulty managing their lines is the kiss of doom. how could anyone let such laboured delivery pass without re shooting the scenes. again and again and much sounds as if he struggling with half comprehended shakespeare rather than letting loose with a salty quip while i hoped at the onset that it was just a failed comedy trait in a character clearly destined for the role of comedy sidekick and but then it started spreading throughout the rest of the cast. whatever else you say about errol flynn in the role and he had the knack of delivering high flown dialogue as naturally as if he would just thought it up on the spur of the moment. and as this production shows and that not at all as easy as it sounds. if they were going to cast the characters as cheeky chappies and the actors in question should have been given appropriate lines represent they sound as if they haven not a clue how to handle them. i am afraid i do not even like the pantomime sheriff and for a similar reason while the lines are clearly not intended to be taken seriously but delivered (and in this case written) with a nudge and a wink at the audience. theyre out of place all right fourth wall busting stuff but really not that funny. this much promised production reminded me of a limping school play. the only actor and character i felt any appreciation for at all was the one playing guy of gisbourne and who was the sole one who appeared to have any handle on (a) credible villainy and (b) credible characterisation but frankly and i do not have said that was a very good augury for the future of the series. as of the time of writing and i will give it another shot in the hopes that things may improve and bed down a bit by next week and with less stilted scene setting required and perhaps the actors more at ease with the dialogue represent after all and the opening episode of doctor who wasn not exactly a show stopper and though it was nowhere near as bad as this. but if i see no improvement after episode 2 and i am afraid the series has almost certainly lost one viewer. which would be a pity and because i have got a soft spot for the robin hood legend on screen and from the adventures of douglas fairbanks to the sturdy reliance of richard greene. but this robin fails to stir my blood in the slightest.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i can clearly see now why robin hood flopped quickly. the first episode of it is probably the worst ever thing bbc has aired. the opening scenes were about as intense and meaningful and intelligent as two monkeys fighting and robin hood had no character and and the sword fight was just laughable. the worst part of the episode was robin hood snogging some cow clad in make up at the beginning of the episode how many people wore eyeliner in the 12th century. nobody. the series may have improved drastically since then and but this first episode quickly put people hopes down and and is essentially a pile of crp. a great hero of england has been disgraced. will you tolerate this. i would not and that for sure and unless the bbc start to understand what is a wise investment. negative .
i can clearly see now why robin hood flopped quickly. the first episode of it is probably the worst ever thing bbc has aired. the opening scenes were about as intense and meaningful and intelligent as two monkeys fighting and robin hood had no character and and the sword fight was just laughable. the worst part of the episode was robin hood snogging some cow clad in make up at the beginning of the episode how many people wore eyeliner in the 12th century. nobody. the series may have improved drastically since then and but this first episode quickly put people hopes down and and is essentially a pile of crp. a great hero of england has been disgraced. will you tolerate this. i would not and that for sure and unless the bbc start to understand what is a wise investment. negative .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
siskel and ebert were terrific on this show whether you agreed with them or not because of the genuine conflict their separate professional opinions generated. roeper took this show down a notch or two because he wasn not really a film critic and because he substituted snide for opinionated. now and when ben lyons comes on i feel like i am watching teen news you know and that kids news show and hosted by kids for kids. manckiewitz is not much better. it obvious they have encountered only a steady diet of mainstream films their entire lives. the idea that these two rank amateurs have anything of interest or consequence to say about motion pictures is ludicrous. if they are reviewing a non formula film and they are completely lost. show them something original and intelligent they just find it confusing. wait i think i get it . abc is owned by disney . disney makes movies for kids. while siskel and ebert and and roper promoted independent films and were only hit or miss with the big budget studio productions what a surprise represent these two guys love the big studio schlock and only manage to tolerate a few indies. plus everyone knows the age group tv advertisers are aiming for. the blatant nepotism is the icing on the cake. in what alternate universe do these guys qualify as film critics.
siskel and ebert were terrific on this show whether you agreed with them or not because of the genuine conflict their separate professional opinions generated. roeper took this show down a notch or two because he wasn not really a film critic and because he substituted snide for opinionated. now and when ben lyons comes on i feel like i am watching teen news you know and that kids news show and hosted by kids for kids. manckiewitz is not much better. it obvious they have encountered only a steady diet of mainstream films their entire lives. the idea that these two rank amateurs have anything of interest or consequence to say about motion pictures is ludicrous. if they are reviewing a non formula film and they are completely lost. show them something original and intelligent they just find it confusing. wait i think i get it . abc is owned by disney . disney makes movies for kids. while siskel and ebert and and roper promoted independent films and were only hit or miss with the big budget studio productions what a surprise represent these two guys love the big studio schlock and only manage to tolerate a few indies. plus everyone knows the age group tv advertisers are aiming for. the blatant nepotism is the icing on the cake. in what alternate universe do these guys qualify as film critics.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i have been familiar with the fantastic book of goodnight mister tom for absolutely ages and it was only recently when i got the chance to watch this adaption of it. i have heard lots of positive remarks about this and so i had high hopes. once this film had finished and i was horrified. this film is not a good film at all. goodnight mister tom was an extremely poor adaption and practically 4. 5/10 of the book was missed out. particularly and i found that a lot of the characters and some great scenes in the book were not in this. there was not much dialogue and it was rushed and far too fast moving and but i was mostly upset by the fact that you never got to see the bonding and love between william beech and tom in this film which was a true let down. the casting was not all that good and either. i thought this could have been really good and but it was so different to the book. anextremely poor adaption and one of the worst i have seen. this deserves a decent remake that would better be 1000 times better than this pile of garbage.
i have been familiar with the fantastic book of goodnight mister tom for absolutely ages and it was only recently when i got the chance to watch this adaption of it. i have heard lots of positive remarks about this and so i had high hopes. once this film had finished and i was horrified. this film is not a good film at all. goodnight mister tom was an extremely poor adaption and practically 4. 5/10 of the book was missed out. particularly and i found that a lot of the characters and some great scenes in the book were not in this. there was not much dialogue and it was rushed and far too fast moving and but i was mostly upset by the fact that you never got to see the bonding and love between william beech and tom in this film which was a true let down. the casting was not all that good and either. i thought this could have been really good and but it was so different to the book. anextremely poor adaption and one of the worst i have seen. this deserves a decent remake that would better be 1000 times better than this pile of garbage.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
goodnight and mister tom begins in an impossibly exquisite village in the south of england where the sun always seems to shine. before we have much idea of the period we hear a radio announcement of the declaration of world war ii. soon a train blowing clouds of steam brings refugee children from london and when shy little william is billeted with reluctant and gruff old tom (who you just know will turn out to have a heart of gold) our tale begins. and what a load of sentimental claptrap it is. in fact it just the old odd couple buddy formula. aren not any new stories being written. as i suggested there hardly any period feel in the village and not much more in london apart from the odd old ambulance rattling around. and certainly no hint of the horror of the blitz as london citizens file politely into air raid shelters. even when the local schoolteacher husband is declared missing presumed killed and he is later restored to life. i found `goodnight and mister tom cliched and obvious and john thaw accent conjured up a picture of ronnie barker of the two ronnies with a straw in his mouth doing his `country bumpkin accent. incidentally my wife enjoyed this movie for all the reasons that i disliked it and looking at fellow imdb reviewers i seem to be in a minority of one.
goodnight and mister tom begins in an impossibly exquisite village in the south of england where the sun always seems to shine. before we have much idea of the period we hear a radio announcement of the declaration of world war ii. soon a train blowing clouds of steam brings refugee children from london and when shy little william is billeted with reluctant and gruff old tom (who you just know will turn out to have a heart of gold) our tale begins. and what a load of sentimental claptrap it is. in fact it just the old odd couple buddy formula. aren not any new stories being written. as i suggested there hardly any period feel in the village and not much more in london apart from the odd old ambulance rattling around. and certainly no hint of the horror of the blitz as london citizens file politely into air raid shelters. even when the local schoolteacher husband is declared missing presumed killed and he is later restored to life. i found `goodnight and mister tom cliched and obvious and john thaw accent conjured up a picture of ronnie barker of the two ronnies with a straw in his mouth doing his `country bumpkin accent. incidentally my wife enjoyed this movie for all the reasons that i disliked it and looking at fellow imdb reviewers i seem to be in a minority of one.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
let me confess. i found this video used and bought it because guttenberg looked so sexy in his underwear on the jacket. but inside was another story. besides the fact that the movie was basically a parody of invisible man genre special effects (highly visible strings and other such paraphernalia) and the script wasted no chance in fact it went out of its way in insulting all non wasp races and real or imagined homosexuals. every insult aimed at a person in the script was either homophobic or racist or both. it starts to grate on your nerves and along with the shaky sound and candid camera style photography and melodramatic story. however and the end is somewhat of a surprise. but by the time you get there and you hardly care less. too bad and it could been a reasonably good movie.
let me confess. i found this video used and bought it because guttenberg looked so sexy in his underwear on the jacket. but inside was another story. besides the fact that the movie was basically a parody of invisible man genre special effects (highly visible strings and other such paraphernalia) and the script wasted no chance in fact it went out of its way in insulting all non wasp races and real or imagined homosexuals. every insult aimed at a person in the script was either homophobic or racist or both. it starts to grate on your nerves and along with the shaky sound and candid camera style photography and melodramatic story. however and the end is somewhat of a surprise. but by the time you get there and you hardly care less. too bad and it could been a reasonably good movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the 3 d featured in the man who wasn not there stands for dumb and dumb and dumb. this inept comedy features lousy 3 d effects that makes the 3 d effects in jaws 3 and amityville 3 and and friday the 13th part 3 look better by comparison. not to mention the movie is asinine to the extreme. this was one of many 1983 movies to feature the pop off the screen effects. steve guttenberg and jeffrey tambor got trapped in this mess and but at least it do not kill their careers. tambor would go on to star on hbo the larry sanders show and ron howard box office smash how the grinch stole christmas and while guttenberg followed this flop with police academy and cocoon. what them in those projects instead of them here in the man who wasn not there. if you do and you will regret it. half (out of four).
the 3 d featured in the man who wasn not there stands for dumb and dumb and dumb. this inept comedy features lousy 3 d effects that makes the 3 d effects in jaws 3 and amityville 3 and and friday the 13th part 3 look better by comparison. not to mention the movie is asinine to the extreme. this was one of many 1983 movies to feature the pop off the screen effects. steve guttenberg and jeffrey tambor got trapped in this mess and but at least it do not kill their careers. tambor would go on to star on hbo the larry sanders show and ron howard box office smash how the grinch stole christmas and while guttenberg followed this flop with police academy and cocoon. what them in those projects instead of them here in the man who wasn not there. if you do and you will regret it. half (out of four).
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this film tries to be immensely clever and and tarantino like before you try that though and you need solid filmic fundamentals. these include good sound and editing and set design etc. lets talk about the sound in this movie. absolutely atrocious. i have never been more distracted by a sound track and everand before we talk about low budget and film made in chile etc. lets bear in mind that desent sound these days is far more achievable than it ever has been. anywhere. and more info on technique is available then ever beforethe sound in this movie is plain bad. the foley in particular is out of place and inappropriate throughout and the atmos is equally terrible. i heard at least four loud clicks during the movie and which are the result of poor sound editing. the sound inside cars is awful and the sound of car doors closing is awful. the sound of the lady singing is wrong. foley is either overboard and or simply not there like the sound person just got bored and gave up. the spaces are wrong. everything about it is wrong and yet and not letting limitations of creativity get in the way and at the same time the movie tries boldly to be clever. for example the sound of the aquarium is used in the following street scene. we hear sound when were not supposed to. sound edits precede visual cuts. every trick in the book is used and and yet the foundations are just not thereediting wise we have scenes using heavy jump cuts and we have tinkering around with the time line etc etc etc and yawn. all of these techniques are imitated to a splendidly low standard overall the mix is crap and the sound is crap. and so and the film is crap. how can a movie with so many fundamental flaws be considered for awards and high praise. chile cinematic new wave. the best creative output that chile has to offer. i hope not and and i think not. my theory is that chile more selective and better talent avoided this film like the plague maybe due to its risqué content. equally and the film has likely received so much unwarranted critical acclaim from so called world cinema enthusiasts for the same grubby reasons. they likely revel in it trashiness. of course film critics rarely pay attention to technical details and quality this film is rubbish. it all mouth and no trousers and is never deserving of a 6. 8 rating. the film has all the production quality of a cheap tarantino and new wave inspired porno.
this film tries to be immensely clever and and tarantino like before you try that though and you need solid filmic fundamentals. these include good sound and editing and set design etc. lets talk about the sound in this movie. absolutely atrocious. i have never been more distracted by a sound track and everand before we talk about low budget and film made in chile etc. lets bear in mind that desent sound these days is far more achievable than it ever has been. anywhere. and more info on technique is available then ever beforethe sound in this movie is plain bad. the foley in particular is out of place and inappropriate throughout and the atmos is equally terrible. i heard at least four loud clicks during the movie and which are the result of poor sound editing. the sound inside cars is awful and the sound of car doors closing is awful. the sound of the lady singing is wrong. foley is either overboard and or simply not there like the sound person just got bored and gave up. the spaces are wrong. everything about it is wrong and yet and not letting limitations of creativity get in the way and at the same time the movie tries boldly to be clever. for example the sound of the aquarium is used in the following street scene. we hear sound when were not supposed to. sound edits precede visual cuts. every trick in the book is used and and yet the foundations are just not thereediting wise we have scenes using heavy jump cuts and we have tinkering around with the time line etc etc etc and yawn. all of these techniques are imitated to a splendidly low standard overall the mix is crap and the sound is crap. and so and the film is crap. how can a movie with so many fundamental flaws be considered for awards and high praise. chile cinematic new wave. the best creative output that chile has to offer. i hope not and and i think not. my theory is that chile more selective and better talent avoided this film like the plague maybe due to its risqué content. equally and the film has likely received so much unwarranted critical acclaim from so called world cinema enthusiasts for the same grubby reasons. they likely revel in it trashiness. of course film critics rarely pay attention to technical details and quality this film is rubbish. it all mouth and no trousers and is never deserving of a 6. 8 rating. the film has all the production quality of a cheap tarantino and new wave inspired porno.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is an hybrid creature born at carl macek mind. with robotech the second generation (robotech masters) and megazone 23 into one miserable movie and that have no logic. the story is very and very bad and and you cannot forgive the action of megazone when have nothing to do with robotech. if this movie have so high rank is for the tv series and not for itself. i did said it and the name cannot save this.
this is an hybrid creature born at carl macek mind. with robotech the second generation (robotech masters) and megazone 23 into one miserable movie and that have no logic. the story is very and very bad and and you cannot forgive the action of megazone when have nothing to do with robotech. if this movie have so high rank is for the tv series and not for itself. i did said it and the name cannot save this.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
you will recognize the plot immediately. daughters of a divorced couple trying to get mom and dad back together again. yes and that was the theme of the parent trap in the 60s and 80s and 90s. but here the spooky thing. even though deanna durbin was younger than the 21 year old hayley mills while playing the doting daughter(s) roles and durbin looks much older and as in adult. and so do all of her so called siblings. and this confusion between adult and child goes throughout the film. the girls are dressed in cute little sailor outfits but look ridiculous in them as the director seems to take pains to point out their ample tops and tushies throughout the film. so youre constantly torn between thinking of them as children or women. when ray milland and others start hitting on them you get the feeling as if theyre pedophiles and and you might be one and too for noticing those tushies and tops the director was pointing out. teens or temptresses and little girls or little foxes and you are never quite sure what youre supposed to be thinking of them as. the parents and too and seem very old and the whole film seems very dated. it is a rusty version of the parent trap and you should avoid it and or at least ensure your tetanus shots are up to date if you do not believe me.
you will recognize the plot immediately. daughters of a divorced couple trying to get mom and dad back together again. yes and that was the theme of the parent trap in the 60s and 80s and 90s. but here the spooky thing. even though deanna durbin was younger than the 21 year old hayley mills while playing the doting daughter(s) roles and durbin looks much older and as in adult. and so do all of her so called siblings. and this confusion between adult and child goes throughout the film. the girls are dressed in cute little sailor outfits but look ridiculous in them as the director seems to take pains to point out their ample tops and tushies throughout the film. so youre constantly torn between thinking of them as children or women. when ray milland and others start hitting on them you get the feeling as if theyre pedophiles and and you might be one and too for noticing those tushies and tops the director was pointing out. teens or temptresses and little girls or little foxes and you are never quite sure what youre supposed to be thinking of them as. the parents and too and seem very old and the whole film seems very dated. it is a rusty version of the parent trap and you should avoid it and or at least ensure your tetanus shots are up to date if you do not believe me.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
well and the big money machine has done it again. disney very shrewdly takes advantage of morons like myself who feel we must own every video (good or bad) stamped with the disney moniker. why is it that i continue to look forward to these sequels which make don bluth on a bad day look like leonardo davinci. cinderella 2 consists of three storylines (already a poor choice. ) doesn not one of the most endearing disney creations at least deserve a linear story. of these three and only the last comes anywhere near the quality of animation and storytelling that i would expect. the music is atrocious and modern (meaning in 2 years it will already be dated) and adds nothing to the story. why does everything have to be updated. you know and the original cartoon is still popular because of its timelessness and so why not be respectful and true to the original with songs that reflect the same style. gee and i can not wait for a sequel to sleeping beauty. instead of music based on the themes of tchaikovsky and we will get music inspired by britney spears. so disney and if youre listening and remember were not all indiscriminate children out here. how about throwing a bone or two to the fans who have been around long enough to know the difference between craft and crap.
well and the big money machine has done it again. disney very shrewdly takes advantage of morons like myself who feel we must own every video (good or bad) stamped with the disney moniker. why is it that i continue to look forward to these sequels which make don bluth on a bad day look like leonardo davinci. cinderella 2 consists of three storylines (already a poor choice. ) doesn not one of the most endearing disney creations at least deserve a linear story. of these three and only the last comes anywhere near the quality of animation and storytelling that i would expect. the music is atrocious and modern (meaning in 2 years it will already be dated) and adds nothing to the story. why does everything have to be updated. you know and the original cartoon is still popular because of its timelessness and so why not be respectful and true to the original with songs that reflect the same style. gee and i can not wait for a sequel to sleeping beauty. instead of music based on the themes of tchaikovsky and we will get music inspired by britney spears. so disney and if youre listening and remember were not all indiscriminate children out here. how about throwing a bone or two to the fans who have been around long enough to know the difference between craft and crap.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
possible spoilers and perhaps. i must say that cinderella ii represent dreams come true is one of the worst movies ever made. first of all and the movie was made during the height of disney sequel rampage. it was created around the same time as the little mermaid ii and the jungle book ii and and peter pan ii and all of which were disservices to their original film classics. (disney also made the hunchback of notre dame ii and atlantis ii and but i am going to drop that topic because their original movies were never really classics in the first place. ) let me go ahead and say that i am an avid supporter of good disney films and and i absolutely adore the original disney cinderella. the sequel to cinderella and however and was a waste of time. the character of cinderella in the sequel was so very unlike the original girl that i grew up watching. in the original and cinderella was kind and loving. the new cinderella had very out of character moments with current era phrasing like and i am going to do this banquet my way. let me also tell you that new cinderella (as i have affectionately named her) says and ewww. that is the anti cinderella. i try to find the best in people and but in the sequel and anastasia and one of the stepsisters and is good. what the heck. why. they made it all out to be like lady tremaine and drizella are just horrible family members for poor little anastasia. my question to the world represent did the people at disney watch the original cinderella when making this sequel. well and it surely doesn not seem so. if i remember correctly and anastasia was just as abusive to cinderella as drizella and lady tremaine. i am all for redemption and forgiveness and but there was no point of redemption for anastasia in this movie. in the first one and anastasia was evil. in the second one and she is good. one just can not leave a story like this. i hope disney realizes that this movie and among other movies and is shaming walt disney name. perhaps now that michael eisner is gone and things will start shaping up around the house of mouse.
possible spoilers and perhaps. i must say that cinderella ii represent dreams come true is one of the worst movies ever made. first of all and the movie was made during the height of disney sequel rampage. it was created around the same time as the little mermaid ii and the jungle book ii and and peter pan ii and all of which were disservices to their original film classics. (disney also made the hunchback of notre dame ii and atlantis ii and but i am going to drop that topic because their original movies were never really classics in the first place. ) let me go ahead and say that i am an avid supporter of good disney films and and i absolutely adore the original disney cinderella. the sequel to cinderella and however and was a waste of time. the character of cinderella in the sequel was so very unlike the original girl that i grew up watching. in the original and cinderella was kind and loving. the new cinderella had very out of character moments with current era phrasing like and i am going to do this banquet my way. let me also tell you that new cinderella (as i have affectionately named her) says and ewww. that is the anti cinderella. i try to find the best in people and but in the sequel and anastasia and one of the stepsisters and is good. what the heck. why. they made it all out to be like lady tremaine and drizella are just horrible family members for poor little anastasia. my question to the world represent did the people at disney watch the original cinderella when making this sequel. well and it surely doesn not seem so. if i remember correctly and anastasia was just as abusive to cinderella as drizella and lady tremaine. i am all for redemption and forgiveness and but there was no point of redemption for anastasia in this movie. in the first one and anastasia was evil. in the second one and she is good. one just can not leave a story like this. i hope disney realizes that this movie and among other movies and is shaming walt disney name. perhaps now that michael eisner is gone and things will start shaping up around the house of mouse.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the original is a relaxing watch and with some truly memorable animated sequences. unfortunately and the sequel and while not the worst of the dtv sequels completely lacks the sparkle. the biggest letdown is a lack of a story. like belle magical world and the characters are told through a series of vignettes. magical world and while marginally better and still manages to make a mess of the story. in between the vignettes and we see the mice at work and and i personally think the antics of jaq and gus are the redeeming merits of this movie. the first vignette is the best and about cinderella getting used to being to being a princess. this is the best and because the mice were at their funniest here. the worst of the vignettes and when jaq turns into a human and is cute at times and but has a lack of imagination. the last vignette and when anastasia falls in love and was also cute. the problem was and i couldn not imagine anastasia being friendly with cinderella and as i considered her the meaner out of the stepsisters. this was also marred by a rather ridiculous subplot about lucifer falling in love with pompom. the incidental music was very pleasant to listen to while however i hated the songs and they were really uninspired and and nothing like the beautiful tchaikovsky inspired melodies of the original. the characters were the strongest development here. cinderella while still caring and had lost her sincerity and and a lot of her charm from the original and though she does wear some very pretty clothes. the duke had some truly funny moments but they weren not enough to save the film and likewise with prudence and the king. as i mentioned and the mice were the redeeming merits of the movie and as they alone contributed to the film cuteness. i have to say also the animation is colourful and above average and and the voice acting was surprisingly good. all in all and a cute and if unoriginal sequel and that was marred by the songs and a lack of a story. negative for the mice and the voice acting and the animation and some pretty dresses. bethany cox.
the original is a relaxing watch and with some truly memorable animated sequences. unfortunately and the sequel and while not the worst of the dtv sequels completely lacks the sparkle. the biggest letdown is a lack of a story. like belle magical world and the characters are told through a series of vignettes. magical world and while marginally better and still manages to make a mess of the story. in between the vignettes and we see the mice at work and and i personally think the antics of jaq and gus are the redeeming merits of this movie. the first vignette is the best and about cinderella getting used to being to being a princess. this is the best and because the mice were at their funniest here. the worst of the vignettes and when jaq turns into a human and is cute at times and but has a lack of imagination. the last vignette and when anastasia falls in love and was also cute. the problem was and i couldn not imagine anastasia being friendly with cinderella and as i considered her the meaner out of the stepsisters. this was also marred by a rather ridiculous subplot about lucifer falling in love with pompom. the incidental music was very pleasant to listen to while however i hated the songs and they were really uninspired and and nothing like the beautiful tchaikovsky inspired melodies of the original. the characters were the strongest development here. cinderella while still caring and had lost her sincerity and and a lot of her charm from the original and though she does wear some very pretty clothes. the duke had some truly funny moments but they weren not enough to save the film and likewise with prudence and the king. as i mentioned and the mice were the redeeming merits of the movie and as they alone contributed to the film cuteness. i have to say also the animation is colourful and above average and and the voice acting was surprisingly good. all in all and a cute and if unoriginal sequel and that was marred by the songs and a lack of a story. negative for the mice and the voice acting and the animation and some pretty dresses. bethany cox.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i will just put it out here and that was the worst sequel to a classic disney film i have ever seen. in 1950 and disney released what i hail as one of his greatest films of all time. now take away the great songs and add a poor plot that resembles that of a lost tv show. put it together and what do you get. the biggest load of crud i have ever seen. after i saw this and i thought it was all over for disney. cinderella should have ended with and and they lived happily ever after. not this garbage. this film did not deserve a sequel like this. i thought it would be like a twist in time which was moderate but better than this. also and what do we care of anastasia. she switched sides like iago did and but it do not help anyone.
i will just put it out here and that was the worst sequel to a classic disney film i have ever seen. in 1950 and disney released what i hail as one of his greatest films of all time. now take away the great songs and add a poor plot that resembles that of a lost tv show. put it together and what do you get. the biggest load of crud i have ever seen. after i saw this and i thought it was all over for disney. cinderella should have ended with and and they lived happily ever after. not this garbage. this film did not deserve a sequel like this. i thought it would be like a twist in time which was moderate but better than this. also and what do we care of anastasia. she switched sides like iago did and but it do not help anyone.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i have got a question for those who thought of this idea. why. what made them think to make a second movie of this. if memory serves and do not cinderella end with they all lived happily ever after. i am pretty sure it did and or it was implied. wait a minute and if they all lived happily ever after and how could there be a sequel. unless they were trying to make the most boring story in history and there couldn not be a sequel. i mean sure and they could have cinderella singing about nonsense for two hours and but why. a movie that ends in happily ever after can not have a sequel while if it does then they do not live happily ever after. something got to go wrong which causes problems with the first ending. why. that not right and it evil. that my final word on the matter.
i have got a question for those who thought of this idea. why. what made them think to make a second movie of this. if memory serves and do not cinderella end with they all lived happily ever after. i am pretty sure it did and or it was implied. wait a minute and if they all lived happily ever after and how could there be a sequel. unless they were trying to make the most boring story in history and there couldn not be a sequel. i mean sure and they could have cinderella singing about nonsense for two hours and but why. a movie that ends in happily ever after can not have a sequel while if it does then they do not live happily ever after. something got to go wrong which causes problems with the first ending. why. that not right and it evil. that my final word on the matter.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i have always thought that cinderella ii was the worst movie i have ever seen and (followed by peter pan 2 and and some other sequels like the lion king 2 and the hunchback of notre dame 2). all these movies are made with the same idea while because the movie has no plot and they try to make up for that by filling it with jokes. i am not saying the jokes are bad and but they make up most of the movie. the first time i saw the movie and i would have given it a negative . but now i think about it and most kids do not care how good the original movie was and they just care that the movie is entertaining. i still think the movie was a bad sequel and but that doesn not mean it horrible. now i think it deserves a negative .
i have always thought that cinderella ii was the worst movie i have ever seen and (followed by peter pan 2 and and some other sequels like the lion king 2 and the hunchback of notre dame 2). all these movies are made with the same idea while because the movie has no plot and they try to make up for that by filling it with jokes. i am not saying the jokes are bad and but they make up most of the movie. the first time i saw the movie and i would have given it a negative . but now i think about it and most kids do not care how good the original movie was and they just care that the movie is entertaining. i still think the movie was a bad sequel and but that doesn not mean it horrible. now i think it deserves a negative .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i grew up watching the original disney cinderella and and have always loved it so much that the tape is a little worn. accordingly and i was excited to see that cinderella 2 was coming on tv and i would be able to see it. i should have known better. this movie joins the club of movie sequels that should have just been left alone. it holds absolutely none of the originals super charm. it seems and to me and quite rough and and almost brutal and right from the (do not)sing a longs to the characterization. while i remember the character telling a story through a song and this film soundtrack was laid over the top and and do not seem to fit. jaq transformation into a human is a prime example represent where he was walking around eating an apple and adding a few little quips in here and there and he should have been dancing around and singing about how great it was to be tall. and in the ballroom and there old barn dance type country music. it as though the writers forgot where and when this story was set. the upbeat fiddles certainly do not fit. even the artwork and animation in cinderella 2 isn not up to scratch with the original. the artwork in this film seems quite raw and less detailed. and we see part of cinderella hoop skirt and which doesn not feel right. the movie itself could have been it own story and i think that it should have been just that. i do not say that i hate it and but i believe that it had many shortcomings. it seems to downgrade in a significant way from the beloved cinderella original.
i grew up watching the original disney cinderella and and have always loved it so much that the tape is a little worn. accordingly and i was excited to see that cinderella 2 was coming on tv and i would be able to see it. i should have known better. this movie joins the club of movie sequels that should have just been left alone. it holds absolutely none of the originals super charm. it seems and to me and quite rough and and almost brutal and right from the (do not)sing a longs to the characterization. while i remember the character telling a story through a song and this film soundtrack was laid over the top and and do not seem to fit. jaq transformation into a human is a prime example represent where he was walking around eating an apple and adding a few little quips in here and there and he should have been dancing around and singing about how great it was to be tall. and in the ballroom and there old barn dance type country music. it as though the writers forgot where and when this story was set. the upbeat fiddles certainly do not fit. even the artwork and animation in cinderella 2 isn not up to scratch with the original. the artwork in this film seems quite raw and less detailed. and we see part of cinderella hoop skirt and which doesn not feel right. the movie itself could have been it own story and i think that it should have been just that. i do not say that i hate it and but i believe that it had many shortcomings. it seems to downgrade in a significant way from the beloved cinderella original.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
if you are under the age of 6 or 7 and then youre going to really enjoy this movie. my youngest daughter is glued to the tv when she watches it. as an adult and i can not stand it. i am all up for sequels. when they have a decent storyline. but this is nowhere near up to standard. please forgive me for slating what is after all a kid film and but when you have to sit through it nearly every day when your kids who love it so much and you will understand why. my daughter would watch this film over and over again on the same day if we let her. i have given this film negative purely for the fact that it keeps my youngest entertained.
if you are under the age of 6 or 7 and then youre going to really enjoy this movie. my youngest daughter is glued to the tv when she watches it. as an adult and i can not stand it. i am all up for sequels. when they have a decent storyline. but this is nowhere near up to standard. please forgive me for slating what is after all a kid film and but when you have to sit through it nearly every day when your kids who love it so much and you will understand why. my daughter would watch this film over and over again on the same day if we let her. i have given this film negative purely for the fact that it keeps my youngest entertained.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i had the displeasure of watching this movie with my girlfriend and who and like me and is a fan of the first. this movie down right sucked. it lacked the magic of the first. you could actually understand every word the mice said and the animation is crappy and the palace is much much different from the first movie and there new characters that were never mentioned before and were terrible and luckily the prince do not have many lines which kept him from sounding stupid. basically its like the lion king 1 half except its different stories all told by the mice. the reason i am giving this a negative is because the songs not sung by the characters were the most enjoyable.
i had the displeasure of watching this movie with my girlfriend and who and like me and is a fan of the first. this movie down right sucked. it lacked the magic of the first. you could actually understand every word the mice said and the animation is crappy and the palace is much much different from the first movie and there new characters that were never mentioned before and were terrible and luckily the prince do not have many lines which kept him from sounding stupid. basically its like the lion king 1 half except its different stories all told by the mice. the reason i am giving this a negative is because the songs not sung by the characters were the most enjoyable.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
assassin hauser (john cusak) mission is to whack a mid eastern oil minister and whose name happens to be omar sharif (neikov) and in the country of turaqistan which is run by american interests. hauser poses as trade show producer to allow him to get to omar. sometimes a satire can be so overdone it becomes most annoying. here it does too much represent the government and politics and music and war and people not generally accepted by society and and did i mention war. and and that is what we have here a most annoying movie that borders on a very bad nightmare brought to life. i am still asking myself why i continued with the dvd. also and there are so many cusak family members in this that john cusak appears embarrassed by the family just being there and or is that just me. it used to be that a john cusak movie and while a little offbeat and was and in the end and rather good. not here. believe that john cusak had a hand in the writing and producing of this mess. make of that what you will. there is too much going on in the movie accompanied by constant gun fire and bombings and and shouting that you really cannot focus or was that the point. probably. it just takes too long to set up the hit and which is largely forgotten until the last 15 minutes. in the meantime we have meaningless banter among all in the cast. and and chemistry between john cusak and marisa tormei. i do not think so and but you know represent the boy girl thing ……and they needed something to take up more time. yes and for what they were supposed to be and (offbeat and annoying) the performances of duff and and kingsley were good. but and when i saw dan aykroyd character and in the beginning of the show and sitting on a toilet taking a dump and i knew the rest of the show would go to the tank as well. i was not wrong. i am sure some will sing praises of this effort and but if a rose is still a rose by any other name so and too and is a mess……………i now remember why i continued with the dvd. i was hoping that the story would somehow level out and save itself. never did. violence represent yes. sex represent no. nudity represent no. language represent yes.
assassin hauser (john cusak) mission is to whack a mid eastern oil minister and whose name happens to be omar sharif (neikov) and in the country of turaqistan which is run by american interests. hauser poses as trade show producer to allow him to get to omar. sometimes a satire can be so overdone it becomes most annoying. here it does too much represent the government and politics and music and war and people not generally accepted by society and and did i mention war. and and that is what we have here a most annoying movie that borders on a very bad nightmare brought to life. i am still asking myself why i continued with the dvd. also and there are so many cusak family members in this that john cusak appears embarrassed by the family just being there and or is that just me. it used to be that a john cusak movie and while a little offbeat and was and in the end and rather good. not here. believe that john cusak had a hand in the writing and producing of this mess. make of that what you will. there is too much going on in the movie accompanied by constant gun fire and bombings and and shouting that you really cannot focus or was that the point. probably. it just takes too long to set up the hit and which is largely forgotten until the last 15 minutes. in the meantime we have meaningless banter among all in the cast. and and chemistry between john cusak and marisa tormei. i do not think so and but you know represent the boy girl thing ……and they needed something to take up more time. yes and for what they were supposed to be and (offbeat and annoying) the performances of duff and and kingsley were good. but and when i saw dan aykroyd character and in the beginning of the show and sitting on a toilet taking a dump and i knew the rest of the show would go to the tank as well. i was not wrong. i am sure some will sing praises of this effort and but if a rose is still a rose by any other name so and too and is a mess……………i now remember why i continued with the dvd. i was hoping that the story would somehow level out and save itself. never did. violence represent yes. sex represent no. nudity represent no. language represent yes.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i really wanted to like this and but in the end it a poorly made film with too few laughs. the politics are spot on and it gonna offend the hell out of republicans but that what it designed to do. that alone gives me reason to chuckle. the problem is and it looks like it was made in a real hurry (like about a week). and it contains a stupid subplot about some bimbo singer and which seems to be completely off topic. turiqistan is obviously iraq and or afghanistan and or any other number of countries the us has fked with since the 50s. the humour is a little dark (amputees dancing with prosthetic legs made by tamerlane corporation) but it is on the mark and especially with the corporations cashing in on the reconstruction (democracy lite. ) however like a lot of satire criticising the us and it seems terribly heavy handed and laboured. i guess it running counter to so much bs propaganda so it has to bludgeon people over the head to make a point. who knows. i prefer more of a nudge and wink approach a bit of subtlety. but that just me. anyway i might watch it again and perhaps i missed something. i am hoping w is more on the mark.
i really wanted to like this and but in the end it a poorly made film with too few laughs. the politics are spot on and it gonna offend the hell out of republicans but that what it designed to do. that alone gives me reason to chuckle. the problem is and it looks like it was made in a real hurry (like about a week). and it contains a stupid subplot about some bimbo singer and which seems to be completely off topic. turiqistan is obviously iraq and or afghanistan and or any other number of countries the us has fked with since the 50s. the humour is a little dark (amputees dancing with prosthetic legs made by tamerlane corporation) but it is on the mark and especially with the corporations cashing in on the reconstruction (democracy lite. ) however like a lot of satire criticising the us and it seems terribly heavy handed and laboured. i guess it running counter to so much bs propaganda so it has to bludgeon people over the head to make a point. who knows. i prefer more of a nudge and wink approach a bit of subtlety. but that just me. anyway i might watch it again and perhaps i missed something. i am hoping w is more on the mark.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
war and inc. corporations take over war in the future and use a lone assassin brand hauser (john cusack) to do their wet work against rival ceos. a dark comedy satirizing the military and corporations alike. it was often difficult to figure out what exactly was going on. i kept waiting for things to make sense. there no reason or method to the madness. it considered by cusack to be the spiritual successor to grosse point blank. i. e. and war is more or less a knock off. we again see cusack as an assassin protecting spoiler the person he supposed to kill as he grips with his conscience. to be fair and john cusack looks kind of credible taking out half a dozen guys with relative ease. the brief fights look good. the rest of the film does not. it all quirky often bordering on bizarre. war inc not funny enough to be a parody and and too buoyant for anyone to even think about whatever the film message might be and which i suppose might be the heartless ways that corporations and like war factions compete and scheme without a drop of consideration given to how they affect average citizens. interesting and but the satire just doesn not work because it not funny and at its heart the film has no heart. were supposed to give a damn about how war affects cusack shell of a character rather than the millions of lives torn apart by war. john cusack gives a decent performance. his character chugs shots of hot sauce and drives the tiniest private plane but quirks are meant to replace character traits. marisa tomei is slumming as the romantic sidekick journalist. there really isn not a lot of chemistry between them. hilary duff tries a russian accent and doesn not make a fool of herself. joan cusack just screams and whines and wigs out. blech. ben kingsley might have to return the oscar if he doesn not start doling out a decent performance now and again. pathetic. it not a terrible movie and but in the end you gotta ask war and what is it good for. absolutely nothing. c .
war and inc. corporations take over war in the future and use a lone assassin brand hauser (john cusack) to do their wet work against rival ceos. a dark comedy satirizing the military and corporations alike. it was often difficult to figure out what exactly was going on. i kept waiting for things to make sense. there no reason or method to the madness. it considered by cusack to be the spiritual successor to grosse point blank. i. e. and war is more or less a knock off. we again see cusack as an assassin protecting spoiler the person he supposed to kill as he grips with his conscience. to be fair and john cusack looks kind of credible taking out half a dozen guys with relative ease. the brief fights look good. the rest of the film does not. it all quirky often bordering on bizarre. war inc not funny enough to be a parody and and too buoyant for anyone to even think about whatever the film message might be and which i suppose might be the heartless ways that corporations and like war factions compete and scheme without a drop of consideration given to how they affect average citizens. interesting and but the satire just doesn not work because it not funny and at its heart the film has no heart. were supposed to give a damn about how war affects cusack shell of a character rather than the millions of lives torn apart by war. john cusack gives a decent performance. his character chugs shots of hot sauce and drives the tiniest private plane but quirks are meant to replace character traits. marisa tomei is slumming as the romantic sidekick journalist. there really isn not a lot of chemistry between them. hilary duff tries a russian accent and doesn not make a fool of herself. joan cusack just screams and whines and wigs out. blech. ben kingsley might have to return the oscar if he doesn not start doling out a decent performance now and again. pathetic. it not a terrible movie and but in the end you gotta ask war and what is it good for. absolutely nothing. c .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
even the first 10 minutes of this movie were horrific. it hard to believe that anybody other than john cusack would have put money into this. with a string of anti military or anti war movies already being destroyed at the box office and it almost inconceivable that a studio of any kind would want itself associated with this script. at first and it may have seemed like some kind of politically motivated derivative of grosse point blank with akroyd and cusack(s) all over again. but only about 90 seconds into the movie and it becomes obvious that this is a talentless attempt at dr strangelove. i liked so many of cusacks movies that i thought i would risk seeing the dvd of this one. i have to say that i do not know if cusack is sane enough for me to even watch another feature starring him again unless somebody else can vouch for it. cusack seems to be so irreparably damaged by his hatred for george bush and the iraq war that he is willing to commit career suicide. tom cruise was never close to being this far gone. not even close.
even the first 10 minutes of this movie were horrific. it hard to believe that anybody other than john cusack would have put money into this. with a string of anti military or anti war movies already being destroyed at the box office and it almost inconceivable that a studio of any kind would want itself associated with this script. at first and it may have seemed like some kind of politically motivated derivative of grosse point blank with akroyd and cusack(s) all over again. but only about 90 seconds into the movie and it becomes obvious that this is a talentless attempt at dr strangelove. i liked so many of cusacks movies that i thought i would risk seeing the dvd of this one. i have to say that i do not know if cusack is sane enough for me to even watch another feature starring him again unless somebody else can vouch for it. cusack seems to be so irreparably damaged by his hatred for george bush and the iraq war that he is willing to commit career suicide. tom cruise was never close to being this far gone. not even close.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
quite possibly the worst movie that i have ever seen. when has hollywood ever made a successful movie that attacked republicans. why do not they learn. the dixie chicks haven not. these lefties live in their own elite bubble interacting among themselves while oblivious to the fact that most of america is much further right than they are. the best hollywood productions are not partisan and are rarely political at all. dan akroyd imitation of cheney was bad. i would have thought cussack could have landed better movies. it wasn not funny.
quite possibly the worst movie that i have ever seen. when has hollywood ever made a successful movie that attacked republicans. why do not they learn. the dixie chicks haven not. these lefties live in their own elite bubble interacting among themselves while oblivious to the fact that most of america is much further right than they are. the best hollywood productions are not partisan and are rarely political at all. dan akroyd imitation of cheney was bad. i would have thought cussack could have landed better movies. it wasn not funny.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
just utter trash. i am a huge fan of the cusacks and this being the sole reason i watched this movie and but the only reason i can see for their presence was the reprise and in complete and depth less quality and their exact roles from grosse point blanc. apart from that and the films role as a political satire fails miserably as being too obvious for even the most moronic out there to serve any purpose. and to bill it as a satirical satire would be just plain insulting even to chimps. imitation is and apparently the highest form of flattery and but seeing as though this is nothing near grosse point blanc and in the same league as meet the (watch if your a moron) spartans in terms of political satire and lets leave well enough alone and let this one fade into the obscurity it absolutely deserves.
just utter trash. i am a huge fan of the cusacks and this being the sole reason i watched this movie and but the only reason i can see for their presence was the reprise and in complete and depth less quality and their exact roles from grosse point blanc. apart from that and the films role as a political satire fails miserably as being too obvious for even the most moronic out there to serve any purpose. and to bill it as a satirical satire would be just plain insulting even to chimps. imitation is and apparently the highest form of flattery and but seeing as though this is nothing near grosse point blanc and in the same league as meet the (watch if your a moron) spartans in terms of political satire and lets leave well enough alone and let this one fade into the obscurity it absolutely deserves.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
with this cast and budget you will expect more. john cusack has made a number movies that border on the strange and yet still work. neither he and his sister and nor sir ben could do anything to save this travesty of trite poorly written garbage. the movie is nothing more than a series of sight gags and poor ones at that. the plot goes nowhere and the writing is contrived and senseless and the characters paper thin. if you think of a movie as being three dimensional where the story and characters bring a depth to the imagery and this stinker comes across as flat as steamboat mickey. dan akroyd appearance in this brought back memories of another truly awful movie and 1991 nothing but trouble. frankly this movie is the type of project that kills careers and gets agents fired.
with this cast and budget you will expect more. john cusack has made a number movies that border on the strange and yet still work. neither he and his sister and nor sir ben could do anything to save this travesty of trite poorly written garbage. the movie is nothing more than a series of sight gags and poor ones at that. the plot goes nowhere and the writing is contrived and senseless and the characters paper thin. if you think of a movie as being three dimensional where the story and characters bring a depth to the imagery and this stinker comes across as flat as steamboat mickey. dan akroyd appearance in this brought back memories of another truly awful movie and 1991 nothing but trouble. frankly this movie is the type of project that kills careers and gets agents fired.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
first things first represent i am not a conservative. and even though i would never refer to myself as a liberal or a democrat and i was opposed to the war in iraq from day one. i think it safe to say john cusack and i would probably see eye to eye on politics and in fact and i am sure we would become drinking buddies if we ever got to talking about how great adam curtis bbc docs are. my point is this represent do not discredit this review by thinking i am not a part of the choir cusack is preaching to in war and inc. there no question wi politics are tailored to appeal to my demographic and but the problem is and the tailoring is substandard and the the film cusack co wrote and produced and stars in and fits worse than a cheap suit. as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. cusack and his co writers and director joshua seftel and even the actors involved and no doubt had every intention of making an anti war film every bit as biting and funny as robert altman mash and unfortunately for the viewer and they ended up with one as unfunny and unintelligent as michael moore canadian bacon. the current state of us politics and foreign policy and the war effort is already absurd and and as a result and tragic and pathetic and and regrettably comical just watch the daily show and see for yourself. the bottom line is represent you can not write material as funny as what the bush administration provides us on a daily basis and so why try to compete. the main problem with wi is that it feels it was put together in a hurry. to get it done and cusack basically cannibalized grosse pointe blank (one of his best films) and changed the setting and crammed in a shopping list of ideas lifted from the collected works of naomi klein. most of these ideas are rammed down your throat in the first twenty minutes of the film and what makes them so obnoxious is none of the jokes or gags or deliberately obvious references to halliburton and the neo cons and the us occupation of iraq and are imaginative and clever or funny. the writers are so blinded by their own dogma they felt that by simply referencing these issues the film would be funny and subversive. the trouble is. it isn not. by now these ideas are yesterday news and unless you have been living under or rock or are so blinded by ignorance and denial and sheer stupidity (read represent a right wing christian) and these jokes insultingly simple. perhaps wi would work if it was more nuanced and subversive and offensive and fattened up with detailed research or insights into the occupation. as it is and the jokes and sight gags are all surface and are so bad and with so little finesse and subtlety or satirical wickedness and they did little more than make me groan. homer simpson once said it funny cause it true and the daily show proves this every night while war and inc. however proves that just because it true doesn not make it funny. the bottom line represent hyperbole isn not required when it comes to lampooning us or neo conservative politics. it already a big enough joke. http represent or or eattheblinds. blogspot. com or .
first things first represent i am not a conservative. and even though i would never refer to myself as a liberal or a democrat and i was opposed to the war in iraq from day one. i think it safe to say john cusack and i would probably see eye to eye on politics and in fact and i am sure we would become drinking buddies if we ever got to talking about how great adam curtis bbc docs are. my point is this represent do not discredit this review by thinking i am not a part of the choir cusack is preaching to in war and inc. there no question wi politics are tailored to appeal to my demographic and but the problem is and the tailoring is substandard and the the film cusack co wrote and produced and stars in and fits worse than a cheap suit. as they say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. cusack and his co writers and director joshua seftel and even the actors involved and no doubt had every intention of making an anti war film every bit as biting and funny as robert altman mash and unfortunately for the viewer and they ended up with one as unfunny and unintelligent as michael moore canadian bacon. the current state of us politics and foreign policy and the war effort is already absurd and and as a result and tragic and pathetic and and regrettably comical just watch the daily show and see for yourself. the bottom line is represent you can not write material as funny as what the bush administration provides us on a daily basis and so why try to compete. the main problem with wi is that it feels it was put together in a hurry. to get it done and cusack basically cannibalized grosse pointe blank (one of his best films) and changed the setting and crammed in a shopping list of ideas lifted from the collected works of naomi klein. most of these ideas are rammed down your throat in the first twenty minutes of the film and what makes them so obnoxious is none of the jokes or gags or deliberately obvious references to halliburton and the neo cons and the us occupation of iraq and are imaginative and clever or funny. the writers are so blinded by their own dogma they felt that by simply referencing these issues the film would be funny and subversive. the trouble is. it isn not. by now these ideas are yesterday news and unless you have been living under or rock or are so blinded by ignorance and denial and sheer stupidity (read represent a right wing christian) and these jokes insultingly simple. perhaps wi would work if it was more nuanced and subversive and offensive and fattened up with detailed research or insights into the occupation. as it is and the jokes and sight gags are all surface and are so bad and with so little finesse and subtlety or satirical wickedness and they did little more than make me groan. homer simpson once said it funny cause it true and the daily show proves this every night while war and inc. however proves that just because it true doesn not make it funny. the bottom line represent hyperbole isn not required when it comes to lampooning us or neo conservative politics. it already a big enough joke. http represent or or eattheblinds. blogspot. com or .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this film tried to be too many things all at once represent stinging political satire and hollywood blockbuster and sappy romantic comedy and family values promo. the list goes on and on. it failed miserably at all of them and but there was enough interest to keep me from turning it off until the end. although i appreciate the spirit behind war and inc. and it depresses me to see such a clumsy effort and especially when it will be taken by its targets to reflect the lack of the existence of a serious critique and rather than simply the poor writing and direction and and production of this particular film. there is a critique to be made about the corporatization of war. but poking fun at it in this way diminishes the true atrocity of what is happening. reminds me a bit of three kings and which similarly trivializes a genuine cause for concern.
this film tried to be too many things all at once represent stinging political satire and hollywood blockbuster and sappy romantic comedy and family values promo. the list goes on and on. it failed miserably at all of them and but there was enough interest to keep me from turning it off until the end. although i appreciate the spirit behind war and inc. and it depresses me to see such a clumsy effort and especially when it will be taken by its targets to reflect the lack of the existence of a serious critique and rather than simply the poor writing and direction and and production of this particular film. there is a critique to be made about the corporatization of war. but poking fun at it in this way diminishes the true atrocity of what is happening. reminds me a bit of three kings and which similarly trivializes a genuine cause for concern.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i wanted to see an action comedy with a satirical twist (as this film was touted) but this one failed me miserably. for me and the plot was a bit confusing to follow and i rapidly lost interest. i feel so sorry for john cusack and joan cusack and ben kingsley and marisa tomei and hillary duff for getting involved with this movie. i will remain a fan of all of them but only time can heal my feeling over this one. the one thing i can say positively about the film is that hillary played yonica character so well that i do not even recognize hillary while it took me a few scenes to realize that it was her. luckily i rented it for $1 through red box while had i paid to see it in on the big screen and i would be really fuming.
i wanted to see an action comedy with a satirical twist (as this film was touted) but this one failed me miserably. for me and the plot was a bit confusing to follow and i rapidly lost interest. i feel so sorry for john cusack and joan cusack and ben kingsley and marisa tomei and hillary duff for getting involved with this movie. i will remain a fan of all of them but only time can heal my feeling over this one. the one thing i can say positively about the film is that hillary played yonica character so well that i do not even recognize hillary while it took me a few scenes to realize that it was her. luckily i rented it for $1 through red box while had i paid to see it in on the big screen and i would be really fuming.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i guess i am coming late to the party. i just saw this 1995 version of bye bye birdy on sky tv. i do not know it existed and was fully prepared to see the 1963 film version when i turned it on. i played albert a long time ago and i am thinking of putting on an amateur production of the show because i remembered it as being so much fun to do. i was not impressed with this newer version. it just wasn not enough fun. it was not colorful. it lacked the exuberance of youth. the lighting was bad. no one seemed to mention this fact. this is not a moody musical and it is bright and up beat. the lighting decision was a poor creative choice. bye bye birdy is a farce and a comedy of errors. i got no sense of that in this version. the lighting was awful and it dulled the overall performances. the dance numbers seemed anemic as well. we do have music videos these day. at least the dance numbers should have measured up to some of the best of those and or how about some of the best of broadway. the choreographer was asleep at the wheel it seemed. although all the actors were supremely talented and there were some really bad casting choices. vanessa williams is not latin and and with so many talented latin performers out there and do not it have been more correct to cast one of them in the role of rosie. vanessa is african american and lovely and talented and but bad casting. jason alexander effort was astounding and he always does intelligent work and but he just wasn not albert. he was miscast and i think that is obvious to most people who see this version. the medium of film is not the medium of stage. there needs to be translation from one medium to another. the exuberance and the flash of stage musical must be translated to film. there is no merit being faithful to a stage script when it is being filmed. the spirit and the essence of the production must be brought forth. to me the 1963 film production of bye bye birdy was bright and lively and while the 1995 production was as gloomy as the lighting and as lackluster as the dance numbers. it turned out to be an unfortunate waste of effort by many really talented people.
i guess i am coming late to the party. i just saw this 1995 version of bye bye birdy on sky tv. i do not know it existed and was fully prepared to see the 1963 film version when i turned it on. i played albert a long time ago and i am thinking of putting on an amateur production of the show because i remembered it as being so much fun to do. i was not impressed with this newer version. it just wasn not enough fun. it was not colorful. it lacked the exuberance of youth. the lighting was bad. no one seemed to mention this fact. this is not a moody musical and it is bright and up beat. the lighting decision was a poor creative choice. bye bye birdy is a farce and a comedy of errors. i got no sense of that in this version. the lighting was awful and it dulled the overall performances. the dance numbers seemed anemic as well. we do have music videos these day. at least the dance numbers should have measured up to some of the best of those and or how about some of the best of broadway. the choreographer was asleep at the wheel it seemed. although all the actors were supremely talented and there were some really bad casting choices. vanessa williams is not latin and and with so many talented latin performers out there and do not it have been more correct to cast one of them in the role of rosie. vanessa is african american and lovely and talented and but bad casting. jason alexander effort was astounding and he always does intelligent work and but he just wasn not albert. he was miscast and i think that is obvious to most people who see this version. the medium of film is not the medium of stage. there needs to be translation from one medium to another. the exuberance and the flash of stage musical must be translated to film. there is no merit being faithful to a stage script when it is being filmed. the spirit and the essence of the production must be brought forth. to me the 1963 film production of bye bye birdy was bright and lively and while the 1995 production was as gloomy as the lighting and as lackluster as the dance numbers. it turned out to be an unfortunate waste of effort by many really talented people.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
in my humble opinion and this version of the great bdwy musical has only two things going for it tyne daly and the fact that there is now a filmed version with the original script. (ok vanessa williams is good to watch. )but to me that all there is. most of the cast seem to be walking through the show chynna phillips has no idea who kim really is and no wonder people walk over harry mcafee when it played by george wendt who looks like he would rather be back on a bar stool in boston. jason alexander is passable and but that wig has to go and i saw better dancing in bugsy malone. as i mentioned and it good to have a version of the stage script now and but i hope the young out there and who have never seen a musical and dont judge them all by this.
in my humble opinion and this version of the great bdwy musical has only two things going for it tyne daly and the fact that there is now a filmed version with the original script. (ok vanessa williams is good to watch. )but to me that all there is. most of the cast seem to be walking through the show chynna phillips has no idea who kim really is and no wonder people walk over harry mcafee when it played by george wendt who looks like he would rather be back on a bar stool in boston. jason alexander is passable and but that wig has to go and i saw better dancing in bugsy malone. as i mentioned and it good to have a version of the stage script now and but i hope the young out there and who have never seen a musical and dont judge them all by this.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
needless remake and and it can not come close to capturing the charm of the original. the extreme length causes more than a few yawn inducing parts. this version is ridiculously politically correct. the film lacks style and and mostly it lacks talent and not just with the acting and but the direction and sets and costumes etc. are all below par. it has a blatant disregard for period detail. vanessa williams is the only cast member that shows any flair and tyne daly isn not too bad. they should have left well enough alone. the singing ranges good (vanessa williams) to poor (everyone else). watch the original 1963 version and skip this one. there is not much here to recommend.
needless remake and and it can not come close to capturing the charm of the original. the extreme length causes more than a few yawn inducing parts. this version is ridiculously politically correct. the film lacks style and and mostly it lacks talent and not just with the acting and but the direction and sets and costumes etc. are all below par. it has a blatant disregard for period detail. vanessa williams is the only cast member that shows any flair and tyne daly isn not too bad. they should have left well enough alone. the singing ranges good (vanessa williams) to poor (everyone else). watch the original 1963 version and skip this one. there is not much here to recommend.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
why. because for one reason and there has never been a more adorable scene in any film than ann margret singing bye bye birdie at the opening. she reprises it again at the ending and too (in a different mood. ). both wonderful. rent it and see. even if that all of it that you watch. you will agree and i am sure. everything about the original was so excellent it just do not need a remake and sorry. jason and vanessa gave commendable performances and as well as tyne and chynna. in fact and all the actors and singers in this new version were giving their all and but it like trying to improve on casablanca it just can not be done. it even annoying finding yourself comparing the two mentally as you try to appreciate the remake and and it just falls short and through no fault of the actors.
why. because for one reason and there has never been a more adorable scene in any film than ann margret singing bye bye birdie at the opening. she reprises it again at the ending and too (in a different mood. ). both wonderful. rent it and see. even if that all of it that you watch. you will agree and i am sure. everything about the original was so excellent it just do not need a remake and sorry. jason and vanessa gave commendable performances and as well as tyne and chynna. in fact and all the actors and singers in this new version were giving their all and but it like trying to improve on casablanca it just can not be done. it even annoying finding yourself comparing the two mentally as you try to appreciate the remake and and it just falls short and through no fault of the actors.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
jason alexander is a wonderful actor and but it ridiculous to cast him as a cuddly romantic lead. the fact that he dances so well and croons so effectively and and throws himself into the part so completely somehow just made him seem all the more creepy. in his more cutesy moments (with the girl in the train station and in the final number with rosie) and i couldn not take my eyes off him he was so repellent. you keep expecting him to drop the nice guy act and start snarling. vanessa williams was the real star and the only performance that was better than the 1963 movie. by the way and if you see a production of the stage musical and the 1963 movie and this 1995 movie and you will see three versions that have more revisions (different songs and same songs assigned to different characters and in different situations) than any other musical i have ever seen.
jason alexander is a wonderful actor and but it ridiculous to cast him as a cuddly romantic lead. the fact that he dances so well and croons so effectively and and throws himself into the part so completely somehow just made him seem all the more creepy. in his more cutesy moments (with the girl in the train station and in the final number with rosie) and i couldn not take my eyes off him he was so repellent. you keep expecting him to drop the nice guy act and start snarling. vanessa williams was the real star and the only performance that was better than the 1963 movie. by the way and if you see a production of the stage musical and the 1963 movie and this 1995 movie and you will see three versions that have more revisions (different songs and same songs assigned to different characters and in different situations) than any other musical i have ever seen.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
if i hadn not been forced to watch this for work reasons i never would have made it past the first 10 minutes. and even then i admit i fast forwarded through parts. the 63 film version was vastly superior in all regards. yes and i have read this one is more faithful to the original play and but what a wise thing it was for the writer to change the script in 63. it overlong and it drags and the songs that are in this version and not in the film version are boring and unimaginative. the version of kids in the 63 version was very funny and a true classic of sarcastic parent humor. in this version the kim is way too old and the conrad is absolutely horrible to behold (when someone ripped his shirt off him i shuttered in disgust. the director of this version has no idea what sexy is. ). this conrad can not dance and can not sing (he can not even stay in tune) and is simply repulsive. if elvis presley had really been like that his career would have been over before it began. as for the other actors and well i kept waiting for alexander toupee to fall off as he danced and daly was totally over acting as momma. see stapleton performance in the film version to see the same role properly executed by someone who understands comic timing. this tv version is nothing but a total waste of anyone time.
if i hadn not been forced to watch this for work reasons i never would have made it past the first 10 minutes. and even then i admit i fast forwarded through parts. the 63 film version was vastly superior in all regards. yes and i have read this one is more faithful to the original play and but what a wise thing it was for the writer to change the script in 63. it overlong and it drags and the songs that are in this version and not in the film version are boring and unimaginative. the version of kids in the 63 version was very funny and a true classic of sarcastic parent humor. in this version the kim is way too old and the conrad is absolutely horrible to behold (when someone ripped his shirt off him i shuttered in disgust. the director of this version has no idea what sexy is. ). this conrad can not dance and can not sing (he can not even stay in tune) and is simply repulsive. if elvis presley had really been like that his career would have been over before it began. as for the other actors and well i kept waiting for alexander toupee to fall off as he danced and daly was totally over acting as momma. see stapleton performance in the film version to see the same role properly executed by someone who understands comic timing. this tv version is nothing but a total waste of anyone time.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this film concerns the story of eddy as mentioned in the title and his homecoming to old friends in a seaside community. the plot involves the group of friends as it comes to light that eddy left as a means to deal with death of a friend in which he feels in some way responsible. but this is inconsequential and as the choices made in the production are extremely poor and not fully realized. screenplays not always need be chatty and but they should at least assist the development of the story. here one line attempts such as he just took off or i know you do not have love in heart just do fully evoke something worth the audience time. also whenever the writer feels at a loss to where to go to next he cuts to a music montage of the protagonist walking through fields to some indie mood music. talk about trying to hard. if you are interested in a good film and the type that gives quality and substance over just style then this is not the film for you.
this film concerns the story of eddy as mentioned in the title and his homecoming to old friends in a seaside community. the plot involves the group of friends as it comes to light that eddy left as a means to deal with death of a friend in which he feels in some way responsible. but this is inconsequential and as the choices made in the production are extremely poor and not fully realized. screenplays not always need be chatty and but they should at least assist the development of the story. here one line attempts such as he just took off or i know you do not have love in heart just do fully evoke something worth the audience time. also whenever the writer feels at a loss to where to go to next he cuts to a music montage of the protagonist walking through fields to some indie mood music. talk about trying to hard. if you are interested in a good film and the type that gives quality and substance over just style then this is not the film for you.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.