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
it made in 2007 and the cg is bad for a movie made in 1998. at one part in the movie there is a stop motion shot of a dinosaur that actually looks good and but this just makes the extremely amateur work on the cg stuff look even worse. the writing and acting and directing and everything else in this movie is just terrible. this is as bad as and if not worse than raptor island and 100 million bc. pure crap. again and as with the other movies and the only scary part about this movie is that it actually got made and is now being aired on the sci fi channel. i still can not understand how they somehow get people who do have some acting skills to act in these movies and then somehow get them to act as terrible as everyone else in the movie. for those of you who are unsure and the other poster is obviously being sarcastic in his review. or he is one of the people who worked on this movie.
it made in 2007 and the cg is bad for a movie made in 1998. at one part in the movie there is a stop motion shot of a dinosaur that actually looks good and but this just makes the extremely amateur work on the cg stuff look even worse. the writing and acting and directing and everything else in this movie is just terrible. this is as bad as and if not worse than raptor island and 100 million bc. pure crap. again and as with the other movies and the only scary part about this movie is that it actually got made and is now being aired on the sci fi channel. i still can not understand how they somehow get people who do have some acting skills to act in these movies and then somehow get them to act as terrible as everyone else in the movie. for those of you who are unsure and the other poster is obviously being sarcastic in his review. or he is one of the people who worked on this movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this has to be one of the worst movies of all time. the graphics were horrendous and the acting was b movie and the effects were just plain nintendo 64 qualified. you would think that they would put a little more effort into it. of course and it is a scifi channel movie so you have to expect it to be low rate and but this one takes the cake. hell and i am still laughing. so and as a shake your head in disbelief movie and this one does well. although it appears to have some known actors and actresses in this and it is difficult for me to believe that they did not realize that the quality of this movie was worth their time and effort. the graphics might have been good in the 60 or even early 70 but come on and this is 2009. i wont give spoilers out and let just say that if you have played jurassic park on the nintendo 64 you will be very familiar with what you see in this filmit is definitely not worth the 2 hours it took to sit through the thing.
this has to be one of the worst movies of all time. the graphics were horrendous and the acting was b movie and the effects were just plain nintendo 64 qualified. you would think that they would put a little more effort into it. of course and it is a scifi channel movie so you have to expect it to be low rate and but this one takes the cake. hell and i am still laughing. so and as a shake your head in disbelief movie and this one does well. although it appears to have some known actors and actresses in this and it is difficult for me to believe that they did not realize that the quality of this movie was worth their time and effort. the graphics might have been good in the 60 or even early 70 but come on and this is 2009. i wont give spoilers out and let just say that if you have played jurassic park on the nintendo 64 you will be very familiar with what you see in this filmit is definitely not worth the 2 hours it took to sit through the thing.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i have seen plenty of sci fi channel original movies ever since i started watching them back in 2002 (my first one was sabretooth which actually is one of the more entertaining sci fi channel features in my opinion). their quality varies. some of them are average but decent (sabretooth and dragon fighter and never cry werewolf and swamp devil) and some are laughably bad and and then there are some that are truly terrible. raptor planet lies in the latter. raptor planet and a loose sequel to the 2004 sci fi channel original raptor island and is a barely watchable mess of a film with truly horrid acting and lazy scriptwriting. the effects that bring the dinosaurs to life (a combination of puppetry and animatronics as well as cgi and stock footage from raptor planet) are some of the worst looking effects i have seen in a low budget film. the gore effects are even unconvincing. the plot involves a bunch of commandos who for some reason (i forget why) travel to a planet of alien dinosaurs. that right folks and the dinosaurs are aliens. dinosaurs in outer space. what next and sharks in space. the rest of the plot is simple. the human cast are picked off and eaten. by now and we have come to expect this in the numerous dinosaurs movies and novels that are released and but this is the first killer dinosaur movie i have seen where i actually became bored with all the dinosaur attacks. there are a few chuckles in it though. there one scene that stands out in which a man is being munched by a carnotaur (brought to life by stock footage from the original film) that seconds later becomes a giant raptor. also and a bit of trivia and this is the scene where steven baur is shooting at his own death scene from the first movie. while raptor island wasn not a good film to begin with and its a masterpiece compared to its sequel. believe me when i say and this is quite possibly the worst movie syfy has ever aired. it darn near unwatchable.
i have seen plenty of sci fi channel original movies ever since i started watching them back in 2002 (my first one was sabretooth which actually is one of the more entertaining sci fi channel features in my opinion). their quality varies. some of them are average but decent (sabretooth and dragon fighter and never cry werewolf and swamp devil) and some are laughably bad and and then there are some that are truly terrible. raptor planet lies in the latter. raptor planet and a loose sequel to the 2004 sci fi channel original raptor island and is a barely watchable mess of a film with truly horrid acting and lazy scriptwriting. the effects that bring the dinosaurs to life (a combination of puppetry and animatronics as well as cgi and stock footage from raptor planet) are some of the worst looking effects i have seen in a low budget film. the gore effects are even unconvincing. the plot involves a bunch of commandos who for some reason (i forget why) travel to a planet of alien dinosaurs. that right folks and the dinosaurs are aliens. dinosaurs in outer space. what next and sharks in space. the rest of the plot is simple. the human cast are picked off and eaten. by now and we have come to expect this in the numerous dinosaurs movies and novels that are released and but this is the first killer dinosaur movie i have seen where i actually became bored with all the dinosaur attacks. there are a few chuckles in it though. there one scene that stands out in which a man is being munched by a carnotaur (brought to life by stock footage from the original film) that seconds later becomes a giant raptor. also and a bit of trivia and this is the scene where steven baur is shooting at his own death scene from the first movie. while raptor island wasn not a good film to begin with and its a masterpiece compared to its sequel. believe me when i say and this is quite possibly the worst movie syfy has ever aired. it darn near unwatchable.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
so i rented this from netflix because somebody gave me roger ebert book i hated and hated and hated this movie and he gave this one a rare zero star rating in the book and said at the end of his original review mad dog time should be cut up to provide free ukulele picks for the poor. so i figured from ebert saying that i would see if it was really as bad as he said it was. i know most society says not to listen to critics and to judge for yourself but i could not express how much i hated this piece of junk like ebert did and never since ebert review of rob reiner north where he said he hated that movie ten times had i ever heard such a brilliant hatred movie review. here we have richard dreyfuss as a gangster which i do not think it would be terrible to see dreyfuss as a gangster if the screenplay for this movie were written well. but above all the other things that were awful about this movie i can certainly tell you the script was not written well at all. while the movie starts off with jeff goldblum saying that he enjoyed watching dreyfuss girlfriend while dreyfuss was at a criminal hospital the movie starts off with some decent dialog after the opening credits. but after that first 4 or 5 minutes the other 85 minutes just consists of dumb characters talking pointless garbage for 30 seconds then someone gets shot. then there are a whole bunch of jokes about dreyfuss being mentally ill. haha. not funny. then we get an unpleasant and unfunny scene parodying frank sinatra my way sang by gabriel byrne apparently to insult dreyfuss. of course because the screenplay was written on the level of a sixth grader dreyfuss shoots byrne over five times and byrne just will not die. are we as the audience supposed to even care or find that mildly funny. i can certainly tell you i did not care or find that funny. not only am i disappointed in dreyfuss (who i admire much as an actor) for producing and starring in this tripe but i am also extremely disappointed in jeff goldblum because this was released the same year that independence day was the top grossing film of the year and ultimately one of the most successful films in history. did goldblum feel that independence day would be a flop and then just take the next role that was offered to him to make some money if independence day were a bomb. what did an oscar winner and the star of two of the biggest money making films in history find remotely enjoyable about this. the opening sequence of mad dog time says that the movie is set on another planet. i only wish now that i have wasted 93 minutes watching this trash that it would have stayed and opened in theaters on the planet where it supposedly takes place so that way everyone on this planet would never here of this ridiculous waste of 93 minutes out of my life that i will never get back. ebert saying the movie should have been cut up is not good enough i am afraid. every copy of mad dog time should have gasoline poured all over it and be lit on fire. i have yet to top a worst movie i have ever seen because this one has won it honor as the worst movie ever.
so i rented this from netflix because somebody gave me roger ebert book i hated and hated and hated this movie and he gave this one a rare zero star rating in the book and said at the end of his original review mad dog time should be cut up to provide free ukulele picks for the poor. so i figured from ebert saying that i would see if it was really as bad as he said it was. i know most society says not to listen to critics and to judge for yourself but i could not express how much i hated this piece of junk like ebert did and never since ebert review of rob reiner north where he said he hated that movie ten times had i ever heard such a brilliant hatred movie review. here we have richard dreyfuss as a gangster which i do not think it would be terrible to see dreyfuss as a gangster if the screenplay for this movie were written well. but above all the other things that were awful about this movie i can certainly tell you the script was not written well at all. while the movie starts off with jeff goldblum saying that he enjoyed watching dreyfuss girlfriend while dreyfuss was at a criminal hospital the movie starts off with some decent dialog after the opening credits. but after that first 4 or 5 minutes the other 85 minutes just consists of dumb characters talking pointless garbage for 30 seconds then someone gets shot. then there are a whole bunch of jokes about dreyfuss being mentally ill. haha. not funny. then we get an unpleasant and unfunny scene parodying frank sinatra my way sang by gabriel byrne apparently to insult dreyfuss. of course because the screenplay was written on the level of a sixth grader dreyfuss shoots byrne over five times and byrne just will not die. are we as the audience supposed to even care or find that mildly funny. i can certainly tell you i did not care or find that funny. not only am i disappointed in dreyfuss (who i admire much as an actor) for producing and starring in this tripe but i am also extremely disappointed in jeff goldblum because this was released the same year that independence day was the top grossing film of the year and ultimately one of the most successful films in history. did goldblum feel that independence day would be a flop and then just take the next role that was offered to him to make some money if independence day were a bomb. what did an oscar winner and the star of two of the biggest money making films in history find remotely enjoyable about this. the opening sequence of mad dog time says that the movie is set on another planet. i only wish now that i have wasted 93 minutes watching this trash that it would have stayed and opened in theaters on the planet where it supposedly takes place so that way everyone on this planet would never here of this ridiculous waste of 93 minutes out of my life that i will never get back. ebert saying the movie should have been cut up is not good enough i am afraid. every copy of mad dog time should have gasoline poured all over it and be lit on fire. i have yet to top a worst movie i have ever seen because this one has won it honor as the worst movie ever.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
mad dog time. trigger happy whatever you wanna call it. simply doesn not hit the mark. maybe its just me and maybe i just do not like gangster comedies ( as i thought oscar and johney dangerously and mafia also sucked ) it probably more witty sharp wordplay than all out comedy and only its not as witty and sharp as it ( or the other reviewers )make it out to be. the rick and mick and vic thing was old to begin with making it a running gag was at times painful to watch. there wasn not enough changes of location or feel for the period they were supposed to be in. the majority of the film was either set in dreyfus club or a variety of offices or dim rooms. ( what was with that sit down gun stand off thing goldblum kept winning . ) the supporting cast was. on paper excellent ( great to see silva and drago)but characters were killed off before they had time to develop. and richard pryors cameo was a joke . the romance and love element of the film also bogged it down. negative i do not think i will return to it anytime soon.
mad dog time. trigger happy whatever you wanna call it. simply doesn not hit the mark. maybe its just me and maybe i just do not like gangster comedies ( as i thought oscar and johney dangerously and mafia also sucked ) it probably more witty sharp wordplay than all out comedy and only its not as witty and sharp as it ( or the other reviewers )make it out to be. the rick and mick and vic thing was old to begin with making it a running gag was at times painful to watch. there wasn not enough changes of location or feel for the period they were supposed to be in. the majority of the film was either set in dreyfus club or a variety of offices or dim rooms. ( what was with that sit down gun stand off thing goldblum kept winning . ) the supporting cast was. on paper excellent ( great to see silva and drago)but characters were killed off before they had time to develop. and richard pryors cameo was a joke . the romance and love element of the film also bogged it down. negative i do not think i will return to it anytime soon.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
dreyfuss plays a mob boss who lost his mind and but now he fixed. lane is his girl who been messing around with his number one (goldblum) and who supposed to have something going with lane sister (barkin). with what anyone could consider an all star supporting cast (burt reynolds and gabriel byrne and kyle maclachlan and even an appearance by richard pryor) can not help this plot and as dreyfuss proves he not fixed and tries to kill just about everyone in sight. you know and it not like you do not know what was coming. the first ten minutes were nothing but guys trying to tell goldblum what was in store for him when dreyfuss gets out and but i will save you all the trouble represent skip this movie. the actual reason i picked this movie is because i have been on a diane lane kick lately and have been trying to see all her movies. the real let down for me wasn not just the terrible plot and but also the fact that she doesn not show up until the last fifteen minutes of the movie (although we hear about her all through the movie). even being a fan of over half of the cast can not help me enjoy this film. the parts where the suspense was supposed to mount found me laughing at what was actually going on. negative stars.
dreyfuss plays a mob boss who lost his mind and but now he fixed. lane is his girl who been messing around with his number one (goldblum) and who supposed to have something going with lane sister (barkin). with what anyone could consider an all star supporting cast (burt reynolds and gabriel byrne and kyle maclachlan and even an appearance by richard pryor) can not help this plot and as dreyfuss proves he not fixed and tries to kill just about everyone in sight. you know and it not like you do not know what was coming. the first ten minutes were nothing but guys trying to tell goldblum what was in store for him when dreyfuss gets out and but i will save you all the trouble represent skip this movie. the actual reason i picked this movie is because i have been on a diane lane kick lately and have been trying to see all her movies. the real let down for me wasn not just the terrible plot and but also the fact that she doesn not show up until the last fifteen minutes of the movie (although we hear about her all through the movie). even being a fan of over half of the cast can not help me enjoy this film. the parts where the suspense was supposed to mount found me laughing at what was actually going on. negative stars.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
vic (richard dreyfuss) is a mob boss and leaving a mental institution and back to his world of gangsters. how can a director have a cast with richard dreyfuss and ellen barkin and jeff goldblum and diane lane (very gorgeous) and gabriel byrne and gregory hines and kyle maclachlan and burt reynolds and billy idol and a make such a waste of time. this movie is a comedy that is not funny and having a constellation in the cast. my vote is four. title (brazil) represent prazer em matar te. (pleasure in killing you. ).
vic (richard dreyfuss) is a mob boss and leaving a mental institution and back to his world of gangsters. how can a director have a cast with richard dreyfuss and ellen barkin and jeff goldblum and diane lane (very gorgeous) and gabriel byrne and gregory hines and kyle maclachlan and burt reynolds and billy idol and a make such a waste of time. this movie is a comedy that is not funny and having a constellation in the cast. my vote is four. title (brazil) represent prazer em matar te. (pleasure in killing you. ).
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is is a thoroughly unpleasant and if slickly made and movie. i tried it because it stars richard dreyfus and jeff goldblum and two good actors and and because the plot line a mob boss is about to be released from a mental institution sounded promising. the movie is billed as a comedy and sorta. what we have is an endless series of shots you should pardon the pun of people in dimly lit and elegant and if somewhat surreal and interiors and shooting each other in the head and stomach and kneecap and foot and heart (no part of the anatomy is avoided and it seems) while uttering vague and cryptic dialogue and some of which is supposed and evidently and to be humorous in a sort of post modern way. goldblum dialogue for the whole movie could fit on a 3x5 card and and he wears a single facial expression a sardonic grin throughout. ellen barkin and gregory hines do the best they can. burt reynolds does a cameo. the credits list rob reiner and joey bishop and but i somehow missed them (good move on their part). the whole thing is cold and sterile and mechanical and unsavory while an heir and i suspect and to the style of pulp fiction and fargo and natural born killers. if you liked those and you will probably like this.
this is is a thoroughly unpleasant and if slickly made and movie. i tried it because it stars richard dreyfus and jeff goldblum and two good actors and and because the plot line a mob boss is about to be released from a mental institution sounded promising. the movie is billed as a comedy and sorta. what we have is an endless series of shots you should pardon the pun of people in dimly lit and elegant and if somewhat surreal and interiors and shooting each other in the head and stomach and kneecap and foot and heart (no part of the anatomy is avoided and it seems) while uttering vague and cryptic dialogue and some of which is supposed and evidently and to be humorous in a sort of post modern way. goldblum dialogue for the whole movie could fit on a 3x5 card and and he wears a single facial expression a sardonic grin throughout. ellen barkin and gregory hines do the best they can. burt reynolds does a cameo. the credits list rob reiner and joey bishop and but i somehow missed them (good move on their part). the whole thing is cold and sterile and mechanical and unsavory while an heir and i suspect and to the style of pulp fiction and fargo and natural born killers. if you liked those and you will probably like this.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
there are often badly matched couples (in the general sense of the term) in huston movies representafrican queen heaven knows mister allison roots of heaven misfits . the barbarian and the geisha (check the title) is another good example and so to speak. it seems that japanese stuff was trendy at the time as such works as sayonara the world of suzie wong and the teahouse of the august moon bear witness. huston effort might be the worst of this rather bad lot(with the exception of susie maybe). john wayne perfectly fits in ford world and in huston he like a bull in a china shop. his japanese partner is totally bland. even the dramatic scenes (cholera epidemic) do not save the movie from absolute boredom. only those utterly enamoured of huston every work need to choose this and among all his other great movies around.
there are often badly matched couples (in the general sense of the term) in huston movies representafrican queen heaven knows mister allison roots of heaven misfits . the barbarian and the geisha (check the title) is another good example and so to speak. it seems that japanese stuff was trendy at the time as such works as sayonara the world of suzie wong and the teahouse of the august moon bear witness. huston effort might be the worst of this rather bad lot(with the exception of susie maybe). john wayne perfectly fits in ford world and in huston he like a bull in a china shop. his japanese partner is totally bland. even the dramatic scenes (cholera epidemic) do not save the movie from absolute boredom. only those utterly enamoured of huston every work need to choose this and among all his other great movies around.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
if i had realized john wayne was in this movie and i would not have watched it. it demeaning to the japanese and unfortunate for hollywood and embarrassing to any thinking person. but then and most john wayne movies are like that. hollywood in the fifties still believed that everybody in the world loved americans when the truth was (and still is) somewhat different. the movie deals with the nineteenth century isolationism of japan. maybe it hollywood that should be isolated. to put it as succinctly as possible and this film is appalling jingoistic claptrap. (sort of a madama butterfly with bad music. ).
if i had realized john wayne was in this movie and i would not have watched it. it demeaning to the japanese and unfortunate for hollywood and embarrassing to any thinking person. but then and most john wayne movies are like that. hollywood in the fifties still believed that everybody in the world loved americans when the truth was (and still is) somewhat different. the movie deals with the nineteenth century isolationism of japan. maybe it hollywood that should be isolated. to put it as succinctly as possible and this film is appalling jingoistic claptrap. (sort of a madama butterfly with bad music. ).
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
a comparison between this movie and the last detail is made by some and but chasers is flatter than a stretch of interstate highway in west texas. and like the scenery in the desert and there nothing much to distinguish it and not even the fact that a female prisoner is being transported by two navy escorts this time around. no one in the cast comes off too well while with this lame script that not surprising. dennis hopper and the director and would not give much space to this one if he ever writes a memoir and i do not think.
a comparison between this movie and the last detail is made by some and but chasers is flatter than a stretch of interstate highway in west texas. and like the scenery in the desert and there nothing much to distinguish it and not even the fact that a female prisoner is being transported by two navy escorts this time around. no one in the cast comes off too well while with this lame script that not surprising. dennis hopper and the director and would not give much space to this one if he ever writes a memoir and i do not think.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
. so i thought i would throw in a few words about william mcnamara. not a bad way to spend a couple of hours if you want to see him in his tighty whities it obvious he pumped up for this role and he looks pretty darn good in them or less. there an extended sequence in a cave where he has to strip down to his undies. there a nice bit where he has to chase after miss eleniak in the buff and with only his hands cupped over his groin. william mcnamara is naturally a little on the skinny side and but he has a nice and generous handful of a booty. also and there a moment when he getting out of bed that if you pause the action at just the right moment you can see the whole enchilada. if youre inclined to do so and and come on and half of the people who choose to watch a movie about navy men on a road trip are. i would just like thank dennis hopper for his equal opportunity gratuitous nudity. can william mcnamara act. heck if i know.
. so i thought i would throw in a few words about william mcnamara. not a bad way to spend a couple of hours if you want to see him in his tighty whities it obvious he pumped up for this role and he looks pretty darn good in them or less. there an extended sequence in a cave where he has to strip down to his undies. there a nice bit where he has to chase after miss eleniak in the buff and with only his hands cupped over his groin. william mcnamara is naturally a little on the skinny side and but he has a nice and generous handful of a booty. also and there a moment when he getting out of bed that if you pause the action at just the right moment you can see the whole enchilada. if youre inclined to do so and and come on and half of the people who choose to watch a movie about navy men on a road trip are. i would just like thank dennis hopper for his equal opportunity gratuitous nudity. can william mcnamara act. heck if i know.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is simply the worst movie i have ever seen. neither of the three central characters has any charm and and erika good looks aren not enough to carry the film. the lamest plot i have ever had inflicted upon me. also the most unconvincing military comedy ever. why did they bother.
this is simply the worst movie i have ever seen. neither of the three central characters has any charm and and erika good looks aren not enough to carry the film. the lamest plot i have ever had inflicted upon me. also the most unconvincing military comedy ever. why did they bother.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
what a dreadful film this is. the only reason you would want to sit through this mess is the pleasurable sight of miss eleniak. the painful overacting of mr mcnamara and which became embarrassing at times and ruined what might have been a reasonable film if the correct actors had been cast. mr mcnamara is no tom cruise and the actor he obviously wants to be.
what a dreadful film this is. the only reason you would want to sit through this mess is the pleasurable sight of miss eleniak. the painful overacting of mr mcnamara and which became embarrassing at times and ruined what might have been a reasonable film if the correct actors had been cast. mr mcnamara is no tom cruise and the actor he obviously wants to be.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie down shifts from 4th into 1st without bothering with 3rd or 2nd and grinding gears all the way to the sappy and b movie finish line. the con at the beginning is easily the best and cleverest part of the movie. that is worth seeing. the scene with harlow in the bathtub occurs so fast and you may miss it. definitely not worth all the ballyhoo provided by robert osborne in his tcm intro to this bad to mediocre confusion. there is no real conflict and and all of the characters in this supposed fringe society turn out to be saints especially the unbelievable character and al. i wonder if he got a job for me in cincinnati.
this movie down shifts from 4th into 1st without bothering with 3rd or 2nd and grinding gears all the way to the sappy and b movie finish line. the con at the beginning is easily the best and cleverest part of the movie. that is worth seeing. the scene with harlow in the bathtub occurs so fast and you may miss it. definitely not worth all the ballyhoo provided by robert osborne in his tcm intro to this bad to mediocre confusion. there is no real conflict and and all of the characters in this supposed fringe society turn out to be saints especially the unbelievable character and al. i wonder if he got a job for me in cincinnati.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is one of the very worst films clark gable made. only parnell was obviously worse. it is just so painfully clichéd and the dialog is so lousy that it is something neither gable nor jean harlow should have been proud of making. gable is a heel whose illegal activities result in his girl going to the slammer (like the gangster talk. ). she holds out hope that he will do the right thing but he just leaves her there unknown to either of them and gosh and that she in the family way. eventually and the rogue returns to do the right thing and somehow they tie this all together into a happy ending. they seemed to have forgotten about gable needing to take the rap and spend several years in the hoosegow. leonard maltin says the stars are at their best here. by what standard. best at producing unintended chuckles. gimme a break. ps after saying this and my wife thinks leonard maltin is going to find me and kick my butt. hmmm. however and despite my comment and i think mr. maltin is the finest reviewer and human being on the planet (i hope that appeased him). update 2/2/08. because i disliked this film so much the first time (especially the ridiculous ending) and i decided to watch it once again. after all and sometimes when i watch a film again i like it much more and realize that i was a bit too harsh. while that has been the case with several films in recent months and i still disliked this film even the second time. most of it was not because of the first half of the film. in the first half and harlow character was amazingly stupid but at least it was believable. but when she was sent to prison and it was all clichés until the final ridiculous marriage scene occurred. the bottom line is that this sequence is embarrassingly dumb it just makes no sense at all and is akin to turning the movie into some wacky fairy tale instead of a love story about two cons. i stand by my original review (despite all the not helpfuls) and think that aside from parnell and possibly polly at the circus and it might just be the worst gable film.
this is one of the very worst films clark gable made. only parnell was obviously worse. it is just so painfully clichéd and the dialog is so lousy that it is something neither gable nor jean harlow should have been proud of making. gable is a heel whose illegal activities result in his girl going to the slammer (like the gangster talk. ). she holds out hope that he will do the right thing but he just leaves her there unknown to either of them and gosh and that she in the family way. eventually and the rogue returns to do the right thing and somehow they tie this all together into a happy ending. they seemed to have forgotten about gable needing to take the rap and spend several years in the hoosegow. leonard maltin says the stars are at their best here. by what standard. best at producing unintended chuckles. gimme a break. ps after saying this and my wife thinks leonard maltin is going to find me and kick my butt. hmmm. however and despite my comment and i think mr. maltin is the finest reviewer and human being on the planet (i hope that appeased him). update 2/2/08. because i disliked this film so much the first time (especially the ridiculous ending) and i decided to watch it once again. after all and sometimes when i watch a film again i like it much more and realize that i was a bit too harsh. while that has been the case with several films in recent months and i still disliked this film even the second time. most of it was not because of the first half of the film. in the first half and harlow character was amazingly stupid but at least it was believable. but when she was sent to prison and it was all clichés until the final ridiculous marriage scene occurred. the bottom line is that this sequence is embarrassingly dumb it just makes no sense at all and is akin to turning the movie into some wacky fairy tale instead of a love story about two cons. i stand by my original review (despite all the not helpfuls) and think that aside from parnell and possibly polly at the circus and it might just be the worst gable film.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
oh yes and sakura killers is a goofy and horrible ninja movie and make no mistake. but it also an incredibly enjoyable one. this is largely thanks to the awesome presence of one chuck connors and who is billed as starring in the movie but really only shines in a few scenes. i suppose he supposed to be sort of an obi wan kenobi type (the tough ninja buster and the box copy exclaims) but his wisdom is laughable. move without thinking. my friend says this is the sign of mental retardation and not of supreme concentration. but really and his two aides and sonny and dennis and have such horrible dialogue that brooklyn and as we call the colonel and tends to shine in comparison. especially watch for dennis logic regarding the genetic splicing the sakura are involved with. if you know anything about cloning you will die laughing. and yes and this is a major plot point and folks. a terribly fun movie and sakura killers is a hard to find gem. i would not spoil the trick ending for you either and except that it a perfect set up for a sakura killers 2. too bad chuck connors died. represent ( because he does have a the smoothest ways of blowing away ninjas.
oh yes and sakura killers is a goofy and horrible ninja movie and make no mistake. but it also an incredibly enjoyable one. this is largely thanks to the awesome presence of one chuck connors and who is billed as starring in the movie but really only shines in a few scenes. i suppose he supposed to be sort of an obi wan kenobi type (the tough ninja buster and the box copy exclaims) but his wisdom is laughable. move without thinking. my friend says this is the sign of mental retardation and not of supreme concentration. but really and his two aides and sonny and dennis and have such horrible dialogue that brooklyn and as we call the colonel and tends to shine in comparison. especially watch for dennis logic regarding the genetic splicing the sakura are involved with. if you know anything about cloning you will die laughing. and yes and this is a major plot point and folks. a terribly fun movie and sakura killers is a hard to find gem. i would not spoil the trick ending for you either and except that it a perfect set up for a sakura killers 2. too bad chuck connors died. represent ( because he does have a the smoothest ways of blowing away ninjas.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i am in awe. wow and prepare to be blown away by the uncanny ways of the ninja. watch them as they pounce and crawl along the ground (on their backs or stomachs) like a caterpillar and fly through the sky and climb buildings and hide and spring from trees and throw about ninja stars and role out blue welcome mats and disappear in smoke bombs and make a lot of swoosh noises with their blades and quickly sneaking or trotting about on their toes. what a sight. really i could go on about the many traditional actions and but i will be here all day. oh not to forget we even get the legendary chuck connors popping up now and again and and watch him dispatch some ninjas with his shotgun with little ease. what class. what a badass. anyhow the ultra cheap sakura killers is some stupid and but cheesy ninja action fun that only fanatics of the genre would get anything out of this shonky b grade debacle. a genetic lab in america has a very important video that stolen by a couple of ninjas. two americans are sent to japan by the colonel (chuck connors) to retrieve it. the opening of the feature sets it up nicely. get ready for the laughs. afterwards it slows down and but soon after the two main protagonists learns about the ninja and goes through the training it gets a head of steam as they break in costumes and fled after the stolen beta tape that contains a very important formula. this is when the violently swift action and aerobic marital arts really come in to play. it not too shoddy either and (like the moronic script and daft performances). the final climatic showdown is very well done. in the slow stretches it has the two americans (mike kelly and george nicholas) looking in to the case and sharing brainless conversations and encountering some minor problems. what made me laugh was how the ninjas were put off by how brave and clever these two were. these were supposed to be professional killers. director dusty nelson (effects (1989)) does an earnest job with what he had and plays it for what it is. he centres the on screen activities around striking taiwan locations. the score is a chintzy arrangement.
i am in awe. wow and prepare to be blown away by the uncanny ways of the ninja. watch them as they pounce and crawl along the ground (on their backs or stomachs) like a caterpillar and fly through the sky and climb buildings and hide and spring from trees and throw about ninja stars and role out blue welcome mats and disappear in smoke bombs and make a lot of swoosh noises with their blades and quickly sneaking or trotting about on their toes. what a sight. really i could go on about the many traditional actions and but i will be here all day. oh not to forget we even get the legendary chuck connors popping up now and again and and watch him dispatch some ninjas with his shotgun with little ease. what class. what a badass. anyhow the ultra cheap sakura killers is some stupid and but cheesy ninja action fun that only fanatics of the genre would get anything out of this shonky b grade debacle. a genetic lab in america has a very important video that stolen by a couple of ninjas. two americans are sent to japan by the colonel (chuck connors) to retrieve it. the opening of the feature sets it up nicely. get ready for the laughs. afterwards it slows down and but soon after the two main protagonists learns about the ninja and goes through the training it gets a head of steam as they break in costumes and fled after the stolen beta tape that contains a very important formula. this is when the violently swift action and aerobic marital arts really come in to play. it not too shoddy either and (like the moronic script and daft performances). the final climatic showdown is very well done. in the slow stretches it has the two americans (mike kelly and george nicholas) looking in to the case and sharing brainless conversations and encountering some minor problems. what made me laugh was how the ninjas were put off by how brave and clever these two were. these were supposed to be professional killers. director dusty nelson (effects (1989)) does an earnest job with what he had and plays it for what it is. he centres the on screen activities around striking taiwan locations. the score is a chintzy arrangement.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
sakura killers (1 plus outta 5 stars) maybe in 1987 this movie might have seemed cool. if you had never ever seen a good ninja movie. cheesy 80s music. cheesy dialogue. cheesy acting. and way beyond cheesy martial arts sequences. the coolest scene is at the beginning. with an aged chuck connors playing golf on a beach. several black clad ninjas try to sneak up on him and it looks like he is too intent on hitting his ball to notice. suddenly he reaches into his golf bag and. naw and i would not spoil it for you. if you ever have the misfortune of seeing this movie you will thank me. the story is a lot of nonsense about some stolen videotape or something. a bunch of dim bulb caucasian heroes are trained in the ways the ninja because only a ninja can fight a ninja or something like that. strange and these guys do not seem to fight any better after their training than before. oh well and the movie does move along pretty briskly. the fight scenes may not be great. but they are plentiful. and the overdone sound effects are good for a few chuckles.
sakura killers (1 plus outta 5 stars) maybe in 1987 this movie might have seemed cool. if you had never ever seen a good ninja movie. cheesy 80s music. cheesy dialogue. cheesy acting. and way beyond cheesy martial arts sequences. the coolest scene is at the beginning. with an aged chuck connors playing golf on a beach. several black clad ninjas try to sneak up on him and it looks like he is too intent on hitting his ball to notice. suddenly he reaches into his golf bag and. naw and i would not spoil it for you. if you ever have the misfortune of seeing this movie you will thank me. the story is a lot of nonsense about some stolen videotape or something. a bunch of dim bulb caucasian heroes are trained in the ways the ninja because only a ninja can fight a ninja or something like that. strange and these guys do not seem to fight any better after their training than before. oh well and the movie does move along pretty briskly. the fight scenes may not be great. but they are plentiful. and the overdone sound effects are good for a few chuckles.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
two old buddies are sent to japan to get back results of a genetic research containing videotape and which is stolen by the black suited ninjas at the beginning of the movie. first they just have to learn some ninja skill and because only ninja can beat the ninja. sakura killers tries hard to be enjoyable ninja flick but fails that badly. the whole movie is just so hollow and predictable that is hard to say anything good about it represent same plot has been seen in different variations dozens of times before and characters are too briefly drawn and direction is dull and script doesn not offer anything surprising and even in the ending scene and which by itself reduced movie (trash)value. even 80 ninja flick fan and who understands the esthetic of trash movies and is hard to find this movie even barely enjoyable. it simply doesn not offer anything new to viewer and neither in visual level nor in plot. shurikens are thrown and katanas are swinging and but it not enough to lead the movie direction it meant to be and recurred similar fighting scenes numbs even the most calloused viewer after the first 30 minutes. it hard to recommend movie to anyone. even franco nero clumsy performance in enter the ninja falls behind sakura killer american ninjas. even in visual level movie doesn not have any balls and it waste of time to try to find any great fighting scenes in this movie represent there isn not any. in all and one of the most futile ninja flicks and i have ever seen. doesn not interest even in curiosity. trust me on this one. ½ out of 10.
two old buddies are sent to japan to get back results of a genetic research containing videotape and which is stolen by the black suited ninjas at the beginning of the movie. first they just have to learn some ninja skill and because only ninja can beat the ninja. sakura killers tries hard to be enjoyable ninja flick but fails that badly. the whole movie is just so hollow and predictable that is hard to say anything good about it represent same plot has been seen in different variations dozens of times before and characters are too briefly drawn and direction is dull and script doesn not offer anything surprising and even in the ending scene and which by itself reduced movie (trash)value. even 80 ninja flick fan and who understands the esthetic of trash movies and is hard to find this movie even barely enjoyable. it simply doesn not offer anything new to viewer and neither in visual level nor in plot. shurikens are thrown and katanas are swinging and but it not enough to lead the movie direction it meant to be and recurred similar fighting scenes numbs even the most calloused viewer after the first 30 minutes. it hard to recommend movie to anyone. even franco nero clumsy performance in enter the ninja falls behind sakura killer american ninjas. even in visual level movie doesn not have any balls and it waste of time to try to find any great fighting scenes in this movie represent there isn not any. in all and one of the most futile ninja flicks and i have ever seen. doesn not interest even in curiosity. trust me on this one. ½ out of 10.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie one of my favorites. it not really any good and but it great to laugh at. the dialogue can become incredibly ludicrous and poorly acted (eg and manji and can we ask you a few questions. sure. we think you can help us with the answers. ) any fighting is more or less surrealistic. make sure to watch for brock and the oafy white guy who attacks the main characters. he only has two lines and but he one of the best guys in the movie.
this movie one of my favorites. it not really any good and but it great to laugh at. the dialogue can become incredibly ludicrous and poorly acted (eg and manji and can we ask you a few questions. sure. we think you can help us with the answers. ) any fighting is more or less surrealistic. make sure to watch for brock and the oafy white guy who attacks the main characters. he only has two lines and but he one of the best guys in the movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
skip mission represent galactica and watch the original living legend episodes instead. the network took parts 1 and 2 of living legend and jammed them into one plot with the awful fire in space episode. although galactica suffered from network controlled writing and a lack of time to prepare for a proper production and living legend is the best of the 1978 tv series. fire in space and on its own and is one of the worst episodes. as a historical note and watch galactica and the original star trek and and then the revival trek series and and you will see the difference in quality between network produced sci fi and syndicated sci fi.
skip mission represent galactica and watch the original living legend episodes instead. the network took parts 1 and 2 of living legend and jammed them into one plot with the awful fire in space episode. although galactica suffered from network controlled writing and a lack of time to prepare for a proper production and living legend is the best of the 1978 tv series. fire in space and on its own and is one of the worst episodes. as a historical note and watch galactica and the original star trek and and then the revival trek series and and you will see the difference in quality between network produced sci fi and syndicated sci fi.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the derek have over the 1980s produced a few decent bids to acquire the title worst movie of all time and and this is probably their prime achievement in these stakes. in fact and this film can be regarded as belonging to the so bad and it good category and right up there with the products of the likes of edward wood jr. or doris wishman. this explains the imdb voting pattern for this film with some people handing out top marks. anthony quinn made the odd dodgy film in his time and but this performance as a randy ghost is so incredibly bad and it has to be seen to be believed.
the derek have over the 1980s produced a few decent bids to acquire the title worst movie of all time and and this is probably their prime achievement in these stakes. in fact and this film can be regarded as belonging to the so bad and it good category and right up there with the products of the likes of edward wood jr. or doris wishman. this explains the imdb voting pattern for this film with some people handing out top marks. anthony quinn made the odd dodgy film in his time and but this performance as a randy ghost is so incredibly bad and it has to be seen to be believed.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i saw this obvious schlock fest on a video store shelf. and before i got my first vcr i figured i would christen it with this little gem and it bad film making at it finest. the dialog is inadvertently hilarious. and it contains a cameo with donald trump. anthony quinn is in it inexplicably. and much like christopher walken seemed to want to star in every bad movie in his later years. this movie is mr. quinn country bears. it features lines like and shut up and let me fight. and youre saying a lot of sh_it. and the priceless comeback represent unfortunately it is sh_it and tough angry sh_it. you will be awed by a fight scene as bo does a sommersault across a billiard table. and does a nice kung fu kick when she comes up from the roll. chop socky action and t and a thrills. what schlock movie fan could ask for more. oh and and when mr. quinn character commits suicide and and comes back to haunt bo as a ghost she asks him why he killed himself rather then deal with his debilitating illness. he says and real men do not eat quiche. uh and aaa and yeah. if bo was a smart cookie she woulda called for an exorcist right then and there.
i saw this obvious schlock fest on a video store shelf. and before i got my first vcr i figured i would christen it with this little gem and it bad film making at it finest. the dialog is inadvertently hilarious. and it contains a cameo with donald trump. anthony quinn is in it inexplicably. and much like christopher walken seemed to want to star in every bad movie in his later years. this movie is mr. quinn country bears. it features lines like and shut up and let me fight. and youre saying a lot of sh_it. and the priceless comeback represent unfortunately it is sh_it and tough angry sh_it. you will be awed by a fight scene as bo does a sommersault across a billiard table. and does a nice kung fu kick when she comes up from the roll. chop socky action and t and a thrills. what schlock movie fan could ask for more. oh and and when mr. quinn character commits suicide and and comes back to haunt bo as a ghost she asks him why he killed himself rather then deal with his debilitating illness. he says and real men do not eat quiche. uh and aaa and yeah. if bo was a smart cookie she woulda called for an exorcist right then and there.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the dereks did seem to struggle to find rolls for bo after 10. i used to work for a marine park in the florida keys. one day and the script for ghosts can not do it was circulating among the trainers in the fish house where food was prepared for the dolphins. there was one scene where a dolphin supposedly propositions bo (or bo the dolphin) and asking to go make eggs. reading the script and we lauuughed . we did not end up doing any portion of this movie at our facility and although our dolphins were in the big blue. this must have been very close to the end of anthony quinn life. i hope he had fun in this film and as it certainly do not do anything for his legacy.
the dereks did seem to struggle to find rolls for bo after 10. i used to work for a marine park in the florida keys. one day and the script for ghosts can not do it was circulating among the trainers in the fish house where food was prepared for the dolphins. there was one scene where a dolphin supposedly propositions bo (or bo the dolphin) and asking to go make eggs. reading the script and we lauuughed . we did not end up doing any portion of this movie at our facility and although our dolphins were in the big blue. this must have been very close to the end of anthony quinn life. i hope he had fun in this film and as it certainly do not do anything for his legacy.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i have now watched all four bo derek vehicles directed by her husband and john while all are quite terrible and of course and but this is certainly the pits. featuring the usual flimsy plot and bad scripting by the director and naturally and acting and not to mention gratuitous nudity by the star and it deals with her losing much older husband anthony quinn (she accepts his shotgun suicide by saying he had always admired hemingway. ) but who continues to appear and talk to her. in fact and he wants to come back in another and younger body…but actually does so only in the very last scene. derek is lovely as always and and still playing naïve(. ) especially during a muddled mid section which has her pursued by a hired killer at a spa. quinn and too and is typically larger than life (read represent hammy) here and but this easily constitutes his nadir while besides and for much of the duration and he acts from behind a piece of shiny plastic (presumably suggesting his being in some sort of limbo). his replacement and then and is obviously a handsome looking stud who hasn not a lick of talent or even personality. also featured in the cast are hollywood veterans don murray (as quinn best friend and bo business consultant) and julie newmar (as quinn guardian angel in the afterlife) plus a surprising cameo appearance by billionaire donald trump (who presumably needed this on his resume). it also goes without saying that john derek was his own cinematographer on the film and that the end credits are filled with useless (and corny) expressions of gratitude to the many people who lent a helping hand and and that ghosts cant do it swept the board at the 1990 razzie awards.
i have now watched all four bo derek vehicles directed by her husband and john while all are quite terrible and of course and but this is certainly the pits. featuring the usual flimsy plot and bad scripting by the director and naturally and acting and not to mention gratuitous nudity by the star and it deals with her losing much older husband anthony quinn (she accepts his shotgun suicide by saying he had always admired hemingway. ) but who continues to appear and talk to her. in fact and he wants to come back in another and younger body…but actually does so only in the very last scene. derek is lovely as always and and still playing naïve(. ) especially during a muddled mid section which has her pursued by a hired killer at a spa. quinn and too and is typically larger than life (read represent hammy) here and but this easily constitutes his nadir while besides and for much of the duration and he acts from behind a piece of shiny plastic (presumably suggesting his being in some sort of limbo). his replacement and then and is obviously a handsome looking stud who hasn not a lick of talent or even personality. also featured in the cast are hollywood veterans don murray (as quinn best friend and bo business consultant) and julie newmar (as quinn guardian angel in the afterlife) plus a surprising cameo appearance by billionaire donald trump (who presumably needed this on his resume). it also goes without saying that john derek was his own cinematographer on the film and that the end credits are filled with useless (and corny) expressions of gratitude to the many people who lent a helping hand and and that ghosts cant do it swept the board at the 1990 razzie awards.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
with a bo derek movie and the audience get just what they expect. a paper thin plot and a few shots of mrs. derek in no clothes. ghosts can not do it is just that. the first fifteen minutes is ordinary tv drama and as long as scott [anthony quinn] is still alive. he is a very good actor with long experience in a lot of different roles and but it seems as even a famous actor need to work just for money sometimes. bo derek is the opposite and always playing a strikingly handsome young woman with or without clothes. the movie is a complete waste of time. if you want to see quinn and rent lawrence of arabia or la strada. if you want to see nude women or bad acting and rent any porno movie.
with a bo derek movie and the audience get just what they expect. a paper thin plot and a few shots of mrs. derek in no clothes. ghosts can not do it is just that. the first fifteen minutes is ordinary tv drama and as long as scott [anthony quinn] is still alive. he is a very good actor with long experience in a lot of different roles and but it seems as even a famous actor need to work just for money sometimes. bo derek is the opposite and always playing a strikingly handsome young woman with or without clothes. the movie is a complete waste of time. if you want to see quinn and rent lawrence of arabia or la strada. if you want to see nude women or bad acting and rent any porno movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
michael caine has always claimed that ashanti was the only film (he) did purely for the money as well as the worst film he ever starred in. hold on and michael and weren not you in the swarm and hurry sundown. and weren not both of those films a good deal worse than ashanti. perhaps caine remembers only too begrudgingly the physically punishing demands of filming an action film in searing 130 degrees fahrenheit temperatures (the director and richard fleischer and was hospitalised as a result of sun stroke during the shoot). what ashanti actually emerges as is not the career low point of michael caine. instead and it is a very average chase thriller with a talented cast and exotic locations and boring stretches and a highly formulaic storyline. dr. david linderby (caine) is a w. h. o medic who is left devastated when his black wife anansa (beverly johnson) goes missing during an aid trip to an african tribal village. linderby gradually realises that his wife has been snatched by slave traders led by suleiman (peter ustinov) and he sets off on a continent wide pursuit which eventually leads to the middle east. along the way and big stars pop in for ineffective and superfluous guest roles. william holden has a poor cameo as a chopper pilot while omar sharif displays little of his customary charm or grace as a pampered arab millionaire while rex harrison looks rightfully bored during his brief role as a helpful contact who assists caine in his quest. the film is based on a best seller entitled ebano and by the little known author alberto vasquez figueroa and but the suspense that made the book so popular is largely absent in this adaptation. ustinov is charismatic as the slaver (he seems in all his movies to be incapable of giving bad performances) and and caine generates believable anguish as the man who thinks he will never see his wife again. there are occasional flashes of action and but on the whole ashanti is quite slow moving. all in all and it is a resistible piece of action hokum not by any stretch as awful as caine has frequently suggested and but not a very inspiring film and certainly a let down from all the talent involved.
michael caine has always claimed that ashanti was the only film (he) did purely for the money as well as the worst film he ever starred in. hold on and michael and weren not you in the swarm and hurry sundown. and weren not both of those films a good deal worse than ashanti. perhaps caine remembers only too begrudgingly the physically punishing demands of filming an action film in searing 130 degrees fahrenheit temperatures (the director and richard fleischer and was hospitalised as a result of sun stroke during the shoot). what ashanti actually emerges as is not the career low point of michael caine. instead and it is a very average chase thriller with a talented cast and exotic locations and boring stretches and a highly formulaic storyline. dr. david linderby (caine) is a w. h. o medic who is left devastated when his black wife anansa (beverly johnson) goes missing during an aid trip to an african tribal village. linderby gradually realises that his wife has been snatched by slave traders led by suleiman (peter ustinov) and he sets off on a continent wide pursuit which eventually leads to the middle east. along the way and big stars pop in for ineffective and superfluous guest roles. william holden has a poor cameo as a chopper pilot while omar sharif displays little of his customary charm or grace as a pampered arab millionaire while rex harrison looks rightfully bored during his brief role as a helpful contact who assists caine in his quest. the film is based on a best seller entitled ebano and by the little known author alberto vasquez figueroa and but the suspense that made the book so popular is largely absent in this adaptation. ustinov is charismatic as the slaver (he seems in all his movies to be incapable of giving bad performances) and and caine generates believable anguish as the man who thinks he will never see his wife again. there are occasional flashes of action and but on the whole ashanti is quite slow moving. all in all and it is a resistible piece of action hokum not by any stretch as awful as caine has frequently suggested and but not a very inspiring film and certainly a let down from all the talent involved.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i saw this recently with my wife and discovered it better than caine believes and although it not much cop. britain greatest ever screen actor does not seem too interested in this role and which is a pity as he might have elevated it with more conviction in his playing. rex harrison seems even less bothered and perhaps unsurprisingly and as his character is very poorly written. william holden is better and but his screen time is fleeting and and again and his character is not well scripted. beverly johnson is as beautiful a woman as i have ever seen and but is given very little to do and the film might have gained a great deal by concentrating more on her story. ustinov steals the show and but basically by playing a comic character quite out of keeping with the film serious tone. the music is poor and omar sharif makes one of his many pointless cameos (his career has been based on this for decades now). richard fleischer has to be blamed for not directing this more effectively and he was an infuriatingly unpredictable film director and and this is one of his weaker movies.
i saw this recently with my wife and discovered it better than caine believes and although it not much cop. britain greatest ever screen actor does not seem too interested in this role and which is a pity as he might have elevated it with more conviction in his playing. rex harrison seems even less bothered and perhaps unsurprisingly and as his character is very poorly written. william holden is better and but his screen time is fleeting and and again and his character is not well scripted. beverly johnson is as beautiful a woman as i have ever seen and but is given very little to do and the film might have gained a great deal by concentrating more on her story. ustinov steals the show and but basically by playing a comic character quite out of keeping with the film serious tone. the music is poor and omar sharif makes one of his many pointless cameos (his career has been based on this for decades now). richard fleischer has to be blamed for not directing this more effectively and he was an infuriatingly unpredictable film director and and this is one of his weaker movies.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
if ashanti had been a serious attempt at a film about the institution of slavery and still prevalent in third world countries the film might have been better received. instead it turns into a star studded disaster of a movie where the stars came in and said their lines and and picked up their paychecks without much conviction. michael caine and his wife beverly johnson work for the united nations world health organization and are busy doing their humanitarian thing in east africa. along comes peter ustinov who can barely summon enough ham in him to make a go of the part as a moslem slave dealer. as johnson is black he grabs her anyway along with a lot of children and a few adults as well. of course caine doesn not take kindly to the kidnapping and the rest of the film is spent in a rescue attempt. the rest of the cast has such folks as william holden and rex harrison and omar sharif and indian film star kebir bedi in parts and looking so incredibly bored with the whole thing. usually in something like this talented people like those mentioned above will just overact outrageously and feast on a diet of scenery. but ashanti doesn not even have that going for it. what an incredible waste of time. the aroma of tax write off is permeating the air.
if ashanti had been a serious attempt at a film about the institution of slavery and still prevalent in third world countries the film might have been better received. instead it turns into a star studded disaster of a movie where the stars came in and said their lines and and picked up their paychecks without much conviction. michael caine and his wife beverly johnson work for the united nations world health organization and are busy doing their humanitarian thing in east africa. along comes peter ustinov who can barely summon enough ham in him to make a go of the part as a moslem slave dealer. as johnson is black he grabs her anyway along with a lot of children and a few adults as well. of course caine doesn not take kindly to the kidnapping and the rest of the film is spent in a rescue attempt. the rest of the cast has such folks as william holden and rex harrison and omar sharif and indian film star kebir bedi in parts and looking so incredibly bored with the whole thing. usually in something like this talented people like those mentioned above will just overact outrageously and feast on a diet of scenery. but ashanti doesn not even have that going for it. what an incredible waste of time. the aroma of tax write off is permeating the air.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the worst and and chock full of people who really ought to know better and (the cast have six oscars between them). it set in contemporary africa and (it was made in 1979) and and is about the slave trade. it appallingly scripted and acted and (michael caine and peter ustinov and william holden reach a career low in this one) and and completely lacks excitement never mind any moral focus. it also ludicrously plotted. you do not for a minute believe that any of the characters would behave in the way they do under these circumstances. richard fleischer directs but you get the impression it was over the telephone. this is as bad as it gets.
the worst and and chock full of people who really ought to know better and (the cast have six oscars between them). it set in contemporary africa and (it was made in 1979) and and is about the slave trade. it appallingly scripted and acted and (michael caine and peter ustinov and william holden reach a career low in this one) and and completely lacks excitement never mind any moral focus. it also ludicrously plotted. you do not for a minute believe that any of the characters would behave in the way they do under these circumstances. richard fleischer directs but you get the impression it was over the telephone. this is as bad as it gets.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
there seem to have been any number of films like this released during the 70 . and the fact that i cannot recollect the title to a single one of them off hand is a measure of their impact. these are what novelists would call pot boilers. they are scarcely more than a vehicle for keeping movie stars in the public eye. we have micheal caine and peter ustinov and omar sharif and rex harrison and william holden while more than enough names to get bums on cinema seats. every taste in hero is catered for. though one suspects that most of the audience still went away disappointed. their talents are simply thrown away and and i wonder that stars with so much money and such reputation can be yet so desperate or lacking in good sense. this sort of movie hardly adds gilding to a cv. sometimes maybe actors should choose their director instead of the other way round. it was pretty obvious that it would be crap even from the outset. that ludicrously mismatched jaunty jazz theme music and which also percolated up every time some incidental noise is needed and had all the atmospheric conviction of elevator muzak. who imagined employing a jazz band when a scene depicted the steamy jungles of central africa and or the endless sahara with camels and palms as a backdrop. definitely a serious goof ball. ennio morricone would have known what to do while and his results would have oozed enough atmosphere and tension to raise my rating a good two points. this director should have taken the trouble to watch lawrence of arabia and or even sergio leone westerns while he might have learnt a few things. but then again and probably he do not. alfred hitchcock played the disappearing wife theme to good effect in his film frantic. it was later remade with equal panache staring harrison ford. in each case the confusion surrounding her loss and the tension of the chase was tangible. here and when michael caine might be otherwise compelled to employ a little brain and bravado and rex harrison kept popping up out of no where like some wily old genii and to put him back on track whenever the narrative stumbled. at least the photography was rather good and with excellent use of the often beautiful environment. but then the dumb music must pipe up and blow to atoms what little ambiance this created. action scenes were also contrived and stilted and with such ineptly choreographed fight sequences that they might have been staged in a first year drama class. and and of course and the players must fight to a jazz accompaniment as you do. and that about as much comment as this item deserves. except to say that the script was pretty wretched as well. stick with your hobby on this one. even if it contained your favourite movie stars and youre sure to be disappointed too.
there seem to have been any number of films like this released during the 70 . and the fact that i cannot recollect the title to a single one of them off hand is a measure of their impact. these are what novelists would call pot boilers. they are scarcely more than a vehicle for keeping movie stars in the public eye. we have micheal caine and peter ustinov and omar sharif and rex harrison and william holden while more than enough names to get bums on cinema seats. every taste in hero is catered for. though one suspects that most of the audience still went away disappointed. their talents are simply thrown away and and i wonder that stars with so much money and such reputation can be yet so desperate or lacking in good sense. this sort of movie hardly adds gilding to a cv. sometimes maybe actors should choose their director instead of the other way round. it was pretty obvious that it would be crap even from the outset. that ludicrously mismatched jaunty jazz theme music and which also percolated up every time some incidental noise is needed and had all the atmospheric conviction of elevator muzak. who imagined employing a jazz band when a scene depicted the steamy jungles of central africa and or the endless sahara with camels and palms as a backdrop. definitely a serious goof ball. ennio morricone would have known what to do while and his results would have oozed enough atmosphere and tension to raise my rating a good two points. this director should have taken the trouble to watch lawrence of arabia and or even sergio leone westerns while he might have learnt a few things. but then again and probably he do not. alfred hitchcock played the disappearing wife theme to good effect in his film frantic. it was later remade with equal panache staring harrison ford. in each case the confusion surrounding her loss and the tension of the chase was tangible. here and when michael caine might be otherwise compelled to employ a little brain and bravado and rex harrison kept popping up out of no where like some wily old genii and to put him back on track whenever the narrative stumbled. at least the photography was rather good and with excellent use of the often beautiful environment. but then the dumb music must pipe up and blow to atoms what little ambiance this created. action scenes were also contrived and stilted and with such ineptly choreographed fight sequences that they might have been staged in a first year drama class. and and of course and the players must fight to a jazz accompaniment as you do. and that about as much comment as this item deserves. except to say that the script was pretty wretched as well. stick with your hobby on this one. even if it contained your favourite movie stars and youre sure to be disappointed too.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the story at the outset is interesting represent slavery in the (late) 20th century from west africa to the arab middle east. the problem with it is that it intentionally castigates two of director richard fleisher favorite enemies represent arabs and germans. to make us believe that very arab looking men would be free to roam around and easily catch blacks in west africa is as believable as whites hunting for slaves in roots. obviously both trades are or were run by locals and involve(d) much more sophisticated networks. while arab countries are complicit in today child and sex slave trade and israel is one of the worst violators according to amnesty international. so why only point out arabs and then choose a german as the only european buyer. it obvious bias and hatred of those people by a jewish director. the acting is above average and especially by peter ustinov (suleiman) and kabir bedi (malik). michael caine (dr. linderby) is good as always.
the story at the outset is interesting represent slavery in the (late) 20th century from west africa to the arab middle east. the problem with it is that it intentionally castigates two of director richard fleisher favorite enemies represent arabs and germans. to make us believe that very arab looking men would be free to roam around and easily catch blacks in west africa is as believable as whites hunting for slaves in roots. obviously both trades are or were run by locals and involve(d) much more sophisticated networks. while arab countries are complicit in today child and sex slave trade and israel is one of the worst violators according to amnesty international. so why only point out arabs and then choose a german as the only european buyer. it obvious bias and hatred of those people by a jewish director. the acting is above average and especially by peter ustinov (suleiman) and kabir bedi (malik). michael caine (dr. linderby) is good as always.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i hope the viewer who regards dream machine as one of corey haim finest and the best movies of the century was kidding. undetected sarcasm on my part. i sincerely hope so. the dream machine marks the first of a long line of mediocre capers that would plague the rest of corey haim career (except prayer of the rollerboys which was surprisingly decent). here and haim plays nonchalant college boy and bernie and who supposes that a cool car will attract his dream girl attention. lucky for bernie and a rich woman aiming to get back at her cheating husband and hastily decides to reward her faithful piano tuner bernie with a gift represent a slick porsche turbo. however and unbeknownst to the woman and and unfortunate for bernie and is that her dead husband was murdered and his body was hidden in the trunk. now and being that in this movie and bodies do not seem to decay or possess a rather foul funk and bernie is unaware of this. in fact and the oblivious boy has no idea that something suspicious is afoot despite several odd circumstances that arise. in particular and a grizzly man follows him around and desperate to get hold of that body relatively undetected. this is a low grade action fizzle as many of haim films like this are (see the double o kid). despite being part action and part romantic comedy and this movie fails to offer the viewer much of anything of interest for at least the first forty five minutes in which the filmmakers take more than enough time to show the immediate problem (i. e. bernie being in possession of a car and a dead body and and a hit man finding out that the porsche is going to be hard to find). after which and and thanks to poor acting by haim (i loved this kid and too and but it not exactly sacrilegious to admit the times when he obviously couldn not act well) and the lack of real immediacy and emergency between bernie and the villain that makes much of the events unconvincing and as a result and inappreciable. to add injury to insult and the soundtrack was unbelievably laughable and sounded more like self evident songs you would hear in team america (see the wouldate montage). loyal corey haim fans and however and should not be disappointed to see their boy in abundance. however and others understanding that haim career probably peaked when he was 14 or 15 and never recovered and might expect mediocrity and as will viewers just looking for early 90s b comedy fluff to pass the time.
i hope the viewer who regards dream machine as one of corey haim finest and the best movies of the century was kidding. undetected sarcasm on my part. i sincerely hope so. the dream machine marks the first of a long line of mediocre capers that would plague the rest of corey haim career (except prayer of the rollerboys which was surprisingly decent). here and haim plays nonchalant college boy and bernie and who supposes that a cool car will attract his dream girl attention. lucky for bernie and a rich woman aiming to get back at her cheating husband and hastily decides to reward her faithful piano tuner bernie with a gift represent a slick porsche turbo. however and unbeknownst to the woman and and unfortunate for bernie and is that her dead husband was murdered and his body was hidden in the trunk. now and being that in this movie and bodies do not seem to decay or possess a rather foul funk and bernie is unaware of this. in fact and the oblivious boy has no idea that something suspicious is afoot despite several odd circumstances that arise. in particular and a grizzly man follows him around and desperate to get hold of that body relatively undetected. this is a low grade action fizzle as many of haim films like this are (see the double o kid). despite being part action and part romantic comedy and this movie fails to offer the viewer much of anything of interest for at least the first forty five minutes in which the filmmakers take more than enough time to show the immediate problem (i. e. bernie being in possession of a car and a dead body and and a hit man finding out that the porsche is going to be hard to find). after which and and thanks to poor acting by haim (i loved this kid and too and but it not exactly sacrilegious to admit the times when he obviously couldn not act well) and the lack of real immediacy and emergency between bernie and the villain that makes much of the events unconvincing and as a result and inappreciable. to add injury to insult and the soundtrack was unbelievably laughable and sounded more like self evident songs you would hear in team america (see the wouldate montage). loyal corey haim fans and however and should not be disappointed to see their boy in abundance. however and others understanding that haim career probably peaked when he was 14 or 15 and never recovered and might expect mediocrity and as will viewers just looking for early 90s b comedy fluff to pass the time.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this week and i just thought it would be fun to catch up with corey haim and with just having seen the two lost boys films last week and all. not that i am a fan boy not by far but i did like those two coreys in some films back in my early teen days. so and i prepared myself for three films starring him. unfortunately and i picked dream machine as a first (never seen it before) and and it was so godawfully horrible and i just decided to lock corey back in my closet and let him sober up again first and before i pop in something else of his. but i managed to struggle my way through this film first. i had the impression it desperately wanted to play in the same league as ferris bueller day off (1986) but got caught up in its own delusions. practically the whole film it wants to be a comedy and near the end it hopelessly tries to be a thriller. the only good thing about dream machine is the premise represent a dead body in the trunk of a porsche. all the rest fails so badly and it embarrassing. even the most for haim. i can dig him being his young and enthusiastic self and but at least when he comes with some form of directorial guidelines. this clearly wasn not the case in dream machine. so and we have a perfect car and yes and that black porsche. haim perfect girlfriend. just a blonde chick who hardly has any lines in the film. the perfect murder. almost. some dude that falls flat on his ass as the villain of the film and trying the whole movie to steal the body back out of the trunk and never really succeeds and and then at the end of the film thinks he michael myers (minus the white william shatner mask) and mistakes corey haim for jamie lee curtis. don not think they could have made this flick any lamer if they tried. a stupid and unfunny film with a story that leads to nowhere directed by a director that doesn not know how to direct his cast. great accomplishment. one last question for mr. haim represent who idea was it to have you smile directly into the camera in that last shot of the movie. yours or the director . so not done.
this week and i just thought it would be fun to catch up with corey haim and with just having seen the two lost boys films last week and all. not that i am a fan boy not by far but i did like those two coreys in some films back in my early teen days. so and i prepared myself for three films starring him. unfortunately and i picked dream machine as a first (never seen it before) and and it was so godawfully horrible and i just decided to lock corey back in my closet and let him sober up again first and before i pop in something else of his. but i managed to struggle my way through this film first. i had the impression it desperately wanted to play in the same league as ferris bueller day off (1986) but got caught up in its own delusions. practically the whole film it wants to be a comedy and near the end it hopelessly tries to be a thriller. the only good thing about dream machine is the premise represent a dead body in the trunk of a porsche. all the rest fails so badly and it embarrassing. even the most for haim. i can dig him being his young and enthusiastic self and but at least when he comes with some form of directorial guidelines. this clearly wasn not the case in dream machine. so and we have a perfect car and yes and that black porsche. haim perfect girlfriend. just a blonde chick who hardly has any lines in the film. the perfect murder. almost. some dude that falls flat on his ass as the villain of the film and trying the whole movie to steal the body back out of the trunk and never really succeeds and and then at the end of the film thinks he michael myers (minus the white william shatner mask) and mistakes corey haim for jamie lee curtis. don not think they could have made this flick any lamer if they tried. a stupid and unfunny film with a story that leads to nowhere directed by a director that doesn not know how to direct his cast. great accomplishment. one last question for mr. haim represent who idea was it to have you smile directly into the camera in that last shot of the movie. yours or the director . so not done.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i am a big porsche fan and and the car was the best star in this film. haim and the now dried up drug abusing child star of the 80 is bland as per usual and and commenting on back up from minor characters or actors would be pointless while needless to say they were all very average. it a cool movie as a trip down memory lane into the 80 with some weird clothes and some good shots of the colorado backdrop and a very harmless albeit mind numbing plot. all in all and please do not waste your time watching this unless you love 80 movies and corey haim and or like myself and love old school porsches (this one in particular looks great) because life too short to watch crappy movies.
i am a big porsche fan and and the car was the best star in this film. haim and the now dried up drug abusing child star of the 80 is bland as per usual and and commenting on back up from minor characters or actors would be pointless while needless to say they were all very average. it a cool movie as a trip down memory lane into the 80 with some weird clothes and some good shots of the colorado backdrop and a very harmless albeit mind numbing plot. all in all and please do not waste your time watching this unless you love 80 movies and corey haim and or like myself and love old school porsches (this one in particular looks great) because life too short to watch crappy movies.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
well and tivo recorded this because of angelina jolie. it had 2. 5 stars. it seemed promising. it went downhill fast. there is much overacting and even from angelina. she about 20 and playing a 16 year old. there are three characters that are supposed to be italian. everyone else is italian american. the native italian accents were good and i thought. the young male lead is cute and my wife says. everyone else in this movie is a fat italian woman. even the men. i should have known that when dick van patten was cast as a randy doctor and that that was a bad sign. the two couples chasing their kids around are like the four italian stooges. my wife would not let go of the remote. hopefully she was not taking makeup and clothing or decorating tips. it was a sick and twisted combination of hideous and garish. it was hidegarishous. cutting off my left ventricle was not sufficient to distract from the pain of watching this movie. if this movie shows up on your tv and do yourself a favor and ram your head through the tv screen instead. you will be glad you did. the only movie i have ever seen that was worse than this was hamburger represent the movie. or maybe deadly friend.
well and tivo recorded this because of angelina jolie. it had 2. 5 stars. it seemed promising. it went downhill fast. there is much overacting and even from angelina. she about 20 and playing a 16 year old. there are three characters that are supposed to be italian. everyone else is italian american. the native italian accents were good and i thought. the young male lead is cute and my wife says. everyone else in this movie is a fat italian woman. even the men. i should have known that when dick van patten was cast as a randy doctor and that that was a bad sign. the two couples chasing their kids around are like the four italian stooges. my wife would not let go of the remote. hopefully she was not taking makeup and clothing or decorating tips. it was a sick and twisted combination of hideous and garish. it was hidegarishous. cutting off my left ventricle was not sufficient to distract from the pain of watching this movie. if this movie shows up on your tv and do yourself a favor and ram your head through the tv screen instead. you will be glad you did. the only movie i have ever seen that was worse than this was hamburger represent the movie. or maybe deadly friend.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
omg this is one of the worst films iv ever seen and iv seen a lot i am a film student. i do not understand why angelina jolie would be in this movie. did she need the money that badly. i love aj and have seen almost everything shes ever been in so i watched this 2 tick another one off. it was soo bad. not even good bad and just bad bad. it had 1 or 2 funny little moments but all in all it was bad n a waste of 101 minutes. i cant even say aj looked good in it because well she do not. the plot is predictable unless you r expecting a re telling of romeo and juliet then its not. all round disappointing. maybe if your 12 this could be a good film otherwise i really do not recommend it.
omg this is one of the worst films iv ever seen and iv seen a lot i am a film student. i do not understand why angelina jolie would be in this movie. did she need the money that badly. i love aj and have seen almost everything shes ever been in so i watched this 2 tick another one off. it was soo bad. not even good bad and just bad bad. it had 1 or 2 funny little moments but all in all it was bad n a waste of 101 minutes. i cant even say aj looked good in it because well she do not. the plot is predictable unless you r expecting a re telling of romeo and juliet then its not. all round disappointing. maybe if your 12 this could be a good film otherwise i really do not recommend it.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i only saw this movie once and and that was enough for me. the movie has very little if any plot and seems to be nothing but continuous scenes of psycho sadistic violence and very little of anything else. i wanted to see this movie because it starred zoe trilling of the second night of the demons while and i wanted to see her playing someone normal. unfortunately and the tobe hooper script barely begins and goes nowhere as robert englund dominates the film and chews up the scenery and plot. zoe and i know where you are now while hiding from this film .
i only saw this movie once and and that was enough for me. the movie has very little if any plot and seems to be nothing but continuous scenes of psycho sadistic violence and very little of anything else. i wanted to see this movie because it starred zoe trilling of the second night of the demons while and i wanted to see her playing someone normal. unfortunately and the tobe hooper script barely begins and goes nowhere as robert englund dominates the film and chews up the scenery and plot. zoe and i know where you are now while hiding from this film .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i do not know much about tobe hooper and or why he gets his name in the title and but maybe he shouldn not have bothered. as another commenter mentioned and there isn not really enough horror or erotica to bring in fans of either genre. the plot is incoherent and the sade sequences are gratuitous and and most of the acting is so so. englund was doing his best with weak material and and zoe trilling has a really great bottom and but neither is enough to carry this film. this one a tape over. grade represent f.
i do not know much about tobe hooper and or why he gets his name in the title and but maybe he shouldn not have bothered. as another commenter mentioned and there isn not really enough horror or erotica to bring in fans of either genre. the plot is incoherent and the sade sequences are gratuitous and and most of the acting is so so. englund was doing his best with weak material and and zoe trilling has a really great bottom and but neither is enough to carry this film. this one a tape over. grade represent f.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the marquis de sade and egypt and ancient gnostic cults and robert englund in a dual role and gratuitous sex and nudity and murder and mayhem. on paper tobe hopper night terrors sounds like it should be at least a fun and entertaining flick given the ingredients. it not. it is a plot less and incoherent shambles that brings little entertainment. there is basically no plot beyond some vague stuff about a cult that follows the work of de sade who for some unclear reason feel the need to seduce the daughter of a local christian archaeologist and kill her. that is pretty much it i think it has something to with the gnostics but who knows what the writers were thinking. most of the movie is a meandering mess as the heroine is exposed to various weirdness and dream sequences and erotic encounters and intercut with scenes of englund as the imprisoned de sade in the 19th century chewing the scenery. it seems like the makers were trying for something serious but whatever their pretensions were they are buried in the cheesiness and bad acting and sleaze and fake looking decapitated heads. there aren not too many good points. robert englund is fun to watch and as always and the lead actress and zoe trilling and whilst not very talented and is attractive and in various stages of undress through the movie but watching night terrors is a chore. at least i got to see the movie from which the when youre as criminal as i bit from the australian film certification ratings guide that was on the front of so many vhs tapes from the nineties came from.
the marquis de sade and egypt and ancient gnostic cults and robert englund in a dual role and gratuitous sex and nudity and murder and mayhem. on paper tobe hopper night terrors sounds like it should be at least a fun and entertaining flick given the ingredients. it not. it is a plot less and incoherent shambles that brings little entertainment. there is basically no plot beyond some vague stuff about a cult that follows the work of de sade who for some unclear reason feel the need to seduce the daughter of a local christian archaeologist and kill her. that is pretty much it i think it has something to with the gnostics but who knows what the writers were thinking. most of the movie is a meandering mess as the heroine is exposed to various weirdness and dream sequences and erotic encounters and intercut with scenes of englund as the imprisoned de sade in the 19th century chewing the scenery. it seems like the makers were trying for something serious but whatever their pretensions were they are buried in the cheesiness and bad acting and sleaze and fake looking decapitated heads. there aren not too many good points. robert englund is fun to watch and as always and the lead actress and zoe trilling and whilst not very talented and is attractive and in various stages of undress through the movie but watching night terrors is a chore. at least i got to see the movie from which the when youre as criminal as i bit from the australian film certification ratings guide that was on the front of so many vhs tapes from the nineties came from.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
genie (zoe trilling) arrives in egypt to visit her hypocritical and bible quoting archeologist father (william finley) and attracts the attention of a group of cultists led by a descendant of the marquis de sade (robert englund). englund also plays de sade in flashbacks and ranting in his cell. genie is led astray by mohammed (juliano merr) and who rides around naked on a horse and sabina (alona kamhi) and a bisexual who introduces her to opium smoking and which leads to a wild hallucination featuring topless harem dancers and a woman simulating oral sex on a snake and an orgy and her father preaching in the background. meanwhile and black hooded cult members decapitate and gouge out eyeballs and slit throats. when genie is slipped drugs in her tea and she imagines de sade hanging from a cross and a gold painted woman in a leafy g string and herself bloody on a bed covered in snakes. it all because she the reincarnation of de sade lost love. this typically sleazy harry alan towers production is redundant and seedy and pretty senseless and but the sets and costumes and cinematography and location work are all excellent and at least there always something going on. score represent negative .
genie (zoe trilling) arrives in egypt to visit her hypocritical and bible quoting archeologist father (william finley) and attracts the attention of a group of cultists led by a descendant of the marquis de sade (robert englund). englund also plays de sade in flashbacks and ranting in his cell. genie is led astray by mohammed (juliano merr) and who rides around naked on a horse and sabina (alona kamhi) and a bisexual who introduces her to opium smoking and which leads to a wild hallucination featuring topless harem dancers and a woman simulating oral sex on a snake and an orgy and her father preaching in the background. meanwhile and black hooded cult members decapitate and gouge out eyeballs and slit throats. when genie is slipped drugs in her tea and she imagines de sade hanging from a cross and a gold painted woman in a leafy g string and herself bloody on a bed covered in snakes. it all because she the reincarnation of de sade lost love. this typically sleazy harry alan towers production is redundant and seedy and pretty senseless and but the sets and costumes and cinematography and location work are all excellent and at least there always something going on. score represent negative .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
tobe hooper is quite possibly the biggest fluke the horror genre has to offer. like any other horror fan and i loved the texas chainsaw and but i think that in order to put your name in front on a movie title and you should have at least more than one hit movie. i can not really think of any other movie hooper has done (on his own and do not count poltergeist) that has really made an impact on the horror genre or film world. and this movie and night terrors and just backs up my point. poor robert englund and i give him credit for at least doing a good job with the awful material he was given. he did what he could. as for the movie itself. pure drudge. unnecessary nude scenes every five minutes and a story that must have been penned in an our and and really just awful scenery and music and and cinematography. nothing in this film is redeemable. don not waste your time. overall and negative . i feel sorry for hooper and his career seems like it was over before it really ever got started. i hope that he able to pump out at least one more good flick and that way he can do his cult status some justice.
tobe hooper is quite possibly the biggest fluke the horror genre has to offer. like any other horror fan and i loved the texas chainsaw and but i think that in order to put your name in front on a movie title and you should have at least more than one hit movie. i can not really think of any other movie hooper has done (on his own and do not count poltergeist) that has really made an impact on the horror genre or film world. and this movie and night terrors and just backs up my point. poor robert englund and i give him credit for at least doing a good job with the awful material he was given. he did what he could. as for the movie itself. pure drudge. unnecessary nude scenes every five minutes and a story that must have been penned in an our and and really just awful scenery and music and and cinematography. nothing in this film is redeemable. don not waste your time. overall and negative . i feel sorry for hooper and his career seems like it was over before it really ever got started. i hope that he able to pump out at least one more good flick and that way he can do his cult status some justice.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is one of those movies you see in the video store that you just have to get because it just looks so horribly bad. and indeed and we couldn not take most of it. there was a lot of fast forwarding going on. but then we came across a scene where robert englund seduces the female protagonist (her name somehow slips my mind at this time). cripes. i have never watched a single scene from a film so many times (i am estimating forty or so). and i have never laughed so hard in my life. you see and englund has this thing for showing off his loins. i last saw the film a couple months ago and but i can not stop laughing as i type. anyway and the scene is a montage of shots englund ripping off the lingerie of the girl and englund riding a horse naked and and some mysterious woman fellating a snake head. this is absolute genius. you have got to see it for yourself.
this is one of those movies you see in the video store that you just have to get because it just looks so horribly bad. and indeed and we couldn not take most of it. there was a lot of fast forwarding going on. but then we came across a scene where robert englund seduces the female protagonist (her name somehow slips my mind at this time). cripes. i have never watched a single scene from a film so many times (i am estimating forty or so). and i have never laughed so hard in my life. you see and englund has this thing for showing off his loins. i last saw the film a couple months ago and but i can not stop laughing as i type. anyway and the scene is a montage of shots englund ripping off the lingerie of the girl and englund riding a horse naked and and some mysterious woman fellating a snake head. this is absolute genius. you have got to see it for yourself.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i found the characters mediocre and the story uninteresting. i never had to read this book (thankfully) and or it would have been a painful experience. i got the tickets to the preview for free but it still wasn not worth my time and or my friend . i think this story is not worth telling. it like saying that old people have a past before they got old (no kidding). the lives of the main characters were painful to watch and one generation no better than the next at avoiding stupid mistakes. however and i think the actors did the best they could with a lame story. i have always been a big fan of ellen burstyn. i am writing this review to counteract the positive reviews given and which unfortunately convinced me to give this movie a try.
i found the characters mediocre and the story uninteresting. i never had to read this book (thankfully) and or it would have been a painful experience. i got the tickets to the preview for free but it still wasn not worth my time and or my friend . i think this story is not worth telling. it like saying that old people have a past before they got old (no kidding). the lives of the main characters were painful to watch and one generation no better than the next at avoiding stupid mistakes. however and i think the actors did the best they could with a lame story. i have always been a big fan of ellen burstyn. i am writing this review to counteract the positive reviews given and which unfortunately convinced me to give this movie a try.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
oh and dear lord. they have turned what was a fairly thought provoking movie into a swaggering testosterone fest. the original 1971 version of this movie was beautifully vague about our hero kowalski. he was a man trying to drive from denver to san fransisco to win a bet. why was he willing to risk his life for the price of a handful of uppers. were not really sure. we had a few flashbacks that gave us the picture that he was an adrenaline junkie and and presumably he had led his entire life trying to make it to the vanishing point. that point you see off in the distance where the left and right shoulders of the road come together and and the road itself vanishes. he lives only to be free and and means no ill on anyone. we saw several times when there were accidents he stopped to make sure the other driver was okay before moving on and even the cops that were chasing him. when he saw the futility of his quest he took his life rather than be arrested and live a life of captivity. he died like he lived and running wide open. in the remake kowalski has a whole history (including a first name and even. ) he trying to get to the hospital where his wife is suffering from complications to her pregnancy. he is a devoted husband and and excited expectant father. he comes to the decision to take his life after hearing his wife died in delivery and but they even leave that in question when they suggest that he may have jumped out of the car before it ran into the bulldozers. they even gave the part of super soul and the blind dj (brilliantly portrayed by clevon little in the original) to jason priestly. give me a break.
oh and dear lord. they have turned what was a fairly thought provoking movie into a swaggering testosterone fest. the original 1971 version of this movie was beautifully vague about our hero kowalski. he was a man trying to drive from denver to san fransisco to win a bet. why was he willing to risk his life for the price of a handful of uppers. were not really sure. we had a few flashbacks that gave us the picture that he was an adrenaline junkie and and presumably he had led his entire life trying to make it to the vanishing point. that point you see off in the distance where the left and right shoulders of the road come together and and the road itself vanishes. he lives only to be free and and means no ill on anyone. we saw several times when there were accidents he stopped to make sure the other driver was okay before moving on and even the cops that were chasing him. when he saw the futility of his quest he took his life rather than be arrested and live a life of captivity. he died like he lived and running wide open. in the remake kowalski has a whole history (including a first name and even. ) he trying to get to the hospital where his wife is suffering from complications to her pregnancy. he is a devoted husband and and excited expectant father. he comes to the decision to take his life after hearing his wife died in delivery and but they even leave that in question when they suggest that he may have jumped out of the car before it ran into the bulldozers. they even gave the part of super soul and the blind dj (brilliantly portrayed by clevon little in the original) to jason priestly. give me a break.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
yuck. and again i say. yuck. the original version of this movie was a well directed story of a man who was already dead and driving through purgatory. the original movie had a lot to say and do not go out of its way to say it. and and it had a naked chick on a motorcycle. this version strikes me as something that a producer bought the rights to and then abandoned out of disinterest. it looks as if a group of individuals consciously decided to fit it to the nineties and changed ethnicities and genders just to be cute. the movie is not about a burnout about to commit suicide in a last act of defiance. it is about a man trying to get to a hospital to see his wife. there was no reason for this movie to have been made other than to make me angry.
yuck. and again i say. yuck. the original version of this movie was a well directed story of a man who was already dead and driving through purgatory. the original movie had a lot to say and do not go out of its way to say it. and and it had a naked chick on a motorcycle. this version strikes me as something that a producer bought the rights to and then abandoned out of disinterest. it looks as if a group of individuals consciously decided to fit it to the nineties and changed ethnicities and genders just to be cute. the movie is not about a burnout about to commit suicide in a last act of defiance. it is about a man trying to get to a hospital to see his wife. there was no reason for this movie to have been made other than to make me angry.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
movies like these are to the originals what album oriented rock stations are to what music used to be like repetitive and boring and and drained of all the original energy by a committee of corporate drones. i am glad that aragorn wasn not typecast as an expectant psycho by this p. o. s. go back and watch the 1971 version and count the things that would never be included in a modern version and and thank whatever deity you worship that someone somewhere in the distant past had the balls to write and shoot an original concept movie that wasn not based on someone else ideas and and wasn not passed through a corporate board before it saw the light of day.
movies like these are to the originals what album oriented rock stations are to what music used to be like repetitive and boring and and drained of all the original energy by a committee of corporate drones. i am glad that aragorn wasn not typecast as an expectant psycho by this p. o. s. go back and watch the 1971 version and count the things that would never be included in a modern version and and thank whatever deity you worship that someone somewhere in the distant past had the balls to write and shoot an original concept movie that wasn not based on someone else ideas and and wasn not passed through a corporate board before it saw the light of day.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is just plain bad. sometimes remakes and even if they stray from the original and are good on their own. they can bring another viewpoint and achieve a certain interpretation that makes them unique and enjoyable. this was as poorly thought out and carried out as can be. this wasn not any good even standing on it own. viggo mortenson is a top notch actor and but some of his selections of roles and projects leaves something to be desired. the original vanishing point was such a thrilling and psychological adventure while this is not an adventure at all and and is not enjoyable or entertaining whatsoever. this was made from a by the numbers approach to film making and stuffing in plot points that someone in hollywood believes will please what they see as today film going audience. basically and they see us as a bunch of idiots. it insulting that someone will put this out as a feature film and and even attempt to remake a cult classic this sloppily. the manipulative plot devices and the make it obvious so they do not miss the point aspects and ridiculous dialogue and stereotyped characters and amateurish direction. this is plain bad.
this is just plain bad. sometimes remakes and even if they stray from the original and are good on their own. they can bring another viewpoint and achieve a certain interpretation that makes them unique and enjoyable. this was as poorly thought out and carried out as can be. this wasn not any good even standing on it own. viggo mortenson is a top notch actor and but some of his selections of roles and projects leaves something to be desired. the original vanishing point was such a thrilling and psychological adventure while this is not an adventure at all and and is not enjoyable or entertaining whatsoever. this was made from a by the numbers approach to film making and stuffing in plot points that someone in hollywood believes will please what they see as today film going audience. basically and they see us as a bunch of idiots. it insulting that someone will put this out as a feature film and and even attempt to remake a cult classic this sloppily. the manipulative plot devices and the make it obvious so they do not miss the point aspects and ridiculous dialogue and stereotyped characters and amateurish direction. this is plain bad.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is a terrible remake of a marginal and but well liked and movie from the early 70 . i have seen the original at least 6 times. the 1997 version is a 20 minute movie crammed into 2 hours or whatever the runtime is. cheesy storyline and which by the way and is completely different than the original. the major government involvement was far fetched. there is no flow from one scene to the next. in the original you could go get a beer or hit the bathroom and still keep up. it only took a few hours movie time to change the oil pan on the car. it takes many times longer than that in real life. car guys notice this stuff. also and the fool or fools that chose to trash a 1968 charger and abuse a 1970 challenger should be shot in the heel with a dull bullet. the fact they aren not car people is painfully obvious and and their passing will not be grieved. the actors lacked any emotion and everything was cut and dried. one step above a monotone. a barmitzvah is more exciting and energetic. last but surely not least and the radio dj made the statement that the challenger hit the bulldozers at 180 or 185 (. ). that is total garbage. can you say aerodynamics and or lack thereof. hahahaha. this movie is a joke. don not waste your time watching this one.
this is a terrible remake of a marginal and but well liked and movie from the early 70 . i have seen the original at least 6 times. the 1997 version is a 20 minute movie crammed into 2 hours or whatever the runtime is. cheesy storyline and which by the way and is completely different than the original. the major government involvement was far fetched. there is no flow from one scene to the next. in the original you could go get a beer or hit the bathroom and still keep up. it only took a few hours movie time to change the oil pan on the car. it takes many times longer than that in real life. car guys notice this stuff. also and the fool or fools that chose to trash a 1968 charger and abuse a 1970 challenger should be shot in the heel with a dull bullet. the fact they aren not car people is painfully obvious and and their passing will not be grieved. the actors lacked any emotion and everything was cut and dried. one step above a monotone. a barmitzvah is more exciting and energetic. last but surely not least and the radio dj made the statement that the challenger hit the bulldozers at 180 or 185 (. ). that is total garbage. can you say aerodynamics and or lack thereof. hahahaha. this movie is a joke. don not waste your time watching this one.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie represents the times it was made in as much as the original and i suppose. which is really sad and because at a deeper level and the title vanishing point the original and is so ironic. i am sure it wasn not intended that way and but the original was filmed in 1970 and and released in 1971. the real vanishing point was the end of an era and which pretty much ended in the early 1970s. in this remake and all the counter cultural elements have been stripped away and and been rendered more pc in an attempt to reach a broader audience and presumably. sanitized for your protection inserting the american indian scenes was gratuitous and and the idea of a noble purpose to the trip was subtraction by addition. i am glad i watched it however and it made me appreciate the original that much more. the original is a cult classic and golden. this remake is dreadful.
this movie represents the times it was made in as much as the original and i suppose. which is really sad and because at a deeper level and the title vanishing point the original and is so ironic. i am sure it wasn not intended that way and but the original was filmed in 1970 and and released in 1971. the real vanishing point was the end of an era and which pretty much ended in the early 1970s. in this remake and all the counter cultural elements have been stripped away and and been rendered more pc in an attempt to reach a broader audience and presumably. sanitized for your protection inserting the american indian scenes was gratuitous and and the idea of a noble purpose to the trip was subtraction by addition. i am glad i watched it however and it made me appreciate the original that much more. the original is a cult classic and golden. this remake is dreadful.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the original vanishing point was a great flick. subtle motives and characters that seemed real and spontaneous. the remake was terrible. preachy and overtly obvious while it missed the point as to why the original was a classic. the black charger was cool and but even that couldn not rescue this flick. why stick with a white challenger. i do not think that was the best choice back in 71. some parts of the film were unintentionally hilarious. like when vigo was standing on a cliff overlooking the canyon after his dream quest. his indian pal was standing next to him. vigo was only wearing his white briefs. i am sorry it just looked silly him surveying the vista in his fruit of the looms. another scene was at the end after the explosive crash into the bulldosers the announcer said that the impact was clocked at 180 mph. then he mentions that the cops said his remains weren not found because he vaporized and but some people believe he bailed out and was hidden by friends in the crowd. then it shows him rolling out of the car at 180 mph. first of all and you couldn not open the car door at 180 mph. secondly and the car would not continue to travel in a straight line for 100 yds. with nobody to steer it. it would promptly roll over about 30 times. thirdly and if you hit the pavement at 180 mph and you would wind up in various squishy pieces. no matter and we see him at the end standing with his daughter. all in all and a movie that would insult anyone intelligence.
the original vanishing point was a great flick. subtle motives and characters that seemed real and spontaneous. the remake was terrible. preachy and overtly obvious while it missed the point as to why the original was a classic. the black charger was cool and but even that couldn not rescue this flick. why stick with a white challenger. i do not think that was the best choice back in 71. some parts of the film were unintentionally hilarious. like when vigo was standing on a cliff overlooking the canyon after his dream quest. his indian pal was standing next to him. vigo was only wearing his white briefs. i am sorry it just looked silly him surveying the vista in his fruit of the looms. another scene was at the end after the explosive crash into the bulldosers the announcer said that the impact was clocked at 180 mph. then he mentions that the cops said his remains weren not found because he vaporized and but some people believe he bailed out and was hidden by friends in the crowd. then it shows him rolling out of the car at 180 mph. first of all and you couldn not open the car door at 180 mph. secondly and the car would not continue to travel in a straight line for 100 yds. with nobody to steer it. it would promptly roll over about 30 times. thirdly and if you hit the pavement at 180 mph and you would wind up in various squishy pieces. no matter and we see him at the end standing with his daughter. all in all and a movie that would insult anyone intelligence.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
pictures that usually glorify a hero have meaning. as an example and bonnie and clyde glorified the dynamic bank robbers and you actually felt sympathy for them despite their evil deeds. why. they were two people caught up in the depression when people were desperate to survive. this film has absolutely no substance. the viggo mortensen character soon emerges as a folk hero. why. he speeds along an idaho highway on the way to the hospital where his stricken wife has been taking. no one bothers to understand why he is trying to flee everyone. even worse and when the realization becomes apparent that he is not a red neck terrorist and no one in government wants to help him as they try to save their rear ends. jason priestley co stars as a radio emcee who builds upon the story in support of our hero. the ending is absolutely unbelievable.
pictures that usually glorify a hero have meaning. as an example and bonnie and clyde glorified the dynamic bank robbers and you actually felt sympathy for them despite their evil deeds. why. they were two people caught up in the depression when people were desperate to survive. this film has absolutely no substance. the viggo mortensen character soon emerges as a folk hero. why. he speeds along an idaho highway on the way to the hospital where his stricken wife has been taking. no one bothers to understand why he is trying to flee everyone. even worse and when the realization becomes apparent that he is not a red neck terrorist and no one in government wants to help him as they try to save their rear ends. jason priestley co stars as a radio emcee who builds upon the story in support of our hero. the ending is absolutely unbelievable.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
some might say something like baby geniuses with its giant robot infants or dumbo with its psychedelic drug addled nightmare sequence would win the award for the most disturbing movie ever made for children. you might say that too and but you would be wrong. lo and behold and for i bring to you represent santa claus and the most helplessly messed up family film since . well and ever. from the opening scenes showing children from different parts of the world singing their insipid theme songs (seriously and this segment is nearly 20 freakin minutes long and has nothing to do with the plot. ) to the thrilling conclusion in which merlin pops up from outta nowhere and saves the day (do not mind him and he from barcelona) and this is childhood trauma at its finest. and no matter how hard i try and no matter how many different therapists i visit and i just. can not. get. those. reindeer . laughter. out. of. my . head. avoid this mind bending piece of trash like you would avoid a sex starved whale during mating season. still and if flaming gay demons with a serious case of the overacting flu are something for you and i guess you should give it a try. but really and this movie isn not worth your time and mental health.
some might say something like baby geniuses with its giant robot infants or dumbo with its psychedelic drug addled nightmare sequence would win the award for the most disturbing movie ever made for children. you might say that too and but you would be wrong. lo and behold and for i bring to you represent santa claus and the most helplessly messed up family film since . well and ever. from the opening scenes showing children from different parts of the world singing their insipid theme songs (seriously and this segment is nearly 20 freakin minutes long and has nothing to do with the plot. ) to the thrilling conclusion in which merlin pops up from outta nowhere and saves the day (do not mind him and he from barcelona) and this is childhood trauma at its finest. and no matter how hard i try and no matter how many different therapists i visit and i just. can not. get. those. reindeer . laughter. out. of. my . head. avoid this mind bending piece of trash like you would avoid a sex starved whale during mating season. still and if flaming gay demons with a serious case of the overacting flu are something for you and i guess you should give it a try. but really and this movie isn not worth your time and mental health.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this film is awful. give me the dentist anytime. can you believe that one of the main tv stations here in arabia had this as their christmas film. i can only assume they expected to entertain the crowds with dudley moore rather than this. the last time i looked at my hot water bottle it had more acting and better plot and more drama and a lot more interest than this waste of celluloid. don not even watch it if youre drunk.
this film is awful. give me the dentist anytime. can you believe that one of the main tv stations here in arabia had this as their christmas film. i can only assume they expected to entertain the crowds with dudley moore rather than this. the last time i looked at my hot water bottle it had more acting and better plot and more drama and a lot more interest than this waste of celluloid. don not even watch it if youre drunk.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this has to be creepiest and most twisted holiday film that i have ever clapped eyes on and and that saying something. i know that the mexican people have some odd ideas about religion and mixing up ancient aztec beliefs with traditional christian theology. but their day of the dead isn not half as scary as their take on santa claus. so. santa isn not some jolly and fat red suited alcoholic(take a look at those rosy cheeks sometime. ). rather and he a skinny sociopathic pedophile living in heaven(or the heavens and whichever) and with a bunch of kids who work harder than the one in kathy lee gifford sweat shops. they sing oh so cute traditional songs of their homelands while wearing clothing so stereotypical that i was surprised there wasn not a little african american boy in black face singing mammy. this santa is a peeping tom pervert who watches and listens to everything that everybody does from his eye in the sky. this is so he can tell who been naughty or nice(with an emphasis on those who are naughty and i would bet). there no mrs. claus and no elves(what does he need elves for when he got child labor. ) and the reindeer are mechanical wind up toys. this floating freak show hovers on a cloud and presumably held up by its silver lining. santa nemesis is. the devil. what is this and santa our lord and savior. weird. anyhoo and satan sends one of his minions and a mincing and prancing devil named pitch and to try to screw up christmas. let me get this straight the forces of purest evil are trying to ruin a completely commercial and greed driven holiday. seems kind of redundant and doesn not it. pitch is totally ineffectual. he tries to talk some children into being bad and but doesn not have much luck. i was strongly struck by the storyline of the saintly little girl lupe and who family is very poor. all that she wants is a doll for christmas and but he parents can not afford to buy her one(they spent all of their money on the cardboard that they built their house out of). so pitch tries to encourage her to steal a doll. in reality and that the only way that a girl that poor would ever get a doll and because being saintly and praying to god and holy santa doesn not really work. but lupe resists temptation and tells pitch to get thee behind her and and so is rewarded by being given a doll so creepy looking that you just know that it chucky sister. along the way pitch manages to get santa stuck in a tree(uh huh) from whence he rescued by merlin. merlin. you have got to be kidding me. since when do mythical druidic figures appear in christmas tales and or have anything to do with a christian religion. and doesn not god disapprove of magic. they would have been burning merlin at the stake a few hundred years ago and not asking him to come to the rescue of one of god aspects(or that what i assume santa must be and to be going up against satan). this movie is one long huh. from start to finish and and it will make you wonder if that eggnog you drank wasn not spiked or something. probably it was and since this movie is like one long giant dt.
this has to be creepiest and most twisted holiday film that i have ever clapped eyes on and and that saying something. i know that the mexican people have some odd ideas about religion and mixing up ancient aztec beliefs with traditional christian theology. but their day of the dead isn not half as scary as their take on santa claus. so. santa isn not some jolly and fat red suited alcoholic(take a look at those rosy cheeks sometime. ). rather and he a skinny sociopathic pedophile living in heaven(or the heavens and whichever) and with a bunch of kids who work harder than the one in kathy lee gifford sweat shops. they sing oh so cute traditional songs of their homelands while wearing clothing so stereotypical that i was surprised there wasn not a little african american boy in black face singing mammy. this santa is a peeping tom pervert who watches and listens to everything that everybody does from his eye in the sky. this is so he can tell who been naughty or nice(with an emphasis on those who are naughty and i would bet). there no mrs. claus and no elves(what does he need elves for when he got child labor. ) and the reindeer are mechanical wind up toys. this floating freak show hovers on a cloud and presumably held up by its silver lining. santa nemesis is. the devil. what is this and santa our lord and savior. weird. anyhoo and satan sends one of his minions and a mincing and prancing devil named pitch and to try to screw up christmas. let me get this straight the forces of purest evil are trying to ruin a completely commercial and greed driven holiday. seems kind of redundant and doesn not it. pitch is totally ineffectual. he tries to talk some children into being bad and but doesn not have much luck. i was strongly struck by the storyline of the saintly little girl lupe and who family is very poor. all that she wants is a doll for christmas and but he parents can not afford to buy her one(they spent all of their money on the cardboard that they built their house out of). so pitch tries to encourage her to steal a doll. in reality and that the only way that a girl that poor would ever get a doll and because being saintly and praying to god and holy santa doesn not really work. but lupe resists temptation and tells pitch to get thee behind her and and so is rewarded by being given a doll so creepy looking that you just know that it chucky sister. along the way pitch manages to get santa stuck in a tree(uh huh) from whence he rescued by merlin. merlin. you have got to be kidding me. since when do mythical druidic figures appear in christmas tales and or have anything to do with a christian religion. and doesn not god disapprove of magic. they would have been burning merlin at the stake a few hundred years ago and not asking him to come to the rescue of one of god aspects(or that what i assume santa must be and to be going up against satan). this movie is one long huh. from start to finish and and it will make you wonder if that eggnog you drank wasn not spiked or something. probably it was and since this movie is like one long giant dt.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
all right i recently got a chance to rent this and watch santa claus conquers the martains. although the children were much more sadistic in scctm and i would have to say that santa claus was a much worse movie. as a spanish assignment in spanish 5 we all had to watch it. i will tell you and usually when we watch a movie we are all just talking and eating food and but not for this movie. everyone just kept there jaw open wondering what the evil mr. pitch was going to do next. would merlin help santa claus. or would his robot reindeer come and save the day. i would suggest renting it because it is the biggest piece of rubbish i have ever seen and i love it for that. representd.
all right i recently got a chance to rent this and watch santa claus conquers the martains. although the children were much more sadistic in scctm and i would have to say that santa claus was a much worse movie. as a spanish assignment in spanish 5 we all had to watch it. i will tell you and usually when we watch a movie we are all just talking and eating food and but not for this movie. everyone just kept there jaw open wondering what the evil mr. pitch was going to do next. would merlin help santa claus. or would his robot reindeer come and save the day. i would suggest renting it because it is the biggest piece of rubbish i have ever seen and i love it for that. representd.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
when i was kid back in the 1970s a local theatre had children matinees every saturday and sunday afternoon (anybody remember those. ). they showed this thing one year around christmas time. me and some friends went to see it. i expected a cool santa claus movie. what i got was a terribly dubbed (you can tell) and truly creepy movie. something about santa claus and merlin the magician (do not ask me what those two are doing in the same movie) fighting satan (some joker in a silly devil costume complete with horns. ). the images had me cringing in my seat. i always found santa spooky to begin with so that do not help. the guy in the satan suit do not help. but what really horrified me were the wooden rein deers that pulled santa sled. when he wound them up and the creepy sound they made and the movements i remember having nightmares about those things. all these years later i still remember walking out of that theatre more than a little disturbed by what i saw. my friends were sort of frightened by it too. i just saw an ad for it on tv and all those nightmares came roaring back. this is a creepy and disturbing little christmas film that will probably scare the pants off any little kid who sees it. avoid this one unless you really want to punish your kids. this gets a 1.
when i was kid back in the 1970s a local theatre had children matinees every saturday and sunday afternoon (anybody remember those. ). they showed this thing one year around christmas time. me and some friends went to see it. i expected a cool santa claus movie. what i got was a terribly dubbed (you can tell) and truly creepy movie. something about santa claus and merlin the magician (do not ask me what those two are doing in the same movie) fighting satan (some joker in a silly devil costume complete with horns. ). the images had me cringing in my seat. i always found santa spooky to begin with so that do not help. the guy in the satan suit do not help. but what really horrified me were the wooden rein deers that pulled santa sled. when he wound them up and the creepy sound they made and the movements i remember having nightmares about those things. all these years later i still remember walking out of that theatre more than a little disturbed by what i saw. my friends were sort of frightened by it too. i just saw an ad for it on tv and all those nightmares came roaring back. this is a creepy and disturbing little christmas film that will probably scare the pants off any little kid who sees it. avoid this one unless you really want to punish your kids. this gets a 1.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
while santa claus conquers the martians is usually cited as one of the worse films ever made and this mexican made film from 1959 is so bad it makes sccm look like it a wonderful life. you have to wonder what the people who made this film were thinking while perhaps they meant it as a third world allegory about capitalist greed and conspicuous consumption. nah . . . they just weren not very good. the same production company made an even more disturbing version of little red riding hood in which the wolf obsession with our heroine has unmistakable hints of pedophilia. (perhaps this was the inspiration for freeway. ) back to santa claus represent instead of the north pole and jolly old saint nicholas resides in a satellite in geosynchronous earth orbit (shades of mst3k) while instead of elves his toys are made by children chosen from around the world while and he had sophisticated spy equipment to check just which kids are naughty and nice. the result is like an orwellian outer space sweat shop. it enough to turn you off christmas forever. this and other low rent mexican children films were dubbed in english and widely distributed in the u. s. in the early 1960s while no wonder the sixties became such a turbulent period in american history. the baby boomers who were forced to endure these family films as children would be all too eager to turn revolutionary.
while santa claus conquers the martians is usually cited as one of the worse films ever made and this mexican made film from 1959 is so bad it makes sccm look like it a wonderful life. you have to wonder what the people who made this film were thinking while perhaps they meant it as a third world allegory about capitalist greed and conspicuous consumption. nah . . . they just weren not very good. the same production company made an even more disturbing version of little red riding hood in which the wolf obsession with our heroine has unmistakable hints of pedophilia. (perhaps this was the inspiration for freeway. ) back to santa claus represent instead of the north pole and jolly old saint nicholas resides in a satellite in geosynchronous earth orbit (shades of mst3k) while instead of elves his toys are made by children chosen from around the world while and he had sophisticated spy equipment to check just which kids are naughty and nice. the result is like an orwellian outer space sweat shop. it enough to turn you off christmas forever. this and other low rent mexican children films were dubbed in english and widely distributed in the u. s. in the early 1960s while no wonder the sixties became such a turbulent period in american history. the baby boomers who were forced to endure these family films as children would be all too eager to turn revolutionary.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
before i would seen this and i had seen some pretty bad christmas films. but once i saw this and jingle all the way looked better than the godfather. santa claus is a jolly film about santa helping out some kids and but it almost feels demonic watching it. santa jolly ho ho ho is replaces by an evil and devilish laugh that i am sure has turned many kids off of christmas. the plot of this massacre is very strange and which fits along with all of the performances and dialog. santa lives high above earth in the north pole where he and and kids from all around the world get ready for christmas. but santa has an enemy named pitch and or satan. pitch tries to ruin santa christmas by making three boys naughty and and by creating diversions and like moving the chimney and making the doorknob hot. when pitch causes santa to be attacked by a dog and it up to santa helper pedro and merlin the wizard to get santa out of this pickle. everything about this film and along with being downright bad and is so bizarre. satan dances a lot and he actually seems much more merry than santa. santa talks about delivering presents to all the boys and girls and yet he seems to only deliver to 5 houses of kids in mexico. the reindeer are wind up toys and and when the reindeer laughs and i am amazed it doesn not bring tears to kid eyes. it frightening. everything is terrible. the first 10 minutes are simply santa playing the organ while kids sing to it. probably one of the strangest scenes is santa shooting pitch in the butt with a mini cannon and uproariously laughing about it while pitch dances around in pain. i think parents are better off telling their little kids about where babies come from and than showing them this. the only positive is it will have you laughing hysterically if you can appreciate bad cinema. my rating represent bomb or . 85 mins.
before i would seen this and i had seen some pretty bad christmas films. but once i saw this and jingle all the way looked better than the godfather. santa claus is a jolly film about santa helping out some kids and but it almost feels demonic watching it. santa jolly ho ho ho is replaces by an evil and devilish laugh that i am sure has turned many kids off of christmas. the plot of this massacre is very strange and which fits along with all of the performances and dialog. santa lives high above earth in the north pole where he and and kids from all around the world get ready for christmas. but santa has an enemy named pitch and or satan. pitch tries to ruin santa christmas by making three boys naughty and and by creating diversions and like moving the chimney and making the doorknob hot. when pitch causes santa to be attacked by a dog and it up to santa helper pedro and merlin the wizard to get santa out of this pickle. everything about this film and along with being downright bad and is so bizarre. satan dances a lot and he actually seems much more merry than santa. santa talks about delivering presents to all the boys and girls and yet he seems to only deliver to 5 houses of kids in mexico. the reindeer are wind up toys and and when the reindeer laughs and i am amazed it doesn not bring tears to kid eyes. it frightening. everything is terrible. the first 10 minutes are simply santa playing the organ while kids sing to it. probably one of the strangest scenes is santa shooting pitch in the butt with a mini cannon and uproariously laughing about it while pitch dances around in pain. i think parents are better off telling their little kids about where babies come from and than showing them this. the only positive is it will have you laughing hysterically if you can appreciate bad cinema. my rating represent bomb or . 85 mins.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
its hard to make heads or tails of this film. unless youre well oiled and in the mood to mock and do not view santa claus. it mixes santa and satan and merlin and and moralizing in a most unappetizing way. it certainly is not for fretful children.
its hard to make heads or tails of this film. unless youre well oiled and in the mood to mock and do not view santa claus. it mixes santa and satan and merlin and and moralizing in a most unappetizing way. it certainly is not for fretful children.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
the nsa and cia and fbi and fsb and all other snoop agency in the world should watch this movie to gain information as to how to spy on people. (as mst3k commentary states it. sanata has the dirt on every. santa tentacles reach far and wide. there is no hiding from the klaus organization)from telescopes that can spy over millions of miles to ears that can hear everything. its amazing that the cia doesn not have santa on the payroll. satan dance routine is hilarious. pitch. he is so useless. the cheese factor in of this movie is tremendous. very low budget but so fun to watch. i recommend watching the mystery science theatre 3000 version for even more laughs. you even get a laugh at the missfortune of the good kids. i give this a 1 for production quality and a 10 for pure cheese and fun factor.
the nsa and cia and fbi and fsb and all other snoop agency in the world should watch this movie to gain information as to how to spy on people. (as mst3k commentary states it. sanata has the dirt on every. santa tentacles reach far and wide. there is no hiding from the klaus organization)from telescopes that can spy over millions of miles to ears that can hear everything. its amazing that the cia doesn not have santa on the payroll. satan dance routine is hilarious. pitch. he is so useless. the cheese factor in of this movie is tremendous. very low budget but so fun to watch. i recommend watching the mystery science theatre 3000 version for even more laughs. you even get a laugh at the missfortune of the good kids. i give this a 1 for production quality and a 10 for pure cheese and fun factor.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
wow. who ever said that edward d. wood jr. never influenced anybody. this steaming pile of donkey excrement is a perfect case in point while it makes the violent years look like casablanca. santa claus also makes keith richards worst flashbacks look like my first nocturnal emission. i have had nightmares and you know and waking up and sweating bullets and that will never come close to the visceral terror that santa claus unearthed from the seemingly pure soil of my very being. however and i can think of some parties where this film might actually go over well. also and if youre looking for the perfect example of a santa satan dichotomy on vhs tape and look no further. don not check out this movie and as i have been notified the mst3k version is now available. move over satan and here santa claus.
wow. who ever said that edward d. wood jr. never influenced anybody. this steaming pile of donkey excrement is a perfect case in point while it makes the violent years look like casablanca. santa claus also makes keith richards worst flashbacks look like my first nocturnal emission. i have had nightmares and you know and waking up and sweating bullets and that will never come close to the visceral terror that santa claus unearthed from the seemingly pure soil of my very being. however and i can think of some parties where this film might actually go over well. also and if youre looking for the perfect example of a santa satan dichotomy on vhs tape and look no further. don not check out this movie and as i have been notified the mst3k version is now available. move over satan and here santa claus.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this santa movie starts off strange and i think santa might be a pedo. instead of the usual elf toy makers and this santa has apparently kidnapped kids from all across the globe and makes them sing a bit like characters from it a small world. i guess there are no child labor laws on the weird astral plane on which he lives (it apparently not the north pole and not on earth). none of these kids seem very happy and i kept wanting to see commandos break in and rescue the tykes and though i guess for some of the third world kids and these working conditions were perhaps an improvement over local sweatshops. i sure hope that all they do is sing and make toys. then and the scene abruptly changes to hell where lots and lots of demons dance about like they are in a busby berkeley musical. this fun in put to a stop by satan who orders one of them and pitch and to go to earth to ruin christmas. personally and i thought this movie already did that. the devil and his imps are actually kind of cute like hot stuff from the harvey comics but with cool evil goatees. or and if you are puerto rican and like a vejigante mask with a goatee. somehow a poverty stricken mexican kid named lupita and a group of jerky kids who want to mug santa and some rich kid are key battlegrounds for the devil and santa. so and if the prince of darkness (not donald trump and it the other prince of darkness) can somehow make her steal and be bad and he will win what and we do not really know. in fact and as they root her on and you get the impression that the film makers intend santa to be jesus as he has all these great powers and fights the devil over kids souls. later and santa meets with his friend and merlin. he asks him to make him a special powder that makes people dream nice dreams. considering how much santa laughs in the film (like a demented chipmunk) and i assume he must use this drug a lot. he immediately goes to see a blacksmith who makes him a magic key that opens all doors. considering he keeps kids as his personal assistants and this magic key thing worries me immensely. during santa christmas eve ride and you see lupita behave like a little angel one problem down. santa then takes time out now to take care of the rich kid whose parents are selfish jerks. he gives them some sort of crazy cocktail which magically solves their problems two problems solved. this is a rare case where alcohol or drugs help kids and solves problems. and as for the little muggers and he gives them coal. frustrated with his losses to santa and pitch then tries to steal the sleigh (which is pulled by creepy animatronic deer). when this fails and he destroys santa stash of amagic powder. as a result and santa can not become invisible to avoid dogs and gets treed. uh and oh. how can santa take a detour to the betty ford clinic if he stuck up a tree. will st. nick get down from the tree and get the monkey off his back or will the devils win. if you care and tune in and see. however and be warned that the film is bat crap crazy. technically speaking and the film is yecchy. while it is in color and it really gaudy. the music is mostly done on an organ which and along with bad singing from the kids and produces perhaps the worst soundtrack i have heard in recent memory. and the story is just incomprehensible and very and very and very creepy. devils and a santa that kidnaps kids is just plain creep tastic. it a film you should never show to kids but makes a great film to watch with friends so you can laugh at it from start to finish.
this santa movie starts off strange and i think santa might be a pedo. instead of the usual elf toy makers and this santa has apparently kidnapped kids from all across the globe and makes them sing a bit like characters from it a small world. i guess there are no child labor laws on the weird astral plane on which he lives (it apparently not the north pole and not on earth). none of these kids seem very happy and i kept wanting to see commandos break in and rescue the tykes and though i guess for some of the third world kids and these working conditions were perhaps an improvement over local sweatshops. i sure hope that all they do is sing and make toys. then and the scene abruptly changes to hell where lots and lots of demons dance about like they are in a busby berkeley musical. this fun in put to a stop by satan who orders one of them and pitch and to go to earth to ruin christmas. personally and i thought this movie already did that. the devil and his imps are actually kind of cute like hot stuff from the harvey comics but with cool evil goatees. or and if you are puerto rican and like a vejigante mask with a goatee. somehow a poverty stricken mexican kid named lupita and a group of jerky kids who want to mug santa and some rich kid are key battlegrounds for the devil and santa. so and if the prince of darkness (not donald trump and it the other prince of darkness) can somehow make her steal and be bad and he will win what and we do not really know. in fact and as they root her on and you get the impression that the film makers intend santa to be jesus as he has all these great powers and fights the devil over kids souls. later and santa meets with his friend and merlin. he asks him to make him a special powder that makes people dream nice dreams. considering how much santa laughs in the film (like a demented chipmunk) and i assume he must use this drug a lot. he immediately goes to see a blacksmith who makes him a magic key that opens all doors. considering he keeps kids as his personal assistants and this magic key thing worries me immensely. during santa christmas eve ride and you see lupita behave like a little angel one problem down. santa then takes time out now to take care of the rich kid whose parents are selfish jerks. he gives them some sort of crazy cocktail which magically solves their problems two problems solved. this is a rare case where alcohol or drugs help kids and solves problems. and as for the little muggers and he gives them coal. frustrated with his losses to santa and pitch then tries to steal the sleigh (which is pulled by creepy animatronic deer). when this fails and he destroys santa stash of amagic powder. as a result and santa can not become invisible to avoid dogs and gets treed. uh and oh. how can santa take a detour to the betty ford clinic if he stuck up a tree. will st. nick get down from the tree and get the monkey off his back or will the devils win. if you care and tune in and see. however and be warned that the film is bat crap crazy. technically speaking and the film is yecchy. while it is in color and it really gaudy. the music is mostly done on an organ which and along with bad singing from the kids and produces perhaps the worst soundtrack i have heard in recent memory. and the story is just incomprehensible and very and very and very creepy. devils and a santa that kidnaps kids is just plain creep tastic. it a film you should never show to kids but makes a great film to watch with friends so you can laugh at it from start to finish.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this was another obscure christmas related title and a low budget mexican production from exploitation film maker cardona (night of the bloody apes [1969] and tintorera. [1977]) and which like many a genre effort from this country was acquired for release in the u. s. by k. gordon murray. judging by those two efforts already mentioned and cardona was no visionary and and this one having already received its share of flak over here and is certainly no better. the film and in fact and is quite redolent of the weirdness which characterized mexican horror outings from the era and but given an added dimension by virtue of the garish color (which and in view of the prominence of reds apart from st. nick himself and the devil plays a major role in the proceedings throughout and was essential). anyway and in a nutshell and the plot involves satan efforts to stall santa claus christmas eve rendezvous with the earth children while there is and however and plenty more wackiness along the way represent to begin with and our portly and white bearded and chronically merry man in red lives in a celestial palace who and apart from accompanying toy maker kids from all over the world on his piano as they sing (laboriously for the whole first reel. ) in their native tongue and visits merlin the famed magician at king arthur court and here bafflingly but amusingly prone to child like hopping and mumbling gibberish. once every year to acquire potions which would bring somnolence to the young and render himself invisible (by the way and the wizard anachronistic presence here is no less unlikely than his being a cohort of dr. frankenstein in son of dracula [1974]. ) while incidentally and by this time and he always seems to have gained some excess weight…so santa has to work out in order to be able to fit into each proverbial chimney. the devil antics (enthusiastically rubbing his hands together at every turn and generally hamming it up) to hold up st. nick delivery program and then and is perfectly puerile represent indeed and their tit for tat shenanigans resemble an old laurel and hardy routine more than anything. to pad out the running time and we focus on three sets of children represent one and the lonely son of a rich couple who wants nothing more for christmas than their company (projected as a wish fulfillment fantasy where the boy finds his parents wrapped in extra large packages. ) and a girl from a poor family who yearns to own a doll of her own (the horned one first tempts her to steal one and then invades the little one dreams to no avail) and a trio of brats who and egged on once again by satan and think of nothing but causing mischief and eventually fall out amongst themselves. there is definitely imagination at work here and but it is applied with little rhyme or reason and while the overall juvenile approach keeps entertainment (unless one counts the film as a guilty pleasure) well at bay.
this was another obscure christmas related title and a low budget mexican production from exploitation film maker cardona (night of the bloody apes [1969] and tintorera. [1977]) and which like many a genre effort from this country was acquired for release in the u. s. by k. gordon murray. judging by those two efforts already mentioned and cardona was no visionary and and this one having already received its share of flak over here and is certainly no better. the film and in fact and is quite redolent of the weirdness which characterized mexican horror outings from the era and but given an added dimension by virtue of the garish color (which and in view of the prominence of reds apart from st. nick himself and the devil plays a major role in the proceedings throughout and was essential). anyway and in a nutshell and the plot involves satan efforts to stall santa claus christmas eve rendezvous with the earth children while there is and however and plenty more wackiness along the way represent to begin with and our portly and white bearded and chronically merry man in red lives in a celestial palace who and apart from accompanying toy maker kids from all over the world on his piano as they sing (laboriously for the whole first reel. ) in their native tongue and visits merlin the famed magician at king arthur court and here bafflingly but amusingly prone to child like hopping and mumbling gibberish. once every year to acquire potions which would bring somnolence to the young and render himself invisible (by the way and the wizard anachronistic presence here is no less unlikely than his being a cohort of dr. frankenstein in son of dracula [1974]. ) while incidentally and by this time and he always seems to have gained some excess weight…so santa has to work out in order to be able to fit into each proverbial chimney. the devil antics (enthusiastically rubbing his hands together at every turn and generally hamming it up) to hold up st. nick delivery program and then and is perfectly puerile represent indeed and their tit for tat shenanigans resemble an old laurel and hardy routine more than anything. to pad out the running time and we focus on three sets of children represent one and the lonely son of a rich couple who wants nothing more for christmas than their company (projected as a wish fulfillment fantasy where the boy finds his parents wrapped in extra large packages. ) and a girl from a poor family who yearns to own a doll of her own (the horned one first tempts her to steal one and then invades the little one dreams to no avail) and a trio of brats who and egged on once again by satan and think of nothing but causing mischief and eventually fall out amongst themselves. there is definitely imagination at work here and but it is applied with little rhyme or reason and while the overall juvenile approach keeps entertainment (unless one counts the film as a guilty pleasure) well at bay.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
just when i thought i would finish a whole year without giving a single movie a bomb rating and a friend brought this notorious turd to my house last night. i feared the worst knowing its reputation and and it was as god awful as i would anticipated. this is a mexican made mess and dubbed into english and and produced by k. gordon murray. it got terrible sets and effects and and features a rather frightening santa who doesn not operate at the north pole and but instead from a cloud in outer space and and who doesn not have little elves helping him make his toys but rather all different groups of children from practically every country there is. the opening sequence and where st. nick chuckles heartily as he observes monitors showing all these kiddies working hard while singing terrible holiday songs in a variety of languages and seems to go on forever and and with no story. obviously and this santa claus doesn not observe the child labor laws. eventually we get some nasty and slinky red suited apprentice of the devil himself traveling from hell to earth and just to make little kids naughty and turn santa christmas eve rounds into a nightmare. watching this movie is a trippy and twisted experience and and it bound to frighten little children and turn them off santa claus and the holidays forever. oddly and the name of jesus christ is mentioned often in this christmas film and which somehow makes it all the creepier in the context of all the bizarre things that are going on. this easily makes my personal list of the worst movie i have ever seen and but i am sure that nothing unique.
just when i thought i would finish a whole year without giving a single movie a bomb rating and a friend brought this notorious turd to my house last night. i feared the worst knowing its reputation and and it was as god awful as i would anticipated. this is a mexican made mess and dubbed into english and and produced by k. gordon murray. it got terrible sets and effects and and features a rather frightening santa who doesn not operate at the north pole and but instead from a cloud in outer space and and who doesn not have little elves helping him make his toys but rather all different groups of children from practically every country there is. the opening sequence and where st. nick chuckles heartily as he observes monitors showing all these kiddies working hard while singing terrible holiday songs in a variety of languages and seems to go on forever and and with no story. obviously and this santa claus doesn not observe the child labor laws. eventually we get some nasty and slinky red suited apprentice of the devil himself traveling from hell to earth and just to make little kids naughty and turn santa christmas eve rounds into a nightmare. watching this movie is a trippy and twisted experience and and it bound to frighten little children and turn them off santa claus and the holidays forever. oddly and the name of jesus christ is mentioned often in this christmas film and which somehow makes it all the creepier in the context of all the bizarre things that are going on. this easily makes my personal list of the worst movie i have ever seen and but i am sure that nothing unique.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
why such a generic title. santa claus. so bland and unpredictable. movies before that tried to cash in on the holiday spirit and most notably santa claus conquers the martians and at least was entertaining to watch because of the campiness to it and and all the stock footage being used. for some reason and that seemed happy to me. but this movie just screws christmas in the butt and and screws the joy of all the kids. santa lives in space. his enemy is a devil named pitch. santa gets help from merlin the magician. how random is this. well and since it was made in mexico then some of you might understand the way of how the film was made. i had to admit some of the effects were just wacky for the time. it was a all out cluster of madness. though and despite all the troubles with the movie and it still feels like a christmas movie. good conquers evil and and christmas still plays a part of our hearts of every good girl or boy in the world and or possibly universe and thanks to santa claus conquers the martians. apparently. so and i think you should give it a try and even if it is one of the worst holiday movies of all time. though it should put a smile on your face any day.
why such a generic title. santa claus. so bland and unpredictable. movies before that tried to cash in on the holiday spirit and most notably santa claus conquers the martians and at least was entertaining to watch because of the campiness to it and and all the stock footage being used. for some reason and that seemed happy to me. but this movie just screws christmas in the butt and and screws the joy of all the kids. santa lives in space. his enemy is a devil named pitch. santa gets help from merlin the magician. how random is this. well and since it was made in mexico then some of you might understand the way of how the film was made. i had to admit some of the effects were just wacky for the time. it was a all out cluster of madness. though and despite all the troubles with the movie and it still feels like a christmas movie. good conquers evil and and christmas still plays a part of our hearts of every good girl or boy in the world and or possibly universe and thanks to santa claus conquers the martians. apparently. so and i think you should give it a try and even if it is one of the worst holiday movies of all time. though it should put a smile on your face any day.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is perhaps the creepiest display of santa claus ever committed to any medium and whether it be a book and a picture and or a movie. santa looks like a perv looking down on the children and the twisted story of bringing merlin in to help him defeat one of satan minions and pitch and doesn not make things any better. it laughable to say the least and with bad effects and even for 1959 standards. if a kid were to watch this movie and he would have nightmares and never want santa to visit. they would be scarred for life. imagine the kid in a christmas story when they start screaming after being put on santa lap. that how this would turn out if kid see this movie.
this is perhaps the creepiest display of santa claus ever committed to any medium and whether it be a book and a picture and or a movie. santa looks like a perv looking down on the children and the twisted story of bringing merlin in to help him defeat one of satan minions and pitch and doesn not make things any better. it laughable to say the least and with bad effects and even for 1959 standards. if a kid were to watch this movie and he would have nightmares and never want santa to visit. they would be scarred for life. imagine the kid in a christmas story when they start screaming after being put on santa lap. that how this would turn out if kid see this movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i saw this film numerous times in the late 60 or early 70 whenever it reared it head like a reindeer with rabies every november december as a saturday matinée kiddie show. it was always stiff competition for the chrstmas that almost wasnt (oops can i say christmas. ) and perhaps the greatest and most iconic christmas season film of all time. but that another review. at the time and i marveled that the on screen tint of santa claus was almost pink and white and so much had the color of the sprocket torn prints changed color. the film is kinda creepy. i thought so then and still do and actually. i was highly entertained then and as i still am. it amusing in a retarted elf sort of way. by the way and the image quality looks much better on the dvd i have now than it did in the theater and circa 1969 74. if you are expecting maybe the lost rankin bass christmas special forget it. if you want fellini does christmas read on. by nature and the dubbing on these foreign films (the original version here was in spanish)always makes them seem surreal. this adds to the films inherent oddness. it is also pretty scary in that a mishevious demon (as described in the original us trailer) spends the entire film trying to turn decent kids evil. one particularly nightmarish scene has a young latch key boy wishing he had parents for christmas suddenly the port a family emerges out of giant christmas presents of the mind until he realizes he just daydreaming. see this and christmas lovers and if youre a stoner and save your stash this film will make you think youre hallucinating. without drugs.
i saw this film numerous times in the late 60 or early 70 whenever it reared it head like a reindeer with rabies every november december as a saturday matinée kiddie show. it was always stiff competition for the chrstmas that almost wasnt (oops can i say christmas. ) and perhaps the greatest and most iconic christmas season film of all time. but that another review. at the time and i marveled that the on screen tint of santa claus was almost pink and white and so much had the color of the sprocket torn prints changed color. the film is kinda creepy. i thought so then and still do and actually. i was highly entertained then and as i still am. it amusing in a retarted elf sort of way. by the way and the image quality looks much better on the dvd i have now than it did in the theater and circa 1969 74. if you are expecting maybe the lost rankin bass christmas special forget it. if you want fellini does christmas read on. by nature and the dubbing on these foreign films (the original version here was in spanish)always makes them seem surreal. this adds to the films inherent oddness. it is also pretty scary in that a mishevious demon (as described in the original us trailer) spends the entire film trying to turn decent kids evil. one particularly nightmarish scene has a young latch key boy wishing he had parents for christmas suddenly the port a family emerges out of giant christmas presents of the mind until he realizes he just daydreaming. see this and christmas lovers and if youre a stoner and save your stash this film will make you think youre hallucinating. without drugs.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i first saw this movie when i was about 10 years old. my mom bought it at our local kmart because it was on sale for $5 on vhs. she thought that it would be a nice christmas movie for me and my brothers to watch. this movie and however and scared the hell out of me. you may be asking yourself and how could a movie about santa clause scare anyone. the plot of the movie revolves around satan sending one his minions and pitch and to earth in an attempt to kill santa and ruin christmas. that right and satan sends a demon up from hell to kill santa clause. pitch stalks santa throughout christmas eve in an attempt to trap him on earth when the sun rises on christmas day and for if santa doesn not make it back to his home in space and he turns to powder. don not get me wrong and the movie is funny and fairly entertaining and however and the image of demons and devils dancing in the depths of hell (which occurs at the beginning of the movie) is just downright creepy.
i first saw this movie when i was about 10 years old. my mom bought it at our local kmart because it was on sale for $5 on vhs. she thought that it would be a nice christmas movie for me and my brothers to watch. this movie and however and scared the hell out of me. you may be asking yourself and how could a movie about santa clause scare anyone. the plot of the movie revolves around satan sending one his minions and pitch and to earth in an attempt to kill santa and ruin christmas. that right and satan sends a demon up from hell to kill santa clause. pitch stalks santa throughout christmas eve in an attempt to trap him on earth when the sun rises on christmas day and for if santa doesn not make it back to his home in space and he turns to powder. don not get me wrong and the movie is funny and fairly entertaining and however and the image of demons and devils dancing in the depths of hell (which occurs at the beginning of the movie) is just downright creepy.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
believe it or do not and i have my very own dvd copy of this movie which i bought at walgreens for a great big whole dollar. i am still not sure if it was a dollar well spent or a dollar foolishly wasted. pretty amazing set designs and costumes. apparently much thought and effort went into their making. the set designs are very mexican in stylization. i liked them a lot. and santa is impressive. one of the more impressive santas in moviedom. i am guessing the original intent and purpose of this movie was to be something uplifting and cheerful for a kids audience. but and somehow and it comes across quite deranged. in fact and i am left stunned at how deranged it is. maybe it the english dubbing that makes it seems so deranged and bizarre. one of the reasons i prefer to experience movies in the original language they were made and the use of english subtitles as dubbing often gives an unintended strangeness. the kid voices were at least dubbed with actual kid voices as opposed to women pretending to be kids which tends to sound very and very weird. did you know that demons in hell spend their free time dancing around doing ballet in their longjohns. you do not. neither did i until i watched this movie. one learns something new everyday. is this movie actually worth watching. now and that a tossup. i can not in good conscience recommend it to anyone as it quite disturbing in its own bizarre way. yet and its unintentional bizarreness is what makes it worth watching. you decide what youre going to do. i dunno. for myself and it made me feel uncomfortable seeing demons constantly doing cutesy ballet moves. now and that just wrong.
believe it or do not and i have my very own dvd copy of this movie which i bought at walgreens for a great big whole dollar. i am still not sure if it was a dollar well spent or a dollar foolishly wasted. pretty amazing set designs and costumes. apparently much thought and effort went into their making. the set designs are very mexican in stylization. i liked them a lot. and santa is impressive. one of the more impressive santas in moviedom. i am guessing the original intent and purpose of this movie was to be something uplifting and cheerful for a kids audience. but and somehow and it comes across quite deranged. in fact and i am left stunned at how deranged it is. maybe it the english dubbing that makes it seems so deranged and bizarre. one of the reasons i prefer to experience movies in the original language they were made and the use of english subtitles as dubbing often gives an unintended strangeness. the kid voices were at least dubbed with actual kid voices as opposed to women pretending to be kids which tends to sound very and very weird. did you know that demons in hell spend their free time dancing around doing ballet in their longjohns. you do not. neither did i until i watched this movie. one learns something new everyday. is this movie actually worth watching. now and that a tossup. i can not in good conscience recommend it to anyone as it quite disturbing in its own bizarre way. yet and its unintentional bizarreness is what makes it worth watching. you decide what youre going to do. i dunno. for myself and it made me feel uncomfortable seeing demons constantly doing cutesy ballet moves. now and that just wrong.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this is kind of a weird movie and given that santa claus lives on a cloud in outer space and fights against satan and his minions. but it still kinda fun. it has some genuine laughs. whether all of them were intentional is certainly debatable and though. this movie is not good and but i can say i really enjoyed watching it. i would recommend this movie over santa claus conquers the martians and santa claus with dudley moore and john lithgow and or the santa clause with tim allen.
this is kind of a weird movie and given that santa claus lives on a cloud in outer space and fights against satan and his minions. but it still kinda fun. it has some genuine laughs. whether all of them were intentional is certainly debatable and though. this movie is not good and but i can say i really enjoyed watching it. i would recommend this movie over santa claus conquers the martians and santa claus with dudley moore and john lithgow and or the santa clause with tim allen.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie is supposed to be a lighthearted tale about santa claus and his magical and mystical wonders. but instead it comes off as being downright creepy. two things in this movie that stand out in my mind as horrifying are 1) the way santa looks. have you ever seen a more horrible looking santa claus. and 2) the evil rep. of satan pitch just plain odd dances are just sickening to watch. only watch this movie if it happens to be the msted version or if you like a very good laugh. i can not believe this is a children movie.
this movie is supposed to be a lighthearted tale about santa claus and his magical and mystical wonders. but instead it comes off as being downright creepy. two things in this movie that stand out in my mind as horrifying are 1) the way santa looks. have you ever seen a more horrible looking santa claus. and 2) the evil rep. of satan pitch just plain odd dances are just sickening to watch. only watch this movie if it happens to be the msted version or if you like a very good laugh. i can not believe this is a children movie.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i am allowed to write 1000 words about this film and but one word could suffice represent bizarre. hubby and i do not laugh so much as gawk at this truly dreadful movie. we kept looking at each other with our best what the. expressions. there is no way to adequately describe this movie. killer tomatoes were funny and but this is just sick. what kind of mind produces images like these and then puts them on film for others to see. what kind of mind includes innocent children in this weird and weird movie and then packages it as if it is appropriate for children. parents and whatever you do and if your child still believes in santa and do not let him or her see this movie. preteens can watch it probably with what the. expressions on their faces. if you decide to inflict this movie on others and you might want to spike their eggnog. quite possibly the worst film ever made.
i am allowed to write 1000 words about this film and but one word could suffice represent bizarre. hubby and i do not laugh so much as gawk at this truly dreadful movie. we kept looking at each other with our best what the. expressions. there is no way to adequately describe this movie. killer tomatoes were funny and but this is just sick. what kind of mind produces images like these and then puts them on film for others to see. what kind of mind includes innocent children in this weird and weird movie and then packages it as if it is appropriate for children. parents and whatever you do and if your child still believes in santa and do not let him or her see this movie. preteens can watch it probably with what the. expressions on their faces. if you decide to inflict this movie on others and you might want to spike their eggnog. quite possibly the worst film ever made.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
yes i have rated this film as one star awful. yet and it will be in my rotation of christmas movies henceforth. this truly is so bad it good. this is another k. gordon murray production (read represent buys a really cheap or bad mexican movie and spends zero money getting it dubbed into english and releases it at kiddie matinées in the mid 1960 . ) it a shame i stumbled on this so late in life as i am sure some mood enhancers would make this an even better experience. i am not going to rehash what so many of the other reviewers have already said and a christmas movie with merlin and the devil and mechanical wind up reindeer and some of the most pathetic child actors i have ever seen bar none. i plan on running this over the holidays back to back with kelsey grammar a christmas carol. truly a holiday experience made in hell. now if i can only find to all a goodnight (aka slayride) on dvd i will have a triple feature that can not be beat. you have to see this movie. it moves so slowly that i defy you not to touch the fast forward button especially on the two dance routines. this thing reeks like an expensive bleu cheese guess you have to get past the stink to enjoy the experience. feliz navidad amigos.
yes i have rated this film as one star awful. yet and it will be in my rotation of christmas movies henceforth. this truly is so bad it good. this is another k. gordon murray production (read represent buys a really cheap or bad mexican movie and spends zero money getting it dubbed into english and releases it at kiddie matinées in the mid 1960 . ) it a shame i stumbled on this so late in life as i am sure some mood enhancers would make this an even better experience. i am not going to rehash what so many of the other reviewers have already said and a christmas movie with merlin and the devil and mechanical wind up reindeer and some of the most pathetic child actors i have ever seen bar none. i plan on running this over the holidays back to back with kelsey grammar a christmas carol. truly a holiday experience made in hell. now if i can only find to all a goodnight (aka slayride) on dvd i will have a triple feature that can not be beat. you have to see this movie. it moves so slowly that i defy you not to touch the fast forward button especially on the two dance routines. this thing reeks like an expensive bleu cheese guess you have to get past the stink to enjoy the experience. feliz navidad amigos.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
with title like this you know you get pretty much lot of junk. acting bad. script bad. director bad. grammar bad. movie make lot of noise that really not music and lot of people yell. movie make bad racial stereotype. why come every movie with black hero have drug addict. why come hero always have to dance to be success. why come famous rapper always have to be in dance movie. why come letter s can not be in title. hollywood need to stop dumb down audience and make movie that have people with brain who know how speak proper english. do self favor and not go see.
with title like this you know you get pretty much lot of junk. acting bad. script bad. director bad. grammar bad. movie make lot of noise that really not music and lot of people yell. movie make bad racial stereotype. why come every movie with black hero have drug addict. why come hero always have to dance to be success. why come famous rapper always have to be in dance movie. why come letter s can not be in title. hollywood need to stop dumb down audience and make movie that have people with brain who know how speak proper english. do self favor and not go see.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i can always tell when something is going to be a hit. i see it or hear it and and get a good feeling. i did not get a good feeling watching the preview. i was not at all enthusiastic about this film and and i am not at all surprised that it is rated here as one of the worst 100 films. i was in fact proved right. the first thing that threw me off was the title. not that i have a problem with ebonics(i am black by the way) and but for a movie they could have used a better title and and for this time use a title that doesn not have bad grammar. i heard the dialog and saw the acting and all i could do was make faces. i also think that the dance movie theme is being overdone. at least you got served was better than this in my opinion. even the soundtrack do not thrill me.
i can always tell when something is going to be a hit. i see it or hear it and and get a good feeling. i did not get a good feeling watching the preview. i was not at all enthusiastic about this film and and i am not at all surprised that it is rated here as one of the worst 100 films. i was in fact proved right. the first thing that threw me off was the title. not that i have a problem with ebonics(i am black by the way) and but for a movie they could have used a better title and and for this time use a title that doesn not have bad grammar. i heard the dialog and saw the acting and all i could do was make faces. i also think that the dance movie theme is being overdone. at least you got served was better than this in my opinion. even the soundtrack do not thrill me.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
how she moves springs to life only when its high energy and talented cast members are kicking up their heels and strutting their stuff for the camera. otherwise and this stale strive suffer and succeed story is low on energy and low on originality and and low on anything that might make the movie stand out from the dozens of other and likeminded films that have come before it. rutina wesley has modest appeal as the academically gifted inner city youngster who finds that the best way to raise her private school tuition money is by entering step dance competitions and but both she and her fellow actors are poorly served by uninspired screen writing and undistinguished direction. as noted earlier and the movie achieves some spark when the performers are up on stage dancing and but such moments are far too few and sadly fleeting.
how she moves springs to life only when its high energy and talented cast members are kicking up their heels and strutting their stuff for the camera. otherwise and this stale strive suffer and succeed story is low on energy and low on originality and and low on anything that might make the movie stand out from the dozens of other and likeminded films that have come before it. rutina wesley has modest appeal as the academically gifted inner city youngster who finds that the best way to raise her private school tuition money is by entering step dance competitions and but both she and her fellow actors are poorly served by uninspired screen writing and undistinguished direction. as noted earlier and the movie achieves some spark when the performers are up on stage dancing and but such moments are far too few and sadly fleeting.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
its one of those stereotypical mtv generation dance movies and and i do not see where all this its not that bad rubbish is coming from. the acting is terrible and it follows exactly the same storyline as all the other wouldancing movies out there. its terrible. the name should scream do not watch. how she move. since when can movie titles ignore grammar. at least some dance movies had half decent dance scenes and these ones do not even deserve a watch. i give it a negative and just because there is no zero. i seriously implore anyone with an iq of over 60 not to watch this and and not to waste your money. the 1. positive should tell it all. this movie should not have even be made.
its one of those stereotypical mtv generation dance movies and and i do not see where all this its not that bad rubbish is coming from. the acting is terrible and it follows exactly the same storyline as all the other wouldancing movies out there. its terrible. the name should scream do not watch. how she move. since when can movie titles ignore grammar. at least some dance movies had half decent dance scenes and these ones do not even deserve a watch. i give it a negative and just because there is no zero. i seriously implore anyone with an iq of over 60 not to watch this and and not to waste your money. the 1. positive should tell it all. this movie should not have even be made.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie was absolutely ghastly. i cannot fathom how this movie made it to production. nothing against the cast of the movie and of course and this is all the fault of the writing team. you take the old average plot let dance our way out of being poor and destitute or step in this case. but this one lacks any semblance of a true plot or at least one that anyone would care about. with canadian speaking actors in what is supposed to be an american setting this film falls very flat. on a positive note and the directing was pretty good and cinematography was pretty decent as well. looks like the production budget was very generous as well. my only request is that this team leave the writing alone and go find actual screenwriters to help them bring words alive on film. net result how she move is how she sucks.
this movie was absolutely ghastly. i cannot fathom how this movie made it to production. nothing against the cast of the movie and of course and this is all the fault of the writing team. you take the old average plot let dance our way out of being poor and destitute or step in this case. but this one lacks any semblance of a true plot or at least one that anyone would care about. with canadian speaking actors in what is supposed to be an american setting this film falls very flat. on a positive note and the directing was pretty good and cinematography was pretty decent as well. looks like the production budget was very generous as well. my only request is that this team leave the writing alone and go find actual screenwriters to help them bring words alive on film. net result how she move is how she sucks.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
we have been served a terrible film. okay and i will admit that since i am white and have had no practical experience in the competitive world of step dancing and i might not exactly be an authority on this type of film. on the other hand and i do know a bad motion picture when i see it. and and boy and have i just seen it. filmed in low budget vision and directed by ian iqubal rashid and (a touch of pink) and how she move tells the tale of how important it is to follow one dreams even if those dreams include bopping around to loud and irritating hip hop music and speaking dialogue the average person would not understand if he or she had an international translator. i will try to give a small synopsis of the plot. first of all there are two actors that look like ll cool j who work in an auto shop in toronto (the mecca of racial diversity) and but still have time to practice dancing for eight hours a day. there are a few other guys in this crew and including a token white dude and a guy that looks like denzel washington in malcolm x. there are also two women in the movie one resembles serena williams and the other looks like geraldine from the old flip wilson show. one of these ladies was kicked out of a private college because her parents spent all of her tuition on a drug addicted sibling. the other girl and a member of salt n pepa and no doubt and is just plain no good. there another guy who looks like eddie murphy buckwheat and while still another actor who a huggy bear knock off. these guys are rival step dancers. evidently and this activity is very hard core in the hood and and they are all practicing for the big step monster jam in detroit. since i was unable to understand 90 percent of the dialogue (perhaps some subtitles would have been useful and as in a bergman film or that one music video by snow) and it hard to explain what happens and other than there a lot of arguing and the serena williams girl (who never smiles and by the way) becomes a freelance stepper (moving from group to group) and there some step dancing and a lot of irritating hip hop music. it a typical rags to riches story while sort of like rocky with a really bad soundtrack and rudy with annoying rap music in the background and cry freedom without the laughs. but why does a film which could have made a big impact on black audiences have to contain drug addiction and bad parents and a title that sounds like a first grader saying the phrase and how she moves. i was moved by this movie and however. moved to leave the theater as quickly as possible.
we have been served a terrible film. okay and i will admit that since i am white and have had no practical experience in the competitive world of step dancing and i might not exactly be an authority on this type of film. on the other hand and i do know a bad motion picture when i see it. and and boy and have i just seen it. filmed in low budget vision and directed by ian iqubal rashid and (a touch of pink) and how she move tells the tale of how important it is to follow one dreams even if those dreams include bopping around to loud and irritating hip hop music and speaking dialogue the average person would not understand if he or she had an international translator. i will try to give a small synopsis of the plot. first of all there are two actors that look like ll cool j who work in an auto shop in toronto (the mecca of racial diversity) and but still have time to practice dancing for eight hours a day. there are a few other guys in this crew and including a token white dude and a guy that looks like denzel washington in malcolm x. there are also two women in the movie one resembles serena williams and the other looks like geraldine from the old flip wilson show. one of these ladies was kicked out of a private college because her parents spent all of her tuition on a drug addicted sibling. the other girl and a member of salt n pepa and no doubt and is just plain no good. there another guy who looks like eddie murphy buckwheat and while still another actor who a huggy bear knock off. these guys are rival step dancers. evidently and this activity is very hard core in the hood and and they are all practicing for the big step monster jam in detroit. since i was unable to understand 90 percent of the dialogue (perhaps some subtitles would have been useful and as in a bergman film or that one music video by snow) and it hard to explain what happens and other than there a lot of arguing and the serena williams girl (who never smiles and by the way) becomes a freelance stepper (moving from group to group) and there some step dancing and a lot of irritating hip hop music. it a typical rags to riches story while sort of like rocky with a really bad soundtrack and rudy with annoying rap music in the background and cry freedom without the laughs. but why does a film which could have made a big impact on black audiences have to contain drug addiction and bad parents and a title that sounds like a first grader saying the phrase and how she moves. i was moved by this movie and however. moved to leave the theater as quickly as possible.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this movie has a slew of great adult stars but fails to get you interested in a way an adult film should. among all the stars you couldn not get your kicks from any of the scenes. the movie is shot in a dream like middle age set which is embarrassingly cheesy. the acting is worse than keanu reeves and the sex scenes are as exciting as listening to your neighbor talk about their kid in college and and the dialogue is the worse i have seen in a movie. the plot also was worse by ten fold. i would stick to the amateur route. the audio commentary was useless since it a skin flick but even then that was bad too. unless your a diehard jenna jameson fan there is little here. negative .
this movie has a slew of great adult stars but fails to get you interested in a way an adult film should. among all the stars you couldn not get your kicks from any of the scenes. the movie is shot in a dream like middle age set which is embarrassingly cheesy. the acting is worse than keanu reeves and the sex scenes are as exciting as listening to your neighbor talk about their kid in college and and the dialogue is the worse i have seen in a movie. the plot also was worse by ten fold. i would stick to the amateur route. the audio commentary was useless since it a skin flick but even then that was bad too. unless your a diehard jenna jameson fan there is little here. negative .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i am a very big fan of jenna jameson and but this movie is horrible. at the time jenna jameson was married to brad armstrong and he was the director of this film and jenna was the hottest porn star ever. so and of course and brad tried to make as much money as he could off her by making this big budget porn film. now i know why they do not make big budget porn movies anymore. in a fantasy world and porn stars could act and but this is the real world and they can not act. that why there porn stars and if a women as beautiful as jenna could act and then she would have tried to go into mainstream movies instead of porn. just because your beautiful doesn not make you a movie star. a fine example of this is traci lords and when she was a teen thru her 20 she was one of the most beautiful and sexy women on earth. she made her move into low budget mainstream films and couldn not act. where is she now. i gave it a 2 instead of a 1 rating just because jenna is so hot and but there are better movies she has made then dream quest. come on jenna and we do not want to hear you talk and as much as we want to see you have sex. also and you jenna and would have a lot more fans and more money in your bank account if you would have done anal on film.
i am a very big fan of jenna jameson and but this movie is horrible. at the time jenna jameson was married to brad armstrong and he was the director of this film and jenna was the hottest porn star ever. so and of course and brad tried to make as much money as he could off her by making this big budget porn film. now i know why they do not make big budget porn movies anymore. in a fantasy world and porn stars could act and but this is the real world and they can not act. that why there porn stars and if a women as beautiful as jenna could act and then she would have tried to go into mainstream movies instead of porn. just because your beautiful doesn not make you a movie star. a fine example of this is traci lords and when she was a teen thru her 20 she was one of the most beautiful and sexy women on earth. she made her move into low budget mainstream films and couldn not act. where is she now. i gave it a 2 instead of a 1 rating just because jenna is so hot and but there are better movies she has made then dream quest. come on jenna and we do not want to hear you talk and as much as we want to see you have sex. also and you jenna and would have a lot more fans and more money in your bank account if you would have done anal on film.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
someone told me that this was one of the best adult movies to date. i have since discredited everything told to me by this individual after seeing this movie. it just terrible. without going into lengthy descriptions of the various scenes and take my word for it and the sex scenes are uninteresting at best. jenna in normal street clothes in the beginning was the highlight of the film (she does look good) but it all downhill from there.
someone told me that this was one of the best adult movies to date. i have since discredited everything told to me by this individual after seeing this movie. it just terrible. without going into lengthy descriptions of the various scenes and take my word for it and the sex scenes are uninteresting at best. jenna in normal street clothes in the beginning was the highlight of the film (she does look good) but it all downhill from there.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
tony scott destroys anything that may have been interesting in richard kelly clichéd and patchy and overwrought screenplay. domino harvey (kiera knightley) was a model who dropped out and became a bounty hunter. this is her story. sort of. the problem with this rubbish is that there isn not much of a story at all and scott extreme graphic stylization of every shot acts as a distancing mechanism that makes us indifferent to everything in harvey chaotic life. you just do not care about harvey. knightley plays her as an obnoxious and cynical brat who has done nothing to warrant our respect. she punches people she doesn not like and sheds her clothes and inhibitions when the situation calls for it and but she isn not the least bit real and knightly isn not the least bit convincing and either. the film is boring. it loud and too and and shackled with one of the most annoying source music scores i have heard in a long time. the final twenty minutes are a poor re run of scott true romance climax with domino gang going to meet two sets of feuding bad guys who are surprise. surprise. destined to shoot it out with each other at the top of a las vegas casino. unfortunately and this potentially exciting conflagration is totally botched by scott and becomes a confusing and pretentious and pointless exercise in celluloid masturbation. this is not an artistically brave or experimental piece while it is a failure on every level because it gives us no entry point to the lives and dilemmas of its characters. mickey roarke looks good as a grizzled bounty hunter and but he disappears into the background as the narrative progresses. chris walken turns in another embarrassing cameo and dabney coleman and always solid and is underutilized. don not be fooled by this film multi layered and gimmick ridden surface. it is still a turd no matter how hard you polish it.
tony scott destroys anything that may have been interesting in richard kelly clichéd and patchy and overwrought screenplay. domino harvey (kiera knightley) was a model who dropped out and became a bounty hunter. this is her story. sort of. the problem with this rubbish is that there isn not much of a story at all and scott extreme graphic stylization of every shot acts as a distancing mechanism that makes us indifferent to everything in harvey chaotic life. you just do not care about harvey. knightley plays her as an obnoxious and cynical brat who has done nothing to warrant our respect. she punches people she doesn not like and sheds her clothes and inhibitions when the situation calls for it and but she isn not the least bit real and knightly isn not the least bit convincing and either. the film is boring. it loud and too and and shackled with one of the most annoying source music scores i have heard in a long time. the final twenty minutes are a poor re run of scott true romance climax with domino gang going to meet two sets of feuding bad guys who are surprise. surprise. destined to shoot it out with each other at the top of a las vegas casino. unfortunately and this potentially exciting conflagration is totally botched by scott and becomes a confusing and pretentious and pointless exercise in celluloid masturbation. this is not an artistically brave or experimental piece while it is a failure on every level because it gives us no entry point to the lives and dilemmas of its characters. mickey roarke looks good as a grizzled bounty hunter and but he disappears into the background as the narrative progresses. chris walken turns in another embarrassing cameo and dabney coleman and always solid and is underutilized. don not be fooled by this film multi layered and gimmick ridden surface. it is still a turd no matter how hard you polish it.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
repetitive music and annoying narration and terrible cinematography effects. half of the plot seemed centered around shock value and the other half seemed to be focused on appeasing the type of crowd that would nag at people to start a fight. one of the best scenes was in the deleted scenes section and the one where she in the principle office with her mom. i do not understand why they would cut that. the movie seemed desperate to make a point about anything it could and domino talking about sororities would have been a highlight of the movie. ridiculous camera work is reminiscent of mtv and and completely not needed or helpful to a movie. speeding the film up just to jump past a lot of things and rotating the camera around something repeatedly got old the first time it was used. it like the directors are wanting to use up all this extra footage they do not want to throw away. another movie with jerry springer in it. that should have told me not to watch it from the preview. a popular movie for the in crowd.
repetitive music and annoying narration and terrible cinematography effects. half of the plot seemed centered around shock value and the other half seemed to be focused on appeasing the type of crowd that would nag at people to start a fight. one of the best scenes was in the deleted scenes section and the one where she in the principle office with her mom. i do not understand why they would cut that. the movie seemed desperate to make a point about anything it could and domino talking about sororities would have been a highlight of the movie. ridiculous camera work is reminiscent of mtv and and completely not needed or helpful to a movie. speeding the film up just to jump past a lot of things and rotating the camera around something repeatedly got old the first time it was used. it like the directors are wanting to use up all this extra footage they do not want to throw away. another movie with jerry springer in it. that should have told me not to watch it from the preview. a popular movie for the in crowd.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
from the first moment and this thing is just an awful sequence of extremely short cuts of blurry camera work. while the overall plot has every potential for a thriller and the story is so badly told that i am unable to buy it. from the middle of the film and the actions of characters do not make sense to me. stop reading now to avoid spoilers. for instance and ed idea to have edna make coffee for them after having shot off her son arm is way below his alleged experience while it just an extremely stupid idea. domino not questioning the fragmentary orders she receives from claremont williams over a breaking up phone connection just eludes me while shouldn not she be long suspicious that williams is turning them in. those fbi agents seem out of their minds showing up with just one single helicopter to something they have every reason to consider a capital mafia shoot out. besides and what they do by withholding and leaking information towards cigliutti is pretty much incitement to murder while it seems to me like farewell to justice if that they way the fbi does investigations. in reality and they would have a case messed up beyond repair if they acted like this. we get to see a car accident which normally would have at least seriously injured if not killed most of the passengers but miraculously leaves all of them with just a few bruises. quite the contrary and the accident is immediately followed by domino making love to choco and which is from domino viewpoint in no way founded by previous events but just by being drugged to the eyeballs. the whole sequence of scenes starting from the phone call of claremont williams appears to me just as want to be dramatic razzle dazzle. this combined with the awful and uneasy camera work just makes a piece i hesitate to call a movie. i am sorry for the wasted effort of the main actors and whose talent is out of question.
from the first moment and this thing is just an awful sequence of extremely short cuts of blurry camera work. while the overall plot has every potential for a thriller and the story is so badly told that i am unable to buy it. from the middle of the film and the actions of characters do not make sense to me. stop reading now to avoid spoilers. for instance and ed idea to have edna make coffee for them after having shot off her son arm is way below his alleged experience while it just an extremely stupid idea. domino not questioning the fragmentary orders she receives from claremont williams over a breaking up phone connection just eludes me while shouldn not she be long suspicious that williams is turning them in. those fbi agents seem out of their minds showing up with just one single helicopter to something they have every reason to consider a capital mafia shoot out. besides and what they do by withholding and leaking information towards cigliutti is pretty much incitement to murder while it seems to me like farewell to justice if that they way the fbi does investigations. in reality and they would have a case messed up beyond repair if they acted like this. we get to see a car accident which normally would have at least seriously injured if not killed most of the passengers but miraculously leaves all of them with just a few bruises. quite the contrary and the accident is immediately followed by domino making love to choco and which is from domino viewpoint in no way founded by previous events but just by being drugged to the eyeballs. the whole sequence of scenes starting from the phone call of claremont williams appears to me just as want to be dramatic razzle dazzle. this combined with the awful and uneasy camera work just makes a piece i hesitate to call a movie. i am sorry for the wasted effort of the main actors and whose talent is out of question.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
my flatmate rented out this film the other night and so we watched it together. the first impression is actually a positive one and because the whole movie is shot in this colorful and grainy and post mtv texture. fast sequences and cool angles and sweeping camera moves for the moment there you feel like you about to watch another snatch and for the moment. when the plot actually starts unfolding and one starts to feel as if one over dosed amphetamine. things just do not make sense anymore. i would hate to spoil the fun of watching it by giving out certain scenes and but then again and the film is so bad that you are actually better off not watching it. first you think it is a crime story recounted in a conversation between keira knightley and lucy liu. wrong. this conversation provides no coherent narrative whatsoever. rather on the contrary and domino lesbian come on on lucy liu character during the second part of the movie just throws the audience into further confusion. then i thought that maybe it is a movie about a girl from affluent but dysfunctional background who grew to be a tough bounty hunter. in any case and that is the message conveyed by the opening scenes. but after that the question of domino character is entirely lost to the criminal plot. so in short and no this is not a movie about domino character. then i thought and it probably a story of one robbery. a pretty bloody robbery. 10 millions went missing and bounty hunters are chasing around suspected robbers and mafia kids are executed and hands are removed and domino tries to crack why this time they get no bounty certificates and etc. but soon this impression is dispelled by another u turn of the plot. this time we are confronted with a sad story of an obese afro american woman and who fakes driver licenses at the local mvd and at the age of 28 happens to be a youngest grandmother. lateesha stars on jerry springer show and tries to publicize some new and wacky racial theory and and at the same time struggles to find money for her sick granddaughter. what does this have to do with the main plot. urgh and well and nobody knows. except that director had to explain the audiences where will bounty hunters put their collectors fee of 300 and 000. then at some point you start to think represent oh and it is about our society and the way media distorts things. there is reality tv crew driving around with the bounty hunters and doing some violent footage. the bounty hunters are also stuck with a bunch of hollywood actors and who just whine all the time about having their noses broken and themselves dragged around too many crime scenes. but no and this is not a movie about media and they just appear sporadically throughout the movie. plus there are numerous other sub plots represent the crazy afghani guy bent on liberating afghanistan and the love story between domino and chocco and the mescaline episode and the fbi surveillance operation. can all of the things mentioned above be packed into 2 hrs movie. judge for yourself and but my conclusion is clear it is a veritable mess.
my flatmate rented out this film the other night and so we watched it together. the first impression is actually a positive one and because the whole movie is shot in this colorful and grainy and post mtv texture. fast sequences and cool angles and sweeping camera moves for the moment there you feel like you about to watch another snatch and for the moment. when the plot actually starts unfolding and one starts to feel as if one over dosed amphetamine. things just do not make sense anymore. i would hate to spoil the fun of watching it by giving out certain scenes and but then again and the film is so bad that you are actually better off not watching it. first you think it is a crime story recounted in a conversation between keira knightley and lucy liu. wrong. this conversation provides no coherent narrative whatsoever. rather on the contrary and domino lesbian come on on lucy liu character during the second part of the movie just throws the audience into further confusion. then i thought that maybe it is a movie about a girl from affluent but dysfunctional background who grew to be a tough bounty hunter. in any case and that is the message conveyed by the opening scenes. but after that the question of domino character is entirely lost to the criminal plot. so in short and no this is not a movie about domino character. then i thought and it probably a story of one robbery. a pretty bloody robbery. 10 millions went missing and bounty hunters are chasing around suspected robbers and mafia kids are executed and hands are removed and domino tries to crack why this time they get no bounty certificates and etc. but soon this impression is dispelled by another u turn of the plot. this time we are confronted with a sad story of an obese afro american woman and who fakes driver licenses at the local mvd and at the age of 28 happens to be a youngest grandmother. lateesha stars on jerry springer show and tries to publicize some new and wacky racial theory and and at the same time struggles to find money for her sick granddaughter. what does this have to do with the main plot. urgh and well and nobody knows. except that director had to explain the audiences where will bounty hunters put their collectors fee of 300 and 000. then at some point you start to think represent oh and it is about our society and the way media distorts things. there is reality tv crew driving around with the bounty hunters and doing some violent footage. the bounty hunters are also stuck with a bunch of hollywood actors and who just whine all the time about having their noses broken and themselves dragged around too many crime scenes. but no and this is not a movie about media and they just appear sporadically throughout the movie. plus there are numerous other sub plots represent the crazy afghani guy bent on liberating afghanistan and the love story between domino and chocco and the mescaline episode and the fbi surveillance operation. can all of the things mentioned above be packed into 2 hrs movie. judge for yourself and but my conclusion is clear it is a veritable mess.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
if it smells like garbage and if it looks like garbage and it must be garbage. this is by far one of the worst movies i have ever seen in my entire life. tony scott poor directing style puts shame to an already uninteresting and slightly untrue story of domino harvey life as a bounty hunter. the story is completely discontinuous and confusing to watch. certain aspects of the plot were ridiculous and totally unbelievable. it seems that all of the action scenes were loosely strung together by poor plot points and horrible acting. keira knightley does get totally naked in this one though. that is the one and only upside to this film. if you want to see her naked just fast forward the movie until about an hour and a half into it and you will catch a whole lot of nipple. i strongly suggest that no one see this movie ever. </3.
if it smells like garbage and if it looks like garbage and it must be garbage. this is by far one of the worst movies i have ever seen in my entire life. tony scott poor directing style puts shame to an already uninteresting and slightly untrue story of domino harvey life as a bounty hunter. the story is completely discontinuous and confusing to watch. certain aspects of the plot were ridiculous and totally unbelievable. it seems that all of the action scenes were loosely strung together by poor plot points and horrible acting. keira knightley does get totally naked in this one though. that is the one and only upside to this film. if you want to see her naked just fast forward the movie until about an hour and a half into it and you will catch a whole lot of nipple. i strongly suggest that no one see this movie ever. </3.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
supposedly based on the life of domino harvey a model turned bounty hunter. i would say 95 % is fabricated. i always keep an open mind when it comes to movies and however and this movie lost its chances when it became apparent it had narration throughout the film and something i can not stand and and to top it off and the heroine of the story is so hateful and depicted as an arrogant b. ch i just wanted it to end with her being shot in the head. it too incoherent and too flashy and way too boring and it a who gives a crap kinda story and and i really think that big time directors need to make movies based on their own or a writer own imagination not something based on some ignorant snobby brat life.
supposedly based on the life of domino harvey a model turned bounty hunter. i would say 95 % is fabricated. i always keep an open mind when it comes to movies and however and this movie lost its chances when it became apparent it had narration throughout the film and something i can not stand and and to top it off and the heroine of the story is so hateful and depicted as an arrogant b. ch i just wanted it to end with her being shot in the head. it too incoherent and too flashy and way too boring and it a who gives a crap kinda story and and i really think that big time directors need to make movies based on their own or a writer own imagination not something based on some ignorant snobby brat life.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
this film is really bad. no i mean really really bad. tony scott is a terrible director. out of all the films he has made i only like enemy of the state and besides that he is one of the worse directors of all time. what appalled me the most is richard kelly (director of donnie darko) did the screenplay to this. now richard kelly is a genius in my eyes but to be involved in this makes hope he has learnt his lesson. now i love mickey rourke new roles but i cant even like him in this because of the terrible story and look of it. do not get me wrong i still love mickey rourke but he has made a few accidence in his time and this is one of them. i do not know what to say about keira knightly and i think she a little too overrated. i just cant feel for her in films. all in all this film is bad. thats it. negative . j. d seaton.
this film is really bad. no i mean really really bad. tony scott is a terrible director. out of all the films he has made i only like enemy of the state and besides that he is one of the worse directors of all time. what appalled me the most is richard kelly (director of donnie darko) did the screenplay to this. now richard kelly is a genius in my eyes but to be involved in this makes hope he has learnt his lesson. now i love mickey rourke new roles but i cant even like him in this because of the terrible story and look of it. do not get me wrong i still love mickey rourke but he has made a few accidence in his time and this is one of them. i do not know what to say about keira knightly and i think she a little too overrated. i just cant feel for her in films. all in all this film is bad. thats it. negative . j. d seaton.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i do not know if this movies problems are more the fault of direction or script. as you will see in many reviews the editing style is way overdone. it is absolutely distracting and without substance and which could be considered a good thing if you look at some of the quotes from the movie. i do not write many reviews here and but felt this movie was so awful that it deserved comment. movies like this erode at movie making as an art form. movies like this one show more and more clearly that the current reality focus in cinema is revealing the quality of the characters behind them. people hone there craft and there 5 senses and and there business sense overlooking there own inner life. however i do not put blame on them and it is more and more the unfortunate condition of this age qualified by films like this one. but by proxy these manufacturers i would dare not call artists vomit there lack of inner life or regard onto the screen diffusing it to everyone. a story of bounty hunters and guns guns and more guns and heavy handed flaunting of sex for the oh so popular actress (did they write the lap dance scene after they signed her. ) and over saturated and over exaggerated and one liners and non linear plots. all different and yet all the same. annoying overwhelming music to push the emotion down your throat. a story. a development of character. or just withheld and missing information and revealed at the end to create the effect of a story as if one took place. it altogether lacks anything remotely resembling subtlety. it is a caricature of stereotypes and genre. where are the films with awareness. what about subtlety of sound and music that you are not even aware is there. what about the depth of a look. what about editing with a point about mind and consciousness. yes even in action films this can happen. sure they have honed a craft while but what use is it without soul or wisdom. of insight into the human condition. can the people who commented and said that this is an apogee of art and or compare this to picasso and others i say put this next to gandhi or the godfather and even the original trilogy of star wars or the lord of the rings while then look me in the face and say it again. it is a good crew and but they need some help with depth and story. i hope they get it because i like the crews previous work. better luck next time.
i do not know if this movies problems are more the fault of direction or script. as you will see in many reviews the editing style is way overdone. it is absolutely distracting and without substance and which could be considered a good thing if you look at some of the quotes from the movie. i do not write many reviews here and but felt this movie was so awful that it deserved comment. movies like this erode at movie making as an art form. movies like this one show more and more clearly that the current reality focus in cinema is revealing the quality of the characters behind them. people hone there craft and there 5 senses and and there business sense overlooking there own inner life. however i do not put blame on them and it is more and more the unfortunate condition of this age qualified by films like this one. but by proxy these manufacturers i would dare not call artists vomit there lack of inner life or regard onto the screen diffusing it to everyone. a story of bounty hunters and guns guns and more guns and heavy handed flaunting of sex for the oh so popular actress (did they write the lap dance scene after they signed her. ) and over saturated and over exaggerated and one liners and non linear plots. all different and yet all the same. annoying overwhelming music to push the emotion down your throat. a story. a development of character. or just withheld and missing information and revealed at the end to create the effect of a story as if one took place. it altogether lacks anything remotely resembling subtlety. it is a caricature of stereotypes and genre. where are the films with awareness. what about subtlety of sound and music that you are not even aware is there. what about the depth of a look. what about editing with a point about mind and consciousness. yes even in action films this can happen. sure they have honed a craft while but what use is it without soul or wisdom. of insight into the human condition. can the people who commented and said that this is an apogee of art and or compare this to picasso and others i say put this next to gandhi or the godfather and even the original trilogy of star wars or the lord of the rings while then look me in the face and say it again. it is a good crew and but they need some help with depth and story. i hope they get it because i like the crews previous work. better luck next time.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
it rare that i come across a film this awful and this annoying and this irritating. it is without doubt one of the worst films i have ever seen. the plot and when it not a blur of confusing and pointlessly over flashy editing and is ludicrous. why did domino become such a bad ass tough bitch. because her gold fish died when she was a kid and this traumatic event left her emotionally stunted and and hating everyone. when the dialogue is not clichéd or banal and it littered with laughable lines such as represent there are three kinds of people in this world represent the rich. the poor. and everyone else. at one point the bounty hunters have some guy tied up in the back of their bus who has a combination number tattooed on his arm. because of a confusing mobile phone call and instead of rolling his sleeve up and just reading the number and they blow off his arm with a shotgun. at another point and the bounty hunters take a bomb to a meeting arranged with the mafia and threaten to set the bomb off unless the mafia let them go. clearly not going to the meeting would have been just too easy. keira knightley is unconvincing and dreadfully miscast. mickey rourke does manage to salvage some credibility from this mess. i have enjoyed some of tony scott previous films and true romance being one and but all i could think while suffering this drivel was that it must have been made by a complete idiot.
it rare that i come across a film this awful and this annoying and this irritating. it is without doubt one of the worst films i have ever seen. the plot and when it not a blur of confusing and pointlessly over flashy editing and is ludicrous. why did domino become such a bad ass tough bitch. because her gold fish died when she was a kid and this traumatic event left her emotionally stunted and and hating everyone. when the dialogue is not clichéd or banal and it littered with laughable lines such as represent there are three kinds of people in this world represent the rich. the poor. and everyone else. at one point the bounty hunters have some guy tied up in the back of their bus who has a combination number tattooed on his arm. because of a confusing mobile phone call and instead of rolling his sleeve up and just reading the number and they blow off his arm with a shotgun. at another point and the bounty hunters take a bomb to a meeting arranged with the mafia and threaten to set the bomb off unless the mafia let them go. clearly not going to the meeting would have been just too easy. keira knightley is unconvincing and dreadfully miscast. mickey rourke does manage to salvage some credibility from this mess. i have enjoyed some of tony scott previous films and true romance being one and but all i could think while suffering this drivel was that it must have been made by a complete idiot.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i was very excited about this film when i first saw the previews. normally i see a preview this good and i buy the film outright. something told me to. you know watch it first. i am glad i did. keira knightley ruined all future films for me with this role. in the 2nd pirates movie when it came out i went to see it. all i saw was domino harvey and i hated her more for it. i think that had to do with her hair and having to cut it short for domino. domino who. who is domino harvey. i still do not really know or care. i do not know who she was in real life or who she was in this film. i do not care about her character and even keira getting partically naked do not make it worth the movie. the direction was definitely lacking. the writing was trite and shallow. the editing was horrible. i do not mind the style so much as the poor overuse of it. there a place for it. good examples of choppy and mtv style and colorful editing (not sure if there an official name) would be fight club while just off the top of my head. even enemy of the state had a semi similar editing style at parts. it was used tastefully and wasn not used as a crutch. i mean this is the same guy who directed top gun and crimson tide. tony scott please give me my time back. i understand there are many people who liked this movie. i guess the idea that you will either completely love this movie or completely hate it is a fair assessment. frankly and i hate it.
i was very excited about this film when i first saw the previews. normally i see a preview this good and i buy the film outright. something told me to. you know watch it first. i am glad i did. keira knightley ruined all future films for me with this role. in the 2nd pirates movie when it came out i went to see it. all i saw was domino harvey and i hated her more for it. i think that had to do with her hair and having to cut it short for domino. domino who. who is domino harvey. i still do not really know or care. i do not know who she was in real life or who she was in this film. i do not care about her character and even keira getting partically naked do not make it worth the movie. the direction was definitely lacking. the writing was trite and shallow. the editing was horrible. i do not mind the style so much as the poor overuse of it. there a place for it. good examples of choppy and mtv style and colorful editing (not sure if there an official name) would be fight club while just off the top of my head. even enemy of the state had a semi similar editing style at parts. it was used tastefully and wasn not used as a crutch. i mean this is the same guy who directed top gun and crimson tide. tony scott please give me my time back. i understand there are many people who liked this movie. i guess the idea that you will either completely love this movie or completely hate it is a fair assessment. frankly and i hate it.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
tony scott has never been a very good director and but every film he made after crimson tide seems to bring him one step closer to being the inarguable worst working today (michael bay may fall into the same category and but at least his big and dumb and delusional epics entertain on some primally perverse level). and like other overblown hollywood biopics (de lovely and confessions of a dangerous mind and for instance) chronicling the lives of pretentious and overrated and or outright shallow ciphers given an aura of mystique by a society that thrives on the juicy behind the scenes details and domino is a film that begins with little potential and and dashes that infinitesimal amount before the sixty minute mark. with an already distended running time of 128 minutes and the film feels twice as long and and spending time with characters this obnoxiously superficial and forgettable (unlike the superior rules of attraction and scott attempts to tinge the proceedings with irony via domino smug and self aware rich girl voice over only draws attention to the film sledgehammer cluelessness) becomes an act only masochists could find pleasurable. the story. spoiled upper crust babe domino harvey (keira knightley and in an ersatz badass performance as shallow as her gorgeous looks) is sick of the shallow lifestyles of the rich and famous in los angeles and and accosts gruff bounty hunters mickey rourke and edgar ramirez to learn a more exciting trade while along the way and there are double crosses and shootouts and media attention (courtesy of a tongue in cheek christopher walken and phoning in his trademark sleazebag) and and laughable hints at romance. scott cuts the film together in segments that rarely last more than a few seconds and cranking up the resolution to make the film a neon drenched nightmare that frankly unpleasant to watch if scott given an opportunity to shakily frame an image and ghost it and or distort it in some way and he will while but all this tacky stylistic overload overwhelms what little plot and characterization and and suspense the film has (to say nothing for its and ehm and entertainment value). most of the characters come off as either contemptible or stereotypical and oftentimes both (observe the unbearable and several minute segment where an african american introduces a new list of racial categorizations on jerry springer) and and i found myself wishing they would all get the tails end of our protagonist coin by the end. domino is utter and unmitigated trash whatever interest in this individual scott hoped to inspire in his audience and it is lost in a sea of migraine inducing neon pretension a few minutes in.
tony scott has never been a very good director and but every film he made after crimson tide seems to bring him one step closer to being the inarguable worst working today (michael bay may fall into the same category and but at least his big and dumb and delusional epics entertain on some primally perverse level). and like other overblown hollywood biopics (de lovely and confessions of a dangerous mind and for instance) chronicling the lives of pretentious and overrated and or outright shallow ciphers given an aura of mystique by a society that thrives on the juicy behind the scenes details and domino is a film that begins with little potential and and dashes that infinitesimal amount before the sixty minute mark. with an already distended running time of 128 minutes and the film feels twice as long and and spending time with characters this obnoxiously superficial and forgettable (unlike the superior rules of attraction and scott attempts to tinge the proceedings with irony via domino smug and self aware rich girl voice over only draws attention to the film sledgehammer cluelessness) becomes an act only masochists could find pleasurable. the story. spoiled upper crust babe domino harvey (keira knightley and in an ersatz badass performance as shallow as her gorgeous looks) is sick of the shallow lifestyles of the rich and famous in los angeles and and accosts gruff bounty hunters mickey rourke and edgar ramirez to learn a more exciting trade while along the way and there are double crosses and shootouts and media attention (courtesy of a tongue in cheek christopher walken and phoning in his trademark sleazebag) and and laughable hints at romance. scott cuts the film together in segments that rarely last more than a few seconds and cranking up the resolution to make the film a neon drenched nightmare that frankly unpleasant to watch if scott given an opportunity to shakily frame an image and ghost it and or distort it in some way and he will while but all this tacky stylistic overload overwhelms what little plot and characterization and and suspense the film has (to say nothing for its and ehm and entertainment value). most of the characters come off as either contemptible or stereotypical and oftentimes both (observe the unbearable and several minute segment where an african american introduces a new list of racial categorizations on jerry springer) and and i found myself wishing they would all get the tails end of our protagonist coin by the end. domino is utter and unmitigated trash whatever interest in this individual scott hoped to inspire in his audience and it is lost in a sea of migraine inducing neon pretension a few minutes in.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
what of domino did i hate over everything and and i mean everything and else. perhaps it was the overall glorification of being a bounty hunter while maybe it was the sexism masquerading as an involving and interesting study of a hard bodied female lead character while maybe it was the mere look of the film with its bizarre yellow glow and distorted blue tints or the manner in which it takes an actress like lucy lui while who deserves a lot better than this junk while and has her sit there in the one spot in the room the light cannot directly hit with the same dumb look on her face. maybe it the editing while that horrid rapid fire editing and the manner in which lines of dialogue echo as theyre uttered by people like kiera knightly who and if you buy as a bounty hunter and then you will probably be able to kid yourself into believing the world will end in 2012. nobody comes away from domino with any sort credibility and absolutely nobody at all. it is a painful and misguided experience and taking inspiration from things like natural born killers and letting loose ideas to an audience not even there for them. the principal question is represent was domino supposed to be some kind of comedy. what with its hilariously bad lead uttering certain lines that desperately want us to think she coming across as tough but really and she resembles more an arrogant fifteen year old girl on her first day at public school and attempting to impress her peers. there are things you genuinely do not know how to react to and whether theyre supposed to be funny or not. if it is supposed to be a comedy and that begs the next question represent is the life of a bounty hunter really the sort worth exploiting for laughs. i do not think so. the film opens with the title card based on a true story. sort of. if that supposed to be some sort of post modernist technique that enables director tony scott to bend and manipulate the story of domino harvey for his own unique purpose and then youre simply on another planet. truth is and in that one opening quote the film identifies the subject matter and the original text before completely copping out and saying ort of which i guess is supposed to enable them to make domino older than she should be and appear on jerry springer. following this and we learn of domino relationship with her father who died in the film when when she was ten or something while here is the first use of the ort of cop out as in real life she was just four. but if the film had gone by reality dates then her entire drive would have been born out of the death of. her goldfish. we are then thrust into action with ed mosbey (rourke) while domino (knightley) herself and would be love interest choco (ramírez). during the scene and an american mother is pinned down via gunfire in her own caravan in the back end of nowhere as she pleads for her son life to be spared. what a really misguided opening while presenting its three leads as nasty people who break into trailers and fire off weapons at innocents we do not know anything of and come close to shooting their pet dogs. the immediate feeling is of hatred toward the three leads and a feeling of no and why are you doing this. why is this happening. bad seeds are planted and and do not you know it and they stick. the film is painful to watch and excruciating even while as these three mug their way through the piece complete with supporting performances from actors known for playing characters in beverly hills 90210. here is another daft post modernist slant and people playing themselves and that ort of joker card being played again. christopher walken even pops up in a really stupid role that reeks of robert downey jr natural born killers character. so as the film plods on and domino is cast into ed and choco gang and purely for her good looks i might add and it appears amidst the plot to do with fake driver registration i. ds or something that choco and domino may have feelings for one another. the problem is and as each performer is doing such a bad job in their respective character while there is no chemistry and no feeling between the two while the film isn not a love story so why even bother going down that road in the first place. does anyone care about these two characters amidst all the fast edits and stuff blowing up. if there is any feeling between choco and domino and it exists on such a small and tiny and minimalist scale that you have to ask why it even included. so then the film feels the need to crank things up narrative wise. we find out the reason for the fake i. ds that are linked to someone else and a guy talks on a cell phone in a sound proof bubble. the sound proof bubble i can believe but how does he get his phone under the water and into the bubble in the first place without it becoming flooded. he must have swam really quickly double the speed of the film fasted edit which means something in the region of . 01 of a second. yeah and sure. the film story becomes both too complicated and just plain arbitrary before resorting to a really dumb climax in which more stuff blows up. plus and there a really distasteful scene to do with a wall chart full of new ethnicities and the film comedy runs so dry and that it has to resort to the jerry and jerry. chant whilst people are on a popular american talk show. when did we last laugh at jerry. jerry. when we were and say and seven years old. i came away feeling sad and depressed at such a film existence.
what of domino did i hate over everything and and i mean everything and else. perhaps it was the overall glorification of being a bounty hunter while maybe it was the sexism masquerading as an involving and interesting study of a hard bodied female lead character while maybe it was the mere look of the film with its bizarre yellow glow and distorted blue tints or the manner in which it takes an actress like lucy lui while who deserves a lot better than this junk while and has her sit there in the one spot in the room the light cannot directly hit with the same dumb look on her face. maybe it the editing while that horrid rapid fire editing and the manner in which lines of dialogue echo as theyre uttered by people like kiera knightly who and if you buy as a bounty hunter and then you will probably be able to kid yourself into believing the world will end in 2012. nobody comes away from domino with any sort credibility and absolutely nobody at all. it is a painful and misguided experience and taking inspiration from things like natural born killers and letting loose ideas to an audience not even there for them. the principal question is represent was domino supposed to be some kind of comedy. what with its hilariously bad lead uttering certain lines that desperately want us to think she coming across as tough but really and she resembles more an arrogant fifteen year old girl on her first day at public school and attempting to impress her peers. there are things you genuinely do not know how to react to and whether theyre supposed to be funny or not. if it is supposed to be a comedy and that begs the next question represent is the life of a bounty hunter really the sort worth exploiting for laughs. i do not think so. the film opens with the title card based on a true story. sort of. if that supposed to be some sort of post modernist technique that enables director tony scott to bend and manipulate the story of domino harvey for his own unique purpose and then youre simply on another planet. truth is and in that one opening quote the film identifies the subject matter and the original text before completely copping out and saying ort of which i guess is supposed to enable them to make domino older than she should be and appear on jerry springer. following this and we learn of domino relationship with her father who died in the film when when she was ten or something while here is the first use of the ort of cop out as in real life she was just four. but if the film had gone by reality dates then her entire drive would have been born out of the death of. her goldfish. we are then thrust into action with ed mosbey (rourke) while domino (knightley) herself and would be love interest choco (ramírez). during the scene and an american mother is pinned down via gunfire in her own caravan in the back end of nowhere as she pleads for her son life to be spared. what a really misguided opening while presenting its three leads as nasty people who break into trailers and fire off weapons at innocents we do not know anything of and come close to shooting their pet dogs. the immediate feeling is of hatred toward the three leads and a feeling of no and why are you doing this. why is this happening. bad seeds are planted and and do not you know it and they stick. the film is painful to watch and excruciating even while as these three mug their way through the piece complete with supporting performances from actors known for playing characters in beverly hills 90210. here is another daft post modernist slant and people playing themselves and that ort of joker card being played again. christopher walken even pops up in a really stupid role that reeks of robert downey jr natural born killers character. so as the film plods on and domino is cast into ed and choco gang and purely for her good looks i might add and it appears amidst the plot to do with fake driver registration i. ds or something that choco and domino may have feelings for one another. the problem is and as each performer is doing such a bad job in their respective character while there is no chemistry and no feeling between the two while the film isn not a love story so why even bother going down that road in the first place. does anyone care about these two characters amidst all the fast edits and stuff blowing up. if there is any feeling between choco and domino and it exists on such a small and tiny and minimalist scale that you have to ask why it even included. so then the film feels the need to crank things up narrative wise. we find out the reason for the fake i. ds that are linked to someone else and a guy talks on a cell phone in a sound proof bubble. the sound proof bubble i can believe but how does he get his phone under the water and into the bubble in the first place without it becoming flooded. he must have swam really quickly double the speed of the film fasted edit which means something in the region of . 01 of a second. yeah and sure. the film story becomes both too complicated and just plain arbitrary before resorting to a really dumb climax in which more stuff blows up. plus and there a really distasteful scene to do with a wall chart full of new ethnicities and the film comedy runs so dry and that it has to resort to the jerry and jerry. chant whilst people are on a popular american talk show. when did we last laugh at jerry. jerry. when we were and say and seven years old. i came away feeling sad and depressed at such a film existence.
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
how can you take her hard living and glamorously violent bounty hunter story serious with that accent. it absurd. apart from that and the visual style of the directer is nauseating and gimmicky and the plot is a shallow and boring and confused gangster movie rehash and the acting is unconvincing. the film introduces new characters all the way throughout the film and is told in fragmented flashback mostly out of sequence seemingly just to keep you nice and confused. the film ever shows you things that dont really happen and then later says that do not really happen and this happened see the (apparent) killing of the (fake) first ladies. what have we seen the first and wrong and sequence of events for then. terrible choice in casting and a convoluted and messy plot and a headache inducing directorial style. negative .
how can you take her hard living and glamorously violent bounty hunter story serious with that accent. it absurd. apart from that and the visual style of the directer is nauseating and gimmicky and the plot is a shallow and boring and confused gangster movie rehash and the acting is unconvincing. the film introduces new characters all the way throughout the film and is told in fragmented flashback mostly out of sequence seemingly just to keep you nice and confused. the film ever shows you things that dont really happen and then later says that do not really happen and this happened see the (apparent) killing of the (fake) first ladies. what have we seen the first and wrong and sequence of events for then. terrible choice in casting and a convoluted and messy plot and a headache inducing directorial style. negative .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
what do you get when you mix a lump of clichés with a directionless pacing and a group of characters who you do not care about and a failed attempt at creating an appealing visual style and an even bigger lump of clichés and a weak sense of humor and a really big budget. why and you get one of the most intolerably unwatchable movies ever made. i am referring and of course and to domino. here are some things that people might say during the viewing of this movie representooh and wow and the storyline is told out of sequence and that hasn not been done a billion times before. and much more skillfully than in this movie. wow and look at all of the flashing lights and grainy film texture and elaborate transitions. the director is trying so hard to make things look arty and to establish a visual style. it just too bad that none of these effects add anything to the movie or make sense with the scenes theyre in and and it also too bad that most of them come across as irritating. i have heard that exchange of dialogue in about twenty thousand movies before. i have seen this scene in about thirty thousand movies before. this one too. uh and do not they reveal this plot twist about half an hour ago. was that supposed to be surprising. if this movie is supposed to be showing a tough chick going around kicking ass. when why doesn not she do very much of it. i can not believe how unoriginal this dialogue is. how long is this thing. i feel like i have been watching it for over four hours already. i have no idea what just happened and but also and i do not particularly feel motivated to try to figure it out. is this over yet. i want my money back. the songs in this soundtrack feel so misused here. it ironic that all of the cursing they use actually detracts from the impact of each one. ugh. and and finally represent i might have to end my friendship with the person who recommended this movie to me. in summation and this movie is a failure in nearly every aspect. avoid watching it at all costs. if your house is on fire and this movie is playing in the only room that isn not flammable and you should seriously consider being burned alive instead. (if i sound bitter and it because i just spent over two hours watching this movie and and uh and i do not enjoy it very much. ).
what do you get when you mix a lump of clichés with a directionless pacing and a group of characters who you do not care about and a failed attempt at creating an appealing visual style and an even bigger lump of clichés and a weak sense of humor and a really big budget. why and you get one of the most intolerably unwatchable movies ever made. i am referring and of course and to domino. here are some things that people might say during the viewing of this movie representooh and wow and the storyline is told out of sequence and that hasn not been done a billion times before. and much more skillfully than in this movie. wow and look at all of the flashing lights and grainy film texture and elaborate transitions. the director is trying so hard to make things look arty and to establish a visual style. it just too bad that none of these effects add anything to the movie or make sense with the scenes theyre in and and it also too bad that most of them come across as irritating. i have heard that exchange of dialogue in about twenty thousand movies before. i have seen this scene in about thirty thousand movies before. this one too. uh and do not they reveal this plot twist about half an hour ago. was that supposed to be surprising. if this movie is supposed to be showing a tough chick going around kicking ass. when why doesn not she do very much of it. i can not believe how unoriginal this dialogue is. how long is this thing. i feel like i have been watching it for over four hours already. i have no idea what just happened and but also and i do not particularly feel motivated to try to figure it out. is this over yet. i want my money back. the songs in this soundtrack feel so misused here. it ironic that all of the cursing they use actually detracts from the impact of each one. ugh. and and finally represent i might have to end my friendship with the person who recommended this movie to me. in summation and this movie is a failure in nearly every aspect. avoid watching it at all costs. if your house is on fire and this movie is playing in the only room that isn not flammable and you should seriously consider being burned alive instead. (if i sound bitter and it because i just spent over two hours watching this movie and and uh and i do not enjoy it very much. ).
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
now i had the best intentions when watching this one. i like some of tony scott work and also a friend of mine told me it was a great movie and even though i heard otherwise from other people. but this was simply hopeless. in my humble opinion and tony scott was trying too hard. it was all just too much. allow me to elaborate. miss knightley was overacting and and not in a good way. the people who did perform well and were mickey rourke and edgar ramirez and and christopher walken and but their screen time just wasn not able to save the movie. there were a few scenes that jumped out in their originality and yet somehow it felt like they were written by someone other than the main writer. a certain tune was used around 4 times and which really started to bug after the second time. i am a firm believer of not using the same tune more than once. also and the editing really went out on this one and as the cutting rate is rather high. oh and and the repetitive echoing of some of keira lines simply sounded cheesy after hearing it for the second and third and fourth time and and so on. basically and my opinion is that if you want to see an action flick that is high paced and somewhat funny and and you do not care about everything i mentioned above and you might like it. (on a side note represent i am not a keira knightley fan. ).
now i had the best intentions when watching this one. i like some of tony scott work and also a friend of mine told me it was a great movie and even though i heard otherwise from other people. but this was simply hopeless. in my humble opinion and tony scott was trying too hard. it was all just too much. allow me to elaborate. miss knightley was overacting and and not in a good way. the people who did perform well and were mickey rourke and edgar ramirez and and christopher walken and but their screen time just wasn not able to save the movie. there were a few scenes that jumped out in their originality and yet somehow it felt like they were written by someone other than the main writer. a certain tune was used around 4 times and which really started to bug after the second time. i am a firm believer of not using the same tune more than once. also and the editing really went out on this one and as the cutting rate is rather high. oh and and the repetitive echoing of some of keira lines simply sounded cheesy after hearing it for the second and third and fourth time and and so on. basically and my opinion is that if you want to see an action flick that is high paced and somewhat funny and and you do not care about everything i mentioned above and you might like it. (on a side note represent i am not a keira knightley fan. ).
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.
i am and as many are and a fan of tony scott films. when this movie came out i had high hopes that it would be like man on fire. to find out that the movie it the furthest thing from it. the story was treading water from the get go and and the choice of mickey rourke was not such such a good idea. and the whole arm cene was too gratuitous. the movie is centered around kiera kinghtly and and this movie reveals that she will never become a movie star. the movie brought some of the worst acting ever. i like tony scott direction n all and but this takes the whole friggin cake. sorry ton and negative .
i am and as many are and a fan of tony scott films. when this movie came out i had high hopes that it would be like man on fire. to find out that the movie it the furthest thing from it. the story was treading water from the get go and and the choice of mickey rourke was not such such a good idea. and the whole arm cene was too gratuitous. the movie is centered around kiera kinghtly and and this movie reveals that she will never become a movie star. the movie brought some of the worst acting ever. i like tony scott direction n all and but this takes the whole friggin cake. sorry ton and negative .
This is a semantically negative review.
This is a semantically positive review.