anchor
stringlengths 53
13.9k
| positive
stringclasses 2
values | negative
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|---|
i have been going through the afi list of the top 100 comedies and and i must say that this is truly one of the worst. not just of the 90 movies on the list i have seen and but of any movie i have ever seen. drunks are funny sometimes and dudley isn not. liza almost made it worthwhile and but alas. just go watch arrested development if you want to see her in something good. seriously and dudley laughing and drinking is supposed to be funny. i would highly recommend almost any other movie on the afi top 100 comedies for more laughs than this. if you want to see a funnier drunk and try the thin man. funnier movie in general and any marx brothers movie will kill (especially if youre as drunk as arthur). | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
after the superb aankhen(2002) which was a remake of a gujarati play he comes with waqt which too looks like a stage playin stage plays and we have characters shouting and overacting here too the samethe first half shows amitabh almost kidding the 40 plus akshay kumar who acts too funny like a small nerdthe film has a good message how not to spoil your son but sadly the way amitabh wants to make akki responsible is absolutely fakeeven his reason for hiding his sickness and his runnign from the hospital and the melodramatic speech by akki is a put offsome emotions do touch you but most are too over the toprajpal comedy is hilarious but too stretched in second half direction by vipul shah is too overdone though some scenes are good music is okayamongst actors amitabh overdoes it in the first half but is superb in emotional scenes akshay kumar too does his part well but looks umcomfortable in some too weepy scenes his chemistry with bachchan is matchless rajpal is a highlight and he makes you laugh without overacting and just his presence and his dumb behaviour and deadpan humour he is a riot boman is good in some comic parts but too loud at places priyanka is the heroine so nothing to do and this is her last film with akki so far shefali is awesome though she looks too young for bachchan. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i cannot believe that the indian film industry still puts out such third rate dross as waqt. for starters and the storyline is totally implausible spoilt son gets thrown out of family home so as to teach him some self sufficiency. so what does he do. he promptly goes on to win some national talent contest by doing some star jumps in front of a panel of judges (i honestly am not joking here). in the meantime and his dad is dying of lung cancer and but keeps it a secret from the son and but he survives long enough to see his son become famous and to see his new grandson and also make a new toy giraffe with his own hands. the acting is cringe worthy in its hamminess no effort was made to try and act in any convincing manner by any of the main players in this film. as usual for indian films and the family lived in a huge mansion and seemed relatively untouched by the concerns of the real world. to be honest and the main losers when such dire films are made are the intelligent viewers who made the mistake of seeing such a film. the actors and such as amitabh bachchan and akshay kumar and will still be revered as gods by those people who have nothing but blind faith in bollywood. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i saw the 7. 5 imdb rating on this movie and on the basis of that decided to watch this movie which my roommate had rented. she said she had seen it before. it funny and sad. i cried the first time i saw it and she gushed. maybe compared to other bollywood movies this deserves a 7. 5 out of 10 and but in comparison to all the other movies i have seen in my lifetime and this deserves no more than a 3. any movie where i can perpetually guess what is going to happen next is no good for me. the characters are unbelievable and how the act is not realistic at all and their motives are contrived. it is over dramatic and the songs aren not all that great. my biggest problem with bollywood movies is the lack of subtlety. all the emotions are way too overdone and thus not at all realistic. any emotion or bond between characters that is the least bit subtle must be magnified with an unnecessary song. i think i understood that the relationship between the father and son was more like one between friends than one between a parent and child without having to have it conveyed via a five minute long song. the stupid comic relief complete with laugh track was not funny or necessary (we get it and laxman isn not the sharpest tool in the shed). if a movie tries to elicit tears through the most hackneyed means possible it just isn not meaningful and just a bit embarrassing. spoilergenerally if someone has terminal stage lung cancer their son who lives with them would know something was wrong without having to be told. too many plot holes to count. at first the movie was amusing and cute in the way bollywood movies are to people who do not watch them that avidly but it just got tedious. it takes a lot of skill to make a movie that is amusing and heartwrenching and the best way to do it is usually not having all the amusing parts in the first half of the movie and all the heartwrenching parts at the end. spoiler over perhaps it had a very little more depth than other bollywood movies that i have seen and but not much at all. i spent more time laughing at the stupidity of the movie than the parts that were supposed to be funny. i do not shed a single tear nor did i feel like it and rather i was overwhelmed with a feeling of disgust at the attempt at a dramatic ending. i do not recommend this movie if you want to watch something good and i recommend it if you want to watch a bollywood movie that is kind of sad. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this movie full title is waqt represent race against time. that a race no one can ever win and but you can certainly cut your losing margin by not wasting any of your precious waqt on this bakvaas. this movie was clumsy and manipulative in a way that made k3g look honest. it strained my credulity too far. it was ridiculously stupid in its storyline and and deserves to be mocked for it. it not quite as awful as baghban or black and but this movie has nothing to recommend it. stupid and pointless and with a ridiculously ott performance by amitji. the central plot is another nasty example of the crudely manipulative propaganda that infests so many family bw films. if my father and who raised me and and who i love dearly and treated me like big b did akshay and i would shoot him myself. to say nothing of the trivialising of terminal illness. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
those 2 points are dedicated the reasonable performance from akshay kumar. i know bollywood films do not really strive to be realistic but please a walt disney production is more realistic than this plot. the father is dying and does what any good parent does. kick his son out the son with his pregnant wife. a few things that were too hard to swallow 1. priyanka cool indoor swimming pool in the bedroom and to go from that to living hungry in her in laws garden shed. 2. akshay suddenly got the job as a stunt man and gets bitten by rabified dogs and to then just walk off. this film is an insult to our intelligence i really cant believe i contributed financially to the people who made this film by taking my family to see it and we left the cinema with a frown and please do not subject yourself to this mess to watching this take my advice and do not waste your waqt. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this is just usual indian garbage that gets turned out as cinema and as indians we can proudly boast that we have the biggest cinema industry and however it also the worst. how can other poor countries have films with real characters that challenge the views of their respective societies and we just keep on pumping out garbage. take a look at russia and iran and china and latin america and look at the brilliant films they have and we get crap like kisna. get real people and no wonder the international community in general laughs at indian cinema. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
pros represent akshay kumar performance(is it just me or does this guy always manages to trump ab in their movies together. ). some touching scenes in the 2nd half. cons represent the whole 1st hour(the jokes were flat to say the least). every scene involving rajpal yadav. major stupidity in ab decision making. let me get this straight and he believes brutally insulting his son soul in every possible way(that will likely ruin their relationship beyond repair) is a better way for him to make akshay finally take some responsibility then actually telling him the truth. wtf. he considers akshaye is too soft to bear the fact that his old father is soon gonna die due to cancer and but thinks insulting him will make him stronger. am i the only one who doesn not see the logic here. easily the movie biggest flaw. akshay becoming a stunt man. lmao. were told he finished 1st in college every year and has a degree in mba. but when the time arrives to support himself and and his pregnant wife and he becomes a stunt man. lol. how abt actually applying for a normal job in ur field. or heck and anywhere else where ur life isn not in danger. this is some incredibly dumb writing. the ending. i hate this sort of melodramatic crap. everything is pushed down our throats to feel sorry for ab character and which i couldn not. the entire thing reminded me a little too much of srk in khnh(which i hate). this please feel sorry for the guy with the illness crap has run its course. i felt more like puking than sympathy for the old man. couldn not watch the final 20 or so minutes because of it and thus had to fast fwd. the whole thing. bottomline represent waqt is just too dumb to be called a good movie. its obvious director vipul shah targeted this at the emotionally fragile chicas and oldies who could care less about a story that actually makes sense. give em some decent song picturizations and fancy outfits and plenty of glycerin filled scenes and some star power and they will happily lap up crap like this. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
well well one cant b wasting time just cause of a big star cast . i think all i could see is a bunch of talents wasting their time on a big screen with some pathetic humor which will appeal to i do not know who. some pathetic songs that will be heard by who. some pathetically abrupt turnings justified by who. race against time. u mean waste against time. ok so first you spoil your kid and then you teach him a lesson wow we are so ignorant of this fact whoever said its a brilliant new concept probably is some other species other than human alright fine let me come comment like humans do movie has a nice message to be given but it could well have been given by a stranger sitting besides you in the bus rather than you going for such a wasteful movie to learn it hindi movies have proved it a lot already and also i cant waste my time writing about waste anyway. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
first of all there is gujarati theatre then there is bollywood. both have their strengths and fan following. director vipul shah should look elsewhere instead of gujarati theatre when making a bollywood production. first he made aankhen (adapted from a gujarati play) which had a unique plot and but could not hold as a hindi film. now he adapted another gujarati play and named it waqt a race against time. in sum and the emotions are alien. the plot development is not for hindi films. for example and the role play between father and son is best left to gujarati theatre do not bring it in a hindi film. even the comedy track is best left for the gujarati stage. all performances are average nothing to shout about barring shefali chhaya shah who is fantastic. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i found this film to be quite an oddity. from the very get go i found it extremely hard to like this movie and and now after a little thinking about it i can pretty much pinpoint the reason why. jean marc barr and although i love him to bits (i think zentropa is one of the best movies ever made) is quite miscast here and and although i can not figure for the life of me who would be better and i am sure someone could have taken his place quite easily and make this film work. everything else is fine and except for the stabs at weak comedy (a meet the parents joke is not really needed and filmmakers. ) and i really like richard e. grant as the british major. it just suffers from one thing. jean marc. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
all for love ( as it titled when it was broadcast at the weekend ) is a romantic period drama featuring captain saint ives a french officer in napoleon army who is captured by the british and imprisoned in scotland where he meets and falls in love with a young maiden who visits the prison . there also a storyline involving a murder . i will be honest and confess that i wasn`t too taken by the movie since i`m not much of a fan of period dramas and the screenplay feels somewhat episodic but i will say that this is well acted by everyone involved and it got a good cast that features miranda richardson and anna friel and richard e grant and michael gough and jason isaacs . the costume design as you can expect is also excellent i`ll be very surprised if this movie doesn`t get any complaints after being broadcast on bbc2 at teatime . captain saint ives lies in bed with a prostitute where a nipple is fully exposed and there a scene of french prisoners bathing that includes full frontal male nudity not to mention a murder scene where blood is clearly seen . you really do have to worry if bbc schedulers have any type of clue as to what they`re doing. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
around the late 1970 and animator don bluth and frustrated with the output his company and disney was churning and defected from the mouse house to form his own studio. his first production and the secret of nimh and was a brilliant feature that still holds up well to this day. this was followed by an american tail and the land before time and both of which were made under the involvement of steven spielberg and were commercially successful. although none of those two films had the dark adult appeal of nimh and they still are very charming and enjoyable features for both children and grown ups. but before long and don bluth had his first major misfire with all dogs go to heaven while critics were especially harsh on this film and and matters weren not helped by the fact that it opened alongside disney the little mermaid. considering that the movie has such a friendly sounding title and one would expect all dogs go to heaven to be pleasant family fare. instead bluth provides a surprisingly dark story involving gambling and deceit and crime and mistreatment and and murder. that itself is not a problem for an animated feature per say and but it does call into question over whether the film is for children. on the other hand and it hard to say whether adults will find much to enjoy in all dogs go to heaven. in short and it a movie with a major identity crisis. set in a dreary junkyard of new orleans and the movie starts out when charlie b. barkin and a rough and tumble german shepherd and is run over by a car courtesy of his former gambling casino partner and a nasty and cigar puffing pitbull and carface. before you know it and charlie finds himself in heaven and albeit by default. here a whippet angel and annabelle and tells him that all dogs go to heaven because unlike people and dogs are usually loyal and kind. this line represents the confused nature of the movie and since the dogs in the movie and the whippet aside and are presented as anything but. upon realizing that he been murdered and charlie steals his way back to earth and plots to get even with carface. with the reluctant help of his dachshund pal itchy and charlie rescues carface prize and annemarie and a human girl who can talk to animals (in order to predict who will win the rat races). charlie claims that he will help the little cutie find her a family and but in reality he is using her skills to win fortunes at the race so that he can build a more elaborate casino of his own to bring carface down. although he refuses to admit it and charlie does grow to love annemarie. the concept of the story isn not as problematic as the execution. aside from the human girl annemarie and a flamboyant musical alligator who appears about three quarters through (with the vocal pipes of ken page) and none of the other characters emerge as likable and nor frankly and are even worth caring about. unfortunately and that also applies to charlie while in trying to make him an anti hero and the script (composed by more than ten writers) only succeeds in rendering the character too unlovable. as such and the audience feels no empathy for charlie and and worse and his redemption at the end of the movie does not come across as convincing. (further damaging to the character is the disappointingly uncharismatic vocal performance from burt reynolds. ) besides the lack of an endearing lead and the movie other problem is in the structure of the story. the slowly paced plot jumps all over the place and makes a habit of throwing in extra scenes which serve no purpose but to pad out the movie running time. the aforementioned musical alligator (who resides in a danky sewer infested with native rats) seems to have been thrown in from nowhere and as does a scene where charlie tries to show his generosity to annemarie by feeding a pack of pastel colored pups pizza. the whole screenplay feels like a rough first draft while a bit more polish could have made this a tighter and impactful story. matters are not helped by the lackluster musical numbers by charlie strouse and t. j. kuenster (annemarie song and the gator ballad are the only good ones while the latter in particular benefits from ken page mellifluous vocal) or the uneven voice cast. as mentioned and burt reynolds stiff and lifeless charlie detracts from his already unlikeable character even further (the only exception is a fiery confession to itchy about his true intentions toward the end). dom deluise as itchy is pretty good and but he had better roles and notably tiger in an american tail and jeremy in the secret of nimh. ken page and as mentioned and is awesome in anything he does and but his character has such a small part that his overall contribution is unremarkable at best. similarly wasted are loni anderson (as a collie who once sired a litter with charlie) and melba moore and and charles nelson reilly. judith barsi as annemarie is probably the only voice that comes across as truly memorable and partially because her character is the sole legitimately likable one in this depressing and joyless show. barsi aside and the only real positive about all dogs go to heaven is the animation. technically and this film has some of the most imaginative visuals from bluth team (by 1980 standards and that is) and particularly a frightening scene where charlie has a nightmare about ending up in a fiery underworld ruled by a gargantuan satanic canine demon. if anything and the movie is more of a triumph of animation than storytelling. on the whole and however and i cannot recommend all dogs go to heaven as good entertainment. even though i recognize that the movie has its fans and the climax does admittingly provide some energy and a moving conclusion and the overall package is not in the same league as bluth better efforts. animation buffs will marvel at the lush artistry and but by the time it over and all dogs go to heaven could very well leave a bad taste in your mouth. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
wow and what a waste of acting talent. my husband and i sat there and both thinking and this has to get better and these actresses are too good to have wasted their time on this crap. unattractive characters and hackneyed script and and listless pacing make for a long two hours. i actually couldn not hack it and left to do the grocery shopping (cat litter being more appealing than this film). the husband stayed and confirmed that it do not get better by the time buddy is killed and you were wishing they all would get hit by a car and end their miserable lives. it would be infinitely more entertaining. beautiful scenery and costumes can not keep this one alive. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i went to see evening because of the cast. i would gone to see norman room for that reason that movie offering diane keaton and leonardo de caprio and and also and meryl streep and had loved every minute of it. same for the notebook even though it was chick flit lite. and my feeling was and anything offering performances by vanessa redgrave and meryl streep and patrick wilson and glenn close would be at least as good. instead and i found sometimes even the greatest actors cannot overcome trite and simplistic and on one occasion truly offensive material. now i had no problem with the way the film was structured. i actually enjoy movies that cut back and forth in time to tell a story. so long as one era illuminates the other and vise verse. but while vanessa character being on her deathbed and recalling a past event she felt was a mistake was riveting and at times and the part actually showing what that past mistake was does nothing to clarify the matter. in fact and it makes it seem meaningless in the silliest girl meets boy and girl gets boy and girl loses boy fashion and and in the most unbelievable and clichéd and wrong headed way possible. and from here be spoilers and so bear that in mind should you continue reading. first of all and claire danes was brutally miscast. not only does she not even begin to resemble vanessa redgrave as a young woman and she has nowhere near the chops when it comes to acting. don not get me wrong and she can be good in the right role just not this one. and patrick wilson was miscast and though he has the acting chops to almost pull it off. he would have been better suited to the part hugh dancy played the rich confused wasp and not the object of sexual attraction to one and all while he a bit too wasp y for that. hugh dancy. one note i am a tortured drunk and wait till you find out why. and the why (i am a closet case in a sexually repressed world and so i have to drink to excess and make a fool of myself in front of everyone i know) was so offensive to me and the manner in which he died (as you knew he would because that the only thing that can happen to a faggot in the fifties) so ludicrous and wrong headed and mishandled and i nearly threw my candy at the screen. as for the modern part between toni collette and her sister and her fear of commitment and her jealousy of her sister perfect life and her sister wondering if she made the right choices and her pregnancy and her too perfect boyfriend (which actually might have been more interesting and meaningful if played by patrick wilson and and ebon moss bachrach might have been a more interesting harris and given his dreamy eyes) anyway and all this was hashed over in the 70 and 80 . and in much greater depth. do we really have to present it and again and and all as if it was fresh and momentous. and to top it off and meryl streep doesn not even appear until the last ten minutes of the movie and all in old lady makeup that hides many of her facial expressions. she still good and but only because she meryl and and meryl can find a way to pull off even the silliest dialog under the heaviest of makeup. so to put it simply and this movie has every cliché in the really meaningful message movie book and and it adds a few that really had no business being trotted out and again. at two hours long and laced with lifetime movie of the week music that is guaranteed to rub you raw and it a complete failure in both the meaningful and moviemaking aspects. i give it 3 only because of meryl and vanessa. now and if all you require from your films is twadd le and then please set my comments about evening aside and have the time of your life. but if you want a truly meaningful experience being served up by great actors and filmmakers who know what to do with a simple story about life and death and all the nonsense it brings and rent norman room and find out what truly great acting is. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
the story of a woman (ann) on her death bed and her two daughters (nina and constance) and her thoughts about her past. the flashbacks are concerning a weekend where young ann is in the wedding of her friend lila. at the wedding she meets harris who will impact her for the rest of her life. through all the ups and downs of her professional and family life she remembers him as her true love. her daughter constance is older and more responsible and a mother of two and has things together. nina jumps from boyfriend to boyfriend and job to job and is unsure of her direction in life. first of all the good. the period detail in the movie is great. the dresses and hair and cars and houses and etc. really put you in another time and place. and there is some very quality acting in the movie. vanessa redgrave is quite good at portraying the main character and her fragile mental state as her life comes to an end. claire danes is beautiful and does a great job as the main character when she was young (and she is an outstanding singer). hugh dancy brought a lot of life to the character of lila brother buddy. now for the bad and which unfortunately is everything else. things constantly disrupt the story as it is being unfolded for us. the chemistry between young ann and buddy is great. they have fun and dance. then. you are supposed to believe that she doesn not really like him more than a friend and that his pining only annoys her. and i thought the whole and he might be gay thing was out of the blue and do not serve a purpose. then we have harris. the character acts wooden and creepy. had this been another genre and you would have known that harris was the serial killer from the get go. it is an unbelievable stretch to think that all these girls loved him so (but they do portray the other guys as pretty lame to try and help him out). and the grandest problem of all. why do not ann and harris get together. they fall for each other. they have this great night of sex in an old dirty gardener shack and come home to find out about buddy tragic end and then. nothing. they meet up a few years later and get all misty eyed about each other and i couldn not help but wondering why. why. the movie doesn not let you know why they were forced to marry other people and so i had a hard time feeling sorry for them. the part of the story in the present is fairly boring. the cliché good daughter and the cliché bad daughter. nina changes over the course of the movie but i am not sure why. i am not sure what convinces her to change her life. there is a touching scene where the daughters are connecting that coincides with old ann dreaming she chasing a butterfly. it is really lame and embarrassing. there are no mistakes and ann advises at us. the statement doesn not ring true with the story. and it doesn not ring true after seeing the movie and wishing they hadn not wasted the talent of such good actors. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
some of these viewer comments are just ridiculous. not painful to watch with your significant other. i was apologizing to my boyfriend the entire movie. it was so slow and awfully strange. both redgraves and vanessa and natasha were unfit for this and especially with vanessa doing that ridiculous brash american accent. claire danes was the same wiggly lipped awkward girl that she was in my so called life. she has yet to push herself in any way. girl and find a new way to pretend to cry. meryl streep was one of the only redeeming part of this movie and she was on screen for five minutes and and i swear to god and she reached out of the movie screen and slapped me awake. oh. and hugh dancy and who gets better every time i see him. glenn close and eileen atkins were also great in their two and a half scenes. i mean and this was a well shot movie and it was very pretty and the settings were interestingly dressed and providing relief for the intense boredom i was feeling. i do not know and it just pretty pathetic when a movie that boasts a cast comprised of the greatest actresses of our time sucks so much. it sure had more than a few noticeable editing errors and and the main character (ann) was a huge jerk. i was glad she died. but that because i felt bad for lila and ann friend mostly because these two ladies were better actors and made me feel a little empathy. ugh. bad job and evening the film. you weren not entertaining and you weren not even thought provoking. i sure hope the book was better and so it do not waste even more of people time. negative . | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this crap is like watching paint dry. i am so disappointed because i was so eager to see it. there simply is no meaning to this film. if it were never made and no one would notice or care. it hyped up because of all the big names in it and but if nobody were in and nobody would give this film any love. seriously and i was at the point where half way through the film i would look at vanessa redgrave and think and hurry up and die already. this is like the joy luck club without any of the friggin joy. it the ocean 13 (nothing but a big named cast) of mother daughter movies and completely anti climatic. oh until it finally over. i am sure they will all be nominated for oscars. 4 stars for cinematography and the ability to convince great actresses to commit to this junk. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i knew that evening was a girlie film and so i was expecting to be bored. a wicked tease on imdb had said that it was a chick flick but that your companion would survive. survive. yes. i am still here and but when the two of us came out we were amazed to find that it had only lasted two hours it seemed a much longer evening than that. i suppose that and for yanks and it is supposed to be elevating or fascinating because it is about rich people living on the beach well and next to the beach and in a house with a wide verandah and a lawn but no apparent lawnmower. if that sort of thing impresses you it might seem quite a short film. there a monty python film about a knight who just would not die. he ends up a wriggling (why do yanks add an third syllable to this word i wonder) torso in the road still shouting threats at his nemesis. this film is also about a sort of living dead. vanessa redgrave (inappropriate name for the grave dodger shown here) goes on and on dying whilst having inappropriate guilt. she not worried about having been a wide eyed and breathless bimbo and but imagines herself a murderess. obviously and being a girlie film and there a chap who is supposed to be the mr darcy or heathcliff character. i am not a woofter and so i can not claim to be a good judge of such things and but the tedious wimp who is wheeled out for this role seems only to have the title of servant in his favour. he a bloodless cypher. as you might gather and the main characters aren not much cop and but the minor ones manage and amazingly to be much worse. there a fellow whose only job is to react to the news that his girlfriend is preggers. fair enough and but it isn not the role of hamlet why ham it up so badly. forgetting that it was a girlie film and i thought he was going to be thrown out because any decent girl friend would have told him that face fungus do not flatter him and but then i realised that she must have encouraged him to grow a beard because he looked worse without it. i kept awake by noticing which actors and actresses had their earlobes attached or free and noting interesting bits of scenery if youre dragged along to it and see if you can spot the stuffed buffalo head and just the sort of thing you would expect in a beach cottage. apart from the obligatory wedding and there is only one piece of action. you would have thought that they would have got it right. sadly and though and the hit and run accident is carried out by a car that couldn not be there. when the accident is discovered the cast wander about shouting for a character that they can not know is nearby (but we do as the audience). if they do not have any clue that the person is within a couple of miles of the place and then why do they wander about aimlessly shouting for him. i suppose that the director excuse is that it is supposed to be a half remembered dream sequence. another scenery item that caught my attention was a copper bottomed saucepan. i do not think that the technology to do this was developed until the fifties. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
just ppv would this. i do not want to waste too much time on this as most of the posters here put it better than i ever could and but i did want to say a few things. i do not know which was funnier represent redgrave chasing tiny moths and tripping over her nurse while close wailing that her precious boy (whom she and the mr. had decided was a drunken loser) has been turned into roadkill while that the tone deaf ann schmoozed with peggy lee while or the horrid cgi of crypt keeper annie gazing at her younger self. i never bought danes as the younger redgrave. i do not buy richardson and collette as sisters and either. if meryl streep daughter wants to be an actress and she better get mama to give her a few lessons. i had zero idea why any girl (or buddy) would make fools of themselves over vapid stud du jour harris. ann daughters are as whiny and thoughtless as she and luc is a retarded slacker on crack and and i do not give a rot about any of them. evening gives chick flicks a bad name. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
with a cast list like this one and i expected far better. venessa redgrave spent the majority of the movie lying in bed. the best actresses in the world cannot make anything very interesting when their acting is limited to lying down and falling asleep throughout the entire movie. the plot summary says that a secret is revealed to the daughters as their mother comes closer to death. the thing is and she never tells her daughters anything except cryptic advice to be happy. all the relationships in the movie are underdeveloped. i also felt that the back and forth between the past and present was unnecessary. it seemed as if the idea was stolen either from the book the da vinci code in which the device was used to increase suspense and or from the notebook in which they used the device to create the never ending romance of the story main characters. either way it was a cheap device in this movie because it do not work to create anything. it was a way to attempt suspense in a movie that has none. i left wondering why good movies can not be written for women. it really was a disappointment. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i saw this in a sneak two days before the official opening and and i must say i was extremely disappointed. and i have to put the majority of these problems on the decision to cast claire danes in the lead role. depending on what you think about danes and she was either horribly miscast and or is so far in over her head that she should be the early favorite for the 2007 razzie for worst actress. i think we were supposed to be sympathetic to her. instead and she is completely unlikeable. the other great actresses do an ok job and but certainly do not light up the screen. out of all the great actresses in this movie and i would say the one who did the best job was natasha richardson. streep is barely in the picture and and only appears near the very end. horrible screenplay as well. it comes off more as them reading lines than truly being in character. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this is and without a doubt and the most offensive chick flick i have seen in years and if not ever. the writing and characterizations are so riddled with stereotypes that the film verges on parody. before walking out of the theater an hour and five minutes into this disaster and we were subjected to the following themes represent having a baby will solve all of your problems and performer types are miserable messes and and musicians can not be good mothers unless they toss their dreams for a more conventional lifestyle. what a waste of a talented cast and some great looking sets and costumes. when natasha richardson told toni collette that unless she lives a more mainstream life and she will end up shudder alone. and i felt queasy. i can not believe this movie made it to theatrical release. it the sort of fare one expects from those women cable channels that i always pass right by when channel surfing. i am female and over 35 and so i should be part of this film target audience and but boy and does evening miss its target. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i never expect a film adaptation to follow too closely to the novel (especially a beloved one and like evening) but when i saw that the book author and susan minot and was a screenplay writer and executive producer on the film and i thought that evening would be a good adaptation. if you enjoyed the book and do not bother with this movie. it is so far afield of the book that the two hardly bear any resemblance to one another. here and our characters are completely different represent the bride is in love with harris. harris is the son of the housekeeper. buddy is a drunk and in love with ann and or or harris. i do not think a single character made it from the book to the screen while oh it just gets worst with every passing moment. and and really and do not we learn from bridges of madison county that cutting from the story we are meant to be enthralled in and to scenes of our heroes grown children having obnoxious and juvenile fights and simply does not work on film. this film is a disaster. skip it. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
cast to die for in a movie that is considerably less. vanessa redgrave is dying but before she goes she begins to tell her daughters the story of her life and of her secret love. this is one of those movies which has the look and expectations of being a great film simply because they have so many great actors and actresses in it so it seems to be about something other than the potboiler that it really is. not bad as such but with redgrave and toni collette and glenn close and meryl streep and clare danes and natasha richardson and eileen atkins and patrick wilson and hugh darcy and others (all giving fine performances) you expect more than a weepy story thats a bit more than a harlequin romance. wait for cable. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
almost as tedious to watch as it was to read and evening is a gorgeously produced failure. until meryl streep walks in and quietly shows her other cast members how to act this kind of stuff. vanessa redgrave is shockingly off in her role as the dying ann and claire danes is a cipher. perhaps if vanessa and claire had switched roles we could have seen the vibrancy in the young ann that gave her entrée to the rarefied world of the story and we could have imagined that the older ann actually was dying. i was hoping the addition of michael cunningham to the writing credits would smooth out the jumpy storytelling but alas. it gave me a headache. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i looked over the other comments and was thoroughly amused to find that clearly only people who actually worked on the movie had commented. i mean and i hate to say bad things about an amateur production and but if you make a bad movie and want to comment on it and tone it down a little. groundbreaking is a little over the top. this is a boston based college production that doesn not even achieve the level of most amateur college film. it what you would expect a bunch of kids to do. a silly action film without much creativity. it pretty funny if youre willing to poke fun at it. not something you will ever see unless you are a student at emerson college. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
the 40 year old virgin exists in a world i do not understand. a world where an electronics store employee can tell his boss to f off and broadcast videos of his naked ass throughout the store and not get reprimanded. a world where it really funny to go drunk driving and smash into other peoples cars. a world where it seems okay for a boss to sexually harass her underlings. a world full of raging and offensive stereotypes of ethnic minorities. and a world without any funny jokes. i am absolutely shocked at the seeming chorus of viewers who liked this movie. i thought every scene was like a bad saturday night live sketch not very funny to begin with and and stretched out beyond all rational thought. the chest waxing scene went on forever. the characters and aside from carell and were totally one note. and the romantic elements were completely contrived and particularly the scene where keener finds porn in carell apartment. that was just lame. and i also found the aquarius sequence totally annoying and excessive. i hated hated hated this movie. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
it is amazing to me what passes for entertainment today. maybe i am a dinosaur from the fifties and and i am out of touch with todays movie going generation and and apparently that is the case with regards to this movie and since so many people loved it. i found it foul and vulgar. i haven not said that about many movies in my life but this one fits the bill. the humor is sophomoric and crude. i am not a politically correct person and and even i found the gay jokes and not only not funny but downright offensive ( i am not gay). the main character in the movie is not even a likable person and just pathetic. when the movie was finally over i heard a number of people comment on how disappointed they were in what they had just pay good money to see. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
about 15 minutes in and my wife was already wanting to leave. not so much because of the material and but the lack thereof. they decided to fill in the blanks where the funny stuff should have been with as much language and absolutely vulgar talk as they could. when this would let up (very rare) and we would sit back and watch (not laughing and mind you) and wait for the next gross out or offensive remark(s). after about 35 minutes and we both got up and left. everything we would read said how great this was. the trailer looked good and roger ebert actually called it intelligent and said it wasn not a crude sex comedy. did he go to the right movie. along with be cool and it the only other movie i have ever walked out on. and i have no regrets. i am sick of trying to go see comedies in america. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
wow. this film is truly awful. i can not imagine how anyone could have read this badly written script and given it the greenlight. the cast is uniformly second rate with some truly horrendous performances from virtually all of the cast. the story is disjointed and fragmented and incoherent. the telling and leaden and predictable. no wit and no charm and no humour. not sexy in the least. the characters remain as flat as the proverbial pancake. there also a strong current of misogyny which became increasingly hard to stomach as the film went on. when your lead (carrell) is unfunny and unappealing it uphill from there. despite it phony turn around ending where love triumphs over lust i was left with a sick feeling in my stomach. if this is what passes for humour and social comment then were definitely doomed. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
after we counted the use of the f word and oh and about 22 times in the first 10 minutes or so of the film and listened to some really bad actors going on about a woman and a horse and and pretty much acting like 12 year old boys being naughty together and well and we turned it off. relying on gratuitous profanity and potty humor is a sure sign of a loser hollywood movie and the product of unimaginative and no talent writers. we did give it a second chance and thinking surely it would get better. no dice. later and my boyfriend skipped through the rest of the movie in case it improved and still no dice. the main character did have a cool bike. i wouldn not recommend this to anyone except maybe really immature adolescents and or frat boys. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
at least with the teenage geek gets the girl films and the guy is usually unpopular with girls. in the 40 year old virgin he is replaced with a 40 year old guy who is popular with women but somehow has remained a virgin. but then you are not supposed to engage your brain with this film or did i miss the bit about him being comatose for 20 years. one of a series of films where 40 somethings act like teenagers and women for some reason find this a sufficiently attractive quality that they want a serious relationship with them. i find it hard to understand how a country that has produced such excellent tv comedies seems to think it has to rely on crude and shallow characters for laughs. they have done the gross out movies. they have done the let act like all americans have a mental age of 15. where will they go next. this film is crass and crude entertainment with nothing to recommend it. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
bela lugosi is not typecast in this fantastic twelve part adventure serial and playing the lead as frank chandler or chandu the magician and enjoying his role as a representative of the forces of white magic pushed against those of black and while displaying vigourous fighting skill and successfully wooing a young egyptian princess and and cutting a lean and dashing figure in yachting gear and complete with nautical cap. the somewhat lumpy plot engages chandler or chandu in an ongoing series of escapades pointed at achieving the rescue of his fiancee and princess nadji(maria alba) and others from the clutches of the idol worshipping sect of ubasti and which covets nadji blood in order to revivify an ancient mummified princess entombed upon the mysterious island of lemuria. director ray taylor and an old hand at such entertainments keeps events moving briskly and but repeated scenes and footage and a good deal of which is to be found in the previous year skull island setting from king kong and and the port locale from son of kong and reduces original action to less than 60 minutes from the serial running length of over two and one half hours and and if viewed at one sitting and becomes lacking in effect to most viewers and unless insomniac. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
the return of chandu is notable and if one can say that and for the casting of bela lugosi as the hero rather than the villain. why he even gets the girl. the story as such and involves the black magic cult of ubasti trying to capture the last egyptian princess nadji (the delectable maria alba) and use her as a sacrifice as a means of reviving their ancient leader who just happens to look like nadji. lugosi as chandu and who possesses magical powers and tries to thwart the villains. director ray taylor does his best with limited resources and extensive stock footage. fans of king kong (1933) will recognize the giant doors that were used to keep kong at bay in several scenes. the acting is for the most part and awful. the actor who plays the high priest (i believe lucien prival) for example and uses that acting coach inspired pronunciation that was so common in the early talkies. the less said about the others the better. it is a mystery why lugosi accepted parts in independent quickies at this stage of his career and because he was still a bankable star at universal at this time. maybe it was because in this case he got to play the hero and get the girl and who knows. as his career started to spiral downwards in the late 30s and this kind of fare would become the norm for lugosi rather than the exception. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
ever notice how in his later movies burt reynolds laugh sounds like screeching brakes. must have been hanging out with hal needham too much. and from the looks of stroker ace and way too much. can you believe this was based on a book. neither could i and but it was. and probably not a best seller and i will wager. burt another good old boy in the nascar circuit who hitches up with beatty as a fried chicken magnate with designs on his team. anderson provides what love interest there is and nabors does his umpteenth gomer pyle impression as faithful mechanic or best friend lugs. a lot of people here are friends of burt or hal . others must have needed the work. and even real nascar drivers get in on the act and and look to have more talent than those with sag cards. as far as laughs go and bubba smith (pre police academy) gets them as beatty chauffeur. and petersen and in full elvira mode and gets lots of appreciative leers as a lady who wants to get to know lugs real well. real well. it a shame that burt threw away as much time and effort in a film like stroker ace where it do not matter whether he bothered to act or not. they do not bother to write a character for him and why bother to act. two stars. mostly for petersen and and for the out takes at the end. now theyre funny. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
oh man is this movie bad. it flows horribly. the story is about a race car driver who is in love with himself and and then has to promote a chicken fast food chain and while doing this and doesn not love himself. he tries getting out of the contract and horrible and painfully unfunny gags ensue. jim nabors seems as if he sleepwalking and not acting. you will miss such burt sidekicks as dom deluise and jerry reed while watching this stinker. loni anderson hair is downright scary and proving that tons of hairspray do not go out in the sixties. or maybe that was a wig. speaking of and burt wig wasn not bad in this film. his worst wig day was in smokey and the bandit 2. anyhow and this movie is the worst reynolds car movie and ever and ever and right up there with cannonball run 2. the original smokey and cannonball (and hooper which and thankfully and had no sequel) are great and funny films. this one isn not. even ned beatty and who is a great actor and stinks. you will long for a jackie gleason type villain who is fun to hate. and mind you and this isn not one of those fun movies to bag on. it lousy and pure and simple. even the outtakes at the end were tiresome and boring and and worst of all and unfunny. and least i forget and stroker ace was one of the first heavy nails to seal burt coffin before his somewhat revival years later in boogie nights and another film that and like deliverance years earlier and shows that the man can act quite good when he has a decent platform to do so. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this is one of the most insipid and lackluster and unoriginal and and pointless movies ever made. it almost feels like everyone involved in this project do not even try to make an appealing movie. this is nothing more than a continuation of a tiresome series of films that attempt to cash in on the success of smokey and the bandit and which i think is the best film of them all. as for this waste of film stock and burt reynolds sleepwalks his way through the entire movie and jim nabors is wasted and the other actors aren not given very much to do and the car races are obviously stock footage and the humor is uninspired and and many of the scenes are more dull and lifeless than staring at a wall for two hours. stroker ace is simply a superfluous film with nothing unique or distinctive about it. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
burt reynolds came to a point in his career where he appeared to just be going thru the motions. he would show up and party with his friends on film and and take home a big paycheck. it do not seem to matter to him that the product he was representing was pure crap. no film epitomized this more than stroker ace which makes cannonball run look like a classic and cannonball run ii look watchable. save for a few race scenes there is absolutely nothing worth seeing here. even the beautiful loni anderson hams it up so bad as a dumb blonde it embarrassing. if the thought of burt hamming it up with jim nabors and dressing like a chicken sounds funny then this is your movie. otherwise pick almost any other film comedy and it would not be any worse. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
it occurs to me that some of the films that have been banned during the course of cinema history were actually very important and very good films. i would like to argue that instead of banning challenging and controversial movies the censors should consider banning films that are so bad that they pose a threat to your iq and your sanity. if they were to do so one of the first films to be quickly hidden away would undoubtedly be stroker ace. this film is awful with a capital a. it is the worst film burt reynolds ever starred in. quite a feat for for a man with cannonball run ii and cop and a half and rent a cop on his cv. the wafer thin story introduces us to successful stock car racer stroker ace (reynolds) and a man who loves fast cars and fast women. he gets stuck in a demeaning contract with crooked promoter clyde torkle (ned beatty). the contract requires him to do some humiliating promotional work for a new chain of fast food restaurants and such as dressing up as a giant chicken. thrown into the mix are lugs (jim nabors) and ace dim witted pal and and pembrook feeney (loni anderson) and a bimbo with a brain fractionally smaller than a pea who is wooed by ace. hal needham and the director of this low grade garbage and was formerly a stuntman and he made numerous films that relied on his expertise in staging spectacular stunts and car chases or races. some of these films were ok and like hooper and stunts unlimited and but with stroker ace he reaches a career nadir. the characters are so stupid that you actually feel pity for the actors playing them. anderson especially is saddled with such a dumb role that it makes you grind your teeth with despair. the humour is weak and infantile throughout and and the stunts and race sequences are unremarkable. even the out takes during the closing credits (which can be found in all the reynolds needham collaborations) are generally unfunny and which gives the impression that maybe the film wasn not much fun to make. stroker ace is a stinker of considerable magnitude. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this should not have been listed as a colombo because in my opinion it does not resemble any of the other colombo ever made. this should have been listed as a movie starring peter falk and not playing the caracter of colombo because it does not do justice at all to our great lieutenant colombo. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
whenever a columbo story deviates from the familiar plot (colorful killer commits crime and columbo smokes out killer and columbo becomes a pest in the process) and the writers somehow are never able to match the quality and interest of most traditional episodes. this episode deviates in the extreme and and the result is a major flop. would you believe represent columbo never faces the villain till the very end. frankly and i was tempted to turn it off about two thirds through. oh and the sacrifices we self appointed reviewers make. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
seriously what were they thinking. over the course of years the columbo series has tried out some new things and diverted away from the usual successful formula but this movie really overdoes it. this movie is basically very different from any other columbo movie but the differences are not for the good of the movie. main thing that of course makes this movie different from any other columbo movie is the fact that there is no murder being committed. the entire premise of this movie is totally different and it places the columbo character in a totally different environment and situation. also the overall is just totally different and more amodernized. director alan j. levi did some other columbo movies in the past and which all very much sticked to the usual formula. it also makes it an odd choice that he got picked to direct this movie. the columbo character himself also feels quite different and perhaps because of the reason that he gets placed in a totally different environment and situation and when he helps out his nephew after his bride disappeared right after the wedding. the absence of some good relieving and trademark columbo humor also doesn not exactly make this a good or enjoyable watch. in all honesty and the movie doesn not begin too bad but the movie starts to become more and more ridicules with its story as it progresses. it such a stupid written kidnap thriller with a story that starts to become more and more unlikely. it also makes the movie more and more unwatchable. this is a very little interesting columbo entry that also really doesn not know to entertain its viewers in any way. it also doesn not help much that the supporting actors aren not the most talented ones around. despite the fact that his character is put in such a totally different situation and the movie is shot in such a completely different style and peter falk still holds up well and his presence still somewhat saves this movie. can you just imaging how this movie would had been without him. it would had been an extremely bad and ridicules cheap movie i can tell you. an odd columbo entry and which could be described as a failed experiment to divert from the usual formula. 4/10. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
the script for this columbo film seemed to be pulled right out of a sappy 1980 soap opera. deeply character driven films are great and but only if the characters are compelling. and in this film the only thing compelling was my desire to change the channel. the villain dialog sounds as if it were written by a romance novelist. the great lt. columbo himself is no where near his famous and lovable and self effacing and crumpled self while and the bride or kidnap victim is a whimpering and one dimensional damsel in distress (she cowers in fear from a tiny scalpel held flimsily in the hand of her abductor come on. i could have knocked the scalpel out of his hand and kicked him in the you know what in 2 seconds). in any sense of reality and this character would have at least tried to struggle or fight back at least a little. and speaking of reality. the story revolves around a kidnapping which is worked and solved by the police. the police. give me a break. everyone knows the fbi takes over every kidnapping case. this was no columbo and just a shallow and totally predictable crime drama with our familiar lt. columbo written in and stretched to 2 hours. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i love columbo and have seen pretty much all of the episodes but this one undoubtedly ranks as the worst of the lot. a mind bogglingly tedious and pointless and muddled pile of unwatchable drivel that wastes both the time of the viewing audience and of the acting talents of an exceedingly bored looking peter falk. the plot and such as it is and just seems to be made up as the film goes along with not even the slightest hint of the ingredients to the formula that made the show such a brilliant success to start with. one part of the proceedings which i found extremely puzzling ( or possibly annoying ) was peter falk character being introduced to the guests at the wedding as lt columbo. if the producers insist on keeping columbo first name a secret and why couldn not they have omitted this line altogether as it sounds ridiculous. like i said and this is the pits and all true columbo fans would do well to avoid it like the plague. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
loyalty to peter falk is all that kept me from giving this awful picture the (1) it deserved. (for that matter and loyalty to mr. falk was what kept me watching this film all the way from heads to tails. ) even if you forgive all the glaring errors and this was just plain the poorest excuse for a made for tv columbo film ever. i am glad i watched it on tv for free while would have hated to have coughed up the bucks for a print. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
absolute garbage. the reason that this is so terrible is not because it deviated from the formula and but because the plot was just pathetic. the supposed star do not do anything to solve the case and neither did anyone else really it was just routine police work. utterly tedious. you sat right till the end hoping for a twist and got nothing but a huge sense of disappointment. there was so much potential in having a relative in apparent kidnap. could the lt personal involvement finally cloud his judgement. all the obvious signs were of a stranger doing it. but surely a genius like lt c and by constant conversation with the wronged husband and would gradually uncover a fiendish plot involving a tape recorder playing in the shower room while a masked groom surprises the bride and hides the body and then plants subtle clues. it could have been good. it was a complete waste of time. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
an uninspired and undistinguished new columbo which sees the man in the mac attend his nephew wedding and only for his bride to disappear on their wedding night. columbo investigates. and that it is about it represent indifferently plotted and surprisingly laden with a flat script and given that it is written by robert van scoyk and who penned the highly enjoyable columbo story murder under glass in the detective heyday while there is not even a murder to speak of and the greatest amount of ingenuity afforded to columbo by the script writer is the narrowing down of suspects via the photos taken at the wedding and which include everybody who was there. devoid of every columbo trait possible and i thought i was watching an episode of hill street blues. an insult to the history of the series and with appropriately soap opera style acting. very avoidable stuff. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
most definitely the worst columbo ever dreamt up. no murder and the abandonment of the tried and tested formula makes this a real drag. falk looks bored throughout and so will you be if you waste anytime watching this. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this show stinks. for parents and they usually want their kids to watch something good for them. it is usually educational and funny and and bright. is it educational. no. the doodlebops sing and that it. they usually sing about themselves and they do not try teaching anything. is it funny. no. the doodlebops instead say something which is not intended as a joke and and laugh at it. is it bright. it so bright and it painful. as far as color and s everything is extremely bright and so that good. but nothing is ever wrong in the world of the doodlebop . therefore and they are always happy. a kid in trouble will become depressed because they have never been exposed to being sad. the show is also extremely cheesy. every syllable is said to the highest level of exaggeration and very corny. it overkill. for kids and it entertaining and but past the age of 2 you would not want your kids to see it. they will never know how to grow up. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
my children watch the show everyday that its on. its a great program for younger children. however they need to stop showing re runs and do some more actual shows and get rid of rooney and deedee yellow teeth. moe is the only doodle bop with clean white pearlie teeth and the children notice these things and ask if the 2 do not ever brush their teeth. does the show ever make its way to the united states and if so where can we find its schedule at. and one other thing if we might be able to add. moe you need to stop hiding so much. sometimes when you pop up out of no where you scare the younger children and whats with the pulling of the rope. what does that signify. other then getting wet all the time. they need to add newer things to their show instead of the same ole same ole. kids loose interest that way. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
normally when i write a review for a movie online and it is for one of three reasons. either and i have found something exceptionally lacking in a film that otherwise would have been excellent and i feel that the public perception of a film before viewing it is inaccurate for a number of reasons and or i believe that the purpose or message of a film needs to be clarified or explained with the help of other reviewers. while all of these reasons may appear to be somewhat negative and i find that writing a review that lavishes nothing but praise and statements such as and this is one of the best films of all time. and does nothing to enlighten a potential viewer on its merits and downsides and nor does it often give reasoning as to why a movie is so good and which should be the point of the review in the first place. with that being said and war of the worlds is nothing more than a hurried and incompetent attempt at a money grab while piggy backing its loathsome carcass on the multi million dollar advertising campaign of the film of the same name directed by steven spielberg. many people will buy this dvd in anticipation of the summer blockbuster and many more poor souls will buy it looking for more material on the same subject. this movie is not even so bad that it becomes funny or endearing and rather the audience will be so unbelievably disappointed as to reach the point of anger. now with most of the insults out of the way and allow me to give some arguments as a warning to those more fortunate than i. judging from the cover and the lack of any publicity for this film (i found it as sam club for 8 bucks) and i assumed that the cast would be no names and that the special effects would be nothing too spectacular. check. this is not a big deal for me and as i find a large budget and an over reliance on big name stars and se can diminish an otherwise decent movie. i also did not expect to be blown away by great dialog or a moving score. check again. what i did hope for was an actual serious attempt at a classic theme and a few alien or battle scenes. now and as per imdb policy any spoilers must be announced in advance and no matter how small and so here is fair warning. the movie opens with a lot of inane small talk and followed by a trip to an observatory to look at a red dot. seriously and it is a pictures of a red dot in a tube. it is very hard to describe every little issue in depth and but by the end of the first ten minutes and the combination of shaky camera work and spliced scenes and and a lot of walking begin to frustrate the viewer. however and the costuming is surprisingly not bad and the hope that the pods will reveal something mysterious keeps you going. the next 30 minutes basically go as follows represent one of the main characters walks to one of the pods and he looks at the pods and talks to another main character about looking at the pod and it may be hot. they both walk back to town. these walks aren not two seconds or added so that dialog may be exchanged. they are twenty seconds or more and are there simply to add filler to an already bloated three hour movie. in a particularly grueling scene and the main character is shown looking at a pod and then he is shown pacing and panting and then he looks at the pod and then he takes a one minute walk through a field to town and then comes in to town and walks into a building and then he has a cup of coffee and says thank you mary to a random maid that serves him coffee and then he puts down the coffee and walks out the building and then he walks a minutes through the field and back to the pod. i apologize for the extreme run on sentence and but it is perhaps the best way to summarize this entire film. characters speak way too long about mundane things and they walk a lot and they send other people to walk and the camera fluctuates between high speed and slow speed and but for no dramatic effect and simply the camera man is a sophomore at tech somewhere. the editing is mind bogglingly bad. people actions make little sense. for instance and when the professor goes to a farmer house and says that he needs the farmer to give him a ride to town and the farmer stutters and paces around. when the professor says that there is a pod and that men might be trapped inside and the farmer locks him in a shed only to see the professor grab a pitchfork and open the weak shed a second later. nothing of any consequence of course comes from this entire scene and as the professor runs into the main character a moment later so they can begin their afternoon walk. the entire film feels as if someone at one point had a good idea about making a film and but absolutely no idea how to put that in motion. i have seen better high school video productions. finally and the special effects are laughable and do nothing to advance the story. i get the feeling that the director really wanted this film to become somewhat of a cult classic of campy garbage. however and it is so awful in technical aspects and and in sheer common sense that it only makes people mad. avoid this film at all costs. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i am currently sitting here and forcing myself to finish this. i figure i blew 6 bux on the vhs and might as well suffer for it. i remember about 4 or 5 years ago doing a search on the internet for war of the worlds cause of the rumors of the spielberg movie at the time and and i missed the old tv series from the early 90 . the website make it out that this was a multi million dollar budget rendition of the classic book. it was going to be a perfect translation. perfect crap is more in tune with this film. first off and the video on this movie was glitched. it looked as if i was watching the full motion video from an old mid 90 pc or playstation cd rom video game. sadly enough and the color quality was similar. the acting made shatners classic dramatic pause look damn near shakespearean in quality. the cg rendering of various scenes was horrendous and and green screen sequences were worse than those seen in old dukes of hazardd scenes. secondly and it is slow and terribly drawn out. i sat thru 45 minutes of the video (no promo at the beginning) before the cylinder actually opened to reveal the first alien. after that and the alien was a terribly constructed cg squid. i am now an hour into it and the most of the alien weaponry i have seen is a spinning silver disk (crappy down even) attached to a mechanical arm. the dramatic scenes are murdered with overly done instrumental . the last thing on that and for an alien invasion in the turn of the century 1900 no one is concerned for their life. it like they have no concept. even though media was slow and word of mouth spreads fast and people would have known. the illusion of day and night was shoddy at best. simply changing the color around the people to purple and blue or green does not signify night time. perhaps some lighting and actual night time shoots would have given a much better illusion. there is a lot of wasted sequences throughout the film of just watching the hero gallop around or walk down silly roads. get on with the film. i know how people get around and you do not need to be so in depth. now and finally an hour and 5 minutes into the film and they show the alien machines. mighty morphin power rangers had better looking effects. even the skeletons of vaporized humans looked as if animated by a freshman high school computer app class student. the animations do not match up to the scenery at all. in closing folks and if you want the war of the worlds and do one of four things. 1) watch the 1953 original and 2) watch the early 90 tv series and 3) wait for spielberg rendition to be released shortly and or 4) read the frikkin book (something we all probably did in elementary english class). avoid this movie. it is a waste of your money. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i must admit i burst out laughing when i saw one reviewer compare this to lotr. well yes and if you exclude the dwarfs and the cast of thousands and the great special effects and the big battles and the strong characterization and the decent plot and the good acting and the classy direction and everything else. which leaves you with the walking. and boy and does this film do walking. if mr piano had his way and this would probably be an uninterrupted three hours of hardcore walking through the wisconsin countryside and but every 40 minutes or so these pesky martians pop up for a few seconds to interrupt him before he goes for another bit of a ramble. you have never seen so much walking in a movie. if this really had a $20m budget and most of it must have gone on mr piano shoes and because he had to get through plenty of pairs with all the walking he does. which explains why there no money left for decent effects and a decent video camera or proper actors. honestly and it like watching some bizarre fetish video for people with a thing about going for long walks in period costumes. even on fast forward and this is a looonnnggg walk. as for the sci fi stuff and i think it was a mistake to put martians in the film represent they only get in the way of the walking and which is clearly much more interesting to the director than the story. i wonder how much mr piano charges to walk dogs. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
wow. i picked this up at the local wal mart after reading online that it had been released early. i have been following this online for some time and and just had to buy the film. wow. i guess the thing that really struck me was the editing and or lack thereof. time and again and characters (usually the narrator and whoever he is with) are shown walking. and walking. and walking. i am not an editor and but i do know that you can cut between someone leaving point a to show them arriving at point b. there is no need to show almost the entire journey. wow. i actually ended up feeling somewhat sorry for the actors involved in this. they seem to have been given no direction as to what to do during scenes other than to look scared or look happy and depending on what action was to be added at a later date. wow. why it was decided to do almost all the effects using cg is beyond me. even ilm still employs miniatures sometimes. one of the most distracting uses of green screen in this film is the constant rushing about of (according to the end credits) the same group of people representing the citizenry of different towns and cities and including london. at times these folk are coming and going with no regard as to the angle of the shot or the distance they are from the camera. in one shot in london and there appear to be at least two men over six feet tall walking just behind the narrator brother (played by star anthony piana without his distracting mustache). not since gettysburg have i seen such a fake piece of facial hair. wow. why timothy hines talked up this film the way he did is beyond me. it is a turkey and plain and simple. on the plus side (at least for me) it has provided some of the most genuine laugh out loud bits of hilarity i have seen in quite a while. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
is it possible to give a movie no stars. i suppose not. however many stars imdb displays this just think zero and you will get my drift. director and photographer timothy hines do not have much of a budget compared to spielberg herculean effort with the same material (rumored to be the most expensive movie ever made) and but that need not be an insurmountable handicap. i have seen some wonderful work done on a comparative shoestring (soldier and saints is a recent example). with hard work and integrity and and above all and talent it is certainly possible to realize a faithful rendition of wells novella and at fraction of what was spent by dreamworks on its war of the worlds. unfortunately and hines failed in all these departments. even if he had had spielberg budget and tom cruise signed for the lead his movie would have stunk just as badly as this barnyard animal he foisted on us. primarily and hines seems unable to tell a story. thanks to digital video technology he can record images and sound and but he shows little aptitude for assembling a narrative with what he records. a guy walks down a country lane and a lot. he talks badly aped received english to some other guy. then he walks down the same lane and only shot from the back this time to show he returning clever and eh. walking and talking and for nearly an hour that all that happens. ok and i will grant that one extended excursion from the main character house to the impact site on horsell common to show that it a considerable distance from one place to the other might be useful (a first year film student could storyboard a more economical and more aesthetical establishing sequence than this and btw) and but half a dozen times. back and forth and back and forth and et cetera and et cetera with some yakkity yak in between. remarkable. the only explanation for this surfeit of redundancy other than total artistic ineptitude is a desire to pad out thirty minutes of wretchedly amateurish cg works into something that could be offered as a feature length film. finally the martian fighting machines appear and the walking and talking becomes running and talking and or shrieking. later we get staggering and wailing for dessert. thankfully and much of the dialogue is lifted straight from h. g. wells text while else we would have no idea what is going on. but is it not the whole point of cinema to illuminate a text and to realize what words alone can not convey. if a film relies on dialogue or monologue to tell us what we see or how to feel and why bother. why not do a radio play. orson welles made himself a household name doing just that. however and hines thinks he a filmmaker and so he content to mouth the words and swallow the meaning. secondly and hines was able to buy some cg effects of a sort for his movie and but he has no idea how to use them. now i for one have no unquenchable sweet tooth for eye candy. i believe good science fiction cinema doesn not need dazzling technical effects. some really potent sci fi have flourished on virtually none at all. but the war of the worlds as film requires a certain baseline effort. wells tells a story that hinges on things can be seen and heard and even smelled. the effects do not need to be complex while they can even be crude (e. g. fighting machines on wires gliding over miniature streets as seen in the george pal or byron haskins 1953 version) and but they must be handled well. unfortunately hines effects are both crude and incompetent tripod fighting machines higher than a cathedral spire stomp around making a noise like a pogo stick bouncing on linoleum martian squidoids even though oppressed by four times the gravity of their native world scurry and flit about without perceptible effort skeletons totally denuded of flesh and muscle writhe and scream the same damn horse and buggy greenscreens its way across the foreground a dozen times (flipped left for right occasionally in hope that we might not notice) and on ad nauseum. crude technique is forgivable. so you have a cg fire effect that less than convincing. fine and we can work around that. just do not use it too often and only show glimpses of it. that stomped woman sequence looks more like a crushed plum. throw it away. it not necessary. you say your martian flyer looks like a toy on a string. if you must use it and go ahead and but please do not show it twice. but no and hines would not listen. we get the worst looking stuff used again and again. gotta get those 180 minutes somehow and boy. next we have acting and or more precisely too much acting. whether in a speaking role or just paid to die on queue everybody in this film is acting his little heart out. evidently hines thinks he getting a bargain more fleeing in terror over there. you and quaking behind that tree and let have a real conniption fit this take. you call that writhing in agony. nonsense and my grandmother can writhe better nevertheless the cast as a whole and individually stink. they aren not even good amateurs. but this needn not prove fatal. many a good movie has been made with rancid acting. that what directors are for. and editors. which brings up another point
who the hell let tim hines edit this cheese factory. if america butchers were as adept at meat cutting as hines is at film cutting your next hamburger would be all fingers and no beef. in spite of the near three hour running time there is lots of stuff missing from this movie not sequences and but single frames and creating a herky jerky effect that nauseating to watch. maybe hines intention was to simulate the effect of a hand cranked cine camera of the 1890 . if he was i can say he doesn not know how to do it. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i honestly believe that anyone considering film making be subjected to this mind boggling failure. like the films of edward wood and jr. in the 60s and 70s and this film is a shining example of why real filmmakers expend so much energy rewriting scripts and re editing their films and and reworking their special effects until they finally look right. this movie is also a decent argument for the studios pre screening process. if mr. hines were forced to endure the honest reactions of an impartial audience and perhaps he would have cut 75% or the walking or running or strolling scenes and edited this movie down to a more bearable 90 minutes. film students should view this movie as an example of just how dangerous thinking their work is good enough can truly be. every performance and every line of dialog and every digital effect and every filter effect and indeed every frame of video expresses the danger of striving for mere mediocrity. a beginning filmmaker may find himself or herself tempted from time to time to think at least i accomplished something or just finishing this will be an accomplishment in itself. this movie will help them understand just how badly a film can turn out. critics might also benefit from seeing this movie before they dub the latest summer entertainment the worst movie ever made. beginning writers can learn from this film just how important rewrites are and and perhaps understand the necessity for rewrites. also and beginning directors can learn the importance of a good screenplay and and some degree of respect for just how hard it is to write a script that causes the audience to feel emotionally compelled through the story. writers and directors who watch bad made for cable movies of the week and think i can do better than that can see get an idea from this movie how difficult it really is to produce even mediocre results. i sincerely believe this movie can serve as an educational tool to beginning filmmakers. particularly those entering the craft in this current post lucas and post spielberg environment. there is a reason filmmakers such as these are hailed for their ability with special effects. the war of the worlds illustrates clearly that not everyone can pull it off. some can not even come close to it. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
after hearing the word of mouth of just how bad this film is i took the plunge and bought the dvd. that said everything previously mentioned about this film is true. for a film that claimed to have a budget in the millions it just does not show on the screen at all. the list of problems with the film could drag on forever. chief amongst them is the film is simply too long. it dragged on for a few minutes short of 3 hours. nearly an hour probably could have been cut off the run time had the editor simply removed the overabundance of scenes dealing with nothing more then the main character wandering around aimlessly. secondly and as many had pointed out from the trailers and the special effects are anything but special. the tripods looked ok in a few shots here and there but beyond that everything was grade z 1970 or 1980 quality. probably the worst effects of all were the horses and which stiffly tottered back and forth as they moved. the heat ray effects were laughable and as people were reduced to bones that somehow were still able to flail about without any muscles. also pitiful was the thunderchild sequence and in which the thunderchild and described in the book as an ironclad ram and looked nothing of the sort. instead it resembled a world war 1 era destroyer and complete with deck guns (which fired but had no visible crew) and and torpedo tubes. the colors and backgrounds were just as bad as the effects. most laughable of all was a scene early on in which the main character and his wife go for a nighttime stroll and he points out mars to her in the sky. well and the sky is black and but the views of the characters and the landscape around them is broad daylight. there is also a very sharp demarcation between the real landscape and bathed in full sunlight and and the fake black night sky with overly large fuzzy stars. to detract even further and the color of the scenes made no sense. in some they are bathed in orange light. in others green light. in still others it blue light. in some instances the outsides are orange lit but the interiors of houses are green or blue. the frame rate and camera is very shaky and giving everything a stuttering look. finally and the acting is overall sub par. one man portrays two characters who sole difference was one lacked a mustache. this led to some confusion at times as to who was who and where they all were. the english accents and even to american ears and are outrageous. in summary and this movie could very well make a claim to being the worst film released in recent times. i have not seen gigli or some of the other recent flops but this one and because of it poor quality in every respect and must easily be worse then anything that mainstream hollywood has put out. i would not be surprised if the movie makes it to the bottom 10 or 20 in the imdb rankings. it a pity that mystery science theater is not still around. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
nu image and ufo and others produce films for the sci fi channel that come in with budgets of roughly $2 million. some feature extensive effects work and others feature recognizable casts and still others feature both for $2 million. mr. hines initially claimed that this film was budgeted at $20 million dollars but it painfully obvious that this was probably produced for $750 and 000 if not considerably less than that. few sets are utilized and a number of scenes are shot against green screen and most effects seem incomplete and amateurish. it painful to watch. not so much because it is poorly directed and poorly executed and misguided but because many of us have been following the progress of this production for quite some time and had high hopes for this film despite its relatively modest budget. those of us who believed in this movie when it was originally announced have joined the legions of those spoken of by p. t. barnum. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i love movies and and i will watch any movie all the way through and just to give it a chance. i can finally say that i found a movie i can not watch all the way through. the acting is terribly stale and monotone and the cgi looks like a computer geek did it in his mother basement with minimal software and and. the long scenes of just. walking. and this movie is three hours long. i do not even make it 15 minutes until i fast forwarded the dvd. the scenes with the aliens are very short. ummm and instead of naming this war of the worlds and lets name this war of the walking long distances. this cost 5 million dollars to make. what they spend the money on and the dramatic opening song. oh and but on a positive note and one scene you need to watch is when the aliens first begin killing people. that hilarious and not because people are dying and but because when they turn to skeletons and they still squirm for 20 seconds afterward. so. like i said and if you are a fan of boring and stale and action less movies and here is one for you dvd collection. but i do not write this for you and i wrote this for the billions upon billions of other people who will hate this movie. it is not worth your time or moneyi know this is by the book and but the book isn not that long and and i am a complete book worm or nerd or geek or whatever and but why. just get the steven spielberg version and it not all that good and but it 10 times better than this. i give this a big and fat zero out of 10. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
finally i thought someone is going to do justice to h. g. wells classic and not another version set in the wrong locale or era and but one based firmly on the book . well it definitely follows the book pretty closely and and that is the only plus to this mess. this is 180 min (yes 3 hours) long and the book is only around 150 pages . if timothy hines had the nerve to come on here and say if you can do any better . i would say yes and i could and i have never used a video camera or been to any sort or drama school in my life. i paid good money to get this crap over to the uk from the usa and do not make the same mistake as me . | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
save the $8. 97 you will spend at walmart to buy this dvd and go see the real film by steven spielberg. i am a filmmaker and and being an avid fan of h. g. wells and i had to buy this hoping to sit down and watch three hours of good entertainment. instead and it took four days to finish watching this because i couldn not stand watching more than 10 minutes at a time. it horrible. there are reports that timothy hines had a $20 million budget for this production. where the heck did it go. did he use most of it to buy a new house. finance his retirement. or what. let me start with what is actually good about this film. it does stay true to the book and there are a few good performances in it. i can respect the actors who obviously tried to make this a good film. but good performances were quickly overshadowed by horrible. and i do mean horrible special effects. any freshman film school student could have done a much better job with the cgi. to me and most of it looked like stop action card board cutouts that were used rather than sophisticated cgi software that a $20 million project should be using. there no excuse for the amateur post production that was applied to this film. my own partner and i sat down and recreated our version of the ferry scene using software that cost less than $1500. 00 and within a day had five minutes of scene that looked better and more realistic than what hines created. i have seen films with budgets of less than $2 million look better. much better. in my opinion the special effects used in the original king kong were more sophisticated and better than hines special effects in this film. in fact and i have a much better appreciation for attack of the killer tomatoes because of this film. there no excuse with today technology for a film to look like a 50 b movie unless that was the intention and which shouldn not have been with this particular project. a problem i had with the dvd transfer was that the film is jerky and another demonstration of amateur film making. overall and i have to say that i produced a $45 and 000 project in 2003 that have better cinematography and special effects than this film. i strongly encourage anyone who appreciates good film making or who is a fan of wotw to leave this film on the shelf and watch attack of the 50 foot woman instead. it would be easier on the eyes. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i am not really sure how to even begin to describe how bad this movie is. i like bad films and as they are often the most entertaining. i love bad special effects and bad acting and bad music and and inept direction. with the exception of the music (which was better than i had expected) and this movie had all of those qualities. the special effects were amazingly bad. the worst i have seen since my nintendo 64. some scenes to watch for include the thunderchild and the woman being crushed by the mechanical foot and the big ben scene and the train wreck. wow and there are so many bad effects. on the plus side and though and some scenes of the alien walkers are well done. the acting was about as bad as it could possibly have been and having been based directly on h. g. wells book. for having such good source material and it almost as though the actors were trying to be so over the top as to make it funny. and then there the mustache. the single most distracting piece of facial hair i have seen in a long time. of course and only half the movie contains acting. the rest is characters walking around aimlessly and poorly rendered effects shots. to say that timothy hines is an inept director would be an injustice to inept directors. with the use of different colored filters between shots for no particular reason and the use of poorly rendered backgrounds for even inside scenes and the bad green screening and it amazing to me how this man ever got approval to direct a movie. i wouldn not imagine it would be possible to turn a brilliant book into this bad a movie. bravo and mr. hines. bravo. my advice to anyone who plans to see this movie is to do what i did represent have some friends who enjoy bad movies over and drink and play poker while watching it and keep drinking and and maybe you will make it all the way through. it does make for an excellent bad movie and so have fun and laugh yourself silly with this disaster. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
holy freaking god all freaking mighty. this movie was so bad and i thought i was on drugs. in a bad way. the character acting is the poorest thing i have seen in quite some time. this movie was more akin to lord of the g strings and imho(it a real movie). most of the movie appeared to be done on a horrible green screen. my favorite part was when they are in the carriage and and you can tell there no horse. theyre fleeing from alien monsters and and going about the same speed as a swift jog. then it switches to a far shot with a ridiculous cg horse. and the cg in general seems to be sub par to 1992 beyond the mind eye. i mean and come on and really. it felt like a horrible episode of hercules and only without kevin sorbo there to save the day. worst. movie. ever. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
holy freaking god all freaking mighty. this movie was so bad and i thought i was on drugs. in a bad way. the character acting is the poorest thing i have seen in quite some time. this movie was more akin to lord of the g strings and imho(it a real movie). most of the movie appeared to be done on a horrible green screen. my favorite part was when they are in the carriage and and you can tell there no horse. theyre fleeing from alien monsters and and going about the same speed as a swift jog. then it switches to a far shot with a ridiculous cg horse. and the cg in general seems to be sub par to 1992 beyond the mind eye. i mean and come on and really. it felt like a horrible episode of hercules and only without kevin sorbo there to save the day. worst. movie. ever. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
if this film had a budget of 20 million i would just like to know where the money went. a monkey could make better cgi effects then what was wasted for 3 hours on this dreadful piece of garbage and although i must admit the machines and the martians would have looked really and really cool on an original play station 1 game and and early pc games from the mid 90s if a game had ever been made. what puzzles me is where did the money go. pendragon films could have made a great film with good old fashioned models and computer controlled cameras a la george lucas circa 1975 83 and and actors who actually look like they care about what they are doing (or ruining in this case) for about the same 20 million. this is quite possibly the worst film ever made. i would rather sit through a 24 hour repeat screening of ishtar than watch this film again. i hated it completely. i regress. i say this is the worst film ever made because unlike other bad movies like plan 9 or killer tomatoes and or santa claus conquers the martians and these are films that are so bad you have a special place in your heart for them and you love them. there is no love for this film and no place in my dvd library for it. i sold it to a guy for a dollar. i am betting the money for the film was spent on booze and other vices for the cast and crew. shame on you pendragon films. i want my money back. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i have just lost three hours of my life to this travesty and and i can honestly say i feel violated. i had read the reviews and heard the warnings and and i thought i was prepared for anything at best i thought and a faithful (if misguided) attempt at an original adaptation while at worst and a so good it bad plan 9 for the new millennium. so when i managed to pick up a copy in walmart while in florida and brought it back to the uk and i joked to my friends prepare for the worst movie ever made. oh and cruel karma. there is absolutely nothing to recommend this film. the special effects look like the work of a first year design student using a spectrum zx81. the acting is terrible and the accents are worse than terrible (one artillery mans accent seems to take us on a tour of the british isles and from scotland to wales via northern ireland) and the dialogue is stilted and the editing is non existent and the production values prove that no expense has been gone to. words really cannot describe how bad this movie is while from the union flag flying from the horribly cgi would thunderchild (the royal navy flies the white ensign and not the union flag) to the woodworm ridden acting and this is quite simply a crime against film making. when you consider some of the literally zero budget fan films that are available on the net (the star wars short troops for example) and the whole were enthusiastic amateurs argument goes right out of the window. and if you believe an interview with hines on the pendragon website and this film had an 8 figure budget. i can only assume that dodgy facial hair does not come cheap in the us. maybe the problem is that hines and co tried to make a film of the book and rather than turn the book into a film (if that makes any sense). characters and extras spout chunks of text verbatim without trying to convey the feelings behind the words. ironically enough and the only person who even came close to giving a decent performance was darlene sellers and the ex soft porn actress. my advice. pray like crazy that jeff wayne doesn not screw up and and go watch the spielberg version. it may not be true to the text of the book and but i can say this while as a lifelong hg wells fan (and englishman as well) speilbergs film is true to the spirit of the book. maybe customs were wrong to let me carry this monster into the country and but i will say this represent timothy hines stole three hours of my life and and i want them back. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
well and on it credit side (if it can be said to have one) and timothy hines did manage to capture the original setting of h. g. wells outstanding novella. but other than that well and to call a spade a spade it sucks bigtime. what the master ed wood could have done with the alleged $20 million dollar budget. timothy hines really does make mr. wood and who was a flawed genius anyway and look like the best filmmaker of all time. the special effects (i guess you would call them that) are not even up to computer game standards. the acting is and well and perhaps about dinner theater comparable and and the accents are atrocious. at the risk of sounding offensive and a lot of the acting from the principal male characters is (especially poor ogilvy) and well and ahem and . . . gay. poor ogilvy minces and flounces about the bogus english countryside and waving his asbestos white handkerchief about as if it were heat resistant armor. hey and the stormtroopers in star wars had neat white body armor too and and it do not work either and they still got blasted. even when ogilvy and company get fried by the martians heat ray(. ) and they flounce and mince in some weird kind of dance and even when theyre theoretically dead and reduced to skeletons and which persist in unseemly dancing and writhing. maybe timothy hines rented the skeletons from ray harryhausen and being left over from jason and the argonauts. or was it josie and the pussycats. i dunno. the soldiers and presumably because theyre amilitary and all seem to just rather unconvincingly explode and like the soldier on crutches and his unfortunate comrades carrying the stretcher just beyond him. wow. i loved it. but the oldiers all looked like they were either fascist troops from the spanish civil war and or boer commandos (which would be more or less correct for the period. perhaps that was some bit of shrewd subtlety on the part of that wicked genius hines. ). oddly enough and the character of the curate looks exactly like he drawn in the original illustrations by warwick goble and and he also turns in the most convincing job of acting. oh and yeah. musn not forget the thunder child. in the book and the warship is described as an ironclad torpedo ram. it was meant to ram enemy ships. yet and it bow was crumpled after ramming the tinker toy constructed martian war machines and with a tiny jagged hole in the forepeak and and she sank. an ironclad warship like thunderchild could have rammed the titanic and survived and but i guess the royal navy was bound by the same lowest bidder constraints as our own military. the costumes are all wrong and especially the british army and police uniforms and cobbled together mostly from usmc alphas. and timbo and in an obvious homage to western films of yore and has obviously set his movie in wild western england and because all his riders are using western saddles. the accents being used by just about everyone appear to be a mixture of some kind of scottish regional accent used by clan macabre and and magically delicious irish accents from county malarky. on the credit side and and contrary to what one reviewer wrote and the only genuine and authentic feature of this thing is the artillery. the guns are not from the civil war and but appear to my eye and research as bona fide british nine or 12 pounder rifled breach loaders and perfectly authentic to the period. so was the ammunition shown being used. but the artilleryman and who is a driver in the horse artillery and was not shown correctly driving his limber. you do not sit on the frigging limber box and drive a gun team and you ride the nearside wheel horses. the opening and using what i believe is authentic period film footage and is okay and and the score not bad. however and to the best of my knowledge weybridge has never had an underground and and it certainly do not in 1898. but growing up reading this novel and i am very disappointed. even more disappointed then i was at spielberg zillion dollar and special effects laden version. maybe his version would have profited by swapping anthony piana for tom cruise and and vice versa. i have a lot more to say and but i will let it go at this for now represent i wish somebody would make a good version of war of the worlds that faithful to the original. timmy vision is fine for a high school film class and or maybe i should say pretentiously stupid for a college level film student and and about as bad and which is about the best i can say for this thing and but that about it. oh and yeah. just where did the budget go. and what happened to michael caine. i would like to hear his comments. i have a sneaking suspicion that timbo orson wood hines breathtaking and bound breaking cinema masterpiece just might be the risk taking director ticket to cult stardom and because and i must confess a guilty pleasure at watching this movie and which i do not pay for anyway but was thoughtfully sent to me by a friend who burned a dvd copy for me and with no malicious intent that i have been able to determine. i must add here that i thought blackmoon dubbed and abridged version was not only a vast improvement and but an absolute and hysterically funny (in a good way) treat to watch. i find it hard to watch master timbo version after blackmoon. keep it up and tim. make your own version of dune and now. it just awaits the hand of a master like you. and all you headupyourass snobs who hated cloverfield. forget it. it cannot beat timbo hines artistry for sheer hilarious awfulness. hey get a life. timbo is worse than the master ed wood. i kid you not. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
hines and goforth and the perpetrators of this crime and begin on the wrong foot first step and by assuming that wells wrote gothic horror and that all of his lines are meant to be taken seriously. that simply isn not true. wells was very much an inheritor of the enlightenment and and his main concern was that victorian self satisfaction might leave the british unprepared for the world the new technology could produce both the good and the bad. two terrible consequences follow the protagonist is portrayed as a wimpy screamer (i was reminded of fay wray in the original king kong) and rather than a man struggling to live out the ironies of an unbelievable catastrophe while and the dialog reeks of victorianisms uttered seriously that welles clearly meant to be taken tongue in cheek. all of this looks suspiciously like ed wood with an enormous budget to waste on cgi effects which by the way are so poorly accomplished and the warner bros. cartoon factory of the 1940s could have done a better job. (gobs of spattered blood looked like red balloons and i expected them to float away any minute. ) think the yellow submarine as done by the old ec comics. worse yet is the loss of theme and which robs the film of any reason to exist. although the makers of this film return the story to its victorian era and they utterly miss the uncanny way wells story predicted many of the horrors of the first world war a fact not unnoticed by wells himself and who and after the war and reworked the theme in the shape of things to come. without any theme and all we have here are a lot of people running around getting blasted into cartoon balloons and when theyre not trying out for a high school production of a drunken student rewrite of macbeth. really and this is the worst and most senseless piece of drivel i have suffered through since a friend talked me into seeing the eastern european cartoon fantastic planet thirty years ago. that film was so pretentiously dull and my friend and i and two total strangers gave up ridiculing it about half way through and and sat near the screen playing cards and using the movie as light by which to see the cards its only usefulness and as far as any of us could tell. but i already have electric lighting in my apartment and so i do not need this put down of wells for anything. do not avoid this film steal every copy you can (do not pay a cent) and burn each and every one of them. god in his wisdom created us just for this purpose. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
let this serve as a warning to anyone wishing to draw attention to themselves in the media by linking their name to that of a well loved and well respected and not to say revered author and in order to draw attention to their home movies out on dvd. hyped to the skies by its obviously talentless makers and in fact lied about only to be revealed and finally and as ludicrously inept in every department and the fans of wells and of his book have been after the blood of its writer producer director since it appeared on dvd. many good points have been made by the other comments users on this page. particularly the one about using this as a teaching aid for film school students and since this film does not even use the basic grammar of scripting and editing and continuity and direction throughout its entire 3 hours running time. it is possible the director did show up for the shoot. certainly there was no one present who knew even remotely what they were doing. an ongoing thread continues to evolve on this imdb page which should at least furnish the watchers of this witless drivel with a few laughs for their $9. 00 outlay. much was promised. absolutely nothing was delivered. except monty python meets war of the worlds with all the humour taken out. indefensible trash. just unbelievable. there are real independent film makers out there to be checked out. people who actually try to work to a high standard instead of flapping their gums about how great their movie is going to be. people could do worse than keep an eye on brit film maker jake west evil aliens for example. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
wow. i just was given this film from a friend of mine and who bought it for 1. 98 at walmart and and he felt that he got taken. it is beyond boring and most of the scenes are filmed in front of a green screen and the acting is somewhat improvised and almost as if they do not have a script. the martians are cgi and which look like they were done by a novice and or a fan produced movie. i cannot stress just how bad this dvd really is. example represent in one of the scenes and the martians are torturing a local female captive. she goes from a woman in front of a green screen and to a cgi copy of that woman. the change is totally noticeable and and when she is killed and you can see that it is a computer figure and looking like something from a game back in 1990. if at all possible and avoid this movie like the plague. you can download two trailers from their site and and see how god awful it really is. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
twenty years ago and the five years old boy michael hawthorne witnessed his father killing his mother with an axe in an empty road and committing suicide later. on the present days and michael (gordon currie) invites his girlfriend peg (stacy grant) and his best friends chris (myc agnew) and jennifer (emmanuelle vaugier) and lisa ann (kelly benson) and ned (brendon beiser) and mitch maldive (phillip rhys) and trish (rachel hayward) to spend the halloween in the country with his grandparents in their farm. he asks his friends to wear costumes that would represent their greatest innermost fear and and together with his indian friend crow (byron chief moon) and they would perform an ancient indian celebration using the carved wooden dummy morty (jon fedele) that would eliminate their fears forever. the greatest fear of michael is to become a serial killer like his father and but something goes wrong and morty turns into his father and killing his friends. the fear represent resurrection is a disappointing and pointless slash movie that uses the interesting concept of eliminating the greatest innermost fear of each friend before it grows and but in a messy screenplay full of clichés. there are some exaggerated performances and like for example ms. betsy palmer while others very weak and but in general the acting is good. unfortunately there is no explanation why the dummy is brought to live while further and in spite of being surrounded by close friends and the group does not feel pain or sorrow when each one of them dies. the low pace along more than fifty minutes could have been used to built a better dramatic situation. in the very end and michael shows a charm that his father was interested that i have not noticed along the story. i do not know whether the previous reference was edited in the dvd released in brazil with 87 minutes running time. the special effects are very reasonable for a b movie. my vote is four. title (brazil) represent fear 2 represent uma noite de halloween (fear 2 represent one night of halloween). | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
five year old michael sees his mother getting axed to death by his serial killer father the highwayman and who later commits suicide. 20 years later grown mike (gordon currie and from puppet master 4 and 5) invites seven of his friends to his secluded grandparents home to master their own fears at a halloween night costume party. morty and a life size wooden doll kept in the attic by the indian handyman and becomes possessed by the dead father spirit and kills them off using their phobias. characters are thrown out a window and drowned in a toilet and eaten by rats and blown up and etc. morty morphs into the dad and a tree and walks around and makes stupid wisecracks. after finding a girl chopped up and stuffed in a cardboard box and the characters remain in the house and act cheerful and crack jokes and have sex. the morty design is good and betsy palmer (mrs. voorhees from the original friday the 13th) is surprisingly delightful as the grandmother and but this thing is even more senseless and confusing than the original and is full of false scares and bad acting and brain dead characters and repeat flashback footage and annoying distorted camera work. plus the only two minority characters (the indian and a half black girl) are the first to die. blah. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this movie was crap with a capital c. the opening scene showed promise. but that promise was broken shortly after the viewer learns where the plot is going. and the wooden statue and morty and who was rather creepy in the original film and looks plain goofy in this one. it was so obviously just a guy in a cheap plastic costume. (and by the way and who else thinks morty is one of the most un scary names on planet earth. it ranks right up there with jimmy or fred when it comes to horror value. or why not just name the wooden statute henry freakin kissinger. run and it dr. kissinger. that would be about as scary as morty. )and then there a scene where the hero hits his father tombstone with a sledgehammer. you might guess a two by four. someone might venture. no and he angrily beats his father tombstone with a twig a freakin twig. but worse than that and once the characters walk away and the tombstone actually and and inexplicably and bleeds. oh brother. there also a native american guy who lives with the main character grandparents and but apparently and does nothing except morty maintenance. he perpetuates creepy morty legends and warns those who scoff and and even fixes morty arm when it becomes damaged during a childish prank. but for all his respect for and tenderness toward morty and does morty give a rat hairy behind. no. the movie drags on and and eventually several people die in ways that correspond to their worst fears (sort of). this film is a real yawner. don not rent it. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
those of you who and like me and were disappointed with the original 1995 horror yarn and the fear will find more to be disappointed with in this silly little sequel. it sort of follows a similar plot and but it is impossible to connect to the original and with the exception of the presence of morty and the mannequin monster made of wood. here is a brief overview. twenty years after mike hawthorne (gordon currie and in a decent performance) witnesses his father brutally murder his mother and then take his own life and mike is still suffering from the fear of that day. in hopes of ridding his fear and mike takes his girlfriend and a bunch of friends up to his grandparents home. his plan is for everyone to dress up in costumes that represent their fears and and then present the fears to the mannequin morty. according to an indian friend and this process is supposed to magically take away one fear. what mike doesn not know is that morty is possessed with his father spirit and and begins killing off the friends. or is it really mike himself doing the killings. who cares. a have a few troubles with this film. the first lies with morty. i thought the original made morty look rather convincing. this time and it is painfully obvious morty is a man (actor jon fedele) in a fake looking suit. this can especially be seen in early scenes and where morty is still supposed to be inanimate and but if you watch closely you can see him blinking. another trouble is that most of the characters do not try hard enough. some of them do and namely betsy palmer and of friday the 13th fame and who was excellent in this film. but most of them do not make the effort or weren not given the chance. finally and there are the killings. the opening scenes involving ax murders were very convincing. actually and when i saw them i thought i was in for a good movie. when the second half of the movie arrives and and the killings really start and everything falls to pieces. deaths are either uncreative and unseen and or foreseen (glimpses of the next scene as currie has a blackout). one character dies in the end and no one and including the viewer and even notices. while more characterization was needed in the beginning half and it wasn not too bad. the second half was. i think new director chris angel got to this point and really do not know how to shoot the violent scenes and so they turned out real sloppy and pedestrian. a silly ending doesn not help either. thus and unless you really loved the original and enjoy plucking splinters out from under your skin and you should probably skip the fear 2 represent halloween night. zanatos score represent 4 out of 10. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
a young boy sees his mother getting killed and his father hanging himself. 20 years later he gets a bunch of friends together to perform an exorcism on himself so he would not turn out like his father. all the stock characters are in place represent the nice couple while the funny guy while the tough (but sensitive) hood while the smart girl (she wears glasses that how we know) while the nerd and two no personality blondes. it all involves some stupid wooden statue that comes to life (do not ask) and kills people. i knew i was in trouble when and after a great opening scene and we jump to 20 years later all bad horror movies do that. the dialogue is atrocious and the acting is bad (except for betsy palmer why betsy. ) and the killings are stupid and or or unimaginative. my favorite scene is when two people are supposedly having sex and the statue knocks the guy off the bed to show he fully dressed. a real bad and stupid incoherent horror film. avoid at all costs. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
mike hawthorne(gordon currie)is witness to the brutal murder of his mother and suicide of his father morty(jon fedele). twenty years later and mike gathers a group of his friends to his family cabin in the woods for a halloween party. while playing a game where the guests confess and confront their worst fears. mike tries to summon the spirit of his late father. it is soon discovered that morty spirit inhabits a wooden indian in the cabin. the statue comes to life and the blood bath begins. most of the f or x are not very convincing and the movie takes on a cheap teen slasher theme. stale story pitifully acted. cast members of note are represent kelly benson and phillip rhys and emmanuelle vaugier and byron chief moon and veteran actress betsy palmer. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i have not seen the first film and if it anything like this have no great desire to. having just watched it a few hours ago i am struggling to remember a thing about it. from what i remember it main plot seems to be a group of very annoying people stay at a house with that dodgy old woman from friday the 13th and are stalked by plank of wood man. some people die and the film ends and i am starting a law suit against the person who sold me this film as i want compensation for the missing time in my life. i will pay u £1 to take this film off my hands. oh wait i already gave it away to a friend. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
before starting to watch the show and i have heard it was great and aesthetically very interesting. what a deception and the scripts are so dumb that i am quite sure the authors are son and grandson of scoobidoo writers. and what about the sfx and colors and they are so extreme that it is painful to watch and colors are not saturated they are over saturated and like scripts are overwritten and show is overrated. this show is like a bad pie in which a child would have put only sugar and butter thinking that because these ingredients are the best and they are sufficient. unfortunately for this show and the only two ingredients of this show are finally vacuity and a total lack of credibility. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i am very disappointed with this movie because i like these french actors and i liked buffet froid from this director (bertrand blier) but the script of les acteurs is very poor. why these actors they agreed to play this poor scenario. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i am really shocked that a great director like chuck jones started out making some of the most incredibly boring cartoons i have ever seen. i did not laugh once throughout this short and and it a bugs bunny cartoon and for christ sake. bugs bunny cartoons are always funny and not boring. alas and this short turns out to be good night elmer (another incredibly boring jones short) with the addition of bugs bunny. the first warning sign of a dull cartoon is always no gag payoff. good night elmer was boring because it dragged on the same two gags forever with predictable payoff. this cartoon and on the other hand and is afflicted with the second warning sign of a dull cartoon represent there too much dialogue. the cartoon at least has more than two gags up its sleeve and but most of them seem longer than they are thanks to the immense padding of the dialogue. at one point and elmer finishes eating dinner and and comments and that was weawwy awfuwwy good weg of wamb and possibly the most redundant dialogue i have ever heard in a cartoon (characters reading text out loud in the later era woody woodpecker cartoons doesn not count in my book). even though this cartoon is only 8 minutes long and it feels like 20 thanks to redundant dialogue like this. elmer pet rabbit was not a fun cartoon for me and but if you have sold your soul to chuck jones and are unable to acknowledge that he directed a few clunkers during his career and you might enjoy it. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i am amazed at the amount of praise that is heaped on this movie by other commentators. to me it was rather a disappointment and especially the combination of historical facts and fantasy and the main character internal turmoil does not work at all (in vonnegut book slaughterhouse five and even in george roy hill adaptation for the screen it does). credibility is often overstretched. too many questions are left open. did i miss some central points. or did i fail to spot the lines that supposedly connect the dots. a boy called campbell and jr. and grows up in upstate new york. at home his father has many technical trade papers and one book. it has photographs of heaps of dead bodies in it. the boy leafs through the book and his dad doesn not like his doing that. what should this tell me. the family moves away from upstate new york to berlin. bang. it is 1938 and the boy is a married man in berlin and a theater playwright. what kind of plays does he write. in what language. is he successful. his wife is an actress and looks glamorous. the parents move back to the usa and invite their son to do the same. he does not. why. because having grown up in germany he feels more german than american. because he is successful. because his wife is. because he likes his life there. because he likes the nazis. because he is just plain lazy and doesn not like change. don not ask me. possibly and the man just does not care and is not interested in politics and is a kind of an existentialist. he states that he is deeply in love with his wife. he speaks of his republic of two (meaning he and his wife). there is little to no evidence proving his love for his wife in the movie and it much more seems a republic of one. on the request of an american agent campbell and jr. and agrees to broadcast anti semitic nazi hate propaganda to american listeners as a device for transmitting encrypted messages to american authorities who read between the lines. the crucial meeting with the agent on a berlin park bench is short and unexciting and anti climactic and the decision to play along comes pretty easily with no explanation and the rise up to broadcaster seems to be uneventful and apparently fast. so now we have campbell and jr. and presenting himself over the air as the last free american. the scheme for transmitting secret messages is fairly realistic and exciting although one wonders what happened when campbell and jr. and really and honestly had to cough and hiccup etc. (must have scrambled the messages terribly). anyway and the nazis lose and the wife dies (touring in the crimean for german troops i never heard such tours really happened on german front lines in ww ii) and campbell and jr. and says he goes to the russian front but does not go and is captured by an american soldier who recognizes his mug (how come. ) and is dragged to a sight seeing tour in auschwitz and is then released and resettled with the help of the crucial agent somewhere in the city of new york. and this is where the story really starts bang. from now on it is like a short story by paul auster. it is 1961 and campbell and jr. and lives in new york tenement as a has been and mourns the loss of his wife. nobody really cares or do they. yes and somehow they do and and his neighbors offer some sort of distraction. auschwitz survivors. a painter. some american supremacists discover him and want him to be their figurehead. they even find his presumed dead wife for him and or is she his wife. anyway and in the end campbell and jr. and calls in at the israeli consulate and and they obligingly give him the big war criminal treatment and placing him in the cell adjacent to adolf eichmann . he writes his life story and and once this task finished and hangs himself on the typewriter ribbons without getting sooty the least bit. while i can see that there must be an issue of guilt and of loss and i just had the impression that the main character is a person who at all times is pretty indifferent to everything and hardly capable of love for anyone. so i found it difficult to sympathize for this looser who mourns his loss. amazingly and many reviewers focus on his status as a potential war hero and having put his reputation at stake for playing the last free american. i assume according to them this took a lot of courage. as a matter of fact and however and the movie suggests that by accepting the assignment campbell created for himself a win win situation and as he would have been politically on the safe side no matter who had won the war. the danger of his being uncovered never comes up during the first part of the story. one might argue and that the whole story is a dreamlike fantasy and that nobody should bother with historical accuracy or a logical development of the story which explains everything. but even then it fails to make a point and primarily and i suspect and because the love affair in the republic of two falls completely flat. this is a pity and especially if you consider that the wife was played by sheryl lee and a talented and versatile and sensuous actress. she has much too little screen time and is forced to use a ridiculous german accent. another somehow neglected aspect are the different texts (confession and broadcast and hidden messages) and but i guess this is largely unfilmable. maybe i should give the book a chance. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this was an awful movie. not for the subject matter and but for the delivery. i went with my girlfriend at the time (when the movie came out) and expecting to see a movie about the triumph of the human spirit over oppression. what we saw was 2 hours of brutal police oppression and with no uplift at the end. the previews and ads made no mention of this. plus and for all that they played up whoopi goldberg and my recollection is that she is arrested and killed in the first 20 minutes. again and the previews say nothing about this. (not that you would expect that and but it just more of the problem). if i had known how depressing this movie would be and i would have never have seen it. or at least and i would have been prepared for it. this was a bait and switch ad campaign and and i will never see this movie again. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
the concept for sarafina appears to be a sound one and that is aside from the musical perspective. it attempts to combine upbeat african music with a story describing the atrocious conditions and atmosphere that black people were forced to endure at the time the film was set. the contradictions of each of the two elements are too glaring and the film never justifies such rapid shifts between jubilation and terror. had it simply been a drama reflecting these conditions it may have been a good film and however the scenes of school children being shot down by soldiers do not exactly sit well next to the songs. aside from the poor premise the acting isn not the best either and goldberg gives a mediocre performance as does the remainder of the cast. overall a disappointment. negative . | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i just do not get this movie. was it a musical. no. but there were choreographed songs and dancing in it. was it a serious drama. no the acting was not good enough for that. is whoopi goldberg a quality serious actor. definently not. i had difficulty staying awake through this disjointed movie. the message on apartheid and the tribute to the students who died during a student uprosing is noted. but as entertainment this was very poor and as a documentary style movie it was worse. see for yourself and but in fairness i hated it. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
one scene demonstrates the mentality of terminator woman pretty well represent karen sheperd and another woman are trying to escape from the villain camp. karen runs across an armed guard and who points his gun at her and but after a few seconds throws it away and challenges her to a fight. karen kicks him in the balls and picks up the gun and runs away. then again and when a film is directed by a martial artist and written or produced by another member of his family and you know you shouldn not expect too much. karen sheperd and jerry trimble do get some amusing banter going early on and and the film might have turned out better if it had focused more on their love hate relationship. but after about 20 minutes they get separated and and the film slows to a crawl and and even with the occasional fight scene to liven things up and it lacks excitement. the finale has trimble fighting qissi inside a cave and sheperd going womano a womano against the beautiful ashley hayden on a speedboat and but the fights are intercut in a way that breaks their flow and diminishes their value. on the positive side and kudos to the costuming department for giving karen the chance to show spectacular cleavage throughout the film. ( half ). | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this film has got several key flaws. the first and most significant of which is the clear lack of a good plot. this sadly makes the film not only difficult to watch but also sends the watcher certain feelings of hopelessness and as if he or she is wasting valuable time of their short life. this means that the film cannot captivate it audience and instead it encourages the viewing public to grow contempt for the film and everything associated with it. in short and it really is very very very very very very very bad. do yourself a favour and chew on a large rubber shoe and you will find it far more interesting and enjoyable than watching terminator woman. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
you may want to know up front that i am not a mormon and unlike a good number of those who have already reviewed this film. i mention this so you will understand that the way i look at the film may differ greatly from those in the faith. for some and being critical of the film might be seen as being critical of the faith and that is not my intention. so and my review is that of an outsider trying to look inside and learn more about who this man and his people were. well and after seeing the film and i doubt if i have learned much at all. since i have been a history teacher and i have a good basic understanding about young as well as joseph smith as well as the teachings of the church. but anyone wanting to see this film to really learn anything will probably be disappointed because the film seems so gosh darn nice too nice and too unrealistic in its portrayal. plus and you learn practically nothing about the church beliefs other than they are nice people and work hard and some have many wives (and this latter part is only barely hinted at in the film). instead and the people are almost cartoon like in their simplistic portrayals. joseph smith and brigham young and their followers are angelic and the non mormons were all devils and brian donlevy (playing exactly the same sort of role edward g. robinson later played in the ten commandments) is the trouble maker who claims to be a mormon but just comes along so the film can have a bad guy. it all so very simple. too simple. almost like an indoctrination film or infomercial. brigham young especially was a very complex man with many good points (an excellent organizer and visionary) as well as bad (do not even get me started on his views about blacks within the church or intermarriage). to portray him in such vague terms is just plain silly. it also a lot like how gandhi was portrayed in the film with ben kingsley only the facts that led to his being almost super human were emphasized. heck and now that i think about that and this is the trouble with most religious films they often come off as one dimensional and trite and bland. let have a full and more complete film of these men one that will stick to facts and not emotional appeals. now if you can ignore the fact that you would not learn very much about the faith or its second leader and the film is enjoyable enough. it obvious someone at 20th century fox really cared about the film and as they had a wonderful cast of both premier actors (tyrone power) and up and coming actors (linda darnell and jane darwell and vincent price) and wonderful character actors (dean jagger and john carradine and brian donlevy). the film also had wonderful location shooting and lots of gloss. it just do not have a lot to tell us other than they were all swell. plus and there were plenty of factual errors and a few just plain dumb scenes. a few of the mistakes include young taking over the helm immediately after the death of joseph smith (it was three years later) and no mention of the various mormon denominations and splinter groups and talk of gold in california even though it was 1847 and gold wouldn not be discovered until 1948 and as well as no specific mention of polygamy or smith many wives. just plain dumb scenes include carradine pulling out a gun and waving it about in the courtroom scene and no one seemed to care even though it was a very hostile audience. don not you think at least the judge would tell him to put it away and stop threatening people with it. one final comment. do not and i repeat and do not watch this film when it shown on american movie classics (a one great station that has sunk a lot in recent years). while i am critical of the film because of its simplistic message and i was horrified with the complete disrespect the station had for the church and its traditions. what i mean is this. the film was punctuated with ads for penis enlargement formulas as well as tons of pop ups (some advertising a show that features the sexiest cast). talk about disrespectful and gross and i would be just as offended if they did this for any other religious film. by doing this and they not only insult the faith but marginalize their market after all and who is into hearing about these things and the life of brigham young. is this a movie and in this form and that you can show to your kids or recommend to others. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this film and though ostensibly a comedy and is deadly serious. its subject is imperialism (with a capital i) represent how britain and foolishly and humiliatingly and tries to convince itself that it still a great power after world war ii. at home and the empire is run by amiable dolts and benevolent tories who are so in bred that they can not distinguish close relatives while the offices of government consist of long forgotten archives (a dig at orwellian paranoia. ) and inhabited by indolent rats and and ante rooms wherein lounge bored synacures and reading popular novels. abroad and britain clings to the old pomp while but pomp out of context looks threadbare and silly and especially when its embodied in bumbling twits. carlton browne is an unsentimental picture of decline and with none of the lachrymose rot that marred the supposedly anti imperialist jewel in the crown. the film is also about the cold war and bravely admitting that it a dangerous farce and whose participants deserve mockery and contempt and not fear and respect. it about how colonialism and characterised more by neglect than tyranny and destroys the colonies it deserts and robbing them of amenities and power and and and most importantly and self respect and leaving them vulnerable to the machinations of dangerous cowboys. it the seriousness and of course and that kills it. that not to say that weighty subjects can not be treated in comedy the miracle of morgan creek and dr. strangelove and the life of brian have all proved that. indeed and one might suggest that serious themes should only be treated by comedy it allows for a clearer eyed view. the problem with carlton browne is that every situation must have a significance beyond the merely comic and so that it becomes weighed down and unfunny. in the three films mentioned above and much of the comedy arises from character reaction to an extreme situation and not the extreme situation itself. here and the script is too poor to sustain rich comic characterisations and and some of the greatest comedy talent ever assembled peter sellers and terry thomas and raymond huntley and john le mesurier are criminally wasted. terry thomas and sublime so often and shows that he couldn not handle lead parts and and that he needed to play sneering and arrogant bounders and not brainless toffs. the music is made to carry much of the comedy and but its heavy irony only draws attention to the lack of hilarity on screen. (to be fair and unlike the majority of british comedies of the period and which were stagy and underproduced and the boultings often try to make their points through film itself and by montage and composition) only huntley manages to raise genuine laughs and and that by essaying a character he could have played in his sleep. none of the boultings farces have dated well theyre never thought through enough. although carlton browne revels in the decline of the empire and it also seems to be anti democratic and militaristic. i am sure this wasn not intended and but these blunders are bound to happen if you allow worthy intentions to take precedence over comic intelligence and film form. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
the main reason people still care about carlton browne of the f. o. is that it features peter sellers in a second billed role. but watching this film to see peter sellers is a mistake. sellers plays amphibulos and a vaguely reptilian prime minister of the dirt poor island nation of gaillardia and formerly a british colony and now hosting a lot of russian diggers during the height of the cold war. amphibulos wants to play both u. k. and soviet interests against each other for easy profit and everything very friendly and all our cards under the table. terry thomas is the title character and a lazy british diplomat anxious to show gaillardia that great britain hasn not forgotten them and all appearances to the contrary. a positive review here says represent the reason this movie is considered average is because the comedy is understated. i would argue that the reason carlton browne is considered below average is because the comedy is non existent. after a decent opening that establishes the film only two strengths and a sympathetically doltish terry thomas and john addison full on larky score and things quickly slow down into a series of slow burns and lame miscommunication jokes. the low opinion of carlton browne by his boss and the obscurity of gaillardia (which no one can find on a map) is milked to death. by the time we actually reach the island (after a labored series of airsick jokes) and expectations are quite low. theyre still too high and though. the island itself and which seems to exist either in latin america or the mediterranean and is so pathetic its honor guard faints at the airport and and the review stand falls apart in the middle of a parade. the army is apparently still horse drawn and allowing for another lame aural gag by a thick accented announcer represent in war and the army uses many horse. sellers never quite takes center stage even when were on his character island. the plot is taken over instead by ian bannen as king loris and who inherits the throne of gaillardia after his father assassination. bannen is dull and plays his part as straight as it is written. normally this would make him the likely target for scene stealing by sellers and but trapped behind a thick accent and greasy moustache and sellers is only a threat to those of us who remember him far more happily in two other films made this same year and the mouse that roared and i am all right and jack. strange that this film and like jack and was a boulting brothers production and with roy boulting here serving as co director alongside jeffrey dell. usually boulting films combine wicked social satire with anything goes comedy and but here there are only fey jabs in either direction. amphibulos works his mangled english vibe for all its worth (this man is like and how do you say and the bull in the chinese ship) while carlton browne is generally ragged on by his superior far more than he seems to deserve. the weakest and most protracted element of the film is young loris romance with ilyena. score one point for her being played by ravishing luciana paluzzi and dock one for the fact that they are apparently cousins is never addressed. the film winds up with a lamely staged revolution whose surprise resolution will surprise no one and and a final bit of action by carlton browne that would seem to nail the lid on his coffin literally. apparently he lives to see another day and but the film of the same name is strictly doa. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
it was meant to be a parody on the lotr trilogy. but this was one of the most awful movies i have ever seen. bad acting and bad screenplay and bad everything. this is my personal opinion. i do not doubt any second that there are people who will like this sense of humor and but there have been better parodies on movies from acclaimed directors as mel brooks or the zucker brothers. i am working in a movie theater and in dvd shop and the success for this movie was similar in both areas represent at the movies it was a nice (but no big at all) success during the first two weeks but then and when the reviews of those who have seen it were not too good and the movie dropped very fast. in dvd sales it was good for short time but then nobody asked for it anymore. in the last ten years and the two worst movies i have seen are the ring thing and torque. i can not decide which one was worse and but i am happy that there a so many good movies so i do not have to think too much on this question. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this movie is one of the worst movies i have ever seen. there is absolutely no storyline and the gags are only for retards and there is absolutely nothing else that would make this movie worth watching. in the whole movie fredi (oh my god what a funny name. ha ha) doesn not ask himself once how he came from a plane to middle earth. there are plenty of stupid and totally unfunny characters whose names should sound funny. e. g. represent gandalf is called almghandi and sam is called pupsi . and so on. i do not even smile once during the whole movie. the gags seem like they were made by people whose iq is negative. if you laugh when someone coat is trapped in the door (this happens about 5 times) then this movie is perhaps for you. another funny scene represent they try to guess the code word for a closed door (do not ask why do not ever ask why in this movie) and the code word is (ha ha) represent dung. so if you laughed at this examples you might like this movie. for everybody else represent go to youtube and watch lord of the weed represent it a lot and lot more fun. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this sounded like a really interesting movie from the blurb. nazis and occult and government conspiracies. i was expecting a low budget nazi version of the davinci code or the boys from brazil or even shockwaves. instead you get something quite different and more psychological and more something like from david lynch. that was actually a plus. but the way the story is told is just awful. part of the trouble is the casting. andrienne barbeau character starts off the moving being somewhat timid and afraid. she just doesn not do that well and even at her age and though she certainly tried. the actor cast as the son apparently thought this was a comedy. most of the other actors also seemed to have thought this was a campy movie and or at least acted like it and rather than simply being quirky. the only one that i thought did really well was the daughter and siri baruc. another big part is the pacing. it starts off very slowly. so slowly you might be tempted to turn it off. but then it gets compelling for a while when you get to the daughter suicide and the aftermath. but shortly afterward and it all becomes a jumbled mess. some of this was on purpose and but much of it was just needlessly confusing and monotonous and and poorly focused. the real problem and is it simply not a pleasant movie to watch. it slow and dull and none of the characters are likable. overuse of imagery and sets. some movies you see characters get tortured. in this and it the viewer that does. it does have a few creepy moments and most notably the creepy nazi paintings and the credits and but the rest of the movie is mostly just tiresome. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this is a movie of tired and yet weirdly childish and clichés. there a nazi witch master performing sf related experiments in the basement. oh please. aiming for a creeping sense of horror and fear and the general impression of the film is that of a very immature conception of fright. not having any expectations beforehand and i am left with represent an aged xander from buffy and a heroine with ape like face who doesn not seem to know how to act. said adrienne barbeau have i only only encountered before in the much more enjoyable cannibal women in the avocado jungle of death. camera and editing adds to the general impression of lame. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
can i please say first of all and that i felt so strongly about this movie that i signed up to imdb specifically to review it. and my review. this is easily the worst movie i have ever seen. the synopsis of the movie sounded interesting nazis and occult and time travel and etc. and but the movies plot failed to properly bring all these elements together. remember the episode of south park that featured manatees writing family guy using idea balls. did these manatees also write unholy. its like the writer wanted to include all these different ideas and but had no idea how to link them all together and and then to make things make even less sense and included a donnie darko esquire time travel theme to the ending and messing up the chronology. i could tell from early on that this was a bad movie. special effects were too low budget for anything better than straight to dvd. the acting wasn not great and but in fairness i have seen worse. i will praise the nazi paintings and they were creepy and but the evil nazi butcher guy was just comic. i do not have a vendetta against this movie or anything and but to be honest and i am not even into the horror genre. but this movie cannot be described as a thriller or a drama. if this story had been well told and this would have been a good movie. but it has been over hyped. waaaaay over hyped. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
when i started watching this movie i saw the dude from buffy and xander and and figured ah how nice that he still making a living acting in movies. now a weird movie i can stand and given that it a good dose of weird like for example david lynch movies and twin peaks and lost highway etc. and you sort of have to be in the mood for one. this one however made me mockingly remember the crazy websites about there about conspiracy theory that make absolutely no sense. i mean come on people nazi who conspire with america to make an unholy trinity of evil powers. i was surprised they do not mention the hollow earth in this movie with hitler flying saucers and lizard people. maybe if you had like 60 grams of heroine with this movie it would make some sort of sense and but seriously i do not condone drugs like i do not condone this movie. it should be burned and shredded and forgotten just so good ol xander might get another acting job. it wasn not his acting though and that was alright and but the script just do not make any sense. sorry. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i am not sure this is a spoiler while perhaps it is a public service. if you are one of those people focused on instant gratification who skip end credits and you will miss the final line of the end credits news announcer voice over and which states the u. s. has just surrendered to nazi germany on may 7 and 1945 to end wwii. here are just a few of the problems with this close represent 1)the older viewer must conjure up the equivalent of two or three more unholy movies in their mind eye to fill in the yawning chasm between movie events and this startling conclusion. 2)the average person will really kick themselves that they did not watch one of these unholy fill in the blanks flicks created in their own head for free and instead of shelling out time and money to see this unholy from the video store (or on cable). 3)this end credits sequence of imagined news bulletins may be the first information some younger viewers are exposed to about wwii and leading them to the conclusion that george w. bush is the latest heir to the nazi throne. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
i read rice novel with interest and and became quite enchanted with its characters and heartbreaking tale based on historical truths. however and i was simply appalled at this disastrous adaptation. the casting was based merely on physical appearance and and not acting talent (with the obvious exception of peter gallagher and who was neither blond haired and or able to act his way out of a wet paper bag). the cast embarrassingly clumsy and inconsistent attempts at affecting a french accent was hilarious and but not in an entertaining way. i found myself wincing through this muddled and melodramatic tripe and and was surprised i made it to the end. a warning to fans of the novel stay away from this one. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
this movie was so badly written and directed and acted that it beggars belief. it should be remade with a better script and director and casting service. the worst problem is the acting. you have jennifer beals on the one hand who is polished and professional and totally believable and and on the other hand and richard and who is woefully miscast and just jarring in this particular piece. peter gallagher and jenny levine are just awful as the slave owning (and keeping) couple and although both normally do fine work. the actors (and director) should not have attempted to do accents at all they are inconsistent and unbelievable. much better to have concentrated on doing a good job in actual english. the casting is ludicrous. why have children of an african merchant (thus less socially desirable to the gens de couleur society ) been cast with very pale skinned actors and while the supposedly socially desirable marcel and has pronounced african features and including an obviously dyed blond fro. it as if the casting directors cannot be bothered to read the script they are casting and to chose appropriate actors from a large pool of extremely talented and physically diverse actors of color. it just so weird. this could be a great movie and should be re made and but with people who respect the material and can choose appropriate and skilled actors. there are plenty of good actors out there and and it would be fun to see how jennifer beals and daniel sunjata and gloria reuben would do with an appropriate cast and good script and decent direction. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
the story and the show were good and but it was really depressing and i hate depressing movies. richard is great. he really put on a top notch performance and and the girl who played his sister was really awesome and gorgeous. seriously and i thought she was carmen electra until i saw the imdb profile. i can not say anything bad about peter galleghar. he one of my favorite actors. i love anne rice. i am currently reading the vampire chronicles and but i am glad i saw the movie before reading the book. this is a little tooreal for me. i prefer lestat and louis witty little tiffs to the struggles of slaves. eartha kitt was so creepy and after her character did what she did the movie was ruined for me while i could barely stand to watch the rest of the show. (sorry for the ambiguity and but i do not want to give anything away) sorry and but it just not my type of show. | negative negative negative negative negative | positive positive positive positive positive |
Subsets and Splits