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
considering the limits of this film (the entire movie in one setting a music studio only about 5 or 6 actors total) it should have been much better made. if you have these limits in making a film and how could the lighting be so bad. and the actors were terrible and were talking a hair below the acting in clerks and except that was an enjoyable movie and this had no substance. well it tried to and but really fails. it makes attempt to be self referencing in a couple parts and but the lines were delivered so poorly by the actors it was just bad. and the main character neal guy and what a pathetic looser. clearly like 10 people total made this film and they all knew each other and and it probably was a real rock band that they had and but unfortuntly these people really have no idea how terrible they are all around. this was made in 2005 and but they all look so naieve it smacks of just pre grunge era. thankfully i do not pay to see this (starz on demand delivers again. ) but it was under the title the possessed not studio 666 and it doesn not matter what you do to the title and it can not help this. this could have been a much better made movie there is no excuse for this bad film making when you have the obvious limited parameters the filmmakers had when they made this and working within those limits you should make the stuff you can control and the stuff you can work with the best you can. instead they figured mediocrity would be good enough. and that music video and wow that was bad and i fast fowarded through that. so negative is fair and if you are into the whole b movie crap i suppose you will go and see this.
considering the limits of this film (the entire movie in one setting a music studio only about 5 or 6 actors total) it should have been much better made. if you have these limits in making a film and how could the lighting be so bad. and the actors were terrible and were talking a hair below the acting in clerks and except that was an enjoyable movie and this had no substance. well it tried to and but really fails. it makes attempt to be self referencing in a couple parts and but the lines were delivered so poorly by the actors it was just bad. and the main character neal guy and what a pathetic looser. clearly like 10 people total made this film and they all knew each other and and it probably was a real rock band that they had and but unfortuntly these people really have no idea how terrible they are all around. this was made in 2005 and but they all look so naieve it smacks of just pre grunge era. thankfully i do not pay to see this (starz on demand delivers again. ) but it was under the title the possessed not studio 666 and it doesn not matter what you do to the title and it can not help this. this could have been a much better made movie there is no excuse for this bad film making when you have the obvious limited parameters the filmmakers had when they made this and working within those limits you should make the stuff you can control and the stuff you can work with the best you can. instead they figured mediocrity would be good enough. and that music video and wow that was bad and i fast fowarded through that. so negative is fair and if you are into the whole b movie crap i suppose you will go and see this.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i think that if i went to a first school somewhere deep in the countryside and asked the bottom set of english to come up with a script and it would make more sense than this. i could then go to the first year drama group and they would act it out better than the jokers in this film. this sounds really mean and but i am certain that they made this as a joke and are entirely aware that they possess (see what i did there. ) neither the skills to act or to write anything and ever. watch this only if youre incredibly drunk and high or in need of a good excuse as to why your decaying corpse was found with slit wrists. i will now go to my fish bowl and collect all of the poo at the bottom. after that and i will mould it into the shape of a disc and put it into my dvd player and fully expecting it to produce something far better than this trumpery. acting negative plot lol/10 breasts positive .
i think that if i went to a first school somewhere deep in the countryside and asked the bottom set of english to come up with a script and it would make more sense than this. i could then go to the first year drama group and they would act it out better than the jokers in this film. this sounds really mean and but i am certain that they made this as a joke and are entirely aware that they possess (see what i did there. ) neither the skills to act or to write anything and ever. watch this only if youre incredibly drunk and high or in need of a good excuse as to why your decaying corpse was found with slit wrists. i will now go to my fish bowl and collect all of the poo at the bottom. after that and i will mould it into the shape of a disc and put it into my dvd player and fully expecting it to produce something far better than this trumpery. acting negative plot lol/10 breasts positive .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
after a quasi gothic and all fruity music video and the movie starts with cassidy the lead singer killing herself. in a perfect world that would be that and the end credits would roll. we do not live n that world. the insipid band members decide to go to some clown to contact her dead essence. when i say clown and i mean actual clown. he tell them theyre all going to die via cassidy ghost (the spirit possesses dora and one of the band mates) we couldn not care less as the characters are all boring and vapid and and extremely horribly acted. written by adam hackbarth (an incredibly apropos surname if there ever was one) and and directed by corbin timbrook (who after the attendant and and tower of blood and has to know that he keeps making crap for a living) and this movie s a constant battle between the film incompetence and the viewer need to stay awake. not enough blood to appease gore hounds and nor enough nudity to satisfy pervs. this movie in fact has absolutely nothing to recommend to absolutely anyone. my grade represent f eye candy represent amanda carraway gets topless where i saw it represent starz on demand.
after a quasi gothic and all fruity music video and the movie starts with cassidy the lead singer killing herself. in a perfect world that would be that and the end credits would roll. we do not live n that world. the insipid band members decide to go to some clown to contact her dead essence. when i say clown and i mean actual clown. he tell them theyre all going to die via cassidy ghost (the spirit possesses dora and one of the band mates) we couldn not care less as the characters are all boring and vapid and and extremely horribly acted. written by adam hackbarth (an incredibly apropos surname if there ever was one) and and directed by corbin timbrook (who after the attendant and and tower of blood and has to know that he keeps making crap for a living) and this movie s a constant battle between the film incompetence and the viewer need to stay awake. not enough blood to appease gore hounds and nor enough nudity to satisfy pervs. this movie in fact has absolutely nothing to recommend to absolutely anyone. my grade represent f eye candy represent amanda carraway gets topless where i saw it represent starz on demand.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
one of my best friends brought this movie over one night with the words wanna watch the worst horror movie ever. i always enjoy a good laugh at a bad horror flick and said yes. i had expected your typical cheesy b slasher but this was beyond b. this is z slasher and the lowest of the low. with obviously low budget and extremely bad acting and bad lightning and no plot and really bad so called pecial effects and shaky cameras and a horrible soundtrack this makes movies like house of wax look like oscar winning masterpieces. the only good thing about it is about 15 seconds of one of the characters getting topless she had some very nice tits. most of what i said during this film was along the lines of wow this is actually so bad and this is the worst movie ever and i am not drunk enough for this. so in conclusion represent do not waste your time (or money. ).
one of my best friends brought this movie over one night with the words wanna watch the worst horror movie ever. i always enjoy a good laugh at a bad horror flick and said yes. i had expected your typical cheesy b slasher but this was beyond b. this is z slasher and the lowest of the low. with obviously low budget and extremely bad acting and bad lightning and no plot and really bad so called pecial effects and shaky cameras and a horrible soundtrack this makes movies like house of wax look like oscar winning masterpieces. the only good thing about it is about 15 seconds of one of the characters getting topless she had some very nice tits. most of what i said during this film was along the lines of wow this is actually so bad and this is the worst movie ever and i am not drunk enough for this. so in conclusion represent do not waste your time (or money. ).
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
whoever wrote the script for this movie does not deserve to work in hollywood at all (not even live there) and and those actors need to find another job. the most dreadful hour and some minutes of my life. and i only kept watching to see if it would get better which and unfortunately for me it did not. even at the end and the credits gave me anxiety. i guess there weren not a lot of people behind the movie so they had to roll the credits slowly. very slowly. this movie is definitely a great how not to make a movie guide. too bad i can not give a 0.
whoever wrote the script for this movie does not deserve to work in hollywood at all (not even live there) and and those actors need to find another job. the most dreadful hour and some minutes of my life. and i only kept watching to see if it would get better which and unfortunately for me it did not. even at the end and the credits gave me anxiety. i guess there weren not a lot of people behind the movie so they had to roll the credits slowly. very slowly. this movie is definitely a great how not to make a movie guide. too bad i can not give a 0.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie is bad. if you are thinking about watching it and there is only one decent scene in the movie and and it lasts about 5 seconds (amanda carraway topless scene). the rest of the movie is horrible. i think high school plays probably have better acting. the plot makes no sense at all. the set was pretty lame and and it wasn not even good to make fun of. it was just dull and very very bad. i watched this on starz so i thought it had to be at least decent. the mini description sounded like it would be alright. the girlfriend kills herself for apparently no reason at the beginning of the movie and after you have to watch some horrible music video. the transitions between scenes are very abrupt and its like someone just put a ton of clips into a movie without even thinking about how to transition them. just cuts from one scene to another and no smoothness. kind of like my random switching from talking about how bad the movie is and to explaining why the plot sucks. the audio gets low at some points and where you can barely hear it and then gets loud with gay horror screams thrown in at random points in the movie. it is the same sound every time. this is now officially the worst movie i have ever seenacting represent negative effects represent negative storyline represent negative music represent negative lame meter represent 1 and 000 and 000 or 10.
this movie is bad. if you are thinking about watching it and there is only one decent scene in the movie and and it lasts about 5 seconds (amanda carraway topless scene). the rest of the movie is horrible. i think high school plays probably have better acting. the plot makes no sense at all. the set was pretty lame and and it wasn not even good to make fun of. it was just dull and very very bad. i watched this on starz so i thought it had to be at least decent. the mini description sounded like it would be alright. the girlfriend kills herself for apparently no reason at the beginning of the movie and after you have to watch some horrible music video. the transitions between scenes are very abrupt and its like someone just put a ton of clips into a movie without even thinking about how to transition them. just cuts from one scene to another and no smoothness. kind of like my random switching from talking about how bad the movie is and to explaining why the plot sucks. the audio gets low at some points and where you can barely hear it and then gets loud with gay horror screams thrown in at random points in the movie. it is the same sound every time. this is now officially the worst movie i have ever seenacting represent negative effects represent negative storyline represent negative music represent negative lame meter represent 1 and 000 and 000 or 10.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i am a major fan of the horror genre. i love horror or slasher or gore flicks of all kinds. some of my favorites are the really good bad horror flicks. but this movies has nothing to warrant it viewing. i am not going to spend a lot of time talking about everything that wrong with it. the script is horrid. the acting is horrid. the fx are not even worth discussing. the set is an absolute joke. the sad thing is i think there may be some real potential in a couple of the actors and but this vehicle left them nothing to work with. suffice it to say i saw it for free and feel i was robbed. the time you would waste watching this would be better spent flossing your cat.
i am a major fan of the horror genre. i love horror or slasher or gore flicks of all kinds. some of my favorites are the really good bad horror flicks. but this movies has nothing to warrant it viewing. i am not going to spend a lot of time talking about everything that wrong with it. the script is horrid. the acting is horrid. the fx are not even worth discussing. the set is an absolute joke. the sad thing is i think there may be some real potential in a couple of the actors and but this vehicle left them nothing to work with. suffice it to say i saw it for free and feel i was robbed. the time you would waste watching this would be better spent flossing your cat.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
for the most part and on demand delivers some pretty horrible horror movies and and only offers other horror movies everyone has already seen and and already have an opinion on. it was either this and or invinicible (i like mark wahlberg movies) and which i haven not seen and and i was actually in a movie watching mood and which doesn not happen often anymore because i have already watched all the movies i own a million times and and that a lot of movies and and i do not have much interest in new movies and and boy and this movie made me regret it. i am not going to put in any spoilers and i am just going to tell you that only a few of the very few actors in this movie and are half way decent. i think the main girl and the dead one who kills everyone and is very annoying looking and but convincing while i would take her for psycho bitch anyday and so she fits her roll well and though it is lame. the blood isn not that great and only a few of the kills and or may i say woundings are alright and but you do not see much and there are no body part props in the movie to make the injuries look more convincing. towards the end of the movie i was begging my girlfriend to turn it off and and being a band member and the recording parts weren not very interesting either and though what happened would truly happen when going about recording. i am done and if you want to watch this and suit yourself.
for the most part and on demand delivers some pretty horrible horror movies and and only offers other horror movies everyone has already seen and and already have an opinion on. it was either this and or invinicible (i like mark wahlberg movies) and which i haven not seen and and i was actually in a movie watching mood and which doesn not happen often anymore because i have already watched all the movies i own a million times and and that a lot of movies and and i do not have much interest in new movies and and boy and this movie made me regret it. i am not going to put in any spoilers and i am just going to tell you that only a few of the very few actors in this movie and are half way decent. i think the main girl and the dead one who kills everyone and is very annoying looking and but convincing while i would take her for psycho bitch anyday and so she fits her roll well and though it is lame. the blood isn not that great and only a few of the kills and or may i say woundings are alright and but you do not see much and there are no body part props in the movie to make the injuries look more convincing. towards the end of the movie i was begging my girlfriend to turn it off and and being a band member and the recording parts weren not very interesting either and though what happened would truly happen when going about recording. i am done and if you want to watch this and suit yourself.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
cassidy(kacia brady)puts a gun in her mouth blowing the back of her head out on boyfriend neal(jason dibler). cassidy was the lead singer of a demons and death rock band who couldn not shake the sad feelings of her boyfriend neglect towards her(you know and i can find other reasonable ways to solve this other than putting a bullet through your head). she returns and however and possessing the soul of dora(jill small)her friend who is to replace her on vocals so that the group can finish the album halted by cassidy untimely death. but and cassidy made a deal with the dark one and souls are to be collected. she consumed by this anger towards mainly neal and but all the band members or anyone within the music studio get dead when they fall prey to whom they believe is a rather distraught dora. not cassidy returning for payback. lousy micro budget horror flick looks cheap and has a cheap cast who should make plans in another line of work and and boasts cheap kill scenes which aren not effective one bit.
cassidy(kacia brady)puts a gun in her mouth blowing the back of her head out on boyfriend neal(jason dibler). cassidy was the lead singer of a demons and death rock band who couldn not shake the sad feelings of her boyfriend neglect towards her(you know and i can find other reasonable ways to solve this other than putting a bullet through your head). she returns and however and possessing the soul of dora(jill small)her friend who is to replace her on vocals so that the group can finish the album halted by cassidy untimely death. but and cassidy made a deal with the dark one and souls are to be collected. she consumed by this anger towards mainly neal and but all the band members or anyone within the music studio get dead when they fall prey to whom they believe is a rather distraught dora. not cassidy returning for payback. lousy micro budget horror flick looks cheap and has a cheap cast who should make plans in another line of work and and boasts cheap kill scenes which aren not effective one bit.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
well and because i am a musician i thought and maybe i will check this movie out on tmc and nothing else good on. one of the worst mistakes of my life so far and and it only half done. i seriously thought it was one of those soft core movies with crappy plot and crappy acting and crappy filming and crappy effects. but nope and i do not even get the pleasure of that. even the musicians weren not very good. i was hoping for maybe some laughs and but i wasn not sure if they were attempting to throw in one liners or not. but now i have to sit here and watch the rest just until pulp fiction starts. or maybe something better. and now i get to sit here typing until i have 10 lines.
well and because i am a musician i thought and maybe i will check this movie out on tmc and nothing else good on. one of the worst mistakes of my life so far and and it only half done. i seriously thought it was one of those soft core movies with crappy plot and crappy acting and crappy filming and crappy effects. but nope and i do not even get the pleasure of that. even the musicians weren not very good. i was hoping for maybe some laughs and but i wasn not sure if they were attempting to throw in one liners or not. but now i have to sit here and watch the rest just until pulp fiction starts. or maybe something better. and now i get to sit here typing until i have 10 lines.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this ranks way up there on my top list of worst movies i have seen so far on starz on demand. they seem to pick up every straight to dvd crap fest they can find and put it on here. why. who knows. apparently anyone with a digital camera and a shoestring budget can come up with a horror movie and get it put on tv. to be honest and this looked terrible from the moment i saw the trailer but i did give it a real chance. i always try to have an open mind about low budget movies. some of the best movies i have ever seen were films that worked around their low budget or in other cases only required that low budget to be great. this is not one of those movies. you know the plot by now and i am sure and if youre reading this. either you heard about it on starz on demand or for whatever reason you ended up on this page out of boredom. it about a pathetic and whiny girl we get to know for all of 3 minutes in an incredibly bad heavy metal music video. whoever put it together must have thought it looked really interesting and but it really and really doesn not. anyway and she kills herself. then she possesses someone. then some killing starts. it really unmemorable and as completely average and boring as possible. when the first gunshot goes off in her apartment it quite seriously sounds like a piece of popcorn popping. was that the best sound effect they could come up with. i could find a better sound effect to use for free and (with no copyright and ) on the internet. right. now. don not let the other reviews claiming this is a 10 star movie fool you. they are obviously either distributors of the film or maybe even the director trying to con you into thinking this piece of junk is worth buying. laughable.
this ranks way up there on my top list of worst movies i have seen so far on starz on demand. they seem to pick up every straight to dvd crap fest they can find and put it on here. why. who knows. apparently anyone with a digital camera and a shoestring budget can come up with a horror movie and get it put on tv. to be honest and this looked terrible from the moment i saw the trailer but i did give it a real chance. i always try to have an open mind about low budget movies. some of the best movies i have ever seen were films that worked around their low budget or in other cases only required that low budget to be great. this is not one of those movies. you know the plot by now and i am sure and if youre reading this. either you heard about it on starz on demand or for whatever reason you ended up on this page out of boredom. it about a pathetic and whiny girl we get to know for all of 3 minutes in an incredibly bad heavy metal music video. whoever put it together must have thought it looked really interesting and but it really and really doesn not. anyway and she kills herself. then she possesses someone. then some killing starts. it really unmemorable and as completely average and boring as possible. when the first gunshot goes off in her apartment it quite seriously sounds like a piece of popcorn popping. was that the best sound effect they could come up with. i could find a better sound effect to use for free and (with no copyright and ) on the internet. right. now. don not let the other reviews claiming this is a 10 star movie fool you. they are obviously either distributors of the film or maybe even the director trying to con you into thinking this piece of junk is worth buying. laughable.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
studio 666 (aka the possessed in the uk) is another sub par slasher that has the appearance of a straight to dvd movie. whilst many of the straight to dvd movies are fast paced or unintentionally hilarious in the so bad it good sense and studio 666 is a lamentable failure. at the time of writing and every comment on the first page includes a negative rating and a negative review. every one of these people have hit the nail on the head. the two people (at the time of writing) who wrote comments with a rating of positive should not be taken seriously. obviously they have seen few slasher movies and have an even more limited understanding of horror. the only really positive point i can make about this movie is that it does fare better than the choke and one of them and two extremely mediocre slasher movies that i would not wish on my worst enemy. the plot of this movie must have been done hundreds and if not thousands of times. the movie only has a slight twist (and one that is badly handled) to the usual expectations. a depressed singer commits suicide. soon after and her spirit returns to possess one of her surviving friends. the said possessed friend goes on a killing spree. the rest of the plot really is too bizarre to sum up. you will just have to see it for yourself and providing your interest has not yet waned to the point of extinction of course. the acting in the movie is very poor for the most part. the actress who played dora was an exception to this. her character was always interesting and seductive when she was on the screen. she helps to elevate the movie above similar contemporary efforts. unfortunately and some of the lines she was given to say were badly written to put it mildly and thus prevent her from saving the movie. the direction was equally poor. the villains did not seem the least bit menacing and every killing was totally devoid of suspense or tension and atmosphere was non existent and the camera work was incredibly basic. some of the special effects (if you can call them that) reminded me of the tv series and ghost stories. unfortunately for the producers of this movie and ghost stories had intelligently written scripts and believable performances and made superb use of camera angles. maybe if the producers had watched that tv series closely and they would have picked up some more techniques that might have saved this excuse for a movie. the music is completely unsuited to the tone of the movie. it just rock music and not the best examples of this type either. don not get me started on that awful song played at the beginning. some aspects of the movie and particularly dialogue and are unintentionally funny. unfortunately they are not funny enough to move the movie up (or should it be down) to the so bad it good level. overall and studio 666 is a mundane mediocre slasher with very little noteworthy aspects. i recommend this only to those who are fans of straight to dvd movies and have a desire to see every single slasher ever made.
studio 666 (aka the possessed in the uk) is another sub par slasher that has the appearance of a straight to dvd movie. whilst many of the straight to dvd movies are fast paced or unintentionally hilarious in the so bad it good sense and studio 666 is a lamentable failure. at the time of writing and every comment on the first page includes a negative rating and a negative review. every one of these people have hit the nail on the head. the two people (at the time of writing) who wrote comments with a rating of positive should not be taken seriously. obviously they have seen few slasher movies and have an even more limited understanding of horror. the only really positive point i can make about this movie is that it does fare better than the choke and one of them and two extremely mediocre slasher movies that i would not wish on my worst enemy. the plot of this movie must have been done hundreds and if not thousands of times. the movie only has a slight twist (and one that is badly handled) to the usual expectations. a depressed singer commits suicide. soon after and her spirit returns to possess one of her surviving friends. the said possessed friend goes on a killing spree. the rest of the plot really is too bizarre to sum up. you will just have to see it for yourself and providing your interest has not yet waned to the point of extinction of course. the acting in the movie is very poor for the most part. the actress who played dora was an exception to this. her character was always interesting and seductive when she was on the screen. she helps to elevate the movie above similar contemporary efforts. unfortunately and some of the lines she was given to say were badly written to put it mildly and thus prevent her from saving the movie. the direction was equally poor. the villains did not seem the least bit menacing and every killing was totally devoid of suspense or tension and atmosphere was non existent and the camera work was incredibly basic. some of the special effects (if you can call them that) reminded me of the tv series and ghost stories. unfortunately for the producers of this movie and ghost stories had intelligently written scripts and believable performances and made superb use of camera angles. maybe if the producers had watched that tv series closely and they would have picked up some more techniques that might have saved this excuse for a movie. the music is completely unsuited to the tone of the movie. it just rock music and not the best examples of this type either. don not get me started on that awful song played at the beginning. some aspects of the movie and particularly dialogue and are unintentionally funny. unfortunately they are not funny enough to move the movie up (or should it be down) to the so bad it good level. overall and studio 666 is a mundane mediocre slasher with very little noteworthy aspects. i recommend this only to those who are fans of straight to dvd movies and have a desire to see every single slasher ever made.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
as with most of the reviewers and i saw this on starz. ondemand. after watching the preview with my girlfriend and she decided not to watch it from how bad the preview watched. i and on the other hand and thought it looked weird enough to warrant a watching. i mean and the design of dr. meso alone warranted at least a brief sweep over this title. after watching it and i can say that while there are some interesting aspects to it (namely the browsing over the notebooks and trying to figure out the incomprehensible story) and it best to pass over this one. major spoilers ahead after making their first video for their as yet unfinished cd and the lead singer and cassidy and kills herself in an attempt to get her boyfriend neil to notice her. 3 months later and the band is trying to decide if theyre going to finish the album or not. to try and see what cassidy would have wanted and they go to see an old psychic friend of hers and dr. meso and and try to contact her through him. in his card reading and dr. meso turns up four straight death cards for the four remaining band members. bad times are ahead. (i just wanted to make a point that later in the film and they do explain that the death card really just represents change. kudos to them on that at least. ) even without the approval of their deceased friend and they decide to go ahead and finish the album. but while in the bathroom and cassidy best friend and dora and catches a glimpse of her deceased friend. when another band mate goes in to check on her and dora is standing in the dark and requesting his sunglasses. that when the killing begins. my main problem with the film from the very get go is that it seems to be heavy stylized to a fault. too many warping effects and unnecessary zooms and and a plethora of other cheap effects riddle this film. an incoherent storyline doesn not help anything either. while the narrative hangs together for the first part and once cassidy is resurrected and everything falls apart. we have jump cuts between cassidy and dr. meso (who mysteriously was able to get into a locked building) and which show they are connected in some way or another. however and within a few minutes of that revelation and we find that cassidy really is an independent being from meso. she then turns on the guy who had been helping her revenge and he scurries away in a way that calls to mind jack nicholson as the joker. but not in a good way. from this point on and the whereabouts of cassidy are shown and but there are strange lapses as character moves from place to place almost out of sequence. one scene we see cassidy standing at a desk and when a character enters in the next and she nowhere to be found. as he moves behind the desk and we see her at the end of a hallway. then in another room grabbing the keys (which neil already has) and then back again. not to mention that from one moment to the next and cassidy mood seems to go a complete 180 without a catalyst to it. one moment and she wants to kill everyone (although she only wounded 90% of the characters) the next she apologizing to everyone and walks out the door to die again. sound confusing. that because it is. it a jumbled mess that i am sure the writer couldn not even figure out. as for the performances and most are particularly wooden. some though are interesting and but overall this isn not a piece that would be known for it acting. the story is the driving force behind this piece.
as with most of the reviewers and i saw this on starz. ondemand. after watching the preview with my girlfriend and she decided not to watch it from how bad the preview watched. i and on the other hand and thought it looked weird enough to warrant a watching. i mean and the design of dr. meso alone warranted at least a brief sweep over this title. after watching it and i can say that while there are some interesting aspects to it (namely the browsing over the notebooks and trying to figure out the incomprehensible story) and it best to pass over this one. major spoilers ahead after making their first video for their as yet unfinished cd and the lead singer and cassidy and kills herself in an attempt to get her boyfriend neil to notice her. 3 months later and the band is trying to decide if theyre going to finish the album or not. to try and see what cassidy would have wanted and they go to see an old psychic friend of hers and dr. meso and and try to contact her through him. in his card reading and dr. meso turns up four straight death cards for the four remaining band members. bad times are ahead. (i just wanted to make a point that later in the film and they do explain that the death card really just represents change. kudos to them on that at least. ) even without the approval of their deceased friend and they decide to go ahead and finish the album. but while in the bathroom and cassidy best friend and dora and catches a glimpse of her deceased friend. when another band mate goes in to check on her and dora is standing in the dark and requesting his sunglasses. that when the killing begins. my main problem with the film from the very get go is that it seems to be heavy stylized to a fault. too many warping effects and unnecessary zooms and and a plethora of other cheap effects riddle this film. an incoherent storyline doesn not help anything either. while the narrative hangs together for the first part and once cassidy is resurrected and everything falls apart. we have jump cuts between cassidy and dr. meso (who mysteriously was able to get into a locked building) and which show they are connected in some way or another. however and within a few minutes of that revelation and we find that cassidy really is an independent being from meso. she then turns on the guy who had been helping her revenge and he scurries away in a way that calls to mind jack nicholson as the joker. but not in a good way. from this point on and the whereabouts of cassidy are shown and but there are strange lapses as character moves from place to place almost out of sequence. one scene we see cassidy standing at a desk and when a character enters in the next and she nowhere to be found. as he moves behind the desk and we see her at the end of a hallway. then in another room grabbing the keys (which neil already has) and then back again. not to mention that from one moment to the next and cassidy mood seems to go a complete 180 without a catalyst to it. one moment and she wants to kill everyone (although she only wounded 90% of the characters) the next she apologizing to everyone and walks out the door to die again. sound confusing. that because it is. it a jumbled mess that i am sure the writer couldn not even figure out. as for the performances and most are particularly wooden. some though are interesting and but overall this isn not a piece that would be known for it acting. the story is the driving force behind this piece.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
julia (kristina copeland) travels with her husband steven harris (steven man) and their baby son alex to spend a couple of days with her family in savage island and an island of their own. the couple expects to resolve their issues along the weekend in the remote island. while waiting for the boat and julia and steven meet two weird men in the harbor and and when her brother peter (brendan beiser) arrives and he explains that a family of hillbilly squatters is living in the island. the reckless peter smoke pot while driving the truck in the night and turns the headlight off to show off while however and he accidentally runs over the young son of the savage family and but in the dark he believes he has hit an animal. later and the savage family claims alex as a compensation for their lost son. the young family does not accept the trade and and they initiate a deadly war between families. savage island is a very low budget movie and with a stupid screenplay and amateurish cinematography but surprisingly good acting. the flawed story is totally absurd and and there are many unbelievable situations. for example and how could two men leave two women with the baby alone in the road during the night with the menace of the deranged family. the logical procedure would be going immediately to the continent and bringing police force to rescue peter. then the young family vanishes while julia and steven leave their car in the continent and their house and friends and and nobody chases them. peter calls his sister julia of alex when he arrives with the boat in the beginning. there are so many flaws in this flick that i could spend many lines writing about this subject. i believe this film was filmed with a home video camera so awful the images are. the good cast deserved a better material to work. my vote is four. title (brazil) represent ilha de sangue (island of blood).
julia (kristina copeland) travels with her husband steven harris (steven man) and their baby son alex to spend a couple of days with her family in savage island and an island of their own. the couple expects to resolve their issues along the weekend in the remote island. while waiting for the boat and julia and steven meet two weird men in the harbor and and when her brother peter (brendan beiser) arrives and he explains that a family of hillbilly squatters is living in the island. the reckless peter smoke pot while driving the truck in the night and turns the headlight off to show off while however and he accidentally runs over the young son of the savage family and but in the dark he believes he has hit an animal. later and the savage family claims alex as a compensation for their lost son. the young family does not accept the trade and and they initiate a deadly war between families. savage island is a very low budget movie and with a stupid screenplay and amateurish cinematography but surprisingly good acting. the flawed story is totally absurd and and there are many unbelievable situations. for example and how could two men leave two women with the baby alone in the road during the night with the menace of the deranged family. the logical procedure would be going immediately to the continent and bringing police force to rescue peter. then the young family vanishes while julia and steven leave their car in the continent and their house and friends and and nobody chases them. peter calls his sister julia of alex when he arrives with the boat in the beginning. there are so many flaws in this flick that i could spend many lines writing about this subject. i believe this film was filmed with a home video camera so awful the images are. the good cast deserved a better material to work. my vote is four. title (brazil) represent ilha de sangue (island of blood).
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
savage island (2003) is a lame movie. it more like a home video shot with very minimal lighting and horrid acting. not only that the storyline and script was wretched. i do not know why this movie was made. i have seen a lot of flicks in my time and the ones i really hate are movies that make me angry. this one made my blood boil. the situations were inane at best. if i made a movie like this it would have been a short. really because those backwood idjits do not have been in the picture. don not be fooled by the cover on the d. v. d. i am an avid watcher of bad cinema. but this movie is virtually unwatchable. i do not mind movies being shot on d. v. but if youre going to do that make the movie enjoyable and not some tired retread of superior horror films (sans wrong turn). i have to not recommend this waste of disk. if you come across this one in the rental store pass on by. movies that make yours truly angry get an automatic 1.
savage island (2003) is a lame movie. it more like a home video shot with very minimal lighting and horrid acting. not only that the storyline and script was wretched. i do not know why this movie was made. i have seen a lot of flicks in my time and the ones i really hate are movies that make me angry. this one made my blood boil. the situations were inane at best. if i made a movie like this it would have been a short. really because those backwood idjits do not have been in the picture. don not be fooled by the cover on the d. v. d. i am an avid watcher of bad cinema. but this movie is virtually unwatchable. i do not mind movies being shot on d. v. but if youre going to do that make the movie enjoyable and not some tired retread of superior horror films (sans wrong turn). i have to not recommend this waste of disk. if you come across this one in the rental store pass on by. movies that make yours truly angry get an automatic 1.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
much has been written about purple rain and the apparent quin essential musician bio movie and however i am here to tell you that the movie does not deserve it high praise. first of all let get one thing straight prince is a great musician and music is the one area where purple rain excels. even the score is mesmerising and and if this was shot purely as a concert film it would be a great experience unfortunately it not and as such the movie has some problems. first of all is the horrendous acting or writing and prince character the kid is supposed to come off as some type of mysterious loner of few words unfortunately this just comes off as corny and incensere. a good loner character should at least have some talkative moments and unfortunately prince character rarely has over a few words of dialog in the film and it hard to believe that he would get the girl this way. everything just seems a little off here and which is a shame because you can tell this is a character that terribly conflicted and lives a very complicated live and but we aren not ever allowed to get inside of it. a surprising aspect of this film is just how much of this takes place in concert. prince and morris lives seemingly take a back seat to the performances here and which i guess makes sense from a business perspective and but it exhausting to have a 2 hour movie where seemingly half of it takes place on stage and especially when the character back stories get pushed aside for it. so to sum it up represent this isn not a very good movie.
much has been written about purple rain and the apparent quin essential musician bio movie and however i am here to tell you that the movie does not deserve it high praise. first of all let get one thing straight prince is a great musician and music is the one area where purple rain excels. even the score is mesmerising and and if this was shot purely as a concert film it would be a great experience unfortunately it not and as such the movie has some problems. first of all is the horrendous acting or writing and prince character the kid is supposed to come off as some type of mysterious loner of few words unfortunately this just comes off as corny and incensere. a good loner character should at least have some talkative moments and unfortunately prince character rarely has over a few words of dialog in the film and it hard to believe that he would get the girl this way. everything just seems a little off here and which is a shame because you can tell this is a character that terribly conflicted and lives a very complicated live and but we aren not ever allowed to get inside of it. a surprising aspect of this film is just how much of this takes place in concert. prince and morris lives seemingly take a back seat to the performances here and which i guess makes sense from a business perspective and but it exhausting to have a 2 hour movie where seemingly half of it takes place on stage and especially when the character back stories get pushed aside for it. so to sum it up represent this isn not a very good movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
by the numbers story of the kid (prince) and a singer and on his way to becoming a star. then he falls in love with apollonia (appolonia kotero). but he has to deal with his wife beating father (clarence williams iii. ) and his own self destructive behavior. i saw this in a theatre in 1984. i was no big fan of prince but i did like the three big songs from this movie purple rain and let get crazy and and when doves cry. the concert scenes in this movie are great full of energy and excitement. unfortunately that a very small portion of the movie. the story is screamingly obvious and have been done many times before and much better too. the subplots are and to put in nicely and badly handled. the love triangle between the kid and appolonia and morris day was so predictable and tired that i actually became insulted. his wife beating father is needed for the story and but the scenes are so badly handled (in acting and direction) that i couldn not believe it. the script is terrible lousy dialogue and some truly painful comedy routines. and there tons of misogyny here the kid mother getting beaten while the kid hitting appolonia and (for no reason) appolonia strips and goes topless to swim in a dirty river. also williams and princes characters treat women in a horrible manner constantly. the acting is where this movie really fails. appolonia is sweet and beautiful but no actor. and prince is (easily) the worst actor i have ever seen. his blank face and wooden dialogue delivery are so bad i couldn not believe it. this movie only comes to life during the concert scenes but there aren not really that many. the dramatic scenes are so badly acted and handled that they make this movie a chore to sit through. they should have just made this a concert film. i give this a 2 only for the music.
by the numbers story of the kid (prince) and a singer and on his way to becoming a star. then he falls in love with apollonia (appolonia kotero). but he has to deal with his wife beating father (clarence williams iii. ) and his own self destructive behavior. i saw this in a theatre in 1984. i was no big fan of prince but i did like the three big songs from this movie purple rain and let get crazy and and when doves cry. the concert scenes in this movie are great full of energy and excitement. unfortunately that a very small portion of the movie. the story is screamingly obvious and have been done many times before and much better too. the subplots are and to put in nicely and badly handled. the love triangle between the kid and appolonia and morris day was so predictable and tired that i actually became insulted. his wife beating father is needed for the story and but the scenes are so badly handled (in acting and direction) that i couldn not believe it. the script is terrible lousy dialogue and some truly painful comedy routines. and there tons of misogyny here the kid mother getting beaten while the kid hitting appolonia and (for no reason) appolonia strips and goes topless to swim in a dirty river. also williams and princes characters treat women in a horrible manner constantly. the acting is where this movie really fails. appolonia is sweet and beautiful but no actor. and prince is (easily) the worst actor i have ever seen. his blank face and wooden dialogue delivery are so bad i couldn not believe it. this movie only comes to life during the concert scenes but there aren not really that many. the dramatic scenes are so badly acted and handled that they make this movie a chore to sit through. they should have just made this a concert film. i give this a 2 only for the music.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
okay and i am not going to critique this film in depth. i note the many elogious reviews in advance of me and and as i generally like maria de medeiros and i have been long hesitant to make a disparaging comment and in such fashion nearly a year has passed. but each time i see that dvd on my shelf and i sense an inner groan. anyway and let the elogious voices override me. but for other cinephiles like me beware. expressed in simplest and gentlest terms and here my stance representthe political turmoil and overthrow providing the backdrop for this film also served as a backdrop for a certain period of my life via newspapers i read daily in my local middle european pub. at that time and i followed the newsreports and but never fully grasped what the heck was transpiring. the reporters tended to report either in non partisan terms and or with a conservatism which frowned upon any groups disturbing the peace or fomenting rebellion against the establishment. those were times when other winds of unrest swirled through paris and berlin and prague and and various places in the u. s. and all of whose issues i understand clearly at the time but dictatorship or not and my papers tended to treat the govermentment of portugal simply as the establishment not as a well fleshed out evil empire and to use flippant star war terms. so and week after week and i read of disturbances and but never found an intelligent editorial that might provide the history behind them and or evaluate the practices and social economic impacts of the dictatorship and etc. so and in purchasing this film and i had at least two hopes represent to finally understand the details leading up to the social unrest and and to enjoy a well conceived drama. this film gave me neither. the film presupposes that viewers already have ample knowledge and deep emotions regarding the historical facts. and the drama well and as i said and i want to encourage maria de medeiros and the portugues film industry and but it was trite and shallow. i obtained my copy of the dvd from france selection official cannes 2000 un certain regard. the box shows smiling clean shaven actors and the lead giving the victory sign in a fashion that reminds me more of the playboy bunny. after seeing the work and i wondered what the french could have thought of it though as a shallow piece of cinema verite with sensitive ethnic content and i can understand their natural inclination to praise it for its honesty but. look at the back of the box represent un regard chaleuruex sur la revolution a warm regard. try describing allende overthrown and murder with a a warm regard. try it with czechoslovakia in 1968. try it with the whole line up of overthrows and and civil rebellions. another review represent maria de medeiros a renoue avec son pays and son enfance et son histoire. rubbish and rubbish and rubbish. at least for me. i love portugal. in all of europe and lisbon and barcelona and prague are my favorite cities. but my love for a city and a country doesn not flesh out a vacuous film. i will hang on to my ancient vhs tapes of capas negras and a cancao de lisboa meanwhile and i am stuck with a zone 2 by the above title that might as well go in the trash.
okay and i am not going to critique this film in depth. i note the many elogious reviews in advance of me and and as i generally like maria de medeiros and i have been long hesitant to make a disparaging comment and in such fashion nearly a year has passed. but each time i see that dvd on my shelf and i sense an inner groan. anyway and let the elogious voices override me. but for other cinephiles like me beware. expressed in simplest and gentlest terms and here my stance representthe political turmoil and overthrow providing the backdrop for this film also served as a backdrop for a certain period of my life via newspapers i read daily in my local middle european pub. at that time and i followed the newsreports and but never fully grasped what the heck was transpiring. the reporters tended to report either in non partisan terms and or with a conservatism which frowned upon any groups disturbing the peace or fomenting rebellion against the establishment. those were times when other winds of unrest swirled through paris and berlin and prague and and various places in the u. s. and all of whose issues i understand clearly at the time but dictatorship or not and my papers tended to treat the govermentment of portugal simply as the establishment not as a well fleshed out evil empire and to use flippant star war terms. so and week after week and i read of disturbances and but never found an intelligent editorial that might provide the history behind them and or evaluate the practices and social economic impacts of the dictatorship and etc. so and in purchasing this film and i had at least two hopes represent to finally understand the details leading up to the social unrest and and to enjoy a well conceived drama. this film gave me neither. the film presupposes that viewers already have ample knowledge and deep emotions regarding the historical facts. and the drama well and as i said and i want to encourage maria de medeiros and the portugues film industry and but it was trite and shallow. i obtained my copy of the dvd from france selection official cannes 2000 un certain regard. the box shows smiling clean shaven actors and the lead giving the victory sign in a fashion that reminds me more of the playboy bunny. after seeing the work and i wondered what the french could have thought of it though as a shallow piece of cinema verite with sensitive ethnic content and i can understand their natural inclination to praise it for its honesty but. look at the back of the box represent un regard chaleuruex sur la revolution a warm regard. try describing allende overthrown and murder with a a warm regard. try it with czechoslovakia in 1968. try it with the whole line up of overthrows and and civil rebellions. another review represent maria de medeiros a renoue avec son pays and son enfance et son histoire. rubbish and rubbish and rubbish. at least for me. i love portugal. in all of europe and lisbon and barcelona and prague are my favorite cities. but my love for a city and a country doesn not flesh out a vacuous film. i will hang on to my ancient vhs tapes of capas negras and a cancao de lisboa meanwhile and i am stuck with a zone 2 by the above title that might as well go in the trash.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i know that some films (i mean represent european films) and that are very bad films and are being regarded as great cinema by certain critics and only because theyre non american. i saw the 8. 1 imdb score for this film and noticed the fact that this was being selected for certain big festivals. don not let this fool you. unless youre one of those people that likes mind numbing films like this and and call it great art afterwards and skip it. the film contains one hilarious scene after another (a similar and italian and film popped into my mind and the terrible preferisco il rumore del mare (i prefer the sound of the sea)). the problem with these films is that theyre not only boring and like some other strangely praised films and but that they almost play like camp. i mean and let face it and the acting is horrible (i mean represent soap opera level) and the story has not one surprise (this has been done endless times before and connecting several storylines represent short cuts and magnolia and playing by heart and only much better) and not one realistic character in it (some true freak seeing along the way and notice the hilarious zombie like daughter) and and so on and so on. as if that not enough and the film is 135 min. (count it. ) long and and at the end the director opens his can of sentimentality. after a film with such hilariously bad dialogue and scenes that made the public at the preview screening laugh at so much incompetence and well. this is an insult to cinema and and only receives high ratings because it happens to be in another language and in this case spanish. strange world we live in. negative .
i know that some films (i mean represent european films) and that are very bad films and are being regarded as great cinema by certain critics and only because theyre non american. i saw the 8. 1 imdb score for this film and noticed the fact that this was being selected for certain big festivals. don not let this fool you. unless youre one of those people that likes mind numbing films like this and and call it great art afterwards and skip it. the film contains one hilarious scene after another (a similar and italian and film popped into my mind and the terrible preferisco il rumore del mare (i prefer the sound of the sea)). the problem with these films is that theyre not only boring and like some other strangely praised films and but that they almost play like camp. i mean and let face it and the acting is horrible (i mean represent soap opera level) and the story has not one surprise (this has been done endless times before and connecting several storylines represent short cuts and magnolia and playing by heart and only much better) and not one realistic character in it (some true freak seeing along the way and notice the hilarious zombie like daughter) and and so on and so on. as if that not enough and the film is 135 min. (count it. ) long and and at the end the director opens his can of sentimentality. after a film with such hilariously bad dialogue and scenes that made the public at the preview screening laugh at so much incompetence and well. this is an insult to cinema and and only receives high ratings because it happens to be in another language and in this case spanish. strange world we live in. negative .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
my husband and i are the parents of an autistic little boy who lives in the same township as the screenwriter of this movie. we were very upset that the jcc is bringing this movie to its jewish film festival because of the way that the mentally disabled character frankie is portrayed. we went to see this movie at the local theater when it came out. we demanded out money back. we would encourage the screenwriter to donate a portion of the funds to the jcc achad program to apologize. we did not like seeing frankie a mentally disabled and perhaps even autistic teenager as part of a joke in which he keeps dropping something to look at the nanny breasts. there was no point to frankie character other than to say hey and being mentally disabled is funny. challenges like frankie are a serious matter. families like mine are truly suffering. the screenwriter needs to explain herself. does she know families with disabled kids. does she see the families with disabled kids week after week at the jcc pool.
my husband and i are the parents of an autistic little boy who lives in the same township as the screenwriter of this movie. we were very upset that the jcc is bringing this movie to its jewish film festival because of the way that the mentally disabled character frankie is portrayed. we went to see this movie at the local theater when it came out. we demanded out money back. we would encourage the screenwriter to donate a portion of the funds to the jcc achad program to apologize. we did not like seeing frankie a mentally disabled and perhaps even autistic teenager as part of a joke in which he keeps dropping something to look at the nanny breasts. there was no point to frankie character other than to say hey and being mentally disabled is funny. challenges like frankie are a serious matter. families like mine are truly suffering. the screenwriter needs to explain herself. does she know families with disabled kids. does she see the families with disabled kids week after week at the jcc pool.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i went on a visit to one of my relatives a while back and and we popped by a theatre and so we would thought we would go in and give this film a go. what a mistake. this film is awful in every department. i would never heard of the film before and and literally everyone still hasn not. no wonder and this is as rank as it gets. it a comedy and so it says and well the only thing funny is the ability and or lack of it and of the director to make such a film. getting so close to christmas and this should be titled how to under cook a turkey in nearly one and a half hours or however long it was and as i walked out. at the end of the film and you will come out feeling as though you have been food poisoned on a sick turkey and and regret you wasted your time on such dribble. who knows why such things get made. some people had walked out from the theatre before the film was well over and and i blame myself for not walking out a lot earlier. it really annoys me that you pay good money to see something decent and and all that you come out and see is a poor tv movie that should be showed at 2 oclock in the morning and in fact and it that bad and day time tv shouldn not be showing it. what else can a say. probably not enough bad words could do it justice.
i went on a visit to one of my relatives a while back and and we popped by a theatre and so we would thought we would go in and give this film a go. what a mistake. this film is awful in every department. i would never heard of the film before and and literally everyone still hasn not. no wonder and this is as rank as it gets. it a comedy and so it says and well the only thing funny is the ability and or lack of it and of the director to make such a film. getting so close to christmas and this should be titled how to under cook a turkey in nearly one and a half hours or however long it was and as i walked out. at the end of the film and you will come out feeling as though you have been food poisoned on a sick turkey and and regret you wasted your time on such dribble. who knows why such things get made. some people had walked out from the theatre before the film was well over and and i blame myself for not walking out a lot earlier. it really annoys me that you pay good money to see something decent and and all that you come out and see is a poor tv movie that should be showed at 2 oclock in the morning and in fact and it that bad and day time tv shouldn not be showing it. what else can a say. probably not enough bad words could do it justice.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
just saw the movie this past weekend and i am upset and and disappointed with it. basically and the movie tells you that immigrants and the ones from former soviet union especially and come to this country and bring everyone they can with them from the old country and and invade and take over what americans have been working for. which is a very wrong way of looking at immigration and and a much worse way of telling people about it. that the main thing. another thing and the overall writing and directing and filming is on the level of village amateurs. the actors did pretty well and but it wasn not up to them save this bunch of crap. a few jokes were funny and but most were bad and cheesy. couldn not wait to get out of the theater and want my money back.
just saw the movie this past weekend and i am upset and and disappointed with it. basically and the movie tells you that immigrants and the ones from former soviet union especially and come to this country and bring everyone they can with them from the old country and and invade and take over what americans have been working for. which is a very wrong way of looking at immigration and and a much worse way of telling people about it. that the main thing. another thing and the overall writing and directing and filming is on the level of village amateurs. the actors did pretty well and but it wasn not up to them save this bunch of crap. a few jokes were funny and but most were bad and cheesy. couldn not wait to get out of the theater and want my money back.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is a movie which attempts a retelling of thai history and set in the ancient city of ayutthaya. i decided to watch this film because i thought it was along the lines of many thai films i have watched and enjoyed and one that has thai actors speaking thai and martial arts craziness. well and it none of that. this film is shot entirely in english and is chock full of anglo actors and and has production values so terrible it is laughably bad. but not funny. who can we blame for this rubbish. the acting and dialog and and most of the sets were quite bad. some of the fight scenes looked like they were choreographed by the local high school drama club. the special effects were also mostly bad and but a few were just cheap animation patched onto the screen that provided an especially cheesy effect. it has one large and epic style outdoor battle scene and where a few thousand extras get to run across a field in costume and but when we see the two armies collide in combat ha. what a joke. the film does feature a couple of beauties. what a pity they do not show a little more skin. at least that would have been something for the guys to appreciate. don not bother.
this is a movie which attempts a retelling of thai history and set in the ancient city of ayutthaya. i decided to watch this film because i thought it was along the lines of many thai films i have watched and enjoyed and one that has thai actors speaking thai and martial arts craziness. well and it none of that. this film is shot entirely in english and is chock full of anglo actors and and has production values so terrible it is laughably bad. but not funny. who can we blame for this rubbish. the acting and dialog and and most of the sets were quite bad. some of the fight scenes looked like they were choreographed by the local high school drama club. the special effects were also mostly bad and but a few were just cheap animation patched onto the screen that provided an especially cheesy effect. it has one large and epic style outdoor battle scene and where a few thousand extras get to run across a field in costume and but when we see the two armies collide in combat ha. what a joke. the film does feature a couple of beauties. what a pity they do not show a little more skin. at least that would have been something for the guys to appreciate. don not bother.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the king maker will doubtless be a success in thailand where the similar (but superior) the legend of suriyothai set box office records. the film directed by lek kitaparaporn after a screenplay by sean casey based on historical fact in 1547 siam has some amazingly beautiful visual elements but is disarmed by one of the corniest and pedestrian scripts and story development on film. the event the picture relates is the arrival of the portuguese soldier of fortune fernando de gamma (gary stretch) whose vengeance for this father murderer drives him to shipwrecked and captured and thrown into slavery and put on the bloc in ayutthaya in the kingdom of siam where he is purchased by the beautiful maria (cindy burbridge) with the consent of her father phillipe (john rhys davies) and a man with a name and a past that are revealed as the story progresses. there is a plot to overthrown the king and fernando and his new siamese sidekick tong (dom hetrakul) and after some gratuitous cgi enhanced choreographed martial arts silliness and are first rewarded by the king to become his bodyguards and only to be imprisoned together once queen sudachan (yoe hassadeevichit) reveals her plot to kill the king and son to allow her lover lord chakkraphat (oliver pupart) to take over the rule of siam. yet of course fernando and tong escape and are condemned to fight each other to save the lives of their families (tong wife and children and fernando now firm love affair with maria) with the expected consequences. the acting (with the exception of john rhys davies) is so weak that the film occasionally seems as though it were meant to be camp. the predominantly thai cast struggle with the poorly written dialog and making us wish they had used their native thai with subtitles. the musical score by ian livingstone sounds as though exhumed form old tv soap operas. but if it is visual splendor youre after there is plenty of that and that alone makes the movie worth watching. it is a film that has obvious high financial backing for all the special effects and masses of cast and sets and shows its good intentions. it is just the basics that are missing. grady harp.
the king maker will doubtless be a success in thailand where the similar (but superior) the legend of suriyothai set box office records. the film directed by lek kitaparaporn after a screenplay by sean casey based on historical fact in 1547 siam has some amazingly beautiful visual elements but is disarmed by one of the corniest and pedestrian scripts and story development on film. the event the picture relates is the arrival of the portuguese soldier of fortune fernando de gamma (gary stretch) whose vengeance for this father murderer drives him to shipwrecked and captured and thrown into slavery and put on the bloc in ayutthaya in the kingdom of siam where he is purchased by the beautiful maria (cindy burbridge) with the consent of her father phillipe (john rhys davies) and a man with a name and a past that are revealed as the story progresses. there is a plot to overthrown the king and fernando and his new siamese sidekick tong (dom hetrakul) and after some gratuitous cgi enhanced choreographed martial arts silliness and are first rewarded by the king to become his bodyguards and only to be imprisoned together once queen sudachan (yoe hassadeevichit) reveals her plot to kill the king and son to allow her lover lord chakkraphat (oliver pupart) to take over the rule of siam. yet of course fernando and tong escape and are condemned to fight each other to save the lives of their families (tong wife and children and fernando now firm love affair with maria) with the expected consequences. the acting (with the exception of john rhys davies) is so weak that the film occasionally seems as though it were meant to be camp. the predominantly thai cast struggle with the poorly written dialog and making us wish they had used their native thai with subtitles. the musical score by ian livingstone sounds as though exhumed form old tv soap operas. but if it is visual splendor youre after there is plenty of that and that alone makes the movie worth watching. it is a film that has obvious high financial backing for all the special effects and masses of cast and sets and shows its good intentions. it is just the basics that are missing. grady harp.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
evidently when you offer a actor enough money they will do anything. i am not sure how much john rys daves got and but most of the money he made should go to his fans as an apology for even being associated with such a rotten movie. the special effects were worse then effects from the 1950 b movies and the acting of the rest of the cast was even worse. as to how bad the acting was a child gave the second best performance in my opinion. the english was terribly accented and i think no one could really even speak english they just memorized how the words should sound instead of memorizing the script and trying to make their character both life like and real.
evidently when you offer a actor enough money they will do anything. i am not sure how much john rys daves got and but most of the money he made should go to his fans as an apology for even being associated with such a rotten movie. the special effects were worse then effects from the 1950 b movies and the acting of the rest of the cast was even worse. as to how bad the acting was a child gave the second best performance in my opinion. the english was terribly accented and i think no one could really even speak english they just memorized how the words should sound instead of memorizing the script and trying to make their character both life like and real.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie seemed to have it all going for it with good camera and sound and film and sets and music and costumes . but drum roll and gary stretch spoke. i do not know if it was his poor acting or simply a bad script and but would say it was both. considering the casting of him in this role and i found it difficult to root for him even to the very end. i wished he would have died in battle or one of the sword or knife scuffles. then and the tinder for the plot to kill the king was because the king do not have dinner and sex with his queen. pretty lame. and to go to the extreme to kill her own son. and to then push up her lover as succeeding king. i see a thread or two here and there of historical bytes and but the manner in which this was all presented was farcical. i do not recognize gary stretch from anything else and but he was dreadful. i read another user comments about audio being dubbed and but do not think his was dubbed . after all and he speaks english and right. it really was awful. the lines were read right off the coroner table . flat line. it could be he just doesn not have the voice to carry tone fluctuations. aside from this and i did watch it to the end and so the movie had at least an interest. it could have been more if the script or lines and casting had been given more work. the scenery and filming crew along with very good quality film is what really made this movie above all else. the cast and story were all secondary. i give the film crew a 10.
this movie seemed to have it all going for it with good camera and sound and film and sets and music and costumes . but drum roll and gary stretch spoke. i do not know if it was his poor acting or simply a bad script and but would say it was both. considering the casting of him in this role and i found it difficult to root for him even to the very end. i wished he would have died in battle or one of the sword or knife scuffles. then and the tinder for the plot to kill the king was because the king do not have dinner and sex with his queen. pretty lame. and to go to the extreme to kill her own son. and to then push up her lover as succeeding king. i see a thread or two here and there of historical bytes and but the manner in which this was all presented was farcical. i do not recognize gary stretch from anything else and but he was dreadful. i read another user comments about audio being dubbed and but do not think his was dubbed . after all and he speaks english and right. it really was awful. the lines were read right off the coroner table . flat line. it could be he just doesn not have the voice to carry tone fluctuations. aside from this and i did watch it to the end and so the movie had at least an interest. it could have been more if the script or lines and casting had been given more work. the scenery and filming crew along with very good quality film is what really made this movie above all else. the cast and story were all secondary. i give the film crew a 10.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
unfortunately and this has been showing on star movies here in thailand for the last week or so. it complete rubbish acting. as another member said and this movie is a good example of how not to act. i haven not seen a movie so poorly acted in a long time. the actors (can you call them actors. ) are completely flat and deliver their lines with the passion of a dead dog. i would say that in order to truly understand how bad the acting is and you would have to see the movie. but that would be akin to torture. i cringe as the leading lady delivers her lines and and the rest of the cast with their accents (fake or contrived) is equally heinous. another actress with the fake british accent was pretty and yes and but good lord was her accent terrible. mix that with her (lack of) acting and you have a disaster. she should just have said nothing and i could have accepted her as the pretty girl. oh my and we just got to the scene where the leading lady lover says really me. after a forced crying scene from her. laughable. no and really and i just laughed out loud. the sets and the art directors offer some saving grace to the film. some of the sets are colorful and some of the scenes are rather nice (minus the actors). the old magic potion lady. what. another member mentioned the amodern love song that was in the movie. totally inappropriate for a period piece set some 500 years ago. i understand the movie was considered big budget in thailand at the time of it production. i would be seriously upset if i were the producer of this movie. just goes to show that money does not necessarily make a good (or even mediocre) film. i would give the king maker a negative and but the costumes and sets make save the film from such a rating. negative .
unfortunately and this has been showing on star movies here in thailand for the last week or so. it complete rubbish acting. as another member said and this movie is a good example of how not to act. i haven not seen a movie so poorly acted in a long time. the actors (can you call them actors. ) are completely flat and deliver their lines with the passion of a dead dog. i would say that in order to truly understand how bad the acting is and you would have to see the movie. but that would be akin to torture. i cringe as the leading lady delivers her lines and and the rest of the cast with their accents (fake or contrived) is equally heinous. another actress with the fake british accent was pretty and yes and but good lord was her accent terrible. mix that with her (lack of) acting and you have a disaster. she should just have said nothing and i could have accepted her as the pretty girl. oh my and we just got to the scene where the leading lady lover says really me. after a forced crying scene from her. laughable. no and really and i just laughed out loud. the sets and the art directors offer some saving grace to the film. some of the sets are colorful and some of the scenes are rather nice (minus the actors). the old magic potion lady. what. another member mentioned the amodern love song that was in the movie. totally inappropriate for a period piece set some 500 years ago. i understand the movie was considered big budget in thailand at the time of it production. i would be seriously upset if i were the producer of this movie. just goes to show that money does not necessarily make a good (or even mediocre) film. i would give the king maker a negative and but the costumes and sets make save the film from such a rating. negative .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the king maker is a film about a series of real (citation needed) events that occurred during the portuguese occupation in indochina. although the costumes and art direction are commendable and the movie still fails to impress the viewer. the acting and in particular and was extremely poor. some of the actors are trying hard to let tears down and the accents and both real and fake and are extremely irritating. the storyline was also too dumb and too stupid to be true and it seemed more like a history lesson. the movie couldn not even capture that sort of regal and century old air and it looked more like a botched attempt to make an asian version of elizabeth. final say. costumes and art direction give the film a breath of fresh air and but the execution was extremely poor and the actors couldn not even give natural bursts of emotion. in short and the movie sounded more like hullabaloo than a script.
the king maker is a film about a series of real (citation needed) events that occurred during the portuguese occupation in indochina. although the costumes and art direction are commendable and the movie still fails to impress the viewer. the acting and in particular and was extremely poor. some of the actors are trying hard to let tears down and the accents and both real and fake and are extremely irritating. the storyline was also too dumb and too stupid to be true and it seemed more like a history lesson. the movie couldn not even capture that sort of regal and century old air and it looked more like a botched attempt to make an asian version of elizabeth. final say. costumes and art direction give the film a breath of fresh air and but the execution was extremely poor and the actors couldn not even give natural bursts of emotion. in short and the movie sounded more like hullabaloo than a script.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this was the worst acted movie i have ever seen in my life. no and really. i am not kidding. all the based on a true story or historical references aside and there no excuse for such bad acting. it a shame and because and as others have posted and the sets and costumes were great. the sound track was typical asian style music and although i couldn not figure out where the modern love song came in when fernando was lying in his bed thinking of maria. i do not know who wrote and sang that beautiful song and but it was as if suddenly norah jones was transported to the 1500s. the hershey syrup blood in phycho was more realistic than the ketchup spurted during the kwik n ez battle scenes. but the acting. oh and so painfully sad. lines delivered like a bad junior high play. if gary stretch had donned a potato costume for the county 4h fair he may have been more believable. towards the end he sounded more like a little italy street thug. at times i half expected him to yell out adrian. or even you wanna piece of me. favourite line represent when the queen says to her lover (after barfing on the floor) i am going to have a baby. he responds a child. i expected her to retort no and jackass and a chair leg. duh.
this was the worst acted movie i have ever seen in my life. no and really. i am not kidding. all the based on a true story or historical references aside and there no excuse for such bad acting. it a shame and because and as others have posted and the sets and costumes were great. the sound track was typical asian style music and although i couldn not figure out where the modern love song came in when fernando was lying in his bed thinking of maria. i do not know who wrote and sang that beautiful song and but it was as if suddenly norah jones was transported to the 1500s. the hershey syrup blood in phycho was more realistic than the ketchup spurted during the kwik n ez battle scenes. but the acting. oh and so painfully sad. lines delivered like a bad junior high play. if gary stretch had donned a potato costume for the county 4h fair he may have been more believable. towards the end he sounded more like a little italy street thug. at times i half expected him to yell out adrian. or even you wanna piece of me. favourite line represent when the queen says to her lover (after barfing on the floor) i am going to have a baby. he responds a child. i expected her to retort no and jackass and a chair leg. duh.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is just a bad movie. with what seemed to be quite a nice budget it had potential to be much better. it almost were. with the heroine beautiful almost like salma hayek and hero fighting almost like jackie chan and battles and duels almost like in crouching tiger. and music almost like in and say and conan. etc. almost. but in the end it just dull and it is hard to find anything interesting in it. maybe apart of john rhys davies flying in duel like those warriors in hero or before mentioned crouching tiger. i am really ashamed of poor old john. he is after all quite a good actor and deserves much better. so as you so if you still have a chance just watch something else.
this is just a bad movie. with what seemed to be quite a nice budget it had potential to be much better. it almost were. with the heroine beautiful almost like salma hayek and hero fighting almost like jackie chan and battles and duels almost like in crouching tiger. and music almost like in and say and conan. etc. almost. but in the end it just dull and it is hard to find anything interesting in it. maybe apart of john rhys davies flying in duel like those warriors in hero or before mentioned crouching tiger. i am really ashamed of poor old john. he is after all quite a good actor and deserves much better. so as you so if you still have a chance just watch something else.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
up to this point and gentle rain was the movie i found the worst in history. it has been supplanted by this blockbuster out of asia. it has one star and it is john rhys davies. he is way out of shape to be the swashbuckling and magical flying baddie he is cast here. the rest of these people couldn not act their way out of a junior high school play. no clichés were missed in the dialogue and and the special effects were phoned in as often as possible. it is fairly easy to see that somebody in asia had some bucks and needed to create a vehicle for some actors they wanted to throw money at. or maybe it was a director or a writer that needed a credit. my guess is that any career with this movie in it credentialdo yourself a major favor and do not watch this movie. a hundred thanksgivings couldn not consume this turkey. the one funny scene was unintentional. the brother of the king appears on the scene. the king. a handsome and older and short asian actor. (bad actor. ) the brother. a six foot european. (also a bad actor. ) no excuses were made for this. they just expected us not to notice that this poor man jet li brother was a wannabe pierce brosnan in a cheap dimestore injun wig right out of an old western movie from the forties.
up to this point and gentle rain was the movie i found the worst in history. it has been supplanted by this blockbuster out of asia. it has one star and it is john rhys davies. he is way out of shape to be the swashbuckling and magical flying baddie he is cast here. the rest of these people couldn not act their way out of a junior high school play. no clichés were missed in the dialogue and and the special effects were phoned in as often as possible. it is fairly easy to see that somebody in asia had some bucks and needed to create a vehicle for some actors they wanted to throw money at. or maybe it was a director or a writer that needed a credit. my guess is that any career with this movie in it credentialdo yourself a major favor and do not watch this movie. a hundred thanksgivings couldn not consume this turkey. the one funny scene was unintentional. the brother of the king appears on the scene. the king. a handsome and older and short asian actor. (bad actor. ) the brother. a six foot european. (also a bad actor. ) no excuses were made for this. they just expected us not to notice that this poor man jet li brother was a wannabe pierce brosnan in a cheap dimestore injun wig right out of an old western movie from the forties.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
warning spoiler. . . i have to agree with you and it was almost there. this was such a bad movie and about such and interesting true story. it had such promise and but the acting was ridiculous at best. some sets were beautiful and realistic. others are something out of a theme park. i found myself laughing as i watched and what was suppose to be and serious scenes. i really wanted to like this movie and but i couldn not. the best part was the fight between friends that ended with the king dying. i liked the queens punishment. and and the final shot made a beautiful picture and though. there are so many better movies to watch. i do not recommend this.
warning spoiler. . . i have to agree with you and it was almost there. this was such a bad movie and about such and interesting true story. it had such promise and but the acting was ridiculous at best. some sets were beautiful and realistic. others are something out of a theme park. i found myself laughing as i watched and what was suppose to be and serious scenes. i really wanted to like this movie and but i couldn not. the best part was the fight between friends that ended with the king dying. i liked the queens punishment. and and the final shot made a beautiful picture and though. there are so many better movies to watch. i do not recommend this.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the movie was to be shown here in bangkok with all the fanfare and even in the theater and it failed miserably. apparently the story writer just do not hold water. something was definitely missing. in my opinion people must have a reason why they watch it other than historical glimpse of the past. accuracy of history is not what we look for in entertainment. the movie just lack any substance. the only way to do this movie right was somehow make changes where it stands as some kind of a legend instead of just a story. and a legend will have certain elements that tries to tell you something that people have forgotten through time and such as the meaning of sacrifice and nationalism and etc. it is called the central theme. the movie fails to answer and why would i watch it anyway. at least some strange legendary flying elephants and psychic king and or the eccentric king such as the king and i would have been lovely and something would have added greatly to the movies appeal. i guess there was no appeal other than a plain vanilla movie. once you got the appeal and then the story is the next thing we concentrate on. in marketing terms and we call it must see. upon hearing the title of the movie people would say and oh and i must see it. now where the appeal in kingmaker. why not just redo the title and call it and how not to be a king. and make a black comedy of the old siamese days and to the style of dr. strangelove. that would have been much more interesting. narrative like experiences of the foibles of the king from first persons goofs off would have made the movie extremely funny. most movies today have that must see appeal and such as spiderman and men x and these titles speak for themselves. if they do not have familiar characters and some other movies such as and the island and had an appeal itself when the advertising asks do you still believe there is an island. or for the movie and retitled how not to be a king might ask the question and so do you still want to be a king. parhat.
the movie was to be shown here in bangkok with all the fanfare and even in the theater and it failed miserably. apparently the story writer just do not hold water. something was definitely missing. in my opinion people must have a reason why they watch it other than historical glimpse of the past. accuracy of history is not what we look for in entertainment. the movie just lack any substance. the only way to do this movie right was somehow make changes where it stands as some kind of a legend instead of just a story. and a legend will have certain elements that tries to tell you something that people have forgotten through time and such as the meaning of sacrifice and nationalism and etc. it is called the central theme. the movie fails to answer and why would i watch it anyway. at least some strange legendary flying elephants and psychic king and or the eccentric king such as the king and i would have been lovely and something would have added greatly to the movies appeal. i guess there was no appeal other than a plain vanilla movie. once you got the appeal and then the story is the next thing we concentrate on. in marketing terms and we call it must see. upon hearing the title of the movie people would say and oh and i must see it. now where the appeal in kingmaker. why not just redo the title and call it and how not to be a king. and make a black comedy of the old siamese days and to the style of dr. strangelove. that would have been much more interesting. narrative like experiences of the foibles of the king from first persons goofs off would have made the movie extremely funny. most movies today have that must see appeal and such as spiderman and men x and these titles speak for themselves. if they do not have familiar characters and some other movies such as and the island and had an appeal itself when the advertising asks do you still believe there is an island. or for the movie and retitled how not to be a king might ask the question and so do you still want to be a king. parhat.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
hollywood hotel was the last movie musical that busby berkeley directed for warner bros. his directing style had changed or evolved to the point that this film does not contain his signature overhead shots or huge production numbers with thousands of extras. by the last few years of the thirties and swing style big bands were recording the year biggest popular hits. the swing era and also called the big band era and has been dated variously from 1935 to 1944 or 1939 to 1949. although it is impossible to exactly pinpoint the moment that the swing era began and benny goodman engagement at the palomar ballroom in los angeles in the late summer of 1935 was certainly one of the early indications that swing was entering the consciousness of mainstream america youth. when goodman featured his swing repertoire rather than the society style dance music that his band had been playing and the youth in the audience went wild. that was the beginning and but and since radio and live concerts and word of mouth were the primary methods available to spread the phenomena and it took some time before swing made enough inroads to produce big hits that showed up on the pop charts. in hollywood hotel and the appearance of benny goodman and his orchestra and raymond paige and his orchestra in the film indicates that the film industry was ready to capitalize on the shift in musical taste (the film was in production only a year and a half or so after goodman palomar ballroom engagement). there are a few interesting musical moments here and there in hollywood hotel and but except for benny goodman and his orchestra sing and sing and sing and there isn not a lot to commend. otherwise and the most interesting musical sequences are the opening hooray for hollywood parade and let that be a lesson to you production number at the drive in restaurant. the film is most interesting to see and hear benny goodman and his orchestra play and dick powell and frances langford sing.
hollywood hotel was the last movie musical that busby berkeley directed for warner bros. his directing style had changed or evolved to the point that this film does not contain his signature overhead shots or huge production numbers with thousands of extras. by the last few years of the thirties and swing style big bands were recording the year biggest popular hits. the swing era and also called the big band era and has been dated variously from 1935 to 1944 or 1939 to 1949. although it is impossible to exactly pinpoint the moment that the swing era began and benny goodman engagement at the palomar ballroom in los angeles in the late summer of 1935 was certainly one of the early indications that swing was entering the consciousness of mainstream america youth. when goodman featured his swing repertoire rather than the society style dance music that his band had been playing and the youth in the audience went wild. that was the beginning and but and since radio and live concerts and word of mouth were the primary methods available to spread the phenomena and it took some time before swing made enough inroads to produce big hits that showed up on the pop charts. in hollywood hotel and the appearance of benny goodman and his orchestra and raymond paige and his orchestra in the film indicates that the film industry was ready to capitalize on the shift in musical taste (the film was in production only a year and a half or so after goodman palomar ballroom engagement). there are a few interesting musical moments here and there in hollywood hotel and but except for benny goodman and his orchestra sing and sing and sing and there isn not a lot to commend. otherwise and the most interesting musical sequences are the opening hooray for hollywood parade and let that be a lesson to you production number at the drive in restaurant. the film is most interesting to see and hear benny goodman and his orchestra play and dick powell and frances langford sing.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie serves as a timely warning to anyone who thinks they can both write and direct their own movie. face it and you can not. because that way there nobody around to tell you when you hack great holes in your plot and have meaningless transitions and trite and unmemorable dialog and manage to turn a fairly cool korean legend into a steaming pile of celluloid turd. i wanted to like this movie as a trashy popcorn movie and really i did while i like lots of crappy movies. but once i have been forced to ask myself what the hell just happened and why and dear lord and why. more than a few times and i really can not take it any more. also and i would love for someone to explain how la became mordor for the last scene.
this movie serves as a timely warning to anyone who thinks they can both write and direct their own movie. face it and you can not. because that way there nobody around to tell you when you hack great holes in your plot and have meaningless transitions and trite and unmemorable dialog and manage to turn a fairly cool korean legend into a steaming pile of celluloid turd. i wanted to like this movie as a trashy popcorn movie and really i did while i like lots of crappy movies. but once i have been forced to ask myself what the hell just happened and why and dear lord and why. more than a few times and i really can not take it any more. also and i would love for someone to explain how la became mordor for the last scene.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie was horrible. they do not develop any of the characters at all and the storyline was played out horribly. it was a definite sleeper. you would expect the action scenes on a movie like this to be its strong points but d wars surprises you with even a let down in that department. also and the acting was just a step above the level of a low budget porno flick. and i seriously mean that. i was actually happy to see the end credits on this one cause it was just that bad. please and whatever you do people and do not waste your time and money on a crappy movie like d wars.
this movie was horrible. they do not develop any of the characters at all and the storyline was played out horribly. it was a definite sleeper. you would expect the action scenes on a movie like this to be its strong points but d wars surprises you with even a let down in that department. also and the acting was just a step above the level of a low budget porno flick. and i seriously mean that. i was actually happy to see the end credits on this one cause it was just that bad. please and whatever you do people and do not waste your time and money on a crappy movie like d wars.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie is likely the worst movie i have ever seen in my life surpassing the previous most god awful movie and spawn of slithis and which i saw when i was about 10. bad acting and stilted and ridiculous dialog and incomprehensible plot and mishmashed cut scenes and even the music was annoying. did i leave anything out. well and the special effects weren not bad but cgi does not a decent movie make. i can not believe i actually spent money to see this movie. if anyone has the contact info for hyung rae shim (the director) and please forward it to my user name at gmail and and i will contact him to personally demand a refund.
this movie is likely the worst movie i have ever seen in my life surpassing the previous most god awful movie and spawn of slithis and which i saw when i was about 10. bad acting and stilted and ridiculous dialog and incomprehensible plot and mishmashed cut scenes and even the music was annoying. did i leave anything out. well and the special effects weren not bad but cgi does not a decent movie make. i can not believe i actually spent money to see this movie. if anyone has the contact info for hyung rae shim (the director) and please forward it to my user name at gmail and and i will contact him to personally demand a refund.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i went into this movie with high hopes. normally and i am not too picky about my movies and creature movies are always fun to watch and or so i thought. i will list the good parts of this movie represent the creature effects. all of the creatures were well done and their movements were realistic and and they fit into the other imagery well. to be honest and the creature effects were the only reason i gave this movie a 2 rather than a 1. now and the bad things represent the acting. good lord and i have seen bad acting and but this movie takes the cake. not a single one of the characters is even close to believable. it like the director sent out a casting call and picked all the worst try outs from it. i tried very hard not to giggle too loud and cause i do not wanna upset anyone else in the theatre and but the acting really was that bad. the storyline represent the entire story is full of plot holes from beginning to finish. you can pick at least 5 plot holes out of any given 30 minutes of film. the plot holes and of course and are complimentary with the cheese. this is probably one of the most clichéd and not thought out and and outright dumbest stories i have ever seen put on screen since i had the grave misfortune of sitting up one night and watching parasite on the scifi channel. the dialogue represent this is a world where everyone says the cheesiest and most clichéd thing they possibly can and at every chance they possibly can. in this world and it seems like every line has been spoken before in at least 30 other low budget creature movies. it is the world of cheese and cliché. the special effects. while the creature effects were downright awesome and the special effects fail miserably. yes and they are better than those seen in other movies and but a lot of it is in the presentation. and this movie has no presentation whatsoever. it looks kinda like the special effects used on the power rangers tv show and to be honest. to sum up represent dragon wars is worth neither your time nor your money. the concept is good and but it is trapped in the bad directing and acting and dialogue and and cheesiness of the film. wait til the next big monster movie comes out. it gotta be better than this and cause dragon wars is absolutely horrible.
i went into this movie with high hopes. normally and i am not too picky about my movies and creature movies are always fun to watch and or so i thought. i will list the good parts of this movie represent the creature effects. all of the creatures were well done and their movements were realistic and and they fit into the other imagery well. to be honest and the creature effects were the only reason i gave this movie a 2 rather than a 1. now and the bad things represent the acting. good lord and i have seen bad acting and but this movie takes the cake. not a single one of the characters is even close to believable. it like the director sent out a casting call and picked all the worst try outs from it. i tried very hard not to giggle too loud and cause i do not wanna upset anyone else in the theatre and but the acting really was that bad. the storyline represent the entire story is full of plot holes from beginning to finish. you can pick at least 5 plot holes out of any given 30 minutes of film. the plot holes and of course and are complimentary with the cheese. this is probably one of the most clichéd and not thought out and and outright dumbest stories i have ever seen put on screen since i had the grave misfortune of sitting up one night and watching parasite on the scifi channel. the dialogue represent this is a world where everyone says the cheesiest and most clichéd thing they possibly can and at every chance they possibly can. in this world and it seems like every line has been spoken before in at least 30 other low budget creature movies. it is the world of cheese and cliché. the special effects. while the creature effects were downright awesome and the special effects fail miserably. yes and they are better than those seen in other movies and but a lot of it is in the presentation. and this movie has no presentation whatsoever. it looks kinda like the special effects used on the power rangers tv show and to be honest. to sum up represent dragon wars is worth neither your time nor your money. the concept is good and but it is trapped in the bad directing and acting and dialogue and and cheesiness of the film. wait til the next big monster movie comes out. it gotta be better than this and cause dragon wars is absolutely horrible.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
how this movie got made with a supposedly $70 million budget and without being completely retooled is beyond me. the storyline and dialogue are beyond amateurish. characters say things no real person would ever say and almost never react to things that were said before. no one seems to be grounded in the real world. the acting of the leads is fine given that the writing is such a dud. but several actors in supporting roles really drag the production down. the hero hair probably should have gotten its own credit and it was so oddly attention grabbing. not to mention that it gave one of the better performances in the pic. finally and for a movie about l. a. being besieged by giant reptiles and this film is shockingly boring. what a shame. if you do see this and your mind will be constantly racing and thinking up ways that you could have taken the sfx scenes and built a far better movie around them. sadly and it do not have taken much.
how this movie got made with a supposedly $70 million budget and without being completely retooled is beyond me. the storyline and dialogue are beyond amateurish. characters say things no real person would ever say and almost never react to things that were said before. no one seems to be grounded in the real world. the acting of the leads is fine given that the writing is such a dud. but several actors in supporting roles really drag the production down. the hero hair probably should have gotten its own credit and it was so oddly attention grabbing. not to mention that it gave one of the better performances in the pic. finally and for a movie about l. a. being besieged by giant reptiles and this film is shockingly boring. what a shame. if you do see this and your mind will be constantly racing and thinking up ways that you could have taken the sfx scenes and built a far better movie around them. sadly and it do not have taken much.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
first off and i have no idea how this movie made it to the big screen. its not even the low budget sci fi channel movie and its just awful. me and my friend who love action movies and independence day and jurassic park and lotr and etc. went to see this movie expecting this movie to me a transformers with dragons and mindless entertainment. all we got was a mindless hour and a half. the cg was not as bad as i was expecting and but the plot is so awful along with the acting and it made up for it. its basically a chinese legged of dragons returning every 500 years. sounds like a good remake of rain of fire. no and the plot tries to be deeper than it should be leaving not only plot holes and but with magic and and a very small actual war between dragons(rather big snakes) it just gets ridiculous. the director attempted to add a bit of humor in the movie which fail. me and my friend laughed through the whole thing(along with all 5 of the audience) and and cant believed we spent money on this. the short trailer on tv makes up for most of the action while crap makes up the rest. i have seen a lot of b movies like reptilian and the cave and spider and and others and but i have to say if you want a non stop laugh for an hour and watch this. story represent negative cg represent 5/10 acting represent negative i do not drink. but it would have helped before watching this movie.
first off and i have no idea how this movie made it to the big screen. its not even the low budget sci fi channel movie and its just awful. me and my friend who love action movies and independence day and jurassic park and lotr and etc. went to see this movie expecting this movie to me a transformers with dragons and mindless entertainment. all we got was a mindless hour and a half. the cg was not as bad as i was expecting and but the plot is so awful along with the acting and it made up for it. its basically a chinese legged of dragons returning every 500 years. sounds like a good remake of rain of fire. no and the plot tries to be deeper than it should be leaving not only plot holes and but with magic and and a very small actual war between dragons(rather big snakes) it just gets ridiculous. the director attempted to add a bit of humor in the movie which fail. me and my friend laughed through the whole thing(along with all 5 of the audience) and and cant believed we spent money on this. the short trailer on tv makes up for most of the action while crap makes up the rest. i have seen a lot of b movies like reptilian and the cave and spider and and others and but i have to say if you want a non stop laugh for an hour and watch this. story represent negative cg represent 5/10 acting represent negative i do not drink. but it would have helped before watching this movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i went in to see d war on a whim and with very low expectations. the movie failed to meet them. i do not mind stories that stretch credulity remember reign of fire. but i do expect them to be internally consistent. this film leapt from howler to howler without pausing for breath and all interspersed with special effects that lagged far behind the likes of lotr or even godzilla. a shape shifting mystic warrior from korea and curiously metamorphosed into a caucasian antique dealer and popping up like deus ex machina to get the hapless protagonists out of their latest mess. a special agent from the fbi who seems to be completely boned up on ancient korean folklore because of the fed excellent paranormal division which has gone unremarked up to this point. lovers kissing on deserted beaches where one exclaims i never meant for this to happen. a reincarnated pair of long dead koreans who died like star crossed lovers. mystic pendants and faceless hordes of robotic soldiers (that owe a lot to peter jackson orcs) and a serpent who wastes so much time roaring that every time its chosen prey is within reach something comes along to distract it. the dialogue is appalling and the acting wooden and the effect of the whole was and to be honest and tedious. however and for me the crowning moment was at the end and after the finale and when the music for the closing credits was arirang. this is rather like akira kurosawa closing ran with a karaoke rendition of my way and let me be clear that i am in no way comparing director shim to kurosawa. in short and a self indulgent and lackluster collection of clichés and narrative non sequituurs which may appeal to the sense of the melodramatic so prevalent in koran popular culture but should not be worth the price of the ticket to any serious movie goer or even a not so serious movie goer. i would suggest that this bypass the movie theaters altogether and go straight to video and but i am not even sure that it worth that much.
i went in to see d war on a whim and with very low expectations. the movie failed to meet them. i do not mind stories that stretch credulity remember reign of fire. but i do expect them to be internally consistent. this film leapt from howler to howler without pausing for breath and all interspersed with special effects that lagged far behind the likes of lotr or even godzilla. a shape shifting mystic warrior from korea and curiously metamorphosed into a caucasian antique dealer and popping up like deus ex machina to get the hapless protagonists out of their latest mess. a special agent from the fbi who seems to be completely boned up on ancient korean folklore because of the fed excellent paranormal division which has gone unremarked up to this point. lovers kissing on deserted beaches where one exclaims i never meant for this to happen. a reincarnated pair of long dead koreans who died like star crossed lovers. mystic pendants and faceless hordes of robotic soldiers (that owe a lot to peter jackson orcs) and a serpent who wastes so much time roaring that every time its chosen prey is within reach something comes along to distract it. the dialogue is appalling and the acting wooden and the effect of the whole was and to be honest and tedious. however and for me the crowning moment was at the end and after the finale and when the music for the closing credits was arirang. this is rather like akira kurosawa closing ran with a karaoke rendition of my way and let me be clear that i am in no way comparing director shim to kurosawa. in short and a self indulgent and lackluster collection of clichés and narrative non sequituurs which may appeal to the sense of the melodramatic so prevalent in koran popular culture but should not be worth the price of the ticket to any serious movie goer or even a not so serious movie goer. i would suggest that this bypass the movie theaters altogether and go straight to video and but i am not even sure that it worth that much.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
. there no one else watching the movie. my husband and i went to watch it last night. it just a small theater and but there usually a decent amount of people there. not this time. my husband and i were the only people watching dragon wars last night. now we know why. the movie was by far one of the worst i have ever seen. yes and the cg was good and but that was it. the acting and script and dialog and directing and editing and etc. was god awful. since we were alone in the room and we felt free to talk during the movie. that is and we talked about how bad it was and that it reminded us of the mighty morphin power rangers and godzilla and mortal combat and the lord of the rings. it was like we expected to see rita and lord zed portraying commanders of sauron army. the creatures were ridiculous. you can not just introduce legions of dino or dragon or lizard things loaded down with cannons without explanation. the lord of the rings has a wide spectrum of characters and but it introduces and develops them over 3 movies and not in an hour and a half. the scene transitions are horrible. i do not fall asleep during the movie and but even though it was an overly simple plot and i found myself getting lost in the plot holes. the characters were caucasian americans and but spoke almost with broken english because of the badly written dialog in the script. the final scene that could have redeemed some value of the movie. failed. ethan do not cry when sarah died. though he hadn not known her for very long during this life anyways. he do not seem too upset to be left in mordor and not knowing where he was or how to get back. we couldn not for the love of god figure out where he was or how he got there either and but if he wasn not upset we shouldn not be either. oh and and why did the dress that sarah spirit was wearing look like she borrowed it from queen elizabeth. one more thing. all 3 of the main hero characters were reincarnations brought back to finish the job. sarah completes her task and moves on to the afterlife. jack does this as well. then why does ethan get screwed. he left alone and without the girl and without a map or compass or helicopter to help him get back. what he supposed to do. send smoke signals. and if he gets back home and does he just go back to his job. he should have been given the same mercy of getting killed out of the movie that the other heroes had. don not waste your time or money on this movie. we only stayed til the end because we would paid for it and but as soon as the credits hit and we were out the door.
. there no one else watching the movie. my husband and i went to watch it last night. it just a small theater and but there usually a decent amount of people there. not this time. my husband and i were the only people watching dragon wars last night. now we know why. the movie was by far one of the worst i have ever seen. yes and the cg was good and but that was it. the acting and script and dialog and directing and editing and etc. was god awful. since we were alone in the room and we felt free to talk during the movie. that is and we talked about how bad it was and that it reminded us of the mighty morphin power rangers and godzilla and mortal combat and the lord of the rings. it was like we expected to see rita and lord zed portraying commanders of sauron army. the creatures were ridiculous. you can not just introduce legions of dino or dragon or lizard things loaded down with cannons without explanation. the lord of the rings has a wide spectrum of characters and but it introduces and develops them over 3 movies and not in an hour and a half. the scene transitions are horrible. i do not fall asleep during the movie and but even though it was an overly simple plot and i found myself getting lost in the plot holes. the characters were caucasian americans and but spoke almost with broken english because of the badly written dialog in the script. the final scene that could have redeemed some value of the movie. failed. ethan do not cry when sarah died. though he hadn not known her for very long during this life anyways. he do not seem too upset to be left in mordor and not knowing where he was or how to get back. we couldn not for the love of god figure out where he was or how he got there either and but if he wasn not upset we shouldn not be either. oh and and why did the dress that sarah spirit was wearing look like she borrowed it from queen elizabeth. one more thing. all 3 of the main hero characters were reincarnations brought back to finish the job. sarah completes her task and moves on to the afterlife. jack does this as well. then why does ethan get screwed. he left alone and without the girl and without a map or compass or helicopter to help him get back. what he supposed to do. send smoke signals. and if he gets back home and does he just go back to his job. he should have been given the same mercy of getting killed out of the movie that the other heroes had. don not waste your time or money on this movie. we only stayed til the end because we would paid for it and but as soon as the credits hit and we were out the door.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
everyone does things that they later regret. things that they wish they could blame on drugs or alien possession. things that although seem rational at the time and later reveal themselves to be engraved invitations for suffering and endless recriminations of stupidity. for some people it is signing the note for the new hummer and for others it is picking up a homicidal hitchhiker and for still others it is sending their bank account information to third world millionaires mysteriously strapped for cash. for me it was a film. d war represent dragon wars in hindsight and i should have guessed how environmentally friendly and thoroughly recycled this movie would turn out to be from its stuttered and repeating title. but with my willing suspension of disbelief intact and and a naive faith stemming from the cool looking poster in the lobby and i really wanted this film to work. sadly and by the time the old man in the pawnshop explained the entire backstory and fifteen minutes into the picture and i had the sudden and sinking revelation that comes from knowing every plot point of a still unseen film. and worse represent i knew just how badly every point would all suck. let me be perfectly clear here and the english language lacks sufficient nuance and depth in the field of ultimate evil to properly describe just how bad this film really is. as for knowing all the twists of movie and i was wrong. in the spirit of the old godzilla films and whose scales this one is not worthy to fill and it conveniently sprouted extra sub plots every time the main characters were threatened by the specter of meaningful dialogue. it was infested with close calls and miraculous escapes and and concentrated deposits of poorly explained angst. this film is what would happen if you gave the produces of the mighty morphing power rangers access to the national defense budget. and lots of liquor. let me try to explain. imagine you could get a hold of all the coolest looking set pieces from successful action movies of the last decade represent first take the rasta talking army of amphibians from star wars episode one and remove their prozac until they are ready to club navy seals. next and take close approximations of kira knightly and tom cruise (you can even call him ethan as a subtle nod to the mission impossible franchise. ) and give them lots of film noir narration and so no one get confused while trying to follow the wading pool depths of their thoughts. finally add a raspy voiced villain in pointy armor worthy of a lord of the rings yardsale and a couple of giant cobras and angry at having their scenes deleted from latest edition of king kong and and lay them all out in no particular order in modern day los angeles. now run to the drugstore to find something for your sudden migraine. when you return and puree these ingredients until any overlooked hint of originality is dissolved into a homogenized mass of cheese and serve semi gelatinous. at several points during this picture and i found myself saying out loud and make the bad movie stop and and breaking into tears. to call this a b movie would be giving it an undeserved promotion. after summer school and and a lot of physical therapy and it might possibly pass for a c level film if you could somehow sleep through most of it. in short and if you ever find yourself with money and brain cells to burn and and the need to punish yourself for hideous and unspoken sins against humanity and dragon wars might just be the film for you.
everyone does things that they later regret. things that they wish they could blame on drugs or alien possession. things that although seem rational at the time and later reveal themselves to be engraved invitations for suffering and endless recriminations of stupidity. for some people it is signing the note for the new hummer and for others it is picking up a homicidal hitchhiker and for still others it is sending their bank account information to third world millionaires mysteriously strapped for cash. for me it was a film. d war represent dragon wars in hindsight and i should have guessed how environmentally friendly and thoroughly recycled this movie would turn out to be from its stuttered and repeating title. but with my willing suspension of disbelief intact and and a naive faith stemming from the cool looking poster in the lobby and i really wanted this film to work. sadly and by the time the old man in the pawnshop explained the entire backstory and fifteen minutes into the picture and i had the sudden and sinking revelation that comes from knowing every plot point of a still unseen film. and worse represent i knew just how badly every point would all suck. let me be perfectly clear here and the english language lacks sufficient nuance and depth in the field of ultimate evil to properly describe just how bad this film really is. as for knowing all the twists of movie and i was wrong. in the spirit of the old godzilla films and whose scales this one is not worthy to fill and it conveniently sprouted extra sub plots every time the main characters were threatened by the specter of meaningful dialogue. it was infested with close calls and miraculous escapes and and concentrated deposits of poorly explained angst. this film is what would happen if you gave the produces of the mighty morphing power rangers access to the national defense budget. and lots of liquor. let me try to explain. imagine you could get a hold of all the coolest looking set pieces from successful action movies of the last decade represent first take the rasta talking army of amphibians from star wars episode one and remove their prozac until they are ready to club navy seals. next and take close approximations of kira knightly and tom cruise (you can even call him ethan as a subtle nod to the mission impossible franchise. ) and give them lots of film noir narration and so no one get confused while trying to follow the wading pool depths of their thoughts. finally add a raspy voiced villain in pointy armor worthy of a lord of the rings yardsale and a couple of giant cobras and angry at having their scenes deleted from latest edition of king kong and and lay them all out in no particular order in modern day los angeles. now run to the drugstore to find something for your sudden migraine. when you return and puree these ingredients until any overlooked hint of originality is dissolved into a homogenized mass of cheese and serve semi gelatinous. at several points during this picture and i found myself saying out loud and make the bad movie stop and and breaking into tears. to call this a b movie would be giving it an undeserved promotion. after summer school and and a lot of physical therapy and it might possibly pass for a c level film if you could somehow sleep through most of it. in short and if you ever find yourself with money and brain cells to burn and and the need to punish yourself for hideous and unspoken sins against humanity and dragon wars might just be the film for you.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i knew it wasn not gunna work out between me and d wars from the moment we met. first its title was lazy. d war. like writing out dragon was too much for them. also. you really can not be that blatant with your title unless your blue monkey. blue monkey can do whatever the hell it wants. the second sign of a rocky relationship between us was the story insane progression. here the film and dreamy reporter guy reports on big snake tracks and flashes back to a time he and dad wandered into what must have been the competition for the store in gremlins and dreamy kid reporter finds a box that glows. old shop keep reveals several terrible truths. that bauraki a supposedly evil snake was cheated out of his chance to be a god. tells the kid that he a reincarnated warrior and that somewhere in la is his reincarnated lover and gives him a junk piece of jewelry. shop keep also reveals that despite his obvious whiteness he a 500 year old asian. fifteen years later dreamy reporter remembers this perfectly and starts acting half crazy trying to find this random girl. cgi hijinks follow and in the last ten minutes my brain melts out of my nose. why. continue on dear reader if you have the balls. so sarah and the reincarnated lover and has her own flashbacks. i have the benefit of having an asian best friend and in the scene where she starts to freak out and make a bunch of posters with asian characters on them he tells me that whoever made this movie has no idea what their doing. its a korean legend and she reincarnated from a korean princess but everything is in chinese. later that night her dragon tat starts to hurt and she calls the police cause it looks like she having a heart attack. see and in this mixed up crazy world they apparently handle heart attacks differently because the next time we see her she locked in her room with a guard outside and a nurse claims she crazy. i have a new phobia now and and its that if i am ever in trouble the first responders will just assume i am crazy. i have another point of contention with my harsh mistress and dwar. there is a scene when patrick dempsey jr (dreamy reporter) is in a café with sassy black friend. in the scenes prior miffed near divinity bauraki has killed an elephant and slithered through a suburb and killed one of sarah friends. see and people were afraid to come out after 9 11 happened but we must have all toughened up after that deciding coffee and pastries were worth risking our lives for. business as usual and no way a giant snake will stop me from getting my caffeine on. if i stay inside and fear for my life the terrorists and serpentine divinities win. after being given a satisfying dragon on helicopter battle my cruel lover dwar treats me to a pi$$ and vinegar filled scene to end it all with. bauraki has a fortress of his own and its right under la i guess. they do not really say but dreamy reporter and sarah get knocked out in a car crash that would kill lesser men and when they wake up and yep dragon palace. some retarded dialog later a good dragon snake god pops out of nowhere and the snakes wrestle or make love whatever. and i am not kidding good snake out of nowhere. maybe you think i am blowing it out of proportion and i am not there is no mention of this thing in the movie then suddenly. there. few seconds later and good dragon becomes dragon god and sets baurki on fire and sarah turns into a ghost and goes with dragon god and dreamy reporter left in the middle of nowhere roll credits. thank godnow our relationship as rocky as it was had its good times. there was a guy that look like shredder from turtles and talked exactly like a tuskan raider from star wars. i will call him tuskan shredder. he could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted to it just could never be useful. he could walk through a wall in a scene where that wasn not helpful. he could go in your dreams when that do not do any good and he could light ten random soldier guys on fire but not when it mattered. he was also allergic to touching that junk jewelry. i like him cause he was hit by a car twice in the same scene and made fantastic tuskan raider noises. the actors for the most part were great. if great somehow meant terrible. jason behr and whom i thought was awesome in roswell i slowly find out can only act one way and that pretentious and spacey and patrick dempseyish. the one thing i love about this filthy prostitute dwars is its lead actor and bauraki. that giant snake acted his heart out. i would dare to say that he was better at playing a cgi serpentine demi god of evil then john barrymore was at playing richard the iii or hamlet. there was emotion in every scene and stealing the thunder from his lesser mortal supporting cast. when he ate an elephant i felt like no one past and present or future would ever eat an elephant with as much feeling. he was more then an actor and he was a force of nature and he put his heart and soul into every second of this cursed project. yes damn it and my favorite actor in this film was a cgi snake. i have got the balls to admit that and do you. here to hoping bauraki get more work and isn not type cast and that jason behr finds a range of emotion other then dreamy stare and and that i never have to watch blue monkey again. so and d war its over. i want my cds back and let just be friends.
i knew it wasn not gunna work out between me and d wars from the moment we met. first its title was lazy. d war. like writing out dragon was too much for them. also. you really can not be that blatant with your title unless your blue monkey. blue monkey can do whatever the hell it wants. the second sign of a rocky relationship between us was the story insane progression. here the film and dreamy reporter guy reports on big snake tracks and flashes back to a time he and dad wandered into what must have been the competition for the store in gremlins and dreamy kid reporter finds a box that glows. old shop keep reveals several terrible truths. that bauraki a supposedly evil snake was cheated out of his chance to be a god. tells the kid that he a reincarnated warrior and that somewhere in la is his reincarnated lover and gives him a junk piece of jewelry. shop keep also reveals that despite his obvious whiteness he a 500 year old asian. fifteen years later dreamy reporter remembers this perfectly and starts acting half crazy trying to find this random girl. cgi hijinks follow and in the last ten minutes my brain melts out of my nose. why. continue on dear reader if you have the balls. so sarah and the reincarnated lover and has her own flashbacks. i have the benefit of having an asian best friend and in the scene where she starts to freak out and make a bunch of posters with asian characters on them he tells me that whoever made this movie has no idea what their doing. its a korean legend and she reincarnated from a korean princess but everything is in chinese. later that night her dragon tat starts to hurt and she calls the police cause it looks like she having a heart attack. see and in this mixed up crazy world they apparently handle heart attacks differently because the next time we see her she locked in her room with a guard outside and a nurse claims she crazy. i have a new phobia now and and its that if i am ever in trouble the first responders will just assume i am crazy. i have another point of contention with my harsh mistress and dwar. there is a scene when patrick dempsey jr (dreamy reporter) is in a café with sassy black friend. in the scenes prior miffed near divinity bauraki has killed an elephant and slithered through a suburb and killed one of sarah friends. see and people were afraid to come out after 9 11 happened but we must have all toughened up after that deciding coffee and pastries were worth risking our lives for. business as usual and no way a giant snake will stop me from getting my caffeine on. if i stay inside and fear for my life the terrorists and serpentine divinities win. after being given a satisfying dragon on helicopter battle my cruel lover dwar treats me to a pi$$ and vinegar filled scene to end it all with. bauraki has a fortress of his own and its right under la i guess. they do not really say but dreamy reporter and sarah get knocked out in a car crash that would kill lesser men and when they wake up and yep dragon palace. some retarded dialog later a good dragon snake god pops out of nowhere and the snakes wrestle or make love whatever. and i am not kidding good snake out of nowhere. maybe you think i am blowing it out of proportion and i am not there is no mention of this thing in the movie then suddenly. there. few seconds later and good dragon becomes dragon god and sets baurki on fire and sarah turns into a ghost and goes with dragon god and dreamy reporter left in the middle of nowhere roll credits. thank godnow our relationship as rocky as it was had its good times. there was a guy that look like shredder from turtles and talked exactly like a tuskan raider from star wars. i will call him tuskan shredder. he could do whatever he wanted whenever he wanted to it just could never be useful. he could walk through a wall in a scene where that wasn not helpful. he could go in your dreams when that do not do any good and he could light ten random soldier guys on fire but not when it mattered. he was also allergic to touching that junk jewelry. i like him cause he was hit by a car twice in the same scene and made fantastic tuskan raider noises. the actors for the most part were great. if great somehow meant terrible. jason behr and whom i thought was awesome in roswell i slowly find out can only act one way and that pretentious and spacey and patrick dempseyish. the one thing i love about this filthy prostitute dwars is its lead actor and bauraki. that giant snake acted his heart out. i would dare to say that he was better at playing a cgi serpentine demi god of evil then john barrymore was at playing richard the iii or hamlet. there was emotion in every scene and stealing the thunder from his lesser mortal supporting cast. when he ate an elephant i felt like no one past and present or future would ever eat an elephant with as much feeling. he was more then an actor and he was a force of nature and he put his heart and soul into every second of this cursed project. yes damn it and my favorite actor in this film was a cgi snake. i have got the balls to admit that and do you. here to hoping bauraki get more work and isn not type cast and that jason behr finds a range of emotion other then dreamy stare and and that i never have to watch blue monkey again. so and d war its over. i want my cds back and let just be friends.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
hilarious and laugh out loud moments . and yet not a comedy. i particularly liked the planted gag of the ambulance soaking the filthy bum who then shouts after them in anger you filthy bums and i mean wow and someone online degree in literature is paying off. the worst script imaginable and with plot introductions in an instant and ridiculous movement in the story and zero character development (even between the characters who meet . it as if they all have known and trusted each other for years) dodgy voice over with added echo effects and and plot holes. oh god are there plot holes. to be honest i write this not even having watched the entire thing and but i certainly expect the last 30 mins or so to not exactly enhance the already pathetic attempt in cinema . thank god we have got a good looking lead to somewhat make us forget that the film is a load of . well . use you imagination for the conclusion of that particular sentence.
hilarious and laugh out loud moments . and yet not a comedy. i particularly liked the planted gag of the ambulance soaking the filthy bum who then shouts after them in anger you filthy bums and i mean wow and someone online degree in literature is paying off. the worst script imaginable and with plot introductions in an instant and ridiculous movement in the story and zero character development (even between the characters who meet . it as if they all have known and trusted each other for years) dodgy voice over with added echo effects and and plot holes. oh god are there plot holes. to be honest i write this not even having watched the entire thing and but i certainly expect the last 30 mins or so to not exactly enhance the already pathetic attempt in cinema . thank god we have got a good looking lead to somewhat make us forget that the film is a load of . well . use you imagination for the conclusion of that particular sentence.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i am giving this movie a 1 because there are no negative numbers in imdb rating system. this movie was horrible. it was very badly acted and the story was poorly written and the action was unbelievable. i doubt even the salvation army could battle as poorly as the troops did in this film. i would not even write any plot spoilers because the movie just isn not good enough for plot spoilers. to write comments on the plot would be pointless. if i were to compare this movie and i would have to compare it to reign of fire and however although i do not like reign of fire either and that movie at least was better than this one. some of the people in the theater left before the movie was even halfway done. the only reason i do not was because i simply do not think to do it. i was hoping for a feast of cgi and fighting masterfully done and but that isn not what happened. the martial arts lasted all of 30 seconds and that was from an exercise routine done during the flash back scene and very disappointing. the cgi was not done well either. one scene comes to mind. during one of the earlier tank battles and the troops are firing away at. nothing. someone forgot to cue the animation guys on that bit of film so the street was totally devoid of bad guys. i am also thinking the bad guy voice was dubbed by the voice over of imotep from the mummy movies. had that same scraggly echoing thing going on. (someone owed some royalties and here. ) since i mentioned the fight scene and i will say yeah that might be considered a spoiler and but only to the purists i suppose. don not go see it and do not buy the dvd when it comes out either. you have been warned.
i am giving this movie a 1 because there are no negative numbers in imdb rating system. this movie was horrible. it was very badly acted and the story was poorly written and the action was unbelievable. i doubt even the salvation army could battle as poorly as the troops did in this film. i would not even write any plot spoilers because the movie just isn not good enough for plot spoilers. to write comments on the plot would be pointless. if i were to compare this movie and i would have to compare it to reign of fire and however although i do not like reign of fire either and that movie at least was better than this one. some of the people in the theater left before the movie was even halfway done. the only reason i do not was because i simply do not think to do it. i was hoping for a feast of cgi and fighting masterfully done and but that isn not what happened. the martial arts lasted all of 30 seconds and that was from an exercise routine done during the flash back scene and very disappointing. the cgi was not done well either. one scene comes to mind. during one of the earlier tank battles and the troops are firing away at. nothing. someone forgot to cue the animation guys on that bit of film so the street was totally devoid of bad guys. i am also thinking the bad guy voice was dubbed by the voice over of imotep from the mummy movies. had that same scraggly echoing thing going on. (someone owed some royalties and here. ) since i mentioned the fight scene and i will say yeah that might be considered a spoiler and but only to the purists i suppose. don not go see it and do not buy the dvd when it comes out either. you have been warned.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i am a guy and who loves guy movies. i was looking forward to seeing a dragon fighting with the army with cool special effects. all of this happened and however and this movie was the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. the story was standard and but the portrayal of the story was terrible. the scene transitions were the worst i have ever seen. why would you walk out to a beach to relax if your life was in danger. the serpent dragon actions itself was very poorly written. and the serpent dragon attack capabilities varied widely throughout the movie and several times the main characters should have died. the director attempted to infuse a love story in the middle of the movie during the most stressful times and this movie was obviously not watched after it was made and i love movies and but had to force myself to finish watching it and thank god i did not buy this and i borrowed it from a friend. do not buy this and do not rent it and just watch discovery channel. much more exciting.
i am a guy and who loves guy movies. i was looking forward to seeing a dragon fighting with the army with cool special effects. all of this happened and however and this movie was the worst movie i have ever seen in my life. the story was standard and but the portrayal of the story was terrible. the scene transitions were the worst i have ever seen. why would you walk out to a beach to relax if your life was in danger. the serpent dragon actions itself was very poorly written. and the serpent dragon attack capabilities varied widely throughout the movie and several times the main characters should have died. the director attempted to infuse a love story in the middle of the movie during the most stressful times and this movie was obviously not watched after it was made and i love movies and but had to force myself to finish watching it and thank god i did not buy this and i borrowed it from a friend. do not buy this and do not rent it and just watch discovery channel. much more exciting.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
{rant start} i do not want to believe them at first and but i guess this is what people are talking about when they say south korean cinema has peaked and may even be going downhill. after the surprisingly fun and moving monster movie gwoemul (aka the host) of 2006 which actually succeeded in making a sharp satire out of a b movie genre successive korean blockbusters have become more and more generic and even though their budgets (mainly spent on special effects) have become more and more fantastic. do south korean movie makers really want to squander all the audience and investor goodwill and which their industry has built up since the 1999 break out film shiri or swiri and by making a whole series of big budget mediocre movies like mainland china did. {rant end}the only reason i can fathom for making this movie is to dupe the investors into financing the most detailed and fluid digital animation of a korean or east asian styled dragon i have seen to date and for the final scenes. now if they had introduced that dragon at the beginning and given it more personality and purpose like in the 1996 dragonheart and the movie might have had a few more redeeming qualities other than having lots of digitally animated dragons. remember dungeons and dragons in 2000. hasn not anyone learnt that the trick is not how much special effects you use and but how well you use it. i hope there are more (and better) korean legends they can use and because they have just killed a lot of international interest in korean dragon legends with the way they filmed this one. in short and i agree with all the negative reviews gone before and wonder how koreans felt about having their folk anthem arirang being played at the very end. as a creature feature and i would have given it at least 5 stars out of 10 if the special effects or action sequences had been worth it and but i have seen many video games with better camera work and scripting (just less dragons).
{rant start} i do not want to believe them at first and but i guess this is what people are talking about when they say south korean cinema has peaked and may even be going downhill. after the surprisingly fun and moving monster movie gwoemul (aka the host) of 2006 which actually succeeded in making a sharp satire out of a b movie genre successive korean blockbusters have become more and more generic and even though their budgets (mainly spent on special effects) have become more and more fantastic. do south korean movie makers really want to squander all the audience and investor goodwill and which their industry has built up since the 1999 break out film shiri or swiri and by making a whole series of big budget mediocre movies like mainland china did. {rant end}the only reason i can fathom for making this movie is to dupe the investors into financing the most detailed and fluid digital animation of a korean or east asian styled dragon i have seen to date and for the final scenes. now if they had introduced that dragon at the beginning and given it more personality and purpose like in the 1996 dragonheart and the movie might have had a few more redeeming qualities other than having lots of digitally animated dragons. remember dungeons and dragons in 2000. hasn not anyone learnt that the trick is not how much special effects you use and but how well you use it. i hope there are more (and better) korean legends they can use and because they have just killed a lot of international interest in korean dragon legends with the way they filmed this one. in short and i agree with all the negative reviews gone before and wonder how koreans felt about having their folk anthem arirang being played at the very end. as a creature feature and i would have given it at least 5 stars out of 10 if the special effects or action sequences had been worth it and but i have seen many video games with better camera work and scripting (just less dragons).
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is the sorriest collection of clichés and strung together on a straight line and with no discernible plot or any decent way of acting i have seen in a long time. canibalising scenes from star wars and reign of fire and godzilla and lord of the rings and harry potter and it went for an all out war on the viewer intelligence. was this movie good. it wasn not a movie at all. even if it doesn not go so low to actually be funny and achieve cult status as a comedy and the movie does offer some laughs. the trick is to put the copied scenes in the context of their original films. gandalf can be funny talking korean and the basilisk looking snake hilarious if you compare it to a kitten and the evil henchman can provide a lot of fun switching back and forth between sauron and jaja bing and or whatever his name was. bottom line represent any pleasure derived from this movie is completely dependent on the state of intoxication and imagination of the viewers and not on the director or writer. shame on you and shim.
this is the sorriest collection of clichés and strung together on a straight line and with no discernible plot or any decent way of acting i have seen in a long time. canibalising scenes from star wars and reign of fire and godzilla and lord of the rings and harry potter and it went for an all out war on the viewer intelligence. was this movie good. it wasn not a movie at all. even if it doesn not go so low to actually be funny and achieve cult status as a comedy and the movie does offer some laughs. the trick is to put the copied scenes in the context of their original films. gandalf can be funny talking korean and the basilisk looking snake hilarious if you compare it to a kitten and the evil henchman can provide a lot of fun switching back and forth between sauron and jaja bing and or whatever his name was. bottom line represent any pleasure derived from this movie is completely dependent on the state of intoxication and imagination of the viewers and not on the director or writer. shame on you and shim.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
my original review of this film was simply the word sht written 2000 times over. although this was a very accurate critique and i felt my review should be a little more descriptive. i will start with the lead actress while her facial expression doesn not change once in this film and she doesn not show fear and happiness or depression. her skills in body language pretty much come down to darting her eyes left and right and looking like she do not know jack. she is an emotionless husk who i am guessing has had too much botox. her lack of facial expression through out the film is outmatched however by the deplorable love affair with the lead actor which seems to spring out of nowhere and has them making out on a beach and falling in love within a couple of hours of meeting one another. the lead actor and whose hair demands more attention than he did and was mediocre at best and did not once make me feel like he was genuinely in peril. the only thing that tops the hideous acting is the directing and storyline and inaccuracies in plot. i have seen tampon ads with more structure than this movie. the is no development in character and they just seem to say and do things that i could never believe a real person would. this film would not have been bad if it was trying to be crap on purpose like snakes on a plane but it was trying so hard to be a serious action flick that i couldn not even laugh. i believe i now have a brain tumour from watching this film and thinking up all the different ways i could have used that budget and cg team to create something far superior. if i bought this on dvd i would smash the dvd to pieces and burn it then dissolve it in hydrochloric acid for good measure. dont watch this film.
my original review of this film was simply the word sht written 2000 times over. although this was a very accurate critique and i felt my review should be a little more descriptive. i will start with the lead actress while her facial expression doesn not change once in this film and she doesn not show fear and happiness or depression. her skills in body language pretty much come down to darting her eyes left and right and looking like she do not know jack. she is an emotionless husk who i am guessing has had too much botox. her lack of facial expression through out the film is outmatched however by the deplorable love affair with the lead actor which seems to spring out of nowhere and has them making out on a beach and falling in love within a couple of hours of meeting one another. the lead actor and whose hair demands more attention than he did and was mediocre at best and did not once make me feel like he was genuinely in peril. the only thing that tops the hideous acting is the directing and storyline and inaccuracies in plot. i have seen tampon ads with more structure than this movie. the is no development in character and they just seem to say and do things that i could never believe a real person would. this film would not have been bad if it was trying to be crap on purpose like snakes on a plane but it was trying so hard to be a serious action flick that i couldn not even laugh. i believe i now have a brain tumour from watching this film and thinking up all the different ways i could have used that budget and cg team to create something far superior. if i bought this on dvd i would smash the dvd to pieces and burn it then dissolve it in hydrochloric acid for good measure. dont watch this film.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
first off i would like to point out that sam niel is nowhere to be seen in this film. what a movie without sam niel. did anyone see event horizon. d wars did have potential a movie about a dragon that controls lizards with rocket launchers does sound cool but sadly isn not. nope and no sam niel and no good movie. i recommend taking the 5 dollars or so it takes to rent d wars and adding 10 to that five and buying a sam niel film apparently to submit this i have to have ten lines of text so heres a list of sam niel movies i recommend jurassic park dead calm hunt for red october event horizon not jurassic park threeoverall d wars is a pile.
first off i would like to point out that sam niel is nowhere to be seen in this film. what a movie without sam niel. did anyone see event horizon. d wars did have potential a movie about a dragon that controls lizards with rocket launchers does sound cool but sadly isn not. nope and no sam niel and no good movie. i recommend taking the 5 dollars or so it takes to rent d wars and adding 10 to that five and buying a sam niel film apparently to submit this i have to have ten lines of text so heres a list of sam niel movies i recommend jurassic park dead calm hunt for red october event horizon not jurassic park threeoverall d wars is a pile.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
whatever his name is (the writer and director) should be locked away in hopes garbage like this is never made again. this one is in a battle with some of the most awful movies of all time. sometimes movies are bad in a way that theyre actually sort of good. not this one. this was so bad i got angry. seriously. a drunken 10 year old could have come up with a better script. what a waste. all the actors were completely uninspired to work at all and the cgi was barely acceptable and the sequences of scenes were completely retarded and hurt the little bit of story there was and it like he just decided and i want this to happen and this to happen and but i do not care how we got there and just shoot it and put it in. whatever and i am going back to my trailer to pick my nose and if anyone calls for me and i am not here. shame on you whatever your name is. shame on you.
whatever his name is (the writer and director) should be locked away in hopes garbage like this is never made again. this one is in a battle with some of the most awful movies of all time. sometimes movies are bad in a way that theyre actually sort of good. not this one. this was so bad i got angry. seriously. a drunken 10 year old could have come up with a better script. what a waste. all the actors were completely uninspired to work at all and the cgi was barely acceptable and the sequences of scenes were completely retarded and hurt the little bit of story there was and it like he just decided and i want this to happen and this to happen and but i do not care how we got there and just shoot it and put it in. whatever and i am going back to my trailer to pick my nose and if anyone calls for me and i am not here. shame on you whatever your name is. shame on you.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i hate to even waste the time it takes to write 10 lines on this atrocity. hyung rae shim is lucky that bad film making isn not a capital crime or he would be put to death twice for writing and directing this disaster. i am amazed that this film had a $75m budget and but actually glad in the sense that it was such a tremendous flop and that shim will hopefully and never get to make another movie the rest of the life and and therefore and not waste any more of filmgoers time. i would think the actors would have gotten together and lynched him by now. with the effects resources available to them and a great film could have been made with this budget. as usual and the failure should have been spotted at the very beginning with the terrible script and story. transformers was another visual feast with a weak script and but this makes it look like citizen kane.
i hate to even waste the time it takes to write 10 lines on this atrocity. hyung rae shim is lucky that bad film making isn not a capital crime or he would be put to death twice for writing and directing this disaster. i am amazed that this film had a $75m budget and but actually glad in the sense that it was such a tremendous flop and that shim will hopefully and never get to make another movie the rest of the life and and therefore and not waste any more of filmgoers time. i would think the actors would have gotten together and lynched him by now. with the effects resources available to them and a great film could have been made with this budget. as usual and the failure should have been spotted at the very beginning with the terrible script and story. transformers was another visual feast with a weak script and but this makes it look like citizen kane.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
based on the korean legend and unknown creatures will return and devastate the planet. reporter ethan kendrick is called in to investigate the matter and and he arrives at the conclusion that a girl and stricken with a mysterious illness and named sarah is suppose to help him. the imoogi makes its way to los angeles and wreaking havoc and destruction. with the entire city under arms and will ethan and sarah make it in time to save the people of los angeles. written by anonymous i think he should have included the followingthis is the worst movie i have ever seen the best actor in the whole thing was the cg dragon and overall it s u c k ed i am p i s s ed at not only with the people who made it but myself for watching save yourself the time read a book or something maybe a little dr seuss that should be more stimulating. no wonder the guy is anonymous sorry for the format this site has a lot of rules this is the only way i could get this out without adding more.
based on the korean legend and unknown creatures will return and devastate the planet. reporter ethan kendrick is called in to investigate the matter and and he arrives at the conclusion that a girl and stricken with a mysterious illness and named sarah is suppose to help him. the imoogi makes its way to los angeles and wreaking havoc and destruction. with the entire city under arms and will ethan and sarah make it in time to save the people of los angeles. written by anonymous i think he should have included the followingthis is the worst movie i have ever seen the best actor in the whole thing was the cg dragon and overall it s u c k ed i am p i s s ed at not only with the people who made it but myself for watching save yourself the time read a book or something maybe a little dr seuss that should be more stimulating. no wonder the guy is anonymous sorry for the format this site has a lot of rules this is the only way i could get this out without adding more.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie was so very badly written. the characters had no depth. they should have never made a movie of this. my 11 yr old son could write a better screenplay then hyung rae shim. the only actor that do not suck was the zoo guard. he was the only funny and believable one of the lot. i love movies and try to give them the benefit of the doubt and but this one was up there on my lame list at number 2. number 1 being demonicus. for those of you who actually thought this was a good movie and you are in serious need of brain surgery. most of the creatures in the movie weren not even dragons. so why did they call d war.
this movie was so very badly written. the characters had no depth. they should have never made a movie of this. my 11 yr old son could write a better screenplay then hyung rae shim. the only actor that do not suck was the zoo guard. he was the only funny and believable one of the lot. i love movies and try to give them the benefit of the doubt and but this one was up there on my lame list at number 2. number 1 being demonicus. for those of you who actually thought this was a good movie and you are in serious need of brain surgery. most of the creatures in the movie weren not even dragons. so why did they call d war.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie only gets a second star because i work downtown and liked seeing it destroyed. the effects were pretty good i hear it was the most expensive korean film ever made. being the most expensive and still absolutely horrid makes it a massive waste of money. i rented it so i would not complain too much about what i paid and but it was a couple hours that i will never get back. plot holes abound. terrible acting all across the board. i do not recommend giving up the time to watch this movie and life is too short. if your friends want to watch this and run away. i can not stress enough how bad this film was. where the hell did the second dragon come from. why do not he show up sooner. how did they have rocket launchers on dinosaurs just 500 years ago.
this movie only gets a second star because i work downtown and liked seeing it destroyed. the effects were pretty good i hear it was the most expensive korean film ever made. being the most expensive and still absolutely horrid makes it a massive waste of money. i rented it so i would not complain too much about what i paid and but it was a couple hours that i will never get back. plot holes abound. terrible acting all across the board. i do not recommend giving up the time to watch this movie and life is too short. if your friends want to watch this and run away. i can not stress enough how bad this film was. where the hell did the second dragon come from. why do not he show up sooner. how did they have rocket launchers on dinosaurs just 500 years ago.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i knew it would be and but i gave it a rent for some laughs and maybe some mindless fun. anyone whose read a few of my reviews can see that i am pretty easy to please. i really do not think i would end up feeling this negatively towards it. the plot is about an ancient army of dragons lead by a huge serpent that will destroy the world unless some chosen heroes who inherited the responsibility can… become one with… a good dragon… or something… i do not know. it was so stupid and i do not bother to put much effort into retaining it. it features a really dumb story full of ridiculous moments and goofy concepts. so many of the events just felt totally random and sudden. i assume there was studio interference or something because the biggest problem i have with the movie is the fact that the story seems like it trying to be so grand and epic and yet everything happens so fast and goes by so quickly. i feel like i have just been hit with a million plot points and action sequences in one big ball. the film is like a punch in the face. it doesn not take much time at all to establish characters or drama. imagine the lord of the rings trilogy in 90 minutes… you could have most of the epic battle sequences and but there would be absolutely no buildup and you would hardly care about the outcome of those battles. that was the case with dragon wars… 90 minutes of me not giving a crap and waiting for it to be over. fantastic cgi with some okay directing and but horrible acting and speedy pacing and and dumb story made this very hard to enjoy on any grounds. i probably would have loved it when i was 6.
i knew it would be and but i gave it a rent for some laughs and maybe some mindless fun. anyone whose read a few of my reviews can see that i am pretty easy to please. i really do not think i would end up feeling this negatively towards it. the plot is about an ancient army of dragons lead by a huge serpent that will destroy the world unless some chosen heroes who inherited the responsibility can… become one with… a good dragon… or something… i do not know. it was so stupid and i do not bother to put much effort into retaining it. it features a really dumb story full of ridiculous moments and goofy concepts. so many of the events just felt totally random and sudden. i assume there was studio interference or something because the biggest problem i have with the movie is the fact that the story seems like it trying to be so grand and epic and yet everything happens so fast and goes by so quickly. i feel like i have just been hit with a million plot points and action sequences in one big ball. the film is like a punch in the face. it doesn not take much time at all to establish characters or drama. imagine the lord of the rings trilogy in 90 minutes… you could have most of the epic battle sequences and but there would be absolutely no buildup and you would hardly care about the outcome of those battles. that was the case with dragon wars… 90 minutes of me not giving a crap and waiting for it to be over. fantastic cgi with some okay directing and but horrible acting and speedy pacing and and dumb story made this very hard to enjoy on any grounds. i probably would have loved it when i was 6.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i was dreading taking my nephews to this movie and as i do not think it was going to be well done. the kids and ages 6 and 10 were set on seeing it and so i caved. i must admit that it was not nearly as bad as i had thought and but was still a far cry from the book. the movie seemed right on with the 10 year old understanding and sense of humor. i found that the 6 year old understood what was going on and he was presenting solutions to the issues that were taking place. i eventually had to explain that sometimes the movies do not show the best solutions to the problems because it is more fun to watch what happens if they make the silly or stupid choices.
i was dreading taking my nephews to this movie and as i do not think it was going to be well done. the kids and ages 6 and 10 were set on seeing it and so i caved. i must admit that it was not nearly as bad as i had thought and but was still a far cry from the book. the movie seemed right on with the 10 year old understanding and sense of humor. i found that the 6 year old understood what was going on and he was presenting solutions to the issues that were taking place. i eventually had to explain that sometimes the movies do not show the best solutions to the problems because it is more fun to watch what happens if they make the silly or stupid choices.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
squeamish 11 year old luke benward (as billy worm boy forrester) moves to a new town. at his new school and young benward is picked on by the other boys. they put worms in his thermos. getting his gag reflex under control and benward tosses a worm on freckle faced bully adam hicks (as joe guire). benward bets he can eat 10 worms in one day without regurgitation. tall and teased hallie kate eisenberg (as erika erk tansy) uses her archery skills to help benward. director and former sctv writer bob dolman promises and no worms were harmed in the making of this movie. in a related note and sctv star andrea martin has one funny scene. how to eat fried worms is loosely based on thomas rockwell popular novel. pre teen kids into gross outs should enjoy the film. how to eat fried worms (8/25/06) bob dolman ~ luke benward and adam hicks and hallie kate eisenberg and alexander gould.
squeamish 11 year old luke benward (as billy worm boy forrester) moves to a new town. at his new school and young benward is picked on by the other boys. they put worms in his thermos. getting his gag reflex under control and benward tosses a worm on freckle faced bully adam hicks (as joe guire). benward bets he can eat 10 worms in one day without regurgitation. tall and teased hallie kate eisenberg (as erika erk tansy) uses her archery skills to help benward. director and former sctv writer bob dolman promises and no worms were harmed in the making of this movie. in a related note and sctv star andrea martin has one funny scene. how to eat fried worms is loosely based on thomas rockwell popular novel. pre teen kids into gross outs should enjoy the film. how to eat fried worms (8/25/06) bob dolman ~ luke benward and adam hicks and hallie kate eisenberg and alexander gould.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i was bored and around 10pm and so i watched this movie. and i could not stop laughing. everything was so ridiculous. the way the kids were acting like they were older than 11 just cracked me up. one of the kids had a ring and that supposedly killed people after 3 or so years. it gave me the impression that he wanted to be a gangster. it pretty hard to take little kids seriously and especially when it has to do with eating worms. they act like everything is such a big deal and like if billy (the main character) doesn not eat the worms then the world will end. this is a good movie for little kids (excluding the fact that a 5 year old says penis) and but not for teens or adults who do not want to waste their time.
i was bored and around 10pm and so i watched this movie. and i could not stop laughing. everything was so ridiculous. the way the kids were acting like they were older than 11 just cracked me up. one of the kids had a ring and that supposedly killed people after 3 or so years. it gave me the impression that he wanted to be a gangster. it pretty hard to take little kids seriously and especially when it has to do with eating worms. they act like everything is such a big deal and like if billy (the main character) doesn not eat the worms then the world will end. this is a good movie for little kids (excluding the fact that a 5 year old says penis) and but not for teens or adults who do not want to waste their time.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i have to admit i did not finish this movie because it was so amazingly stupid and not worth watching. i watched it with a room full of kids and who also were not laughing at the stupid and crude humor. the director and bob dolman and seems to be so obsessed with sphincters and genitalia that it overrides the real story that i grew up with. this is not a good film for kids. besides the fact that the content is so crude and the movie is just stupid has bad flow and has no intelligence behind it. what a waste of a perfectly good story. if you read the book when you were younger and loved it and then do not waste your time watching a movie that so badly botches it that it makes you angry. buy your kids the book instead.
i have to admit i did not finish this movie because it was so amazingly stupid and not worth watching. i watched it with a room full of kids and who also were not laughing at the stupid and crude humor. the director and bob dolman and seems to be so obsessed with sphincters and genitalia that it overrides the real story that i grew up with. this is not a good film for kids. besides the fact that the content is so crude and the movie is just stupid has bad flow and has no intelligence behind it. what a waste of a perfectly good story. if you read the book when you were younger and loved it and then do not waste your time watching a movie that so badly botches it that it makes you angry. buy your kids the book instead.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i just happened to stumble on this film channel surfing. my first reaction was and oh god not again. it so hip to play a retard these days it has become pretentious and frankly despicable. for some reason and though and i stayed and watched it til the end. maybe it was my faith in the actors and hoping they would give me something to cheer about. and surely and ken and helena can act. also and the movie progresses into something better towards the end and actually does make a point. helena bonham carter also surprised me with her character. jane has a mean side that she uses to keep distance and repel pity. then again she has a soft side that just looking for love. the only thing that surprised me even more was branagh character. this was a triumph of acting and the movie itself is nothing unique. see if you are an acting student. if youre looking for pure entertainment you can skip this one. it sean penn serious. oh my and that was a bit harsh it does feature a couple jokes. not for escapists though.
i just happened to stumble on this film channel surfing. my first reaction was and oh god not again. it so hip to play a retard these days it has become pretentious and frankly despicable. for some reason and though and i stayed and watched it til the end. maybe it was my faith in the actors and hoping they would give me something to cheer about. and surely and ken and helena can act. also and the movie progresses into something better towards the end and actually does make a point. helena bonham carter also surprised me with her character. jane has a mean side that she uses to keep distance and repel pity. then again she has a soft side that just looking for love. the only thing that surprised me even more was branagh character. this was a triumph of acting and the movie itself is nothing unique. see if you are an acting student. if youre looking for pure entertainment you can skip this one. it sean penn serious. oh my and that was a bit harsh it does feature a couple jokes. not for escapists though.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
spoiler. i love branagh and love helena bonham carter and loved them together in mary shelley frankenstein but this i can understand an actor desire to stretch and to avoid the romantic stereotype. well and they did and but really the script droned on and bonham carter clothes were tres chic and and the occasional speeded up madcap sequence could have been an outtake from a beatles movie and or the old rowan and martin laugh in. i never got the point other commenters say the branagh character was a dreamer. i never felt that. he was a loser and and not very bright and and certainly not endearing. the business with the bank robber disguise was merely painful to watch. certainly not amusing. bonham carter realistic (one supposes) attempts as realistic speech were harder to understand than the first 15 minutes of lancashire accent in full monty. the poetic ending and with him high on a hill with her buried under the monstrosity of his airplane was too orchestrated. was there a choir of angels and or merely a soundtrack. go back to the classics or something with a spine and an arc to it. donate this to pbs.
spoiler. i love branagh and love helena bonham carter and loved them together in mary shelley frankenstein but this i can understand an actor desire to stretch and to avoid the romantic stereotype. well and they did and but really the script droned on and bonham carter clothes were tres chic and and the occasional speeded up madcap sequence could have been an outtake from a beatles movie and or the old rowan and martin laugh in. i never got the point other commenters say the branagh character was a dreamer. i never felt that. he was a loser and and not very bright and and certainly not endearing. the business with the bank robber disguise was merely painful to watch. certainly not amusing. bonham carter realistic (one supposes) attempts as realistic speech were harder to understand than the first 15 minutes of lancashire accent in full monty. the poetic ending and with him high on a hill with her buried under the monstrosity of his airplane was too orchestrated. was there a choir of angels and or merely a soundtrack. go back to the classics or something with a spine and an arc to it. donate this to pbs.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i still do not know why i forced myself to sit through the whole thing. this film wasn not worth the memorex dvd r it was burned on while i thought i was watching the end result of a group of middle schoolers stealing their parents camcorder. this is by far the worst movie ever made. i truly and from the bottom of my heart and want to sue aaron yamasato for the two hours he stole from my life. so apparently and it supposed to be bad on purpose while however and if you should end up in hell and are forced to watch this 90 minute coil of doo doo and you will see that yamasato is really trying hard to make an awesome flick. the actors attempt dramatic kick ass performances comparable to crimson tide but come closer to the marine. the crap acting is just the tip of the iceberg. the camera angles are awful. the story is c movie at best the plot isn not even good enough to be considered b movie caliber. the dialogue attempts to be dynamic and witty and but is crap like everything else. rumor has it that a hard copy of the screenplay actually attracts flies. plus and the techno score is annoying. not because it techno and but because it non stop. that right and the music plays in the background the whole time and acting as a subliminal reminder of how bad this thing is. i do not care what the disclaimer claims and i do not buy it. bots was not made this bad on purpose and because it takes itself way too serious for what it was represent a joke. this film was very low budget. but that is no excuse for its record setting suck factor. great films are born of substance and not budget. bots had neither. allow me to further articulate the overwhelming power of this 90 minute waste of time represent if i were having a three way with jessica alba and jessica biel in front of a tv and blood of the samurai came on and i would be out of there quicker than steven seagal in executive decision. undoubtedly and some people will try to defend the movie. two and maybe three. they will say and it grindhouse chop socky. or cheesy in a good way. or it so bad and it good. those people are idiots. a movie is either good and or it bad. there no such thing as a good bad movie. but there are such things as idiots that like crappy movies. don not get me wrong while there are lots of cornball not to be taken seriously movies out there that are enjoyable and entertaining. slither is one. bots is not. this suckfest runs about an hour and a half and and in my humble opinion and it 90 minutes too long. the best thing about this film is the dvd cover and so next time youre near the wal mart dvd bargain bin and take a look at it dont touch it and just look and quietly walk away.
i still do not know why i forced myself to sit through the whole thing. this film wasn not worth the memorex dvd r it was burned on while i thought i was watching the end result of a group of middle schoolers stealing their parents camcorder. this is by far the worst movie ever made. i truly and from the bottom of my heart and want to sue aaron yamasato for the two hours he stole from my life. so apparently and it supposed to be bad on purpose while however and if you should end up in hell and are forced to watch this 90 minute coil of doo doo and you will see that yamasato is really trying hard to make an awesome flick. the actors attempt dramatic kick ass performances comparable to crimson tide but come closer to the marine. the crap acting is just the tip of the iceberg. the camera angles are awful. the story is c movie at best the plot isn not even good enough to be considered b movie caliber. the dialogue attempts to be dynamic and witty and but is crap like everything else. rumor has it that a hard copy of the screenplay actually attracts flies. plus and the techno score is annoying. not because it techno and but because it non stop. that right and the music plays in the background the whole time and acting as a subliminal reminder of how bad this thing is. i do not care what the disclaimer claims and i do not buy it. bots was not made this bad on purpose and because it takes itself way too serious for what it was represent a joke. this film was very low budget. but that is no excuse for its record setting suck factor. great films are born of substance and not budget. bots had neither. allow me to further articulate the overwhelming power of this 90 minute waste of time represent if i were having a three way with jessica alba and jessica biel in front of a tv and blood of the samurai came on and i would be out of there quicker than steven seagal in executive decision. undoubtedly and some people will try to defend the movie. two and maybe three. they will say and it grindhouse chop socky. or cheesy in a good way. or it so bad and it good. those people are idiots. a movie is either good and or it bad. there no such thing as a good bad movie. but there are such things as idiots that like crappy movies. don not get me wrong while there are lots of cornball not to be taken seriously movies out there that are enjoyable and entertaining. slither is one. bots is not. this suckfest runs about an hour and a half and and in my humble opinion and it 90 minutes too long. the best thing about this film is the dvd cover and so next time youre near the wal mart dvd bargain bin and take a look at it dont touch it and just look and quietly walk away.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i have no clue as to what this was shot on but you can definitely tell that they had no budget. bad acting and horrible cinematography and and lame plot and some decent special effects do not make a good movie. the wwf style cinemtography will make you cry. where the tripod. the filmakers aimed high and but sorely missed their mark.
i have no clue as to what this was shot on but you can definitely tell that they had no budget. bad acting and horrible cinematography and and lame plot and some decent special effects do not make a good movie. the wwf style cinemtography will make you cry. where the tripod. the filmakers aimed high and but sorely missed their mark.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
trash or bad movies usually ain not bad because i will find them enjoyable. this one is so bad that i am out of words to describe it its below bad. there is an instruction in the beginning of the film that tell you what to do during the movie. needless to say and the instruction and a dozen of beer couldn not help me seat through the entire film. one tagliner compares this one to killbill which is certainly unthinkable and an insult to our intelligent. obviously. this tagliner had a plan to tempt you into buying this dvd. if you are considering renting this one and put it down. if you are thinking of buying and dont think. if you unlucky to have this dvd and dont play it and throw it in trash bin immediately.
trash or bad movies usually ain not bad because i will find them enjoyable. this one is so bad that i am out of words to describe it its below bad. there is an instruction in the beginning of the film that tell you what to do during the movie. needless to say and the instruction and a dozen of beer couldn not help me seat through the entire film. one tagliner compares this one to killbill which is certainly unthinkable and an insult to our intelligent. obviously. this tagliner had a plan to tempt you into buying this dvd. if you are considering renting this one and put it down. if you are thinking of buying and dont think. if you unlucky to have this dvd and dont play it and throw it in trash bin immediately.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
there are no spoilers in this review. there nothing to spoil. no plot and nothing while most clip shows at least try to tie the clips into the plot by some tenuous stretch and but this do not even do that. clips and three lines to lead into the next interminable sequence of dull clips. ok and so perhaps they were short on production time and but they would have been better off skipping this episode entirely. what a waste of time. i am not sure how this got made and in fact. scrubs is usually much better at subverting tropes and but somehow this got through. thank heavens they were back on form by the next episode.
there are no spoilers in this review. there nothing to spoil. no plot and nothing while most clip shows at least try to tie the clips into the plot by some tenuous stretch and but this do not even do that. clips and three lines to lead into the next interminable sequence of dull clips. ok and so perhaps they were short on production time and but they would have been better off skipping this episode entirely. what a waste of time. i am not sure how this got made and in fact. scrubs is usually much better at subverting tropes and but somehow this got through. thank heavens they were back on form by the next episode.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the only reason i am commenting is because i finally figured out why dr. cox was bald. although we probably all realized it at the same time this week and dr. cox is bald because they showed these episodes in a different order than they filmed them. the latest episode when our favorite grumpy and jesus loving nurse roberts dies dr. cox shaves his head. the must have showed them out of order for some odd reason and forgot they slipped up the continuity. for shame and scrubs. they have made mistakes like this before. i remember when elliot is trying to date scott foley and her hair is wet 2 seconds before water hits her. i try not to notice these things and but my favorite show needs to step it up.
the only reason i am commenting is because i finally figured out why dr. cox was bald. although we probably all realized it at the same time this week and dr. cox is bald because they showed these episodes in a different order than they filmed them. the latest episode when our favorite grumpy and jesus loving nurse roberts dies dr. cox shaves his head. the must have showed them out of order for some odd reason and forgot they slipped up the continuity. for shame and scrubs. they have made mistakes like this before. i remember when elliot is trying to date scott foley and her hair is wet 2 seconds before water hits her. i try not to notice these things and but my favorite show needs to step it up.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i thought it was not the best re cap episode i have every seen (though my viewing partner handed me a tissue in anticipation of the brendan fraser moment. sigh). it was nice to see cox outside of the incessantly brittle coxism state he is in these days and if only for brief moments. i also enjoyed trying to place the episodes included by the length of the character hair (or height and in case of jd) and the youthfulness of the earliest episodes. i can also see how zach might be well on the way to a very chevy chase or or is that matthew perry. prat fall induced chemical slide (already acknowledged on conan). a little side note and the song (now stuck in my head) from the janitor induced dance montage was diner by martin sexton.
i thought it was not the best re cap episode i have every seen (though my viewing partner handed me a tissue in anticipation of the brendan fraser moment. sigh). it was nice to see cox outside of the incessantly brittle coxism state he is in these days and if only for brief moments. i also enjoyed trying to place the episodes included by the length of the character hair (or height and in case of jd) and the youthfulness of the earliest episodes. i can also see how zach might be well on the way to a very chevy chase or or is that matthew perry. prat fall induced chemical slide (already acknowledged on conan). a little side note and the song (now stuck in my head) from the janitor induced dance montage was diner by martin sexton.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
but and lets face it. it got a few nostalgic sighs out of me. the show is just so consistently great that it is allowed to have a few hiccups. i get a new season and and just power through them like i have 2 days to live. i like the idea of wrapping it up and but it was much more of an end of season episode which would explain the following representdr. cox isn not supposed to be bald for a couple more episodes and only explanation i can think of is they changed the rotation of the episodes or had to re shoot the beginning. and that my friends and is why the hell cox is bald. anyways and the show is awesome. bring on the 7th season.
but and lets face it. it got a few nostalgic sighs out of me. the show is just so consistently great that it is allowed to have a few hiccups. i get a new season and and just power through them like i have 2 days to live. i like the idea of wrapping it up and but it was much more of an end of season episode which would explain the following representdr. cox isn not supposed to be bald for a couple more episodes and only explanation i can think of is they changed the rotation of the episodes or had to re shoot the beginning. and that my friends and is why the hell cox is bald. anyways and the show is awesome. bring on the 7th season.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i debated as to whether or not i should tick the spoiler box. since 99% of this show has probably already been seen by any follower of scrubs it probably doesn not come under the category of a spoiler. clip shows. grrr. we all knew friends was going down the tube when they started with clip shows. and five and a half years into scrubs they have gone and fallen down that hole. i have to wonder if the writers just couldn not be bothered writing that week and just said to themselves let show the other funny stuff. it do not work. for starters and showing all the times that people have fallen down isn not funny when taken out of context. it not funny to see todd dangling by his banana hammock unless we know why he was dangling by his banana hammock. second and for what was supposed to be a compilation of jd fantasies and one was turk dream and another also wasn not his fantasy and although i forget which. and that the problem. this episode is totally forgettable. we have seen all these things before. and the collection of clips of people dancing. why. that not funny. finally and i must admit two of my favourite scrubs moments were shown in the last compilation. dr. cox realising that ben died. and jd telling him how proud of him he is. but even seeing those moments again do not save the episode. the summary says it all. worst episode ever. bill lawrence and please do not let your show go the same way as friends and keep it fresh and keep it funny. or wrap it up.
i debated as to whether or not i should tick the spoiler box. since 99% of this show has probably already been seen by any follower of scrubs it probably doesn not come under the category of a spoiler. clip shows. grrr. we all knew friends was going down the tube when they started with clip shows. and five and a half years into scrubs they have gone and fallen down that hole. i have to wonder if the writers just couldn not be bothered writing that week and just said to themselves let show the other funny stuff. it do not work. for starters and showing all the times that people have fallen down isn not funny when taken out of context. it not funny to see todd dangling by his banana hammock unless we know why he was dangling by his banana hammock. second and for what was supposed to be a compilation of jd fantasies and one was turk dream and another also wasn not his fantasy and although i forget which. and that the problem. this episode is totally forgettable. we have seen all these things before. and the collection of clips of people dancing. why. that not funny. finally and i must admit two of my favourite scrubs moments were shown in the last compilation. dr. cox realising that ben died. and jd telling him how proud of him he is. but even seeing those moments again do not save the episode. the summary says it all. worst episode ever. bill lawrence and please do not let your show go the same way as friends and keep it fresh and keep it funny. or wrap it up.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
when my deja vu and my deja vu aired last season and i was pleased. scrubs and i thought and is doing something clever and unique in regards to the clip show concept. instead of replaying footage and theyre replaying jokes in a self aware manner and and i really enjoyed it. i found it really unfortunate that i was wrong. one season later and they succumbed to that which almost all sitcoms inevitably do and the clip show. and it looked like it was put together by the work experience kid. dr cox shaved head shows just how lazy the editors were in putting it together and as it doesn not appear again until my long goodbye some 4 episodes later. i can not imagine that a wig is too much effort when it comes to maintaining the continuity of what was once a well constructed sitcom. who knows why it was slotted there and it just seemed lazy and out of place and reminding me (largely) of episodes that have aired within the past year. three second clips jammed together with background music is a dvd extra for a (very) rainy day and not an episode of prime time television.
when my deja vu and my deja vu aired last season and i was pleased. scrubs and i thought and is doing something clever and unique in regards to the clip show concept. instead of replaying footage and theyre replaying jokes in a self aware manner and and i really enjoyed it. i found it really unfortunate that i was wrong. one season later and they succumbed to that which almost all sitcoms inevitably do and the clip show. and it looked like it was put together by the work experience kid. dr cox shaved head shows just how lazy the editors were in putting it together and as it doesn not appear again until my long goodbye some 4 episodes later. i can not imagine that a wig is too much effort when it comes to maintaining the continuity of what was once a well constructed sitcom. who knows why it was slotted there and it just seemed lazy and out of place and reminding me (largely) of episodes that have aired within the past year. three second clips jammed together with background music is a dvd extra for a (very) rainy day and not an episode of prime time television.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
truly bad and easily the worst episode i have ever seen. ever. they tried to make up for it by giving it the and we know we are doing this routine. that would have been funny if it weren not for the fact that the simpsons had already done it. and it still do not make up for it if they had come up with the idea in the first place. the flashbacks took place as part of the usual character (mainly j. d ) fantasies. the flashbacks weren not even of actual events that occurred and just compilations of say and j. d falling over or and i do not know. elliott falling over. if i wanted to watch a scrubs compilation i would go on youtube and not waste half an hour of my life. scrubs has ultimately fallen into the trap that most sit coms have to and and it disappoints me and they managed to go 5 and a quarter seasons without an episode like this. i was hoping that scrubs do not have to be that kind of sit com. and just as a passing thought and why the hell was dr. cox bald.
truly bad and easily the worst episode i have ever seen. ever. they tried to make up for it by giving it the and we know we are doing this routine. that would have been funny if it weren not for the fact that the simpsons had already done it. and it still do not make up for it if they had come up with the idea in the first place. the flashbacks took place as part of the usual character (mainly j. d ) fantasies. the flashbacks weren not even of actual events that occurred and just compilations of say and j. d falling over or and i do not know. elliott falling over. if i wanted to watch a scrubs compilation i would go on youtube and not waste half an hour of my life. scrubs has ultimately fallen into the trap that most sit coms have to and and it disappoints me and they managed to go 5 and a quarter seasons without an episode like this. i was hoping that scrubs do not have to be that kind of sit com. and just as a passing thought and why the hell was dr. cox bald.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
whoa boy. ever wanted to watch a documentary about a megalomaniacal jerk ruining his own life and alienating everyone around him. well they exist and in many forms. but have you ever wanted to watch said documentary about one who do not ultimately succeed in doing anything despite everyone praises about how much of an artistic genius he is. well you could probably just grab a camera and find someone like that in any local scene (i know theyre everywhere and i do not even follow the local scene) and or you could save yourself the trouble by spending money watching this tripe. the premise is good and and honestly and it not as if the filmmakers knew precisely where it was going considering that one of the difficulties of doing a documentary. we are made to follow two bands and the brian jamestown massacre and lead by anton and and the dandy warhols and lead by courtney. i have heard of the dandy warhols before watching this movie. not so the brian jamestown massacre. why. well from this documentary perspective and because the brian jamestown massacre intergroup dysfunction refused them the ability to really make it in the music industry. however and instead of this becoming an analysis of the two separate bands and how one was able to succeed and the focus becomes much more on anton and his insanity. because and see and anton is a genius. because he plays rock music. he really understands the evolution of music. because he plays rock music with a lot of different instruments. his music is considered post modern retro but the future. because it rock music. he wants to bring out a revolution. through rock music. okay so let face it. twenty minutes in and this is one of the stupidest kids i would care to watch a documentary about. the documentary itself doesn not really lend itself to showcasing any of anton talent and because in the nature of editing down 2000 hours of material into a quarter short of two hours we do not really have the time to focus on that. so instead we watch anton and the genius and the socio maniacal loser and be a jerk for the two hours and are just told to understand that he made really great music. whether he did or not i would not know and because its not like the documentary had enough time to prove it. what i do know is that then were left with a story about some self centered obnoxious twerp running around the country calling himself a god of music and doing nothing to back it up. why even bother watching that. people like anton do not deserve the attention they seek and the hope and admiration of all those different people and and especially a post failure paean to lost potential. this movie plays like a two hour rough cut vh1 special for a reason represent he goes on and on about the music and but it all about the image and the attention. look at the guy and look at how he dresses and look at how he acts and look at how he tries to create controversy because he can not afford marketing. honestly the only interesting character in this film is joel and and that because of anyone in this documentary and joel is the only person who seems to have any fun. maybe it because he the tambourine man. the rest of them are all rock stars. they deserve our attention and and admiration and and interest and and engagements. they are out there to save rock and roll. do you remember when the white stripes were supposed to save rock and roll. yeah and that was because of anton and and it selfish of them not to mention me (anton) as an inspiration. what a load. people like anton are best left forgotten. this documentary explains why mainstream music is so dull because music execs have to deal with people like anton for a living and ultimately can only really throw their support behind someone safe and passionless. thanks a lot and anton. your antics ruined music for everyone you touched and whatever the opinion to the contrary is. and if people in the know about anton disagree and he really was a genius and it still shows how bad this documentary is that it cuts it down that way. polarisdib.
whoa boy. ever wanted to watch a documentary about a megalomaniacal jerk ruining his own life and alienating everyone around him. well they exist and in many forms. but have you ever wanted to watch said documentary about one who do not ultimately succeed in doing anything despite everyone praises about how much of an artistic genius he is. well you could probably just grab a camera and find someone like that in any local scene (i know theyre everywhere and i do not even follow the local scene) and or you could save yourself the trouble by spending money watching this tripe. the premise is good and and honestly and it not as if the filmmakers knew precisely where it was going considering that one of the difficulties of doing a documentary. we are made to follow two bands and the brian jamestown massacre and lead by anton and and the dandy warhols and lead by courtney. i have heard of the dandy warhols before watching this movie. not so the brian jamestown massacre. why. well from this documentary perspective and because the brian jamestown massacre intergroup dysfunction refused them the ability to really make it in the music industry. however and instead of this becoming an analysis of the two separate bands and how one was able to succeed and the focus becomes much more on anton and his insanity. because and see and anton is a genius. because he plays rock music. he really understands the evolution of music. because he plays rock music with a lot of different instruments. his music is considered post modern retro but the future. because it rock music. he wants to bring out a revolution. through rock music. okay so let face it. twenty minutes in and this is one of the stupidest kids i would care to watch a documentary about. the documentary itself doesn not really lend itself to showcasing any of anton talent and because in the nature of editing down 2000 hours of material into a quarter short of two hours we do not really have the time to focus on that. so instead we watch anton and the genius and the socio maniacal loser and be a jerk for the two hours and are just told to understand that he made really great music. whether he did or not i would not know and because its not like the documentary had enough time to prove it. what i do know is that then were left with a story about some self centered obnoxious twerp running around the country calling himself a god of music and doing nothing to back it up. why even bother watching that. people like anton do not deserve the attention they seek and the hope and admiration of all those different people and and especially a post failure paean to lost potential. this movie plays like a two hour rough cut vh1 special for a reason represent he goes on and on about the music and but it all about the image and the attention. look at the guy and look at how he dresses and look at how he acts and look at how he tries to create controversy because he can not afford marketing. honestly the only interesting character in this film is joel and and that because of anyone in this documentary and joel is the only person who seems to have any fun. maybe it because he the tambourine man. the rest of them are all rock stars. they deserve our attention and and admiration and and interest and and engagements. they are out there to save rock and roll. do you remember when the white stripes were supposed to save rock and roll. yeah and that was because of anton and and it selfish of them not to mention me (anton) as an inspiration. what a load. people like anton are best left forgotten. this documentary explains why mainstream music is so dull because music execs have to deal with people like anton for a living and ultimately can only really throw their support behind someone safe and passionless. thanks a lot and anton. your antics ruined music for everyone you touched and whatever the opinion to the contrary is. and if people in the know about anton disagree and he really was a genius and it still shows how bad this documentary is that it cuts it down that way. polarisdib.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
actress ruth roman real life philanthropic gesture to help entertain troops arriving from and leaving for the korean war at an air base near san francisco jump started this all star warner bros. salute to patriotism and song. many celebrities make guest appearances while a love hate romance develops between a budding starlet and a painfully green and skinny air force corporal (ron hagerthy and who looks like he should be delivering newspapers from his bicycle). seems the corporal has fooled the actress into thinking he off to battle when actually he part of a airplane carrier crew and flying to and from honolulu (you would think she would be happy he was staying out of harm way and but instead she acts just like most childish females in 1950s movies). doris day is around for the first thirty minutes or so and and her distinct laugh and plucky song numbers are most pleasant. roman is also here and looking glamorous and while james cagney pokes fun at his screen persona and gordon macrae sings in his handsome baritone. jane wyman sings and too and in a hospital bedside reprise following doris day lead and causing one to wonder and did they run out of sets. for undemanding viewers and an interesting flashback to another time and place. still and the low rent production and just adequate technical aspects render starlift strictly a second biller. half from .
actress ruth roman real life philanthropic gesture to help entertain troops arriving from and leaving for the korean war at an air base near san francisco jump started this all star warner bros. salute to patriotism and song. many celebrities make guest appearances while a love hate romance develops between a budding starlet and a painfully green and skinny air force corporal (ron hagerthy and who looks like he should be delivering newspapers from his bicycle). seems the corporal has fooled the actress into thinking he off to battle when actually he part of a airplane carrier crew and flying to and from honolulu (you would think she would be happy he was staying out of harm way and but instead she acts just like most childish females in 1950s movies). doris day is around for the first thirty minutes or so and and her distinct laugh and plucky song numbers are most pleasant. roman is also here and looking glamorous and while james cagney pokes fun at his screen persona and gordon macrae sings in his handsome baritone. jane wyman sings and too and in a hospital bedside reprise following doris day lead and causing one to wonder and did they run out of sets. for undemanding viewers and an interesting flashback to another time and place. still and the low rent production and just adequate technical aspects render starlift strictly a second biller. half from .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
it nothing more than a weird coincidence that i decided to watch starlift on the 59th anniversary of the day in june 1950 when president truman ordered us forces into the korean war. starlift and you see and is set largely at travis air force base in california in the years when it was being used as a staging post for soldiers being shipped out to fight in korea. but you would need to do your own research to know this because not once during the film is the name korea mentioned. we see transport aircraft flying out fresh troops and returning with wounded soldiers but there no mention of where these men will be fighting or getting injured. which is kind of weird for a film designed to wave the flag and salute america men in uniform. released in december 1951 by warner brothers and starlift is a very obvious effort to replicate the success of the studio star studded world war two home front morale booster hollywood canteen. this 1944 crowd pleaser told the story of two soldiers spending their last three nights of leave hanging out at the famous armed forces nightclub in la hoping to get a date with joan leslie. but really it was just an excuse for warners to trot out every star under contract and from joan crawford and john garfield and and barbara stanwyck to peter lorre and bette davis and sydney greenstreet and more. starlift features two air force soldiers hoping to meet fictional starlet nell wayne (a mask like janice rule) and persuading a bunch of warner bros stars to put on a show for the departing troops. but in place of crawford and garfield et al the best the brothers warner could scrape up in 1951 were doris day and ruth roman and gordon macrae and virginia mayo and gene nelson and phil harris with fleeting appearances by james cagney and randolph scott and and a clearly embarrassed looking gary cooper. this threadbare cast and whose combined star power would struggle to illuminate a standard lamp and is perfectly matched by the crummy production values. presumably in an effort to save money several long scenes were shot using really really bad back projection. how bad is it. you can see the join where the screen meets the floor of the soundstage. to describe starlift as a sloppy and lazy and third rate movie is to do a disservice to films which are sloppy and lazy and third rate. it just terrible. avoid it.
it nothing more than a weird coincidence that i decided to watch starlift on the 59th anniversary of the day in june 1950 when president truman ordered us forces into the korean war. starlift and you see and is set largely at travis air force base in california in the years when it was being used as a staging post for soldiers being shipped out to fight in korea. but you would need to do your own research to know this because not once during the film is the name korea mentioned. we see transport aircraft flying out fresh troops and returning with wounded soldiers but there no mention of where these men will be fighting or getting injured. which is kind of weird for a film designed to wave the flag and salute america men in uniform. released in december 1951 by warner brothers and starlift is a very obvious effort to replicate the success of the studio star studded world war two home front morale booster hollywood canteen. this 1944 crowd pleaser told the story of two soldiers spending their last three nights of leave hanging out at the famous armed forces nightclub in la hoping to get a date with joan leslie. but really it was just an excuse for warners to trot out every star under contract and from joan crawford and john garfield and and barbara stanwyck to peter lorre and bette davis and sydney greenstreet and more. starlift features two air force soldiers hoping to meet fictional starlet nell wayne (a mask like janice rule) and persuading a bunch of warner bros stars to put on a show for the departing troops. but in place of crawford and garfield et al the best the brothers warner could scrape up in 1951 were doris day and ruth roman and gordon macrae and virginia mayo and gene nelson and phil harris with fleeting appearances by james cagney and randolph scott and and a clearly embarrassed looking gary cooper. this threadbare cast and whose combined star power would struggle to illuminate a standard lamp and is perfectly matched by the crummy production values. presumably in an effort to save money several long scenes were shot using really really bad back projection. how bad is it. you can see the join where the screen meets the floor of the soundstage. to describe starlift as a sloppy and lazy and third rate movie is to do a disservice to films which are sloppy and lazy and third rate. it just terrible. avoid it.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this oddity in the new doris day collection doesn not really need to be included as she is only in the film for less than 30 minutes. what she does do however and is shine when she on screen. the near plot less movie is just an excuse to showcase some warner contract players of the day. jancie rule shows promise and it a shame she do not become a big star. ruth roman handles the role of the go getter with aplomb. better if this was in color. the travis air force base locations with some rear projection work well. what best about the movie are some wonderful musical interludes. if you enjoyed thank your lucky stars and hollywood canteen you will like this one.
this oddity in the new doris day collection doesn not really need to be included as she is only in the film for less than 30 minutes. what she does do however and is shine when she on screen. the near plot less movie is just an excuse to showcase some warner contract players of the day. jancie rule shows promise and it a shame she do not become a big star. ruth roman handles the role of the go getter with aplomb. better if this was in color. the travis air force base locations with some rear projection work well. what best about the movie are some wonderful musical interludes. if you enjoyed thank your lucky stars and hollywood canteen you will like this one.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
considering its pedigree and this should be a far more enjoyable film than it is. even with a lip smacking collection of eccentrics in the cast what aficionado would not eagerly anticipate a movie which brings together lemmon and lanchester and kovacs and gingold. the entire event is dully paced and drearily shot and and more often than not and witless. kim novak gifts were not essentially comic and as she went on to confirm in kiss me stupid. james stewart was a fine comedian and as he ably demonstrated in movies from ranging from the philadelphia story to harvey. i think he comes out better from this mess than anyone else does. except maybe the cat.
considering its pedigree and this should be a far more enjoyable film than it is. even with a lip smacking collection of eccentrics in the cast what aficionado would not eagerly anticipate a movie which brings together lemmon and lanchester and kovacs and gingold. the entire event is dully paced and drearily shot and and more often than not and witless. kim novak gifts were not essentially comic and as she went on to confirm in kiss me stupid. james stewart was a fine comedian and as he ably demonstrated in movies from ranging from the philadelphia story to harvey. i think he comes out better from this mess than anyone else does. except maybe the cat.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
chesty gringo telly savalas (as frank cooper) is a us mexico border cop. he serves as a father figure to young immigrant danny de la paz (as benny romero) and who wants mr. savalas to be best man at his impending wedding. savalas is tough and but boss eddie albert (as commander moffat) may be tougher. tough is what you need to stop smuggler michael v. gazzo (as chico suarez). alliances may be in flux. if you find the possibility of hearing kojak and oliver douglas uttering expletives to be repulsive and you ought to steer clear of the border. if not and you may not have the stomach for the realistic cow slaughtering scene. although it doesn not end up being worth much and mr. de la paz and cecilia camacho (as leina) steal the show. the border (1979) tony richardson ~ telly savalas and danny de la paz and eddie albert.
chesty gringo telly savalas (as frank cooper) is a us mexico border cop. he serves as a father figure to young immigrant danny de la paz (as benny romero) and who wants mr. savalas to be best man at his impending wedding. savalas is tough and but boss eddie albert (as commander moffat) may be tougher. tough is what you need to stop smuggler michael v. gazzo (as chico suarez). alliances may be in flux. if you find the possibility of hearing kojak and oliver douglas uttering expletives to be repulsive and you ought to steer clear of the border. if not and you may not have the stomach for the realistic cow slaughtering scene. although it doesn not end up being worth much and mr. de la paz and cecilia camacho (as leina) steal the show. the border (1979) tony richardson ~ telly savalas and danny de la paz and eddie albert.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i would like to say that unlike many of the people who disliked this film and found it impossible to understand i was fully able to understand it for what it is. a very incoherent attempt at a plot line. i do not like to toss this word around but in this case it fits very well. the director firstly presents the material in an extremely arrogant way and worse and extremely incoherently. it is incoherent in that it presents the material in a messy dislodged order and making us think that the director was too drunk to remember which scenes come first and and arrogant in that at 2 hours long they expect us and the viewer to care by the end of it. i respect surrealist cinema for what it is. (creating a story around a more than real world that does not tie to real life) but there is nothing surreal about having a story placed in ordinary modern times and and a modern day earth setting and that is most importantly not able to engage the audience but furthermore and simply a dislodged series of events that barely tie together. the most accurate way to describe the experience of viewing this film is like viewing a story while perhaps even a very good story as it was based on a book and but being frustrated by the fact that the camera doesn not seem to capture the necessary moments and tie together any means of coherence. let compare stylistic cinema. compare gaspar noe seul contre tous to this. he gave us a coherent and extremely engaging and intellectually deep story. this movie offers no intellectual study and and while it is very stylistic in it fragmented presentation and the director has ultimately abandoned the essential art of good storytelling and all we are left with is a mess of events that barely tie in together. yes indeed it is possible to make sense of things. to a point. but as i said earlier the viewer will reach a stage where they simply say who cares. it plays out like watching a drab mundane story of a man going to a supermarket and buying groceries in uncronological order. even with murders it is completely uninteresting and unengaging. too many people these days will give high marks to something they are unable to understand or make sense of simply for fear of looking foolish and and in every way this film tries to make the viewer look foolish. if you have too much time on your hands and then please watch this film and taking into account what i have said of it. it is a story based on a book that could have been presented in a much more effective way and that is my bottom line reasoning.
i would like to say that unlike many of the people who disliked this film and found it impossible to understand i was fully able to understand it for what it is. a very incoherent attempt at a plot line. i do not like to toss this word around but in this case it fits very well. the director firstly presents the material in an extremely arrogant way and worse and extremely incoherently. it is incoherent in that it presents the material in a messy dislodged order and making us think that the director was too drunk to remember which scenes come first and and arrogant in that at 2 hours long they expect us and the viewer to care by the end of it. i respect surrealist cinema for what it is. (creating a story around a more than real world that does not tie to real life) but there is nothing surreal about having a story placed in ordinary modern times and and a modern day earth setting and that is most importantly not able to engage the audience but furthermore and simply a dislodged series of events that barely tie together. the most accurate way to describe the experience of viewing this film is like viewing a story while perhaps even a very good story as it was based on a book and but being frustrated by the fact that the camera doesn not seem to capture the necessary moments and tie together any means of coherence. let compare stylistic cinema. compare gaspar noe seul contre tous to this. he gave us a coherent and extremely engaging and intellectually deep story. this movie offers no intellectual study and and while it is very stylistic in it fragmented presentation and the director has ultimately abandoned the essential art of good storytelling and all we are left with is a mess of events that barely tie in together. yes indeed it is possible to make sense of things. to a point. but as i said earlier the viewer will reach a stage where they simply say who cares. it plays out like watching a drab mundane story of a man going to a supermarket and buying groceries in uncronological order. even with murders it is completely uninteresting and unengaging. too many people these days will give high marks to something they are unable to understand or make sense of simply for fear of looking foolish and and in every way this film tries to make the viewer look foolish. if you have too much time on your hands and then please watch this film and taking into account what i have said of it. it is a story based on a book that could have been presented in a much more effective way and that is my bottom line reasoning.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
claire denis movies seem to fall into one of two categories represent the violent and bloody or the quiet and intimate. lintrus definitely falls into the first category and but it not so awful as trouble every day or jai pas sommeil. now and ever since i saw chocolat and i have made it a point to see every new movie denis makes. and i have always been disappointed. lintrus was no exception. she has yet to make a movie as personal and as moving as her first one. you get a lot of the denis regulars represent an older but still magnificent béatrice dalle who seems to be in the movie only to show off her full lips and the gap between her teeth and her ample cleavage and and a couple of nice coats while the black guy from trouble every day and jai pas sommeil and grégoire colin and and that lithuanian or russian girl. michel subor character was interesting enough and but the camera lingered on him at such length that i got annoyed by that curly forelock of hair hanging over his forehead and was relieved when and somewhere in korea and i think and he finally got it cut. there was certainly some action gruesome murders and a man search for a son and there may even have been a plot and but one viewing wasn not enough to figure it out and and two viewings are and i fear and out of the question. for one thing and the score was jarring and obtrusive (as in beau travail). for another and the seasons changed too abruptly and leaving you even more confused about what was going on. oh and there were a few pretty shots and and if you liked friday evening with its shots of the folds in heavy drapes and bedsheets and you might appreciate the aesthetics of lintrus. otherwise and steer clear. i saw this movie in french and it possible i missed something crucial. but the dialogue in a denis movie rarely amounts to more than five pages and double spaced and with ample margins. in chocolat the silence is sublime while in lintrus and it just dull.
claire denis movies seem to fall into one of two categories represent the violent and bloody or the quiet and intimate. lintrus definitely falls into the first category and but it not so awful as trouble every day or jai pas sommeil. now and ever since i saw chocolat and i have made it a point to see every new movie denis makes. and i have always been disappointed. lintrus was no exception. she has yet to make a movie as personal and as moving as her first one. you get a lot of the denis regulars represent an older but still magnificent béatrice dalle who seems to be in the movie only to show off her full lips and the gap between her teeth and her ample cleavage and and a couple of nice coats while the black guy from trouble every day and jai pas sommeil and grégoire colin and and that lithuanian or russian girl. michel subor character was interesting enough and but the camera lingered on him at such length that i got annoyed by that curly forelock of hair hanging over his forehead and was relieved when and somewhere in korea and i think and he finally got it cut. there was certainly some action gruesome murders and a man search for a son and there may even have been a plot and but one viewing wasn not enough to figure it out and and two viewings are and i fear and out of the question. for one thing and the score was jarring and obtrusive (as in beau travail). for another and the seasons changed too abruptly and leaving you even more confused about what was going on. oh and there were a few pretty shots and and if you liked friday evening with its shots of the folds in heavy drapes and bedsheets and you might appreciate the aesthetics of lintrus. otherwise and steer clear. i saw this movie in french and it possible i missed something crucial. but the dialogue in a denis movie rarely amounts to more than five pages and double spaced and with ample margins. in chocolat the silence is sublime while in lintrus and it just dull.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
for the big thinkers among us and the intruder is a maddeningly incoherent movie from france that gives so called art films a bad name. the story is something about a bitter old coot and louis trebor (michel subor) and who goes searching in tahiti for a heart transplant and but beyond that and i have no idea who any of the people in the movie were or why they were doing what they were doing. with no coherent storyline to boast of and the movie loses us early on and though i am perfectly willing to admit that there might be somebody out there who actually gets some deep message out of this film. this muddled and snail paced drama runs a full two hours and five minutes though i seriously doubt anyone with any kind of a life will still be hanging around by the closing credits.
for the big thinkers among us and the intruder is a maddeningly incoherent movie from france that gives so called art films a bad name. the story is something about a bitter old coot and louis trebor (michel subor) and who goes searching in tahiti for a heart transplant and but beyond that and i have no idea who any of the people in the movie were or why they were doing what they were doing. with no coherent storyline to boast of and the movie loses us early on and though i am perfectly willing to admit that there might be somebody out there who actually gets some deep message out of this film. this muddled and snail paced drama runs a full two hours and five minutes though i seriously doubt anyone with any kind of a life will still be hanging around by the closing credits.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i am a big fan of 50s sci fi and but this is not one of my favorites. while the concept behind the movie was a natural vehicle for a classic teeny bopper sci fi flick and the director counted too heavily on it to carry the movie. it clear he was working with no money and because the entire movie is loaded with bloated dialogue that goes on and on forever. i have never seen so much time killing in a movie. there are probably less than 60 seconds of blob footage in the entire movie and and most of the rest of it is people engaging in a lot of poorly written and run on dialogue. it was fun to see steve m. and anita c. together and but good heavens. how could casting have thought anyone in their right mind would believe them as teenagers.
i am a big fan of 50s sci fi and but this is not one of my favorites. while the concept behind the movie was a natural vehicle for a classic teeny bopper sci fi flick and the director counted too heavily on it to carry the movie. it clear he was working with no money and because the entire movie is loaded with bloated dialogue that goes on and on forever. i have never seen so much time killing in a movie. there are probably less than 60 seconds of blob footage in the entire movie and and most of the rest of it is people engaging in a lot of poorly written and run on dialogue. it was fun to see steve m. and anita c. together and but good heavens. how could casting have thought anyone in their right mind would believe them as teenagers.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the blob starts with one of the most bizarre theme songs ever and sung by an uncredited burt bacharach of all people. you really have to hear it to believe it and the blob may be worth watching just for this song alone and my user comment summary is just a little taste of the classy lyrics. after this unnerving opening credits sequence the blob introduces us and the viewer that is and to steve andrews (steve mcqueen as steven mcqueen) and his girlfriend jane martin (aneta corsaut) who are parked on their own somewhere and witness what looks like a meteorite falling to earth in nearby woods. an old man (olin howland as olin howlin) who lives in a cabin also sees it and goes to investigate and he finds a crater and a strange football sized rock which splits open when he unwisely pokes it with a stick. laying in the centre of the meteorite is a strange jelly like substance which sticks to the stick and if you know what i mean. it then slides up the stick and attachés itself to the old man hand. meanwhile steve and jane are quietly driving along minding their own business when the old man runs out in front of steve car and steve being a decent kinda guy decides to take the old man to dr. t. hallan (alden stephen chase as steven chase) at the local surgery. dr. hallan says he doesn not know what the substance on the old man hand is but it getting bigger and asks steve to go back where he found him and see if he can find out what happened. steve agrees but doesn not come up with anything and upon returning to dr. hallan surgery he witnesses the blob devouring him. the town police and lieutenant dave (earl rowe) and the teenage hating sergeant jim bert (john benson) unsurprisingly do not believe a word of it and end up suspecting steve and his mates al (anthony franke) and tony (robert fields) and someone called mooch miller (james bonnet) of playing an elaborate practical joke on the police department. however as the blob continues to eat it way through the town steve sets about finding proof of it existence and convincing the police about the threat it posses not just to their town but the entire world. directed irvin s. yeaworth jr. and an uncredited russell s. doughton jr. i was throughly disappointed by this and the original 1958 version of the blob. the script by kay linaker as kate phillips and theodore simonson is an absolute bore and extremely dull not making the most of it strongest aspects. the blob focuses on the tiresome dramatics and conflicts between the teenagers and police and in fact the majority of the blob is spent on steve trying to convince the police of the blob existence. for most of the film the blob itself almost seems inconsequential and somewhat forgotten. it only has two or three scenes for the fist hour and a bit until the less than exciting climax when the adults and teenagers have to work together to defeat the blob and have a new found appreciation of each other afterwards and yuck. why couldn not the blob just eat the lot of em. no explanation is given for what the blob is or it origins other than it came from space and how long did it take them to come up with that. the dialogue is clunky and silly as well and as are people actions and decision making and i love the part when a nurse named kate (lee paton as lee payton and did anyone use their real name in this thing. ) is confronted by the blob and she throws some acid over it and calmly proclaims doctor and nothing will stop it. and how does she know nothing will stop it exactly. there no blood or violence so do not worry about that and the special effects on the blob itself aren not too bad considering but it barely has any screen time and moves very slowly and a bit like the film in general actually. the acting is terrible and mcqueen is supposed to be a teenager when in reality he was 28 years old and it shows and he looks old enough to be his own dad. same thing goes for most of the other teenage cast members and everyone generally speaking are wooden and unconvincing in their roles. technically the blob is very basic and dark static photography and dull direction and forgettable production values. the blob is one of those films that probably sounds good on paper and is well known as being a classic but is in actual fact a huge disappointment when finally seen. this is one case when the remake the blob (1988) is definitely better than the original. the original blob is slow and boring and the remake isn not and the original blob contains no blood or gore and the remake does and the original blob has incredibly poor acting and casting decisions and the remake doesn not and the original blob itself gets very little screen time eating only three or four people throughout the entire film and the remake features the blob all the way through and it virtually eats an entire town. the choice is an easy one and the remake every time as it a better film in every respect. i will give the film two stars and give that wonderful main theme song one on it own. definitely not the classic many seem to make out.
the blob starts with one of the most bizarre theme songs ever and sung by an uncredited burt bacharach of all people. you really have to hear it to believe it and the blob may be worth watching just for this song alone and my user comment summary is just a little taste of the classy lyrics. after this unnerving opening credits sequence the blob introduces us and the viewer that is and to steve andrews (steve mcqueen as steven mcqueen) and his girlfriend jane martin (aneta corsaut) who are parked on their own somewhere and witness what looks like a meteorite falling to earth in nearby woods. an old man (olin howland as olin howlin) who lives in a cabin also sees it and goes to investigate and he finds a crater and a strange football sized rock which splits open when he unwisely pokes it with a stick. laying in the centre of the meteorite is a strange jelly like substance which sticks to the stick and if you know what i mean. it then slides up the stick and attachés itself to the old man hand. meanwhile steve and jane are quietly driving along minding their own business when the old man runs out in front of steve car and steve being a decent kinda guy decides to take the old man to dr. t. hallan (alden stephen chase as steven chase) at the local surgery. dr. hallan says he doesn not know what the substance on the old man hand is but it getting bigger and asks steve to go back where he found him and see if he can find out what happened. steve agrees but doesn not come up with anything and upon returning to dr. hallan surgery he witnesses the blob devouring him. the town police and lieutenant dave (earl rowe) and the teenage hating sergeant jim bert (john benson) unsurprisingly do not believe a word of it and end up suspecting steve and his mates al (anthony franke) and tony (robert fields) and someone called mooch miller (james bonnet) of playing an elaborate practical joke on the police department. however as the blob continues to eat it way through the town steve sets about finding proof of it existence and convincing the police about the threat it posses not just to their town but the entire world. directed irvin s. yeaworth jr. and an uncredited russell s. doughton jr. i was throughly disappointed by this and the original 1958 version of the blob. the script by kay linaker as kate phillips and theodore simonson is an absolute bore and extremely dull not making the most of it strongest aspects. the blob focuses on the tiresome dramatics and conflicts between the teenagers and police and in fact the majority of the blob is spent on steve trying to convince the police of the blob existence. for most of the film the blob itself almost seems inconsequential and somewhat forgotten. it only has two or three scenes for the fist hour and a bit until the less than exciting climax when the adults and teenagers have to work together to defeat the blob and have a new found appreciation of each other afterwards and yuck. why couldn not the blob just eat the lot of em. no explanation is given for what the blob is or it origins other than it came from space and how long did it take them to come up with that. the dialogue is clunky and silly as well and as are people actions and decision making and i love the part when a nurse named kate (lee paton as lee payton and did anyone use their real name in this thing. ) is confronted by the blob and she throws some acid over it and calmly proclaims doctor and nothing will stop it. and how does she know nothing will stop it exactly. there no blood or violence so do not worry about that and the special effects on the blob itself aren not too bad considering but it barely has any screen time and moves very slowly and a bit like the film in general actually. the acting is terrible and mcqueen is supposed to be a teenager when in reality he was 28 years old and it shows and he looks old enough to be his own dad. same thing goes for most of the other teenage cast members and everyone generally speaking are wooden and unconvincing in their roles. technically the blob is very basic and dark static photography and dull direction and forgettable production values. the blob is one of those films that probably sounds good on paper and is well known as being a classic but is in actual fact a huge disappointment when finally seen. this is one case when the remake the blob (1988) is definitely better than the original. the original blob is slow and boring and the remake isn not and the original blob contains no blood or gore and the remake does and the original blob has incredibly poor acting and casting decisions and the remake doesn not and the original blob itself gets very little screen time eating only three or four people throughout the entire film and the remake features the blob all the way through and it virtually eats an entire town. the choice is an easy one and the remake every time as it a better film in every respect. i will give the film two stars and give that wonderful main theme song one on it own. definitely not the classic many seem to make out.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
when a small glob of space age silly putty lands on earth it soon begins consuming earthlings and putting on weight. the only part of this senseless drivel that i enjoyed was all the cool classic cars. this dog had so many holes it could be sliced and sold for swiss cheese. this thing actually made 20 million bucks. and mcqueen salary was 3k. all were vastly overpaid. the amonster looked a lot like a large beanbag and the teens looked as though they could have children approaching their teen age years. and those blasts from the shotgun while sounded like a pellet rifle with a sound suppressor. the ending was pitifully trite while obviously the producers were leaving the door open for a sequel. and there were many. thumbs down.
when a small glob of space age silly putty lands on earth it soon begins consuming earthlings and putting on weight. the only part of this senseless drivel that i enjoyed was all the cool classic cars. this dog had so many holes it could be sliced and sold for swiss cheese. this thing actually made 20 million bucks. and mcqueen salary was 3k. all were vastly overpaid. the amonster looked a lot like a large beanbag and the teens looked as though they could have children approaching their teen age years. and those blasts from the shotgun while sounded like a pellet rifle with a sound suppressor. the ending was pitifully trite while obviously the producers were leaving the door open for a sequel. and there were many. thumbs down.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is the least scary film i have ever seen. how the blob manages to eat anyone is the biggest mystery of the film. the blob moves so slowly that an o. a. p in a zimmerframe could escape it. the blob has a large slice of luck coming across a typical horror film woman who instead of running away stands still for half an hour so that she can be eaten. if you havent seen this film i recommend you do and its far too funny to be taken seriously.
this is the least scary film i have ever seen. how the blob manages to eat anyone is the biggest mystery of the film. the blob moves so slowly that an o. a. p in a zimmerframe could escape it. the blob has a large slice of luck coming across a typical horror film woman who instead of running away stands still for half an hour so that she can be eaten. if you havent seen this film i recommend you do and its far too funny to be taken seriously.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
do we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the baby boomer generation. technically and i am a boomer and though at the time when all the idealistic youths of the 60s were reading marx and burning their draft cards and and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives while i was still in grade school. but i remember them well and and positive were just moronic fools and who would believe anything as long as it was destructive. this is just another excercise in self importance from the kids who never really grew up.
do we really need any more narcissistic garbage on the baby boomer generation. technically and i am a boomer and though at the time when all the idealistic youths of the 60s were reading marx and burning their draft cards and and generally prolonging a war which destroyed tens of thousands of lives while i was still in grade school. but i remember them well and and positive were just moronic fools and who would believe anything as long as it was destructive. this is just another excercise in self importance from the kids who never really grew up.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
is there any other time period that has been so exhaustively covered by television (or the media in general) as the 1960s. no. and do we really need yet another trip through that turbulent time. not really. but if we must have one and does it have to be as shallow as the 60s. i like to think that co writers bill couturie and robert greenfield had more in mind for this two part miniseries than what ultimately resulted and especially given couturie involvement in the superb hbo movie dear america represent letters home from vietnam which utilized little original music and no original footage and letting the sights and sounds of the time speak for themselves. this presentation intercuts file footage with the dramatic production and but it doesn not do anyone any favours by trying to do too much in too little time while like so many of its ilk and it seen from the point of view of one family. but the children of the family seem to be involved tangentially with almost every major event of the 60s (it amazing that one of them doesn not go to the rolling stones gig at altamont) and making it seem less like a period drama and more like a cliff notes version of the decade. the makers rush through it so much that there little or no time to give the characters any character and with the stick figures called our protagonists off screen for ages at a time the children father is especially clichéd and then when theyre back on blammo. it something else. garry trudeau could teach the filmmakers a thing or two about doing this kind of thing properly. in fairness and jerry oconnell and jordana brewster and jeremy sisto and julia stiles and charles s. dutton give their material the old college try and but theyre wasted (especially the latter two) while it undeniably good to see david alan grier in a rare straight role as activist fred hampton and and rosanna arquette (in an uncredited cameo in part 2) is always welcome. what isn not welcome is how the 60s drowns the soundtrack with so many period songs that it ultimately reduces its already minimal effect (and this may well be the only time an american tv presentation about post 60s america never mentions the british invasion no beatles and no rolling stones. then again and there only so much tunes you can shoehorn into a soundtrack album and right. ). capping its surface skimming approach to both the time and the plot with an almost out of place happy ending and american dreams and the wonder years did it all much and much better. nothing to see here you can not see elsewhere and people. except for julia stiles doing the twist and that is.
is there any other time period that has been so exhaustively covered by television (or the media in general) as the 1960s. no. and do we really need yet another trip through that turbulent time. not really. but if we must have one and does it have to be as shallow as the 60s. i like to think that co writers bill couturie and robert greenfield had more in mind for this two part miniseries than what ultimately resulted and especially given couturie involvement in the superb hbo movie dear america represent letters home from vietnam which utilized little original music and no original footage and letting the sights and sounds of the time speak for themselves. this presentation intercuts file footage with the dramatic production and but it doesn not do anyone any favours by trying to do too much in too little time while like so many of its ilk and it seen from the point of view of one family. but the children of the family seem to be involved tangentially with almost every major event of the 60s (it amazing that one of them doesn not go to the rolling stones gig at altamont) and making it seem less like a period drama and more like a cliff notes version of the decade. the makers rush through it so much that there little or no time to give the characters any character and with the stick figures called our protagonists off screen for ages at a time the children father is especially clichéd and then when theyre back on blammo. it something else. garry trudeau could teach the filmmakers a thing or two about doing this kind of thing properly. in fairness and jerry oconnell and jordana brewster and jeremy sisto and julia stiles and charles s. dutton give their material the old college try and but theyre wasted (especially the latter two) while it undeniably good to see david alan grier in a rare straight role as activist fred hampton and and rosanna arquette (in an uncredited cameo in part 2) is always welcome. what isn not welcome is how the 60s drowns the soundtrack with so many period songs that it ultimately reduces its already minimal effect (and this may well be the only time an american tv presentation about post 60s america never mentions the british invasion no beatles and no rolling stones. then again and there only so much tunes you can shoehorn into a soundtrack album and right. ). capping its surface skimming approach to both the time and the plot with an almost out of place happy ending and american dreams and the wonder years did it all much and much better. nothing to see here you can not see elsewhere and people. except for julia stiles doing the twist and that is.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the 1960 were a time of change and awakening for most people. social upheaval and unrest were commonplace as people spoke out about their views. racial tensions and politics and the vietnam war and sexual promiscuity and and drug use were all part of the daily fabric and and the daily news. this film attempted to encapsulate these historical aspects into an entertaining movie and and largely succeeded. in this film and two families are followed represent one white and one black. during the first half of the film and the story follows each family on a equal basis through social and family struggles. unfortunately and the second half of the movie is nearly dedicated to the white family. admittedly and there are more characters in this family and and the story lines are intermingled and but equal consideration is not given to the racial aspects of this century. on the whole and the acting is well done and historical footage is mixed with color and black and white original footage to give a documentary feel to the movie. the movie is a work of fiction and but clips of well known historical figures are used to set the time line. i enjoyed the movie but the situations were predictable and the storyline was one sided.
the 1960 were a time of change and awakening for most people. social upheaval and unrest were commonplace as people spoke out about their views. racial tensions and politics and the vietnam war and sexual promiscuity and and drug use were all part of the daily fabric and and the daily news. this film attempted to encapsulate these historical aspects into an entertaining movie and and largely succeeded. in this film and two families are followed represent one white and one black. during the first half of the film and the story follows each family on a equal basis through social and family struggles. unfortunately and the second half of the movie is nearly dedicated to the white family. admittedly and there are more characters in this family and and the story lines are intermingled and but equal consideration is not given to the racial aspects of this century. on the whole and the acting is well done and historical footage is mixed with color and black and white original footage to give a documentary feel to the movie. the movie is a work of fiction and but clips of well known historical figures are used to set the time line. i enjoyed the movie but the situations were predictable and the storyline was one sided.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the 60s (1999) d represent mark piznarski. josh hamilton and julia stiles and jerry oconnell and jeremy sisto and jordana brewster and leonard roberts and bill smitrovich and annie corley and charles s. dutton. nbc mini series (later released to video or dvd as full length feature film) about the treacherous 1960s and as seen through the eyes of both a white family and a black family. the film first half is driven by the excellent performance of dutton as reverend willie taylor and evenly spreads the storyline between the families. however and dutton character is killed halfway through and the black family is completely forgotten in a dull and incoherent and and downright awful 2nd half. rating represent negative . not rated (later rated pg 13 for video or dvd release).
the 60s (1999) d represent mark piznarski. josh hamilton and julia stiles and jerry oconnell and jeremy sisto and jordana brewster and leonard roberts and bill smitrovich and annie corley and charles s. dutton. nbc mini series (later released to video or dvd as full length feature film) about the treacherous 1960s and as seen through the eyes of both a white family and a black family. the film first half is driven by the excellent performance of dutton as reverend willie taylor and evenly spreads the storyline between the families. however and dutton character is killed halfway through and the black family is completely forgotten in a dull and incoherent and and downright awful 2nd half. rating represent negative . not rated (later rated pg 13 for video or dvd release).
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i like a lot of the actors or actresses involved in this project so being insulted by the movie felt even worse than if they used a unknowns . the main problem was this movie was clearly just a concept created to appeal to baby boomers . in 20 or 30 years nbc will probably do a movie just like this about the early 90 . i can see it now a black family where the kids are involved with the la riot and the white family has the kids rebel and listen to grunge rock music . the soundtrack will feature bands like nirvana and n. w. a and public enemy and soundgarden etc . the movie like this will be just as cheesy as the 60 and i gurantee you nbc will do it . see the biggest problem with period pieces when done buy networks is that when you are living in a certain time period you aren not thinking i am living in the 60 or whatever decade is trendy retro at the time . next time someone does something like this they should put more weight into there project.
i like a lot of the actors or actresses involved in this project so being insulted by the movie felt even worse than if they used a unknowns . the main problem was this movie was clearly just a concept created to appeal to baby boomers . in 20 or 30 years nbc will probably do a movie just like this about the early 90 . i can see it now a black family where the kids are involved with the la riot and the white family has the kids rebel and listen to grunge rock music . the soundtrack will feature bands like nirvana and n. w. a and public enemy and soundgarden etc . the movie like this will be just as cheesy as the 60 and i gurantee you nbc will do it . see the biggest problem with period pieces when done buy networks is that when you are living in a certain time period you aren not thinking i am living in the 60 or whatever decade is trendy retro at the time . next time someone does something like this they should put more weight into there project.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the 60s is an occasionally entertaining film and most of this entertainment is from laughing at the film. it is extremely uneven and and includes many annoying elements. take for instance the switch between black and white and and color. if done right and this could of been fairly effective and but because it was done poorly and it turned into a nuisance and only detracted from the already bad experience while much of the film had an odd feel to it. the acting wasn not extremely bad for a made for tv flick and but then again it was downright embarrassing at other times. many of the events were not coherent and and ending up being confusing. how did this family somehow end up being at many of the big events during the 1960 . the ending was much too sappy for my tastes while because it was hollywoodized and everything had to turn out right in the end. i would advise you to not waste your time on the 60s and do something else with your time. i am glad i watched this in class and and not on my own time. i think i can safely say that the best part of the movie was the inclusion of bob dylan music. those are just my rambling thoughts on the flick. i hope you take my advice and and stay away from this.
the 60s is an occasionally entertaining film and most of this entertainment is from laughing at the film. it is extremely uneven and and includes many annoying elements. take for instance the switch between black and white and and color. if done right and this could of been fairly effective and but because it was done poorly and it turned into a nuisance and only detracted from the already bad experience while much of the film had an odd feel to it. the acting wasn not extremely bad for a made for tv flick and but then again it was downright embarrassing at other times. many of the events were not coherent and and ending up being confusing. how did this family somehow end up being at many of the big events during the 1960 . the ending was much too sappy for my tastes while because it was hollywoodized and everything had to turn out right in the end. i would advise you to not waste your time on the 60s and do something else with your time. i am glad i watched this in class and and not on my own time. i think i can safely say that the best part of the movie was the inclusion of bob dylan music. those are just my rambling thoughts on the flick. i hope you take my advice and and stay away from this.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
even if you could get past the idea that these boring characters personally witnessed every significant moment of the 1960s (ok and so katie do not join the manson family and and nobody died at altamont) and this movie was still unbelievably awful. i got the impression that the writers just locked themselves in a room and watched forrest gump and the wonder years and and oliver stone 60s films over and over again and called it research. a canadian television critic called the conclusion of the first episode head spinning. he was right.
even if you could get past the idea that these boring characters personally witnessed every significant moment of the 1960s (ok and so katie do not join the manson family and and nobody died at altamont) and this movie was still unbelievably awful. i got the impression that the writers just locked themselves in a room and watched forrest gump and the wonder years and and oliver stone 60s films over and over again and called it research. a canadian television critic called the conclusion of the first episode head spinning. he was right.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
somehow they summed up the 60 and ten years that radically changed our country and in four hours. and what a painful four hours it was. they trivilized the major events and happenings and they claimed it was about two families yet you barely saw the african american family. if i were nbc i would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. what was amusing was this happy go lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways and but managed to attend every major 60 event through the country. and the second family was such a non factor. they devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. that poor son. please nbc and do not make any movies about any other eras. leave that to pbs and the history channel.
somehow they summed up the 60 and ten years that radically changed our country and in four hours. and what a painful four hours it was. they trivilized the major events and happenings and they claimed it was about two families yet you barely saw the african american family. if i were nbc i would be ashamed and embarrassed for airing such trash. what was amusing was this happy go lucky family you saw in the very beginning was tortured in so many ways and but managed to attend every major 60 event through the country. and the second family was such a non factor. they devoted maybe five or six scenes total to this family. that poor son. please nbc and do not make any movies about any other eras. leave that to pbs and the history channel.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the only way to get anything out of this film is to approach it as a comedy. seen in that light and it does deliver. if youre looking for a serious movie and look somewhere else. this film has absolutely no depth and offers little more than a cursory and one dimensional examination of issues with no insight whatsoever. making a movie about stereotypes and then making every single character in your movie a stereotype is an extremely poor strategy especially when those same characters only break their hackneyed molds in predictable and stereotypical ways. busta rhymes and ice cube make the film almost watchable and and michael rappaport turns in a good performance and but the script is so awful and the social commentary is so trite and it hard to find anything redeeming.
the only way to get anything out of this film is to approach it as a comedy. seen in that light and it does deliver. if youre looking for a serious movie and look somewhere else. this film has absolutely no depth and offers little more than a cursory and one dimensional examination of issues with no insight whatsoever. making a movie about stereotypes and then making every single character in your movie a stereotype is an extremely poor strategy especially when those same characters only break their hackneyed molds in predictable and stereotypical ways. busta rhymes and ice cube make the film almost watchable and and michael rappaport turns in a good performance and but the script is so awful and the social commentary is so trite and it hard to find anything redeeming.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie masquerades as a social commentary and when in fact it is every bit as ridiculous as the very racism it condemns. the premise of this movie represent african american equals strong. any other race equals weak. the worst part is when rapaport pulls a gun on omar epps and a jewish guy. the jewish guy and in stereotypical fashion and crumbles in fear and starts pleading for his life. but the big and strong and defiant omar epps stands strong with no fear. we also have the condemnation of every fraternity member as being a arrogant preppie drunk or rapist. the raped white girl and of course and begins considering lesbianism since she just a weak white girl after all. when the nerdy white guy is rejected by the fraternity members he of course must fall in with the skinheads and who are incredible cowards while especially the big muscular guy who is beaten down quickly by the strong black men. wait. busta rhymes beat up a guy twice his size. yeah and right. of course the black men never reject their own people and omar epps moves in with them easily. the scenes where ice cube threatens his white roommates and keeps them in line are just stupid of course he is the dominating one while his weak white roommates sit in fear of him and eventually move out. this movie was just terrible and the ending made me actually laugh out loud. the overly long slow motion between epps and banks gets hilarious with the faces they make it like watching my nephew and cousins making faces at each other (and theyre all under 5). do yourself a favor and skip this crapfest.
this movie masquerades as a social commentary and when in fact it is every bit as ridiculous as the very racism it condemns. the premise of this movie represent african american equals strong. any other race equals weak. the worst part is when rapaport pulls a gun on omar epps and a jewish guy. the jewish guy and in stereotypical fashion and crumbles in fear and starts pleading for his life. but the big and strong and defiant omar epps stands strong with no fear. we also have the condemnation of every fraternity member as being a arrogant preppie drunk or rapist. the raped white girl and of course and begins considering lesbianism since she just a weak white girl after all. when the nerdy white guy is rejected by the fraternity members he of course must fall in with the skinheads and who are incredible cowards while especially the big muscular guy who is beaten down quickly by the strong black men. wait. busta rhymes beat up a guy twice his size. yeah and right. of course the black men never reject their own people and omar epps moves in with them easily. the scenes where ice cube threatens his white roommates and keeps them in line are just stupid of course he is the dominating one while his weak white roommates sit in fear of him and eventually move out. this movie was just terrible and the ending made me actually laugh out loud. the overly long slow motion between epps and banks gets hilarious with the faces they make it like watching my nephew and cousins making faces at each other (and theyre all under 5). do yourself a favor and skip this crapfest.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is one of the most putrid movies of the 90 . i would not recommend it if you have something better to do. this picture presents african americans as savage and uncultured and violent and inarticulate and reefer smoking sociopaths. fudge(ice cube) and his posse of homies are continuously disrespectful toward others in the dorm and not just the white people and but asians too and and are never disciplined for their actions. despite all that tolerance they keep on whining and crying about the evil white oppressors who run their lives and stand in their way. in fact it is fudge influence that causes remmy to bond with the skin heads and to drop out of college and and eventually to kill malik girlfriend. the skinheads are presented as a covert group of underachievers who share a pad off campus and generally stay away from everyone else. they never blast their music to annoy people nor do they taunt the police. they do commit serious crime such as battery and rape and yet theyre not as repulsive nor as threatening as fudge and dreads(busta rhymes) are. there a lot of material in this film which almost offended me or made me giggle. some of it is as follows below. fudge and dreads are stated as students at the columbus university yet we never see them in class and it is completely unclear how they pay their tuition. one is only left to speculate that the weed they smoke has something to do with their finances. though they are students at what looks like a private university and they cannot utter a single line of proper english. their characters are developed only through their compulsive whining and xenophobia. it appears that drunken kristen(kristy swanson) knew exactly why drunken billy was taking her to his house. she even asked him to get a rubber so that they could begin. the fact that he penetrated her without a condom became a rape whilst it would be great sex only if he had one handy. later kristen was assured by taryn(jennifer connely) that she holds no accountability in that matter and and despite willfully jumping into a guy bed she wasn not ready for sexual intercourse and was viciously taken advantage of by a sexual predator. then a week or so later she met and and slept with and an ultra sensitive do gooder who knew how to avoid raping and brought a condom. the director stressed contraception thoroughly. this movie is complete and utter garbage that makes black people look like pricks and women look stupid and frail. cole hauser acting and and laurence fishburne accent are the only reasons i can think of to watch it. the writer or director is obviously a man of limited intelligence. go ahead and limit your own by watching this crap if you want and but keep in mind that neurons do not grow back. just follow the advice at the end and unlearn.
this is one of the most putrid movies of the 90 . i would not recommend it if you have something better to do. this picture presents african americans as savage and uncultured and violent and inarticulate and reefer smoking sociopaths. fudge(ice cube) and his posse of homies are continuously disrespectful toward others in the dorm and not just the white people and but asians too and and are never disciplined for their actions. despite all that tolerance they keep on whining and crying about the evil white oppressors who run their lives and stand in their way. in fact it is fudge influence that causes remmy to bond with the skin heads and to drop out of college and and eventually to kill malik girlfriend. the skinheads are presented as a covert group of underachievers who share a pad off campus and generally stay away from everyone else. they never blast their music to annoy people nor do they taunt the police. they do commit serious crime such as battery and rape and yet theyre not as repulsive nor as threatening as fudge and dreads(busta rhymes) are. there a lot of material in this film which almost offended me or made me giggle. some of it is as follows below. fudge and dreads are stated as students at the columbus university yet we never see them in class and it is completely unclear how they pay their tuition. one is only left to speculate that the weed they smoke has something to do with their finances. though they are students at what looks like a private university and they cannot utter a single line of proper english. their characters are developed only through their compulsive whining and xenophobia. it appears that drunken kristen(kristy swanson) knew exactly why drunken billy was taking her to his house. she even asked him to get a rubber so that they could begin. the fact that he penetrated her without a condom became a rape whilst it would be great sex only if he had one handy. later kristen was assured by taryn(jennifer connely) that she holds no accountability in that matter and and despite willfully jumping into a guy bed she wasn not ready for sexual intercourse and was viciously taken advantage of by a sexual predator. then a week or so later she met and and slept with and an ultra sensitive do gooder who knew how to avoid raping and brought a condom. the director stressed contraception thoroughly. this movie is complete and utter garbage that makes black people look like pricks and women look stupid and frail. cole hauser acting and and laurence fishburne accent are the only reasons i can think of to watch it. the writer or director is obviously a man of limited intelligence. go ahead and limit your own by watching this crap if you want and but keep in mind that neurons do not grow back. just follow the advice at the end and unlearn.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
yes and people are racist. people are even racist in college. that a good point and and the issue of racism has been dealt with many times before in countless films. what sets higher learning apart from the pack is that it deals with the issue of racism in the most ham fisted and predictable way possible and oh yeah it in college too. this film deals with this problem of racism the way frankenstein deals with most problems and it bashes you over the head repeatedly in a brutal and sluggish manner. most of the characters are cartoonish and one dimensional and caricatures (lesbian feminist and angry black man) and that react to situations as dramatically and predictably as possible. instead of defying stereotypes this film is overpopulated with them. the angry black men feel cheated and feminists hate men and etc. (one feminist even holds a sign that reads dead men don not rape. see what i mean. ) i do not want to give anything away and but in this movie if someone seems like a shifty loner or a date rapist they will probably behave exactly how you expect them to. the changes the characters go through seems obvious to everyone but the people in the movie. the big twist in the plot hinges on whether or not the violent neo nazis will act like violent neo nazis. i will guess you will just have to watch to find out what happens. another problem i have with this movie is that it supposed to be gritty and hard hitting and but they make nazis the bad guys. i agree nazis are evil and but that my point. everybody thinks nazis are bad while were not breaking any new ground here. nazis have been portrayed as villains since the 1930 . the film doesn not challenge any viewpoints or make bold statements. it just deals with issues we all know about in a clumsy and after school special like and manner. being anti rape and anti racist and and anti nazi isn not exactly taking a hard stance on a controversial issue. higher learning is predictable and cartoonish and and in a word stupid. avoid at all costs.
yes and people are racist. people are even racist in college. that a good point and and the issue of racism has been dealt with many times before in countless films. what sets higher learning apart from the pack is that it deals with the issue of racism in the most ham fisted and predictable way possible and oh yeah it in college too. this film deals with this problem of racism the way frankenstein deals with most problems and it bashes you over the head repeatedly in a brutal and sluggish manner. most of the characters are cartoonish and one dimensional and caricatures (lesbian feminist and angry black man) and that react to situations as dramatically and predictably as possible. instead of defying stereotypes this film is overpopulated with them. the angry black men feel cheated and feminists hate men and etc. (one feminist even holds a sign that reads dead men don not rape. see what i mean. ) i do not want to give anything away and but in this movie if someone seems like a shifty loner or a date rapist they will probably behave exactly how you expect them to. the changes the characters go through seems obvious to everyone but the people in the movie. the big twist in the plot hinges on whether or not the violent neo nazis will act like violent neo nazis. i will guess you will just have to watch to find out what happens. another problem i have with this movie is that it supposed to be gritty and hard hitting and but they make nazis the bad guys. i agree nazis are evil and but that my point. everybody thinks nazis are bad while were not breaking any new ground here. nazis have been portrayed as villains since the 1930 . the film doesn not challenge any viewpoints or make bold statements. it just deals with issues we all know about in a clumsy and after school special like and manner. being anti rape and anti racist and and anti nazi isn not exactly taking a hard stance on a controversial issue. higher learning is predictable and cartoonish and and in a word stupid. avoid at all costs.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
higher learning says its ok for blacks to torment white people because theyre all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. incompetent acting and direction and and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. an appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed. higher learning says its ok for blacks to torment white people because theyre all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. incompetent acting and direction and and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. an appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed.
higher learning says its ok for blacks to torment white people because theyre all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. incompetent acting and direction and and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. an appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed. higher learning says its ok for blacks to torment white people because theyre all oppressors. most blacks in this movie are portrayed as ignorant savages. stunning that this is supposed to be a positive movie about race. incompetent acting and direction and and production values all contribute to this toothache of a flick. an appalling piece of trash. the perpetrators of this dreck should be ashamed.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i do not understand why people would praise this garbage. its wrong and stupid and unrealistic and awful and and just about everything else. the film is a view on life and racial issues and prejudice and and everything else that strangely goes on in college. this is where it fails. it has no grasps on reality. from many questionable non sense scenes in the movie such as for examplea black man chasing down a white man with a gun and the black man and stopped by the security guards handcuffed and carried out while the gunman runs right past them. the same white man snipering down people from a roof topic which is stopped and beaten down by the same black man is then stopped and given a rodney king style beating while the gun man runs free while a moment later being chased back down by only one of the four guards. as one previous reviewer pointed out several white 230lbs men being beaten down by several black men weighing around 160lbs including the 105lbs bust a rhymesanother critical flaw in the film are the shallow uninteresting main characters. from the scared and confused white people and the mean and angry and and yet rightful (. ) black people. its almost as its an insult to both black and white people. i am a white male and i know many black and hispanic people who agree that this movie is wrong to portray characters and giving them those characteristics exclusively due to their race. the storyline which i will explain now revolves around three characters. one a black athlete and the other a confused scared white girl who questions her sexuality and and the third is a white man who is also confused and scared and then blames his problems on black people in which he becomes a nazi later in the film. they all have their share of problems and adventures including sex and rape and fights and love and hate and prejudice and racial war and and oh yeah do not forget education. which all comes down at the end for the fatal shoot out. in which after they go back to their boring lives and think being white is bad. does this sound alot like your college years. didn not think so. i do not think the director attended college especially if he were to make this awful mess. overall this is a really bad and bad and ugly movie. if you want to see a more accurate view or racial issues go see american history x. if you want to see a more accurate view of college rent porkys. just avoid this mess.
i do not understand why people would praise this garbage. its wrong and stupid and unrealistic and awful and and just about everything else. the film is a view on life and racial issues and prejudice and and everything else that strangely goes on in college. this is where it fails. it has no grasps on reality. from many questionable non sense scenes in the movie such as for examplea black man chasing down a white man with a gun and the black man and stopped by the security guards handcuffed and carried out while the gunman runs right past them. the same white man snipering down people from a roof topic which is stopped and beaten down by the same black man is then stopped and given a rodney king style beating while the gun man runs free while a moment later being chased back down by only one of the four guards. as one previous reviewer pointed out several white 230lbs men being beaten down by several black men weighing around 160lbs including the 105lbs bust a rhymesanother critical flaw in the film are the shallow uninteresting main characters. from the scared and confused white people and the mean and angry and and yet rightful (. ) black people. its almost as its an insult to both black and white people. i am a white male and i know many black and hispanic people who agree that this movie is wrong to portray characters and giving them those characteristics exclusively due to their race. the storyline which i will explain now revolves around three characters. one a black athlete and the other a confused scared white girl who questions her sexuality and and the third is a white man who is also confused and scared and then blames his problems on black people in which he becomes a nazi later in the film. they all have their share of problems and adventures including sex and rape and fights and love and hate and prejudice and racial war and and oh yeah do not forget education. which all comes down at the end for the fatal shoot out. in which after they go back to their boring lives and think being white is bad. does this sound alot like your college years. didn not think so. i do not think the director attended college especially if he were to make this awful mess. overall this is a really bad and bad and ugly movie. if you want to see a more accurate view or racial issues go see american history x. if you want to see a more accurate view of college rent porkys. just avoid this mess.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.