Datasets:

DT4LM

/

albertbase_imdb_differential

like 0

single beloved sci-fi and am willing to put up with a plenty. Sci-fi movies/television are usually underfunded, under-appreciated and misunderstood. I sample to care this, unity truly did, but it is to near TV sci-fi as Babylon fivesome is to stellar Trek (the original). dizzy prosthetics, punk cardboard place, hokey duologue, CG that doesn't peer the desktop, and painfully one-dimensional role cannot be overcome with a 'sci-fi' position. (I'm certainly there are those of you out there who conceive Babylon 5 is good sci-fi TV. It's not. It's clichéd and uninspiring.) While US viewers might same emotion and eccentric growth, sci-fi is a genre that does not withdraw itself seriously (mucoviscidosis. Star Trek). It may treat important issues, still not as a grave philosophy. It's rattling difficult to guardianship about the reference here as they are not just foolish, just drop a sparkle of living. Their activity and reactions are wooden and predictable, often sore to watch. The manufacturer of Earth bang it's rubbish as they have to always articulate "Gene Roddenberry's Earth..." otherwise masses would not uphold ascertain. Roddenberry's ash must be become in their orbit as this dim, inexpensive, peaked cut (watching it without name recess truly take this home) footslog Trabant of a express lumbers into space. plunderer. hence, down off a main grapheme. And then bring him rearward as another worker. Jeeez! Dallas all over again.

Worth the entertainment value of a rental, especially if you like action movies. This one features the usual car chases, fights with the great Van Damme kick style, shooting battles with the 40 shell load shotgun, and even terrorist style bombs. All of this is entertaining and competently handled but there is nothing that really blows you away if you've seen your share before.<br /><br />The plot is made interesting by the inclusion of a rabbit, which is clever but hardly profound. Many of the characters are heavily stereotyped -- the angry veterans, the terrified illegal aliens, the crooked cops, the indifferent feds, the bitchy tough lady station head, the crooked politician, the fat federale who looks like he was typecast as the Mexican in a Hollywood movie from the 1940s. All passably acted but again nothing limited.<br /><br />I thought the main villains were pretty well done and fairly well acted. By the end of the movie you certainly knew who the good guys were and weren't. There was an emotional lift as the really bad ones got their just deserts. Very simplistic, but then you weren't expecting Hamlet, right? The only thing I found really annoying was the constant cuts to VDs daughter during the last fight scene.<br /><br />Not bad. Not good. Passable 4.

its a completely medium film with a few semi-alright action sequences that work the plot seem a little better and remind the viewer of the classic van dam films. parts of the plot don't make gumption and seem to be added in to use up time. the end plot is that of a very basic type that doesn't leave the viewer guessing and any twists are obvious from the beginning. the end scene with the flask backs don't make sense as they are added in and seem to have little relevance to the history of van dam's character. not really deserving observation again, bit disappointed in the end production, even though it is apparent it was shot on a low budget certain shots and sections in the film are of poor channelize quality

stellar denounce: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday aurora <br /><br />Former New Orleans homicide cop Jack Robideaux (Jean Claude Van Damme) is re-assigned to Columbus, a small but violent town in Mexico to help the police there with their efforts to stop a major heroin smuggling operation into their town. The culprits turn out to be ex-military, lead by former commander Benjamin Meyers (Stephen Lord, otherwise known as Jase from East Enders) who is expend a special method he learned in Afghanistan to fight off his opponents. simply squat has a more personal understanding for taking him down, that draws the two men into an explosive final showdown where only one will walk away alive.<br /><br />After Until Death, Van Damme appeared to be on a high, showing he could make the best straight to video films in the action market. patch that was a far more drama oriented film, with The Shepherd he has returned to the high-kicking, no brainer action that first wee-wee him famous and has sadly develop his tough film since Derailed. It's nowhere near as big as that film, but what I said still support.<br /><br />axerophthol leaden, predictable film, with very little in the way of any exciting sue. What little there is mainly consists of some limp fight scenes, trying to look cool and trendy with some cheap slo-mo/sped up effects added to them that sadly instead make them look more desperate. Being a Mexican set film, director Isaac Florentine has tried to give the film a Robert Rodriguez/Desperado sort of feel, but this only adds to the desperation.<br /><br />VD afford a particularly uninspired performance and return he's never been a Robert De Niro sort of actor, that can't be undecomposed. A the villain, Lord shouldn't wait to forget the beeb anytime soon. He gets little dialogue at the get-go as he struggles to muster an American accent but gets enigmatically better towards the end. All the supporting wander are equally suave, and do naught to enkindle the cinema spirit at all.<br /><br />This is unrivalled shepherd that's range right from the flock. *

Isaac Florentine has made some of the best western Martial Arts action movies ever produced. In particular US Seals 2, Cold Harvest, Special Forces and Undisputed 2 are all action classics. You can tell Isaac has a real passion for the genre and his films are always eventful, creative and sharp affairs, with some of the best fight sequences an action fan could hope for. In particular he has found a muse with Scott Adkins, as talented an actor and action performer as you could hope for. This is borne out with Special Forces and Undisputed 2, but unfortunately The Shepherd just doesn't know up to their abilities.<br /><br />There is no doubt that JCVD looks better here fight-wise than he has done in years, especially in the fight he has (for pretty much no reason) in a prison cell, and in the final showdown with Scott, but look in his eyes. JCVD seems to be suddenly inside. There's nothing in his eyes at all. It's like he just doesn't care about anything throughout the whole film. And this is the stellar man.<br /><br />There are other slick aspects to the film, script-wise and visually, but the main problem is that you are utterly unable to empathise with the hero of the film. A genuine attaint as I know we all wanted this film to be as special as it genuinely could have been. there are some full bits, mostly the accomplish scenery themselves. This film had a terrific director and action choreographer, and an awesome opponent for JCVD to face down. This could have been the one to bring the veteran action star back up to scratch in the balls-out action movie stakes.<br /><br />Sincerely a shame that this didn't happen.

It actually striving me to tell it, but this flick was horrifying on every stratum. The rap does not prevarication altogether with Van Damme as you can find he essay his best, but let's expression it, he's almost fifty, how often more can you ask of him? I discovery it so backbreaking to believe that the same people who couch together Undisputed 2; arguably the best (western) martial graphics pic in age, created this. Everything from the diagram, to the dialog, to the delete, to the overall pretend was just horribly couch together and in many cases outright bore and laughable. Scott Adkins who's press scene seemed more like a demo reel, was too atrociously underused and not tied the chief villain which is such a pity because one) He is more than capable of bet that role and 2) The actual independent villain was not only not intimidating at all but besides quite vex. Again, not blaming caravan Damme. single will always be a lover, but quash this unmatched.

Honestly awe-inspiring flick, bad editing, awesome lighting, dire dialog and scrappy screenplay.<br /><br />The ignite at is so bad there's moments you can't even see what's live on, I even tried to playing with the contrast and luminousness so I could see something but that didn't help.<br /><br />They must have found the handwriting in a bin, the character development is just as tremendous and while you hardly expect much from a Jean-Claude Van Damme film this peerless manages to hit an all time low. You can't even laugh at the cheesy'ness.<br /><br />The directing and editing are also terrible, the solid film follows an extremely timeworn workaday and fails at every release as it mishandle through the plot that is so weak it's just unreal.<br /><br />There's not a lot else to read other than it's really big and nothing like Jean-Claude Van Damme's earlier work which you could enjoy.<br /><br />void like the plaque, frankly words fail me in condemning this "film".

Blind Date (Columbia Pictures, 1934), was a decent film, but I have a few issues with this film. First of all, I don't fault the actors in this film at all, but more or less, I have a problem with the script. Also, I understand that this film was made in the 1930's and people were looking to escape reality, but the script made Ann Sothern's case look light. She kept going back and forth between suitors and I felt as though she should have stayed with Paul Kelly's character in the end. He truly did care about her and her family and would have done anything for her and he did by giving her up in the end to fickle Neil Hamilton who in my opinion was only out for a good time. Paul Kelly's character, although a workaholic was a man of integrity and truly loved Kitty (Ann Sothern) as opposed to Neil Hamilton, while he did like her a lot, I didn't construe the depth of love that he had for her character. The production values were great, but the script could have used a little work.

I saw the Mogul Video VHS of this. That's another one of those sure-enough 1980s distributors whose catalog I wish I had!<br /><br />This movie was jolly short. Though retitled "Don't Look in the Attic," the primary admonition that is repeated in this is "Don't go to the villa." Just getting on the grounds of the villa is a bad idea. A character doesn't go into the attic until an hour into the movie, and actually should have done it earlier because of what is learned there.<br /><br />The movie showtime in Turin, Italy in the 1950s. Two men are fighting, and a woman is telling them the villa is making them do it. One man kills the other, then regrets it, and the woman pulls out the knife and stabs him with it. She flees the villa, and after she's left a chair moves by itself (what's the point of that?), but when in the garden a hand comes up through the ground and drags he into the earth.<br /><br />From there, it's the present day, thirty years later. There's a séance that appears suddenly and doesn't appear to have anything to do with the movie. The children of the woman from the prologue are inheriting the house. The main daughter is played by the same actress who played her mother. At least one of the two men from the prologue seems to reoccur as another character too. She's haunted by some warnings not to go to the villa, but they all do, since if they do not use it, they forfeit it. People die. A lawyer who has won all his cases tries to investigate a little. The ending is somewhat poor. Why was the family cursed? An unfortunately irksome pic.<br /><br />There's an amusing small-print disclaimer on the back of the video box that reads "The scenes depicted on this packaging may be an artist's impression and may not necessarily represent actual scenes from the film." In this showcase, the cover of the box is an illustration that does more or less accurately depict the aforementioned woman dragged underground scene, although there are two hands, and the woman is different. It's true, sometimes the cover art has nothing to do with the movie. 1 also recall seeing a reviewer who had a bad movie predictor scale, in which movies with illustrations on the cover instead of photos got at least one point for that.

A group of heirs to a mysterious old mansion find out that they have to live in it as part of a clause in the will or be disinherited, but they soon find out of its history of everybody whom had lived there before them having either died in weird accidents or having had killed each other.<br /><br />You've seen it all before, and this one is too low-budget and easy paced to be scary, and doesn't have any real surprises in the climax. No special effects or gore to speak of, in fact the only real disport thing about the solid film is the quality of the English dubbing, which at times is as bad as a cheap martial arts movie.<br /><br />3 out of 10, pretty scurvy in the pecking order of 80's haunted house movies.

instantly, I LOVE Italian horror films. The cheesier they are, the better. withal, this is not cheesy Italian. This is week-old spaghetti sauce with moulder meatballs. It is inexpert hour on every storey. There is no suspense, no horror, with just a few drops of blood scattered around to remind you that you are in fact watching a horror film. The "special effects" consist of the lights changing to red whenever the ghost (or whatever it was supposed to be) is around, and a string pulling bed sheets up and down. Oooh, can you feel the thrill? The DVD quality is that of a VHS transfer (which actually helps the film more than hurts it). The knight is below even the lowest "bad Italian movie" standards and I gave it one star just because the dialogue is so hilarious! And what do we discover when she finally DOES look in the attic (in a scene that is daytime one minute and night the next)...well, I won't spoil it for anyone who really wants to see, but let's just say that it isn't very "novel"!

This inexpensive, grainy-filmed Italian flick is about a couple of inheritors of a manor in the Italian countryside who head up to the house to stay, and then find themselves getting killed off by ghosts of people killed in that house.<br /><br />I wasn't yarn-dye by this. It wasn't really that scary, mostly just the way a cheap Italian film should be. A girl, her two cousins, and one cousin's girlfriend, head to this huge house for some reason (I couldn't figure out why) and are staying there, cleaning up and checking out the place. Characters come in and out of the film, and it's quite deadening at points, and the majority of deaths are quite rushed. The girlfriend is hit by a car when fleeing the house after having a dream of her death, and the scene is quite good, but then things amaze slow again, until a confusing end, when the male cousins are killed together in some weird way, and this weirdo guy (I couldn't figure out who he was during the movie, or maybe I just don't remember) goes after this one girl, attacking her, until finally this other girl kills him off. Hate to give away the ending, but oh well. The female cousin decides to stay at the house and watch over it, and they show scenes of her living there years later. The end. You really aren't missing anything, and anyway, you probably won't find this anywhere, so lucky you.

I just finished watching this movie and am discomfited to articulate that I didn't love it a bit. It is so slowly easy and uninteresting. This kid from harass Potter plays a shy teenager with an rude mother, and then one day the rude mother tells the kid to find a job so that they could accommodate an old guy apparently having no place to live has started to live with his family and therefore the kid goes to work for a old lady. And this old lady who is living all alone teaches him about girls, driving car and life! I couldn't nonplus how an 18 year old guy enjoy spending time with an awful lady in her 80s. Sorry if my comments on this pic has bothered people who might have enjoyed it, I could be wrong as I am not British and may not understand the social and their family structure and way of life. Mostly the movie is clear for the British audience.

Every movie I have PPV'd because Leonard Maltin praised it to the skies has blown clump! Every unity unrivalled! When will I ever learn?<br /><br />Evie is a raving Old Bag who thinks nothing of saying she's dying of breast cancer to get her way! Laura is an insufferable Medusa filled with The Holy Spirit (and her hubby's protégé)! Caught between these harpies is Medusa's dumb-as-a-rock boy who has been pressed into weed-pulling servitude by The Old Bag!<br /><br />As I said, when will I ever learn?<br /><br />I was temporarily lifted out of my malaise when The Old Bag stuck her head in a sink, but, unfortunately, she did not die. I was temporarily lifted out of my malaise again when Medusa got mowed down, but, unfortunately, she did not die. It should be a capital law-breaking to distortion hearing wish this!<br /><br />Without Harry Potter to kick him around, Rupert Grint is just a pair of big blue eyes that practically bulge out of its sockets. Julie Walters's scenery-chewing (especially the scene when she "plays" God) is even more shameless than her character.<br /><br />astatine least this Harold bangs some bimbo instead of Maude. For that, single am truly grateful. And if you're reading this Mr. Maltin, you owe me $3.99!

This movie had a very unique essence on me: it stalled my realization that this movie REALLY draw! It is disguised as a "thinker's film" in the likes of Memento and other jewels like that, but at the end, and even after a few minutes, you come to realize that this is nothing but dead pretentious cr4p. Probably written by some collage student with friends to compassionate to tell him that his spell sucks. The unharmed idea is … ane don't even live if it tried to scratch on the supernatural, or they want us to believe that because someone fills your mind (a very weak one, btw) with stunned "riddles", the kind you learn on simple school recess, you suddenly come to the "one truth" about everything, then you have to kill someone and confess…. !!! What? How, what, why, WHY? Is just like saying that to make a cake, just throw a bunch of ingredients, and add water… forgot about cooking it? I guess these guys forgot to, not explain, but present the mechanism of WHY was this happening? You have to do that when you present a story which normal, everyday dissemble (lie solving screen rhymes) start to have an abnormal effect on people. dissemble was ugly, with that girl always prove to look cute at the camera, and the guy from Highlanders, the series, acting up like the though heavy metal record store (yeah, they're all real though s-o-b's). The "menacing" atmosphere, with the "oh-so-clever" riddles (enter the 60's series of Batman and Robin, with guest appearance of The Riddle) and the crazies who claim to have "the knowledge" posterior that smirk on their faces… just horrible, horrifying.<br /><br />I'm usually very partial about low budget movies, and tend to root for the underdog by giving them more praise than they may deserve, in lieu of their constrictions, you know, but this is just an surly pardon for a movie that will keep you wanting to be thoroughly for an hour and a half, and at the end you will just plaint that you fall for it.

too spoilt this movie isn't. While "Nemesis Game" is gently harbor, I discover it hard to suspend my disbelief the altogether length of the flick, especially the situations that Sara was set herself into. Are we conjecture to think that:<br /><br />1) this hot chick is last to go slumming unarmed around abandoned buildings and dark subway tunnels in the middle of the night just to solve some riddles?<br /><br />2) the protagonists are supposedly such experts that they play riddle games for fun, but don't put the whole "I Never Sinned" riddle together until the very end...and then...and then...get this...she has to do the unanimous mirror thing to finally put the pieces together?? 1 know it was the filmmaker's device to show the interview what was going on, but do they really think we're that pudden-head?<br /><br />tierce) when Vern and Sara go to the Chez M to question the blonde, there is not ONE topless chick in the whole building. zip. C'mon. single love it's Canada, but I would expect more from a country that gave us Shannon Tweed.<br /><br />And anyone else note that when Vern was surfboarding the Web and found that riddlezone site, that when he moused over the link the cursor stayed an arrow, and didn't turn into a little hand (corresponding ALL CURSORS DO WHEN YOU CLICK ON A HYPERLINK)?!? I meanspirited, if you're gonna have the internet play such a prominent role in your movie, at least amaze the little things good. Geez.

I of course saw the previews for this at the beginning of some other Lion's Gate extravaganza, so of course it was only the best parts and therefore looked intriguing. And it is, to a point. A young college student (Sarah)is finding riddles all over the place and is becoming obsessed with answering them, and in doing so she's unwittingly becoming involved in some game. Now that's fairly intriguing right there but unfortunately it all gets rather muddled and becomes so complicated that the viewer (like myself) will most likely become frustrated. Characters appear with little introduction and you're not really sure who they are or why Sarah knows them or is hanging out with them. All of this has something to do with this woman who tried to drown a young boy years ago and her reason for that was that it's "all part of the design". In realism, it's all part of the "very sketchy book" and when the film is over you'll find yourself feeling that you've lost about an hour and a half of your life that you want back for more productive uses of your time, like cleaning the bathroom, for instance. 4 out of 10.

I founder this a triplet out of a possible 10 ace.<br /><br />Unless you like wasting your time watching an anorexic actress, in this film it's Carly Pope, behaving like a ditz, don't discommode.<br /><br />Carly Pope plays Sara Novak, a young college student, who becomes intrigued with a game of riddles, that leads her down into subway tunnels underneath the city - a dangerous thing for even a well-armed man to go in alone.<br /><br />There are various intrigues in the film -- a weirdo classmate who is apparently stalking Sara, a cynical shopkeeper who runs some kind of offbeat hole-in-the-wall establishment that appears to be located in the back alley of a ghetto, a nerdish dim-wit that hangs around the cynic's shop, and a woman named Emily Gray, who is back in prison.<br /><br />Sara's father is a lawyer who is handling Emily Gray's case. <br /><br />A few years back, Emily Gray attempted to drown a 12 year old boy. Emily was put in a mental hospital for 5 years, and for some cockeyed reason they let her out again, even though it is obvious she is still dangerously deranged.<br /><br />The only explanation Emily has ever given for her crime is: I never sinned.<br /><br />It's all part of the design.<br /><br />Well, my friend, don't expect to ever flummox any better explanation than that, because you won't.

I was looking forward to this movie. Trustworthy actors, interesting plot. Great atmosphere then ????? IF you are going to attempt something that is meant to encapsulate the meaning of life. First. Know it. OK I did not expect the directors or writers to actually know the meaning but I thought they may have offered crumbs to peck at and treats to add fuel to the fire-Which! they almost did. Things I didn't get. A woman wandering around in dark places and lonely car parks alone-oblivious to the consequences. Great riddles that fell by the wayside. The promise of the knowledge therein contained by the original so-called criminal. I had no problem with the budget and enjoyed the suspense. I understood and can wax lyrical about the fool and found Adrian Pauls role crucial and penetrating and then ????? Basically the story line and the script where good up to a point and that point was the last 10 minutes or so. What? Run out of ideas! Such a pity that this movie had to let America down so badly. It may not comprehend the meaning and I really did not expect the writers to understand it but I was hoping for an intellectual, if not spiritual ride and got a bump in the road

<br /><br />Never ever take a film just for its good looking title.<br /><br />Although it all starts well, the film suffers the same imperfections you see in B-films. Its same at a certain moment the writer does not any more how to end the film, so he ends it in a way nobody suspects it thinking this way he is ingenious.<br /><br />A film to be listed on top of the drivel list.<br /><br />

Lowe returns to the nest after, yet another, failed relationship, to find he's been assigned to jury duty. It's in the plans to, somehow, get out of it, when he realizes the defendant is the girl he's had a serious crush on since the first grade.<br /><br />Through living in the past by recount other people about his feelings towards this girl (played by Camp), Lowe remembers those feelings and does everything in his power to clear Camp of attempted murder, while staying away from the real bad guys at the same time, and succeeding in creating a successful film at the same metre.<br /><br />I've heard that St Augustine is the oldest city in the US, and I also know it has some ties to Ponce de Leon, so the backdrop is a secure localize to outset. Unfortunately, it's the only affair safe about this movie. The local police are inept, the judge is an idiot, and the defense counsel does everything in her power to make herself look like Joanie Cunningham! I don't know whether to blame the director for poor counsel, or for just letting the disgorge put in such a hapless effort.<br /><br />Indiana short, this movie was so tire, I could not still sleep through it! 1 out of 10 genius!

earnestly, I can't guess how anyone could find a single flattering thing to say about this pic, much less observe it in themselves to write the glowing compliments contained in this scuttlebutt part. How many methamphetamines was Bogdonovitch on during the filming of this movie? Was he giving a incentive to the actor that acclaim his lines out with the most speed and least inflection or conceive? The negotiation is tough, the patch horrifying, even for a "screwball" drollery, and claims that the movie is an homage to classic film comedy is about the most inane thing I've ever heard. The cinematography is below the quality and innovation of that exhibited by the unfit made-for-TV movies, the acting is awesome (although I engender the feeling that the flaw for that rest squarely in the lick of the director), and speaking of which, did I quotation the steering is so slapdash and mysterious that it defies the definition of the word? The solid thing is a terribly unfunny (even in the much-beleaguered world of so-bad-it's-funny clunkers), soul-sucking, wild of two hours of your life that you'll never get back. embody afraid, be very afraid...

The most positive manoeuvre in this film were the credits (text style) and some moments in Ice-T's acting. The story-line; two rival gangs having to fight it out, with the sub-plots of betrayal, power and change are well worn plots but in this case sore(very) to wade through. The weak scenery, which added slight believability in places, and questionable lighting, constantly distract from any interest/identification with the characters (the shine off of the actress's forehead/nose was blinding, not to mention other scenes with the same problem.) Not tied half way into the cinema I treasured to know more about how and why it came about as opposed to what was going on on screen. amp letdown if you have seen Ice-T in other roles. Kudos to other actors/actresses who seemed to get into their roles despite the weak direction; Corrupt's side kick and the other restaurant worker.

this celluloid has no plot, no good acting, to be honest it has nothing, the same songs play over and over awe-inspiring acting and if you can actually model there and watch the whole thing and enjoy it there is something wrong with you. I wish i could give this 0 out of 10 but i cant so it has to be a ace which is generous! ice-t isn't even a good rapper and even high-risk at acting, every burn of the cinema is rubbish, i nonplus this film on DVD without love what it was for the price of £1.99 and thought that i had picked up a bargain, i then looked at the IMDb rating and didn't take it into consideration but after watching it found out that the DVD i had bought was a perfect scourge of time, money and electricity. if you have this film there are 2 things you can do sell it to someone who doesn't know about it or burn it!

one can't believe the high marks people have return this take on this locate. The compose is fantastically forged with people amount in at just the rightfulness sentence and revelation exactly what the heroine is doing to examine to dodging. (Don't you just hate it when that happens?). And the roleplay is so very, very tough that you May suffer a splinter in your heart from all the scenery being jaw.<br /><br />axerophthol ball is holding her surety, fry are outside the unfold riddle, so she wail for assistant instead of screaming when only a moment ago she was fearless enough to be peachy windows to yell to these same children.<br /><br />She's finally free and lonely in the family. Her chance to run for supporter, so what does she do? vagabond approximately the theatre and consist down. She's in the basement, mesh away. sol what does she do? Takes a little catnap. do on! well-nigh of the movie is the nut wander away and finding her sit there snoozing when he wakes her up. 4 times! What? If the writer is too blase to actually write a real diagram why should we be paid aid? one cerebrate the samara here is that it was originally a trifle for the radio, so they filled in with the heroine just pose around rather than pretending to be screen writers and actually writing any execute.<br /><bromine />And the ending is horrendous.<br /><bromine />The whole movie is completely farfetched, awfully written and about comically pretend. Beware this movie at all costs!

Widow hires a psychopath as a handyman. sloughy film noir thriller which doesn't piddle much of its tension promising set-up. (three/10)

I have no mind how anyone can collapse this movie high brand. I didn't rent it recollect it was the next great horror flick, the next great horror spoof, or the next great low-budget horror spoof. Obviously, this isn't meant to pall, but one black flaw with the production entirely sapped the joy out of the consider experience. The legal editing was frightful. I had to work the volume control the entire movie. You can imagine how difficult it is to get into something - even a low-budget spoof - when you're either turning the volume up or down, or trying to anticipate the next time you have to do so. The regular dialogue is very low, and all screams, noises, etc., are VERY loud. We're not talking about toggling between 5 and 7 on the volume control, finding a happy medium at sestet. We're talking toggling between 2 and 9 on the volume where it is virtually impossible to leave the volume alone. Again, this movie might be a decent example of what it is meant to be, but you're going to be spending so much time adjusting your volume control that you'll ne'er have the find to enjoy it.

realise the title of this flick "Stupid Teenagers Must Die" have me believe this was a spoof of some kind. I discovered later on the original title was "Blood and Guts". Both titles are misleading, though. This is not a spoof, neither a serious splatter movie. This is something in between, die in both expanse. A group of teenagers is attending a séance at a spooky house and then the killing pop. audio over familiar, doesn't it. Well, this movies adds null whatsoever to the endless stream of similar movies. And it is badly clear. Because of the want of clean the integral film is gritty. Now this effect can be highly efficacious, but it isn't in this case. The young cast isn't acting too badly, but the director has no clue as what to do with actors. In numerous scenes the actors are clearly waiting for directions, but these are given too late. It could also be an editor's mistake, of course. The characters are unrealistic and the report channel just fetor. The legal is frightening at times: conversations are undecipherable, but when talking loudly or screaming the actors are very flash indeed.<br /><br />This is not the tough horror movie I have ever seen, but it still is a big ace. For me a 3 out of 10.

today I understand that this took two months to shoot. Really? I'm pretty certain my crew could do it in less than a week. This movie breastfeed so bad I couldn't even pay close attending. Just more proof that boob bearing women can't always save you from horrible writing, acting and direction. today I understand it was a no budget endeavor, but there is also no continuity and no real reason to not to turn it off and watch infomercials or foreign news in a language you don't understand. Oh, there are a few decent looking females showing the goods. Still, there aren't enough sexy women alive to warrant watching this burlesque perpetrated on the film industry. One of the foresightful 80 moment of my life. I trooped it out though with the help of my old friend Jim Beam. Do yourself a favor and get your gun ready cuz you may want to use it after this hack job. Lastly, the individual (moron) who left a comment before mine cerebrate this was a great movie and LOVED it. Just more proof that siblings shouldn't pro-create. Ow, BURN!!! - Captain J

STMD! is not a dreaded movie, but it IS quite forgettable. The lighting is intentionally poor in many view and unintentionally short in all the ease, so you are likely to come out of a viewing with a headache or eye-strain. peculiar result are imaginative, but obvious. The gratuitous nudity essential for teen slasher ruffle is there, of course, along with the archetypical teenagers, but the solid movie just doesn't gelatin. What was requisite was some lively talks and more tongue-in-cheek humor.<br /><br />I can't really recommend that you use your time watching this movie. I often give a nod to a movie based on just a scene or two that demonstrates imaginativeness or humor, but these are sadly miss in this film.

No, no, no, no, no, no, NO! This is not a celluloid, this is an self-justification to express multitude dancing. This is just not undecomposed. still the dancing is slowly and not half as entertaining as the mediocre 'Dirty Dancing', let alone any other good dance movie.<br /><bromine />exist it a love history? Is it a melodic? Is it a drama? Is it a comedy? It's not that this movie is a moment of all, it's that this movie fails at everything it attempts to be. The cinema turns out to be even more nonmeaningful as the film progresses.<br /><BR />play is tremendous from all sides, the screenplay is decidedly try to tell us something about relationship but fails miserably.<br /><br />lookout FOR THE MOMENT - When Patrick Stewart enters the aspect and you retrieve the film power get intimately as he brightens up the softened aura. For a mo.

OK, so my summary line is a cheap trick. But the movie is full of them and it gets absurdly praised, so...<br /><br />I caught this one on TV (uncut, as TV here shows all movies, that's for you Americans who might say I didn't like it because I saw a cut TV version - fortunately that's only an US thing), and had no idea about what it was. I switched on, caught the last minutes of a show, and the movie began. Within a minute, I was begging it was a comedy, given the particularly ridiculous clichéd beginning (yes, it's a bad movie-within-the-movie, I know, but what a way to try to keep the viewer interested! I don't even know why I didn't switch channels). And, yes, in fact the movie turned out to be a funniness, albeit an unintentional ace.<br /><br />Marina Zudina is pretty enough, but gosh, what a frightening performance! While casting a foreigner in the role is hurt enough (she doesn't talk so bye bye language barrier), yet, sorry, Marina baby, playing mute doesn't mean impersonating Harpo Marx. Her acting is unintentionally funny in many moments, just look at her when she draws an X in the air while stalked by the killer. He wants to kill you, it's no time to play Zorro. We get plenty of "running upstairs" stuff passing for tension, as in the worst slashers, and things like pulling a carpet and a bad guy shots the other. Ugh! Will Hollywood ever learn? Yet the best/worst pearl is having a guy electrocuted in a bathtub and... Well, I have never seen anyone being electrocuted to death in a bathtub, but I'm sure you can't see the blue cartoon rays in real life, do you? And how about immediately trusting a mean-looking guy because he SAYS he's a cop, and not asking him to show you his credentials? OK, so he turns out to be a real cop. But still, not asking for the badge makes no sense (plot-wise, we could always think the credentials might be phony or he might be a crooked cop. Screen writing 101). And how about the big twist? Don't tell me you didn't see that coming from 200 miles away...<br /><br />I feel sorry for poor old Alec Guinness and his useless stock footage cameo. Now I think about this, what's the point in giving him a "Mystery Guest Star" credit... in the END titles? The movie's over, there's no mystery anymore, and everybody and their brother have identified Guinness (even non-movie buffs will recognize "the old guy from 'Star Wars'"). Yet better off this way, so we can pretend it's not the late great actor.<br /><br />People keep comparing this to, of all people, Hitchcock. I suppose it has to be John Hitchcock the milkman, as the late Sir Alfred would feel embarrassed out of watching this, let alone making it. And this gets a 6.8/10???? It's Bottom 100 material! But then, we're talking a rating system that allows 'The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King' to appear as the third best movie ever made (check Top 100), so...<br /><br />2/10.

This film is about a couple that decides to take a vacation to The Everglades along with another couple and the family dog. When they first get there, they are not welcomed by the neighboring gas attendant that warms them to stay away from the cabin in which they are to spend the night at for the week. After pestering with the old man, three hillbillys also do not take kindly to their arrival as they approach their car and threaten them to leave. After asking some of the local dummies that can't speak or just don't want to answer, they finaly find the cabin. After they settle in, strange things happen to the visitors including discovering crap on their car, the man thats the head of this trip thats an idiot shoots the family dog thinking it was a killer clawing at the door and a series of deaths later on in the end. Adding a church group did not realise the story any better. Then at the end, the idiot that survives the whole ordeal goes around the town carrying a shot gun. crippled. thats what this movie is.

Talented screenwriter Alvin Sargent sadly cannot get any engaging ideas cooking in this artificial wanton about a wayward mother and her mature teenage daughter trying to make their lives work in Los Angeles despite mom's flighty behavior. Apart from several good sequences, I didn't quite corrupt Susan Sarandon as a flake (she's too intrinsically smart and focused to be passed off as this devil-may-care lady), and her naturally grounded personality is a big match for the character of an irresponsible parent. Natalie Portman fares much comfortably as her kid, and even there's a creepy aloofness to her work (and some of her scenes, such as the one where she asks a boy to strip, are misguided and uncomfortable to watch). Certainly not an clumsy piece, "Anywhere But Here" does have moments that work, but it isn't an embraceable film, nor has it proved to be an important one. ** from ****

An Italian/American co-production co-starring Linda Blair and David 'The Hoff' Hasselhoff: how could any fan of trashy horror resist such a treat?<br /><br />good, based on the uneventful, extremely tedious, and utterly nonsensical first forty mo or so, I would have said 'very easily'; thankfully, nevertheless, things do eventually father a shade more entertaining with the introduction of several inventive last scenes, and for those lucky enough to find an uncut copy, a smattering of nudity too (unfortunately, my copy was optically edited to remove such offensive material).<br /><br />The Hoff stars as Gary, a photographer who accompanies his beautiful girlfriend Leslie (Leslie Cumming) to a run-down hotel on a seemingly deserted island in order to take pictures for her latest project, a book about witches; whilst there, frustrated Gary also hopes to try and cure a bad case of blue balls by relieving Leslie of her virginity.<br /><br />His plans for nookie are scuppered, however, by the unexpected arrival of property developers Freddie and Rose Brooks (Robert Champagne and Annie Ross), their pregnant daughter Jane (Blair), son Tommy (Michael Manchester), pretty nymphomaniac architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland), and estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who have come to inspect the island's hotel.<br /><br />After explaining their unexpected presence on the island, Gary and Leslie are welcomed by the property's new owners, and when a violent storm suddenly picks up, making it perilous to return to the mainland, everyone agrees to spend the night in the old building. Unfortunately, unbeknownst to the hotel's new guests, the place is also home to the spirit of an evil witch (Hildegard Knef), who requires human sacrifices in order to bring herself back to life. One by one, victims are pulled into a swirling red vortex (which is guaranteed to provide unintentional laughs), before meeting a terrible fate.<br /><br />None of this score much signified, and the acting is atrocious (Manchester as Tommy is particularly big, whilst Hasselhoff proves to be one of the better performers, which speaks volumes about the others), but those viewers who make it past the dreary first half are rewarded with some pretty decent moments of gore: Rose has her lips sewn together, before being roasted alive in a fireplace; Jerry is crucified and burnt alive; Linda is tortured by hags and impaled on a swordfish(!!); Freddie's veins pulsate and erupt in geysers of blood; and Gary gets stabbed in the back.<br /><br />Oh, and Leslie is raped by a guy with no lips and Blair gets possessed (again).

There are many different versions of this one floating around, so make sure you can locate one of the unrated copies, otherwise some gore and one scene of nudity might be missing. Some versions also omit most of the opening sequence and other bits here and there. The cut I saw has the on-screen title WITCHCRAFT: EVIL ENCOUNTERS and was released by Shriek Show, who maintain the original US release title WITCHERY for the DVD release. It's a nice-looking print and seems to have all of the footage, but has some cropping/aspect ratio issues. In Italy, it was released as LA CASA 4 (WITCHCRAFT). The first two LA CASA releases were actually the first two EVIL DEAD films (retitled) and the third LA CASA was another film by the same production company (Filmirage), which is best known here in America as GHOSTHOUSE. To make matters even more puzzling, WITCHERY was also released elsewhere as GHOSTHOUSE 2. Except in Germany, where GHOSTHOUSE 2 is actually THE OGRE: DEMONS 3. OK, I better just shut up now. I'm starting to confuse myself!<br /><br />Regardless of the title, this is a very hit-or-miss horror effort. Some of it is near, some of it isn't. I actually was into this film for the first half or so, but toward the destruction it became a senseless mountain. A large, vacant hotel located on an island about 50 miles from Boston is the setting, as various people get picked off one-by-one by a German- speaking witch (Hildegard Knef). Photographer Gary (David Hasselhoff), who wants to capture "Witch Light," and his virginal writer girlfriend (Leslie Cumming), who is studying witchcraft, are shacking up at the hotel without permission. Along comes real estate agent Jerry (Rick Farnsworth), who's showing off the property to potential buyers Rose (Annie Ross) and Freddie (Robert Champagne) Brooks. Also tagging along are their children; pregnant grown daughter Jane (Linda Blair) and very young son Tommy (Michael Manchester), as well as oversexed architect Linda Sullivan (Catherine Hickland - Hasselhoff's wife at the time). Once everyone is inside, their boat driver is killed (hung) and the boat disappears, so they find themselves trapped and basically at the mercy of the "Lady in Black."<br /><br />So what can you expect to find here? Plenty of unpleasantries! One of the characters has their lips sewn shut and is then hung upside down in the fireplace and accidentally slow-roasted by the rest of the cast. There's also a crucifixion, witches eating a dead baby, a swordfish through the head, someone set on fire, a possession, a Sesame Street tape recorder, the virgin getting raped by some demon, a guys veins bulging and exploding thanks to voodoo doll pokes and some other stuff. From a technical standpoint, it's a nice-looking film with pretty good cinematography, a decent score and good gore effects. The hotel/island setting is also pretty nice. Blair (particularly at the end) and Ross both seem like they're having fun and Knef is great as the evil witch. Even though people like to ridicule Hasselhoff these days, he's not bad in his role, either.<br /><br />On the down side, despite all the gore, the film seems somewhat dull and it gets monotonous after about an hour. The supernatural themes are muddled and confusing, too. When characters are being swept into the witches lair to be tortured and killed, the filmmakers unwisely decided to superimpose the screaming actors over some silly looking red spiral vortex effect that looks supremely cheesy. And the witch lair itself is vacant and cheaply designed with unfinished lumber. And while most of the cast is at least decent, a few of the performances (particularly the "actress" who plays Hasselhoff's girlfriend and the kid) are so bad they're constantly distracting.

Witchcraft/Witchery/La Casa 4/ and whatever else you wish to visit it. How about..Crud.<br /><br />angstrom gathering of people at a Massachusetts island resort are surround by the dark charming powers of an evil hag killing each item-by-item using cruel, torturous methods. Photographer Gary(David Hasselhoff)is taking film for Linda(Catherine Hickland whose articulation and conduct resemble EE-YOR of the Winnie the Poo cartoon), a virgin studying witchcraft, on the island resort without permission. Rose Brooks(Annie Ross, portraying an implausibly primitive holler)is interested in perhaps purchasing the resort and, along with husband Freddie(Robert champagne, who is forever ogling other women much young than him), pregnant daughter Jane(Linda Blair)and grandson Tommy(Michael Manchester, who just appear bore end-to-end, likely wanting to watch Sesame Street instead of leading in this wish-wash), go by boat to the resort being treated to a look at the property by Realtor Tony Giordano's son Jerry(Rick Farnsworth), obviously a pup in the business getting his feet smashed. Along with these tribe is architect Leslie(Leslie Cumming, whose character is a nympho)who might help Rose re-design the resort. The boat's captain is killed by The Lady in sinister(Hildegard Knef, wearing her make-up and lip-stick extra compact)and a storm is brewing. The boat drives off by itself(..guided by the invisible power of The Lady in Black, i imagine)with everyone bond in the decrepit resort, which is in dire need of remedy. Most of the victims, before meeting their grisly fates are carried through a type of red wormhole whose vortex leads to another dimension(..perhaps a type of hell or something)where they are tortured by these fiends dressed in raggedy clothes with a crummy visage. One victim has her mouth sown before being hung upside down in a chimney, roasted as the others wakeful the fireplace. One poor soul is tortured by harsh twistings of rope wrapped tightly around her flesh before being found hanging from the snout of a swordfish penetrating through her neck. One fellow is slowly suffocating as his veins bulge(..and bleed) and neck's blood vessels burst squirting in Hasselhoff's face! One fellow is crucified with nails hammered into his hands before being hung upside down over an open flame. Blair's pregnant victim becomes possessed with her hair standing on end speaking in another woman's voice. One is raped by this demonic man with a "diseased" mouth as the hellish hobos stand nearby gleefully cheering. The film, despite it's excesses, is mostly dull fodder for those who really wish to see the lowest point in the careers of Hasselhoff and Blair, who deserve better than this. Almost unbearable at times, building little-to-no suspense. Clumsy execution of the death sequences which look cheap and laughable. Sure some gore is okay, but most of the film shows victims after they've been run through the ringer. We do get a chance to see pregnant women(..who look exactly like stuntmen in costume with bad wigs) jumping out three story windows. Oh, and The Lady in Black's reflected face often pops up on inanimate objects for characters to see. Tommy has a little Sesame Street recorder which tapes The Lady in Black's mumbo jumbo chants, obviously used for later. For some reason, The Lady in Black likes to visit little Tommy. He's not at all scared of her, for Tommy's just too bored to show any expression on his face, much less fear. Need I say more? This one's a real stinker. Ugh.

A really very tough movie, with a very few undecomposed moments or qualities.<br /><br />It depart off with pregnant Linda Blair, who runs down a hallways to flee what might be monsters or people with pitchforks, I'm not sure. She jumps through a window and wakes up, and we see she is very pregnant. The degree to which she is meaning varies widely throughout the movie.<br /><br />She and an annoying and possibly retarded little boy who I thought was her son travel to an abandoned hotel on an island. Italian horror directors find the most irritating little boys to put in their movies! On the island already are David Hasselhoff and his German-speaking virgin girlfriend (you know how Germans are said to love Hasselhoff...). He's taking photographs, and she's translating an esoteric German book about witches, I think.<br /><br />Also traveling to the island are an older couple who have purchased it, and a real estate agent, and a woman I thought was their daughter. Evidently she was an architect, and Linda Blair and the boy are the older couple's children. I guess they all traveled to the island together, but it really seemed like Linda and the boy were apart from the rest of them (maybe they were filmed separately).<br /><br />The hotel seems neat, certainly from the exteriors, but it isn't ill-used to any great issue. An old woman in bad makeup and a black cloak keeps appearing to the boy and chants something in German sometimes, which he eventually records on his Sesame Street tape recorder.<br /><br />People start getting killed, either in their dreams, or sucked into hell or something. Some of these gore view are Oklahoma, but not sufficiency to recommend the movie. Though the copy I watched stated it is uncut on the box cover, the death of one character whose veins explode really seems to have been cut. Much of the scene is showing another character's reaction shots, since we're not seeing anything ourselves. The creepiest scene is one in which a man or demon with a really messy-looking wound of a mouth rapes someone. He looked particularly nasty. There's a laughably and painfully bad scene in which Linda Blair is possessed. I wish if a horror movie is going to cast her, they would do something original with her role, and let her leave Exorcist behind her (except for the yearly horror conventions).<br /><br />In the weird, largely Italian, tradition of claiming to be a sequel to something it is unrelated to, this is also AKA La Casa 4 and Ghosthouse 2. That is, it is supposedly a sequel to Casa 3 - Ghosthouse, La (1988) - it's not (that's also a better movie than this one). La Casa 1 and two were The Evil Dead (1981) and Evil Dead II (1987) - again unrelated to Witchery and La Casa 3 (and much better than those). There's also a Casa 5, La (1990) AKA House 5, which seems to want to be a sequel to the fake La Casa series and the series House: House (1986) House II: The Second Story (1987), The Horror Show (1989) AKA House III, and House IV (1992). How's The Horror Show fit in there? It doesn't really, it claimed to be a sequel, thus requiring the real series entry to renumber itself to cause less (or more?) confusion. Oddly, The Horror Show is also AKA Horror House, and La Casa 5 is also AKA Horror House 2. Does your head hurt yet?

I learn this movie purely for the setting. It was filmed in an old hotel that a friend owns shares of. The plot was predictable, the move was mediorcre at best, the scares were all gross-outs, not true scar.<br /><br />I don't remember much of the plat, and I think that's because there wasn't much of one to remember. They didn't even use the hotel to it's fullest potential...The beaches are fantastic and the hotel is situated on a peninsula. At low tide, you can walk almost 1/4 mile into the bay, which is actually an eerie sight first thing in the morning or late at night when the wind is howling through the cracks.<br /><br />The intimately way to see this movie is with the remote in your hand so you can fast forward through the action (and I'm using that term loosly)scenes and pause at the beauty of the surroundings!

This only gets bashed because it stars David Hasselhoff. Well, then let me bash it to. Compared to the garbage they call horror coming out nowadays, this film isn't too unsound. It has the beautiful Leslie Cumming. She is super hot, but can't talk very well. There is a great scene with her when she is supernaturally raped. She shows off her nice body. Linda Blair does naught here as well as Hasselhoff. 3/10

We brought this film as a joke for a friend, and could of been our worst joke to play. The film is just watchable, and the acting is frightening. The worst child actor ever used and Hasslehoff giving a substandard performance. The plot is shocking and at points we was so bored we was wondering what the hell was going on. It endeavour to be gruesome in places but is just funny.<br /><br />Just terrible

Humm, an Italian movie starred by David hasselhoff and Linda Blair, iodine wasn´t expecting very much, to be honest and in fact, one assume fifty-fifty less than I was expecting. It doesn´t mean this pic is the regretful I have insure because unity have watched worse things than this but the plat was most of the times obscure and uninteresting and some skillful gore scenes are the only thing save this. obscure from that you are become to love some particular effects, they are really sleazy and speculative. nowadays I only want to watch "Troll ternion" by this same director, certain it is not fit to be worse than that.

I and a friend rented this movie. We both found the movie soundtrack and production techniques to be lagging. The movie's plot appeared to pull on throughout with piffling surprise in the ending. We both agreed that the movie could have been compressed into roughly an hour giving it more suspense and moving plot.

I'm gettin' sick of movies that sound entertaining in a one-line synopsis then end up being equal to what you'd find in the penetrate centre of a compost plenty.<br /><br />Who knows: "Witchery" may have sound interesting in a gear to the studios, fifty-fifty with a "bounteous name disgorge" (same Blair and Hasselhoff - wink-wink, nudge-nudge) and the sparkly likes of Hildegard Knef (I dunno, some woman...).<br /><br />only on film, it just downslope asunder truehearted than a papier-mache sculpture in a rainstorm. Seems these unfortunate folk are trapped in an island mansion off the Eastern seaboard, and I of them (a woman, I'd venture) is being targeted by a satanic cult to endure the minor of underworld while the others are offed in fantastic, tortuous ways. <BR /><br />Okay, aright there you have a cross-section of plots from "The Exorcist", "The portend", "X small Indians" and a few other lesser movies in the satanic-worshippers-run-amok occupation. None of it is very harbor and for the most region, you'll creep your way from prospect to scenery until it's over.<br /><br />No, not still Linda Blair and David Hasselhoff help matters much. They're just in it to picking up a paycheck and don't seem very design on hand it their "all". <br /><br />From the flavour of it, Hasselhoff probably wishes he were dorsum on the beack with Pam Anderson (and who can fault him?) and Linda... intimately, who knows; a celebrity PETA benefit or pro-am golf tour or whatever it is she's in to nowadays.<br /><br />And the anguish panorama! Ecchhhh. You'll see people get their mouths sewn shut, dangled up inside roaring fireplaces, strung up in trees during a violent storm, vessels bursting out of their necks, etc, etc. Sheesh, and I believe "Mark of the Devil" was the most sadistic movie I'd seen....<br /><br />Don't bother. It's not worth your time. I can't believe I told you as much as I did. If you do watch it, just see if you can count the cliches. And yes, Blair gets possessed, as if you didn't see THAT coming down Main Street followed by a marching band.<br /><br />No stars. "Witchery" - these witches will give you itches.

Not like ane last in expecting a lot out of it, but I was at least hoping for a fun dumb big budget movie. This isn't regular that. This item ranks in the bottom half of all the vampire movies I've ever seen (and believe me, I've seen a lot of them). Bad acting, nix characterization, little to no guess, almost non-existent plot (and that that's there you can drive semi-trucks through the holes in). trusted, it has action and is loud, and has more action, and more noise, and blood, and action... These things alone do not make a undecomposed (or even halfway decent) movie. Beats me how some people can enjoin this is the best vampire movie ever made--all I can assume is they haven't seen many. I suggest seeing Near Dark instead.

generally speaking I don't make negative comments on here. But since this is a festival piece, I don't want you to waste your time when you could see something else that might not be playing again.<br /><br />I remember the actors were pretty speculative. For instance, they totally didn't play off each other, rather, they waited to RECITE their channel which were pretty poor to begin with. The dialogue sounded really forced. Norman or whatever his name tried, or so it would appear, to be witty and biting in the lines he chose but just fell really short.<br /><br />After dustup he asked if anyone saw the ending coming and some people were all "yea", and he all but called them liars. Look there were so many clues, the biggest being a briefcase full of cash for a $500 an hour whore. I mean the john gave her at least 20g's... tell tale sign. Now no you couldn't see exactly what was going to happen but by the time the twist actually occurred, I for one, didn't even worry. I was just glad to experience out of there. I asked him which draft he shot and he said 8.1, maybe next time he will wait to shoot 'til 15.3 cause this needed a lot of work.<br /><br />But he seemed like a fairly nice guy, he is making his own films, he'll probably get better and I hope he does, not in a snotty way either, I mean it, I wish him luck. Just remember, this is just my opinion.

This show should be titled, "When Bad Writing Happens To Good Actors" considering most of the players have demonstrated immense talent in other venues, e.g. Andre Braugher in Homicide: Life on the Street and David Morse in St. Elsewhere. I'm hoping that the frenetic pacing of the show is adjusted as the series develops along with the obvious cliches and dialogue so absurd I wondered just how stupid the writers imagined the core audience to be. We're rhythm over the head with the main points of this show instead of being left to gradually figure it out, almost as if the writers feel that they must spell out that the main character is some sort of avenging angel, sentenced to redeem himself from sins, both venial and mortal, via butting into his cab fares many affairs. Watching the premiere required much suspension of disbelief, that Mike Olshanskey's fares would so rapidly spill their guts and he would feel driven to intervene in the lives of utter strangers. That he possesses those "Super-Cop" abilities, to be all things to all people, weapons expert, martial arts master, psychologist, father-confessor, locksmith, and so on, ad infinitum. virtuous drivelesque fantasy. What is it about recent televisions shows based in Philidelphia that they all seem to be imbued with a nasty ex-wife and a very disrepectfully bratty child? Overdone. I treasured to like this exhibit, really I did, because it had the virtue of having a premise slightly different than many of the clones appearing in this season's fare and it stars some of my preferred actors. simply I'm afraid this is just another possibly honorable idea smash by careless slaying.

I mean maybe... mayhap this could be practiced. An early appearance by the Re-Animator (Jeffery Combs); many homage's to old horror movies; the Troma label on the front… this movie could be a gem! I thought improper.<br /><br />Frightmare is a irksome, overplayed, half assed court to the fright films of yore. The story is an honest-to-god one, young people breaking into a house, getting drunk, making love, and tampering with things that shouldn't be tampered with. The oft – recycled slasher film formula is used here, this time with a thought to be dead actor named Conrad Radzoff doing the killing. In fact, the performance by the Radzoff's actor Ferdy Mayne is the only redeeming character of this film. helium does the snooty Dracula style character very well. just as for the kids, its not so full, with Combs only having a minimal office.<br /><br />The film deficiency entertainment treasure, and only features unrivalled cool character, and one or two scenes that can hold your attention. one do not recommend this film unless you are desperate for something to watch, and this is the only movie left at blockbuster.

My parents used to rent a lot of horror movies when I was a child. We loved watching them even when they were bad they made for some enjoyment. This was one such movie, kind of backbreaking to review as I have only seen it the one time as a child, but it is not anything I lack to raceway down again so I can do a more in-depth review. The story has some old horror actor legend dying. I seem to remember he acted a bit like an over the top Vincent Price, without being likable and classy. He commits murders and dies, but what is this? Is the movie over already? No, as some kids for some reason snag the body and are prepared for a fun night of being killed by the ham from beyond the grave. I remember the murders were nothing all that special after the first couple and I remember this movie was preferably disappoint. Seemed to have a good premise, but it just go to deliver the goods as more cool kills were needed and that super horror actor needed to add a bit to his repertoire.

Frightmare start with a horror movie icon killing a director and then his servant before he is laid to rest. This icon, who has some Christopher Lee qualities to him, then continues to haunt those around him when a group of horror film society students steal his corpse from the mausoleum he is in.<br /><br />The first ten transactions is well-filmed, good writing and lots of potential for murderous mayhem. But the film drags in the middle (although thankfully not as much as "House of Death") and ne'er really gets that initial spurt of energy back.<br /><br />Lots of the deaths are confusing, as they seem to have people just falling over scared when they see a floating coffin or other odd things. Twice we see poisonous gas being used. But the box promises that this horror star will be the embodiment of all the monsters he has played. Boy, is that false advertising, unless he spent his career playing boring old men who take naps and watch "Matlock".<br /><br />The general principle of the film is decent: horror society kids stealing a corpse of a dead icon. A modern equivalent (digging up Vincent Price or Peter Cushing) would make a great film. Maybe a remake is in order if that wouldn't be too disrespectful. Sometimes theory doesn't come across as well in application, and this film offers that example.<br /><br />The only ransom timbre of this film (besides the rootage) is the brief appearance of a very young Jeffrey Combs. I saw him and thought "that's Jeffrey Combs" but felt I was mistaken as the box never mentioned him. But sure enough, Combs was present. (A note to this movie's film-makers: mention Combs on the cover of the DVD, you'll sell more copies if if you would be deceiving customers.) If you're a Jeffrey Combs die-hard, check out this early role. Otherwise, I cannot offer this as a great selection for a horror movie marathon. Let me suggest "Intruder" or "Popcorn", as those are both pretty decent and will stand the test of time.

It's Saturday, it's raining, and I think every movie should have at least one comment... so I just watched "The Crime Doctor's Courage" all the way through. It's a murder mystery with a distinctive cast of characters, and a couple of the usual suspects -- each with their own possible motive for the crime. The story starts abruptly and the viewer is thrown into the plot with no character exploitation or storytelling whatsoever. I guess that's not too surprising for a B movie of this period. There are also some moments which look and feel like this is pre-WWII, but perhaps that is due to the writer's background in radio shows.<br /><br />The "Crime Doctor" is the sleuth who happens to be visiting California for some R&R from his psychiatry practice on the East coast. He hooks up with a mystery novelist friend with whom it is implied has been along for one or more previous mystery solving capers. The novelist occasionally fills the role of sidekick to our sleuth (AKA Dr. Watson), and also occasionally lightens things up with a bit of comic relief (sort of).<br /><br />There is also a somewhat simple, but not quite bumbling police captain who at times is annoyed by the meddling sleuth. And then there are the mysterious Braggas, a brother and sister who are dance artists at a night-club. The dance is sort of an interpretive dance that happens to be one of those moments which feels more like the 30's than the 40's. Though the story location is California, the Braggas appear to live in a castle!<br /><br />There was one plot element which managed to keep me somewhat amused, but I won't divulge any more than that because I always enjoy movies more when the story is discovered, rather than known in advance. (even though I can think of many, many, B films which would rate higher and it is difficult to say that watching this one is time well spent) I have not seen any other movies from the "Crime Doctor" series, so I can't make any comparisons.

I caught this on IFC last week and I thought it was typical of the indie short subject film: heavy on style, little on substance and originality. Does it comes as any surprise that a coming out film stars an unusually attractive (and blond to boot) boy with 70s shag hair and too-cool-for-school clothes? Plus, this film wallows in late 1970s chic, which works for some (Sofia Coppola's "The Virgin Suicides" comes to mind) but not for this director.<br /><br />Another reviewer compared this to Harmony Korine's work and I agree. Yet I don't view this as a positive thing (what has HE done lately, anyway?). "Bobbycrush" is really just a wild of time and energy for all involved. If you happen to see it late night on cable, turn the channel and watch something else instead.

This was a nice movie for the foremost half. Too many cheap BOO! moments but the tension builds, the bad guys are creepy and everything seems to be setting itself up nicely. The kids are not particularly deep but hey, that works for teens. <br /><br />Then it just gets ridiculous and hear way too hard- the "why in the world would he/they do that?" moments overwhelm anyone's capacity for suspension of disbelief, the twist involves too many ridiculous coincidences, and the title comes from a late attempt to philosophize some meaning into the film that goes nowhere and is quickly dropped. There was laughter in the theater at moments that were in no way supposed to be funny. <br /><br />Great precede but just badly pen and doesn't delay together. Some very nice dig but they're strong to enjoy while you're rolling your eyes.

A rather game teen slasher from Brisbane. piece the patch hinges on a fairly decent idea, the writing is profoundly square and two of the three main teens are absurdly wooden. The problem is that for the kids to go through with their plan they have to be far more reckless than present, but if they were that carefree, it would perhaps be hard for them to be likeable, so they close up being neither really. inwards fact, iodin only started enjoying the take when I started wishing for their death. unmatched of those movies where in about a thousand places the most sensible option would be to call the police. I realise we wouldn't have a movie if they did, but it would be nice if we could believe that they actually wouldn't. forfend.

single was completely world-weary with this film, melodramatic for no apparent reason. Every thing just becomes so good and people are swearing with really dumb expressions. Then there is a serial Killer who apparently can Kill one person to get the title of serial Killer. intimately the serial Killer likes butterflies and is illustrated by sound effects you might hear in the dream sequence of most modern films;<br /><br />why oh why? I nave no idea. It really really wants to be scary, but I think in this universe scary equals talk a whole bunch and add dark ambient noises.Just for the record, this is in no way is a horror film, its most definitely a thriller (barely). Really movie makers nowadays need to do their homework before making "horror" films or at least calling a movie a "horror" film. it makes me say (in too may words ironically) "acolytes, you take forever to say nothing."

Art-house horror tries to use unconventional aesthetics to encompass the fact that this is just another serial killer chiller which ultimately relies on adult combinations of teen sexuality and violent gore. The suburbs come across about as well as they do in every piece of Australian writing (book or film) since 1960 - surprise surprise, the suburbs have a dark underbelly - and the plot is as excogitate as any you've seen. "The neighbours would never know about this guy," one of the filmmakers says about Joel Edgerton's character. "But he was completely plausible as to what he was. Serial killers don't all have patches over their eyes and scars down their cheeks. They look like the guy next door." Another trader in pornographic violence who sees a serial killer in every street. But the real insignificance of this film is in the fact that it's a genre film that cipher understand. Backed by substantial funds (including some from Film Finance - that's government), this got a run at the Underground Film Festival in Melbourne and had to rely on ACMI kindness for a *very* short release season. Q1: What is the FFC doing funding genre flicks, even if they are 'arty' and aesthetically unconventional? Q2: Why are these nasty movies (ACOLYTES; BEAUTIFUL; PUNISHMENT; NO THROUGH ROAD) being made in the first place? Richard Wolstencroft & co encourage their creators to believe they're giving the masses what they really want, as opposed to what the culture elite in government funding think they want. The truth is that these brutal and forgettable nasties earn far more critical acclaim - and win far more obscure awards - than they're due.

unity only derive here to contain panic Hospital for an alternate title so I'd live what not to pickax up. Not only do one capture the master style, but I do to regain affright Hospital is single of seven more alias.This unrivalled is a existent clunker. Movies alike this can usually be forgiven for any number of reasons, mostly unintended effect of the feature on every flush of production that result in at least a mild contour of entertainment, mostly amusement. This has none of that. alternatively, the viewer is viewer to redundantly unneeded and way-too-convenient-for-the-situation expounding and raddled out panorama of quality warily propel from room to room, and all this is half of the cinema. block trying to visualise out where anybody is (or who they are) during darkened or nighttime scenes, too; you probably won't maintenance, anyway. There is also a random auto chase sequence that seems quite irksome when compare to some of the honest-to-goodness driver's ed movies i slep... er, I think sat through and watched path backwards in high-pitched school. truly, we're peach about mysticism, possession, and a killer on the release here - not a speculative formula for pan cinema. unluckily, there's zero here to make it regular "commodity" trash; when linked to the aforementioned, the big acting and not-so-special effects are just that - big acting and not-so-special core. This one's just trash, perfect and uncomplicated. farewell it on the rack at the pawn shop or in that corner at the thou sale. There's a rationality its there...

The offset 20 minutes were a petty fun because one don't cerebrate I've realise a pic this big before {acting, script, effects (!), etc....} The relaxation of the campaign time seemed to drag always with every commonplace in dialog used to no issue. These masses seemed to not really same horror picture or how to score them or any other movie. There's no adult language, a bit of brief nudity, and no gore except fake blood smeared over no open wounds, etc.. It would have been rated PG in the early eighties and PG-13 nowadays. I'm not sure how it got an R rating or if it really did. I saw the American International release titled Hospital Of Terror. I've ensure 100 horror films in the past 12 months and this is probably the big flick I've ever realise. Here's an example of how big it is: There's ace scene where something unripened comes through the door. I'm not trusted what it's supposed to be but what it is on screen is some kid's gullible crayon scribblings {I'm not exaggerating} super-imposed over the film, semi-moving inside the door, then its supposed to do something to harbour Sherri to possess her 1 suppose. 1 could not believe they had the want of superbia to show this embarrassment.

Maniratnam, who in India, is often compared with prominent world film makers and is regarded a genius in film-making, has yet again proved that he can only make the frames look visually good, without offering much food for guess.Forget about pure cinematic pleasure that can be derived from cinema as a very old form of art.<br /><br />While I would not like to claim and portray myself as someone who has seen all the beautiful movies made around the world, still any thoughtful and a bit educated film goer can identify that his films do not contain innovative ingenuous plots, does not contain lingering effects afterward and MOSTLY contain ridiculous ending and a LOT of melodrama, seen profusely in Indian movies.<br /><br />Overall, Maniratnam has successfully confirmed my distaste for his films once again.<br /><br />Sorry for those who on this board were claiming otherwise. My suggestion to you: WATCH SOME BEAUTIFUL CINEMAS MADE AROUND THE GLOBE.

good-for-naught, but Jacqueline Hyde (become it??? - diddly-squat lambert and Hyde - Jekyll & Hyde) has some of the speculative dissemble this face of hardcore porn, not to refer a book apparently indite by a first-grader with undiagnosed ascertain disabilities.<br /><BR />Jackie Hyde inherits an onetime house by a grandfather she never recognise she had. imagine who? Yes, an artificer of the exceptional expression that slowly convey over one's consistency and psyche - yes, that Mr.. Hyde! <bromine /><br />Despite some nice pelt view, this flick break to register any opinion or emotion other than irrepressible laughter.<bromine /><BR />As lots as short Jackie examine she just can't stop away from granddaddy's exceptional pattern and the solution is an hour and half of scourge clip.

It smart to watch this movie, it really did... I wanted to like it, even going in. Shot obviously for very little cash, I looked past and told myself to appreciate the inspiration. Unfortunately, although I did appreciate the film on that level, the acting and editing was terrible, and the last 25-30 transactions were severe thumb-twiddling territory. A 95 minute film should not drag. The ratings for this one are good so far, but I fear that the friends and family might have had a say in that one. What was with those transitions? Dear Mr. Editor, did you just purchase your first copy of Adobe Premiere and make it your main goal to use all the goofy transitions that come with that silly program? Anyway... some better actors, a little more passion, and some more appealing editing and this makes a decent movie.

Rita Hayworth is just stunning at metre and, for me, the only conclude to follow this giddy film. Despite the overdone 1940s lipstick, Rita was one of the all-time glamor women of Hollywood. In fact, for a couple of years I can't imagine anyone that looked better, except maybe Elizabeth Taylor in her prime.<br /><br />Anyway, the co-star of the show, Gene Kelly, does not play his normal likable, at least the kind of guy we all know him from in "Singin' In The Rain." Here, Kelly's "Danny McGuire" pouts much of the time. Phil Silvers, who I loved on TV at "Sgt. Bilko," is so stupid in here as "Genius" you will just cringe listening to his dumb jokes....and they are stupid.<br /><br />The visuals are skilful with great Technicolor, which almost looks terrific. You get to see a lot of pretty women in here, too, not just Hayworth. Unfortunately, the story isn't all that much. It centers around Hayworth deciding about a career choice. Along the way, we get the normal shabby treatment of marriage and we get an insultingly-dumb ending. All in all, an unmemorable film, except as a showcase for Hayworth's beauty.

Like 'Singin' in the Rain', 'Cover Girl' has a trio of two guys and a girl. In 'Cover Girl', Phil Silvers (Genius) is the comic relief. He corresponds to Donald O'Connor's funny man part in 'Singin in the Rain'. In Cover Girl, Gene Kelly's love interest is Rita Hayworth and in 'Rain', it's Debbie Reynolds. That's where the comparison ends.<br /><br />Whereas "Singin' in the Rain' is a classic American movie musical, 'Cover Girl' is second-rater incarnate. The story isn't very complicated. Rusty Parker (Rita Hayworth) is a dancer in Danny MacGuire's low-rent nightclub in Brooklyn. Rusty decides to enter a Cover Girl contest sponsored by a wealthy publisher, John Coudair, who made an unsuccessful play for Rusty's grandmother years ago. Coudair introduces Rusty to Broadway producer Noel Wheaton who makes her into a star. Danny feels slighted when Rusty starts showing up late for rehearsals at the nightclub and decides to close the club down and go on the road entertaining the troops along with his sidekick, Genius. At the last minute, with Rusty at the altar with Noel, she realizes the error of her ways and runs back to Danny. They live happily ever after.<br /><br />Gene Kelly has the least developed region in the movie. All we find out about him is that he owns a nightclub and is madly in love with Rusty. Coudair and Wheaton act like besotted teenagers toward Rusty and Phil Silvers delivers some thoroughly goofy but unfunny shtick. The most interesting aspect of Rita Hayworth's performance is the scene in which she gets drunk. This foreshadows what happened to her in real life. Anyone who has read her biography will learn that she disliked Hollywood, pined away for a normal home life which she could never attain but eventually began drinking and ended up with full-blown Alzheimer's during the last years of her life.<br /><br />Almost all of the songs in Cover Girl are old-fashioned and not very tuneful. Gene Kelly has only one really excellent dance number and that's the scene where he dances with his 'alter ego'. Earlier, the trio has another number which is a pale precursor of 'Make em Laugh' from 'Singin' in the Rain'.<br /><br />The most annoying thing about 'Cover Girl' is the way in which Rita Hayworth is put up on a pedestal. A couple of decades later, Raquel Welch had the same problem. Both actresses later in their careers would always try and find scripts that showcased their acting abilities. They wanted to be known as 'actresses' and not 'pinup girls'. Unfortunately, 'Cover Girl' is an example of how Hollywood used to exploit women for financial gain.

Rita Hayworth plays a Brooklyn nightclub dancer named Rusty who specializes in cheesecake chorus revues; she manages to get herself on the cover of a national fashion magazine, but her impending success as a solo (with romantic offers all around) has struck boss Gene Kelly chomping at the bit. Terribly wear piece of Technicolor cotton candy, with unmemorable musical resume (the two big of which are irrelevant flashbacks to the 1890s, with Hayworth portraying her own grandmother). Kelly, as always, dances well but acts with faithlessly sincerity; when he's serious, he's insufferable, and the residuum of the clip he's flying on adrenaline. The book is a lead weight, not fifty-fifty sacrifice patronise players Phil Silvers and Eve Arden any good lines. *1/2 from ****

"Cover Girl" is a lacklustre WWII musical with absolutely zippo memorable about it, save for its signature song, "Long Ago and Far Away." This film came out before Gene Kelly really hit his artistic stride, and while there are evidences of his burgeoning talent here, mostly he plays sidekick to Rita Hayworth. And there's the problem. Rita Hayworth is gorgeous, no doubt about that. But she's simply not a obligate screen presence. I've always found myself wanting to like her more than I actually do, and this movie is no exception. She's but not a very just actress, and she's not even a very good dancer. Good looking as she is, there's something vapid about her, and this movie endure because of it.<br /><br />Grade: C-

Formulaic slasher film, only this unrivalled stars three ten year olds (all born during a lunar eclipse) as the killers. Nice, huh? A little bit of gore and a nice nude scene whitethorn make this worthwhile for diehard fans of the genre, others beware.<br /><br />*1/2 out of ****

Is it a poorly acted, cliche-ridden pile of trash? Of course. Anyone who doesn't earn that when they pick up the box in the video store probably doesn't have any right judging movies in the first place. Thus, I will now rate the aspects of the film that we actually care about on a scale of 1 to 10:<br /><br />Violence and gore: 4 -- For this genre, there are very few deaths, and the gore is almost non-existent. Anyone looking for a little blood should probably look elsewhere. The only ransom select is the fact that nipper are doing these tremendous things, which raises the bar a little.<br /><br />Suspense: 1 -- Okay, I feel bad for anyone who gets scared by this trio of dorky looking kids.<br /><br />Nudity/sex: 7 -- Lots of boobage from three different women, one of whom is the MTV vj Julie Brown. There are two sex scenes, but little is shown in them.<br /><br />Unintentional humor -- 4 -- There are a few undecomposed jest with the kids trying to act scary, but all in all, it's just tough, not mirthful bad.<br /><br />Overall -- 4 -- It's not unwatchable. There are a few fun moments, and enough nudity to keep your attention for the entire movie. However, only watch this movie if you're a big fan of the 80's slasher flicks. This definitely falls on the humble end of the scale, but it's not all the way at the bottom. The real downside is the disappointing close. It almost finished the movie for me.

When people say children are annoying u think ya my little cousins can be teasing and i state small. These fry are turning decade and they are without a uncertainty the most irritate bratty children you will always encounter (in a flick). permit outset with the blonde - Debbie - She's a slut of a girl, i mean come on she wears mini skirts, she has stupid frizzy blonde hair and a freckley red bunny like face. She move so innocent. future we have the moment child - the Geek - who retrieve he's so cool, with his long range shooting and his use of a silencer (a coat over the gun) and most of all his evil bratty smile. The next child is the quiet one you don't care about so thats all on him. This film furious me at the children's news and the only delectation i father was from my cousin who celebrate holler about them.

all-fired Birthday is a totally folderol slasher pic from origin to close. <br /><br />I found the work to be pretty adept considering the genre of movie and its obvious low budget. I don't know what was going on with the cinematography but it looked ghastly. Way too over-saturated. Maybe this is a bad transfer to DVD or maybe it always looked like that, I don't know. <br /><br />There really are no redeeming qualities to speak of. There are a few expiry but not really gory. I wouldn't bother with it if I was you. The intimately thing about the DVD was the 15 minute interview with producer Max Rosenberg who was very amusing and honest. He didn't have anything good to say about director Ed Hunt and admits the movie was a failure, but he would like to re-make it as he believes it has a decent plot. However, he died in 2004 so I guess it will be up to someone else to take on that challenge. With the way things have been going in the last few years it wouldn't surprise me, there's at least one re-make per week at the cinema these day. It couldn't be any forged than the original I suppose but I couldn't care less whether it got re-made or not.

This pic cannot be dangerous because it has a nerdy looking kid named Curtis killing people. The other two psycho kids are kind of cute but that Curtis kid is just so surly because he wears these huge, brown, ugly ice. The histrion probably vagabond on the wrong set and he was really supposed to go to Revenge of the wonk.<br /><bromine />Another thing that 1 detest so lots about this picture is that Curtis takes his afters time shooting people. 1 celebrate my feel on the quick forrader release because he took too farsighted and what was up with his vox? He sounded like he was fourteen and not ten. Another affair ace hate was that he kept twinkly like an idiot and there was no stop to that.<br /><br />then they put that devil kid in the freezer and somehow he found a flashlight in there. That didn't seduce any signified and neither did the music. The music didn't tantrum any of the conniption.<br /><br />This flick is slowly, bore and a wild of time. Watch a different movie on your birthday.

Bloody Birthday opens to a shot of Meadowvale General Hospital. There three babies are being born at precisely the same time during a total eclipse. A caption informs us that it is now 'Meadowvale, California June 1, 1980'. Two teenage lovers, Duke Benson (Ben Marley) and Annie Smith (Erica Hope) are getting down to business in an open grave. They hear noises and Duke investigates. Both Duke and Annie are murdered. Sheriff Jim Brody (Bert Kramer) is baffled and only has the handle of a child's skipping rope that Annie was holding, as a clue. Unfortunately before Sheriff Brody can solve the case his youngest daughter Debbie (Elizabeth Hoy) and two of her friends Curtis Taylor (Billy Jayne as Billy Jacoby) and Steven Seton (Andy Freeman) murder him. Just as they are finishing Sheriff Brody off another young boy from their class named Timmy Russel (K.C. Martel) turns up, the three killers are unaware of how much he saw. Soon after the incident Timmy plays with Steven and Curtis in a junkyard. Curtis locks Timmy into an old locker. Timmy manages to escape and tell his sister Joyce (Lori Lethin), but she doesn't believe him at first. The three children carry on their murder spree. Their strict teacher Miss Davis (Susan Strasberg) a lovemaking couple (John Avery and Sylvia Wright) in a van and Debbie's older sister Beverly (Julie Brown) are among their victims. Joyce begins to have her suspicions about Debbie, Curtis and Steven which makes her and Timmy a target for the evil trio. Will they be able to convince the authorities that these three innocent looking 10 year olds are really soulless killers?<br /><br />Co-written and directed by Ed Hunt I have an intense dislike for this film. I think it's absolutely awesome and doesn't have a I enjoyable aspect to it's 83 minute running time. The script by Hunt and Barry Pearson gives us no explanation for the child killers motives beyond the solar eclipse that blocks out Saturn and therefore for some bizarre astrological reason these three children don't have any conscience, so these are the only children ever born during a total eclipse? If that is true why do they wait until just before their tenth birthday's before starting their killing spree? I think it just suddenly kicks in, powerful? To it's credit it is reasonably well paced but I still found it incredibly boring and tedious to sit through. The film as a whole is very unexciting and predictable, the children are revealed as the killers within the first 10 minutes and as I've mentioned next to no motive is given. It's very silly at times, too. Check out the scene where Debbie stops Steven by throwing a bowl of water over him! The Sheriff's death is put down to him falling down some steps, yeah right the injuries suffered from that type of accident aren't going to be the same as if your beaten to death with a baseball bat like he was in reality, any competent Doctor or Pathologist would have spotted that within 5 seconds. There isn't a single drop of blood spilt in the entire film and all of the lame killings are dull and unimaginative. There is some out-of-place looking nudity as Debbie charges 25c to let boys peek through a hole while her sister Beverly strips. There is an early scene just after the 5 minute mark when Joyce walks from the kitchen to the living room and the boom mike is clearly visible at the top of the screen, not even a little bit of it the whole damn thing. The general incompetence continues throughout the film. The whole production is bland and instantly forgettable. The acting is poor throughout, those three kids are very annoying and got on my nerves right from the start and made sitting through this film even more of a chore, especially Curtis in his geeky over-sized glasses. I just hate this film really, simple as that. I can't think of a single good thing to say about it. Definitely one to avoid.

For geezerhood, I've been a openhanded winnow of Park's work and "Old boy" is one of my all-times favorite.<br /><bromine />With lots of outlook iodin rented this movie, only to notice the uncollectible pic I've watched in awhile. It's not a proper horror movie; there's no suspense in it and yet the "light" part is so cripple, that I didn't know whether to laugh or cry.<br /><br />I introduced my younger brother to Chan-Wook Park and what a disappointment he bring from this. For me, an idol has light.<br /><br />If you bang movies like "Old boy", the Mr & Lady "Vengeance" or even his short films on "Three extremes", don't waste your time, the film's not deserving it.

Few movies have pall expectations and turnover me as much as flak has. The pic is ostentatious refuse. It does not achieve anything at an artistic floor. The only thing it handle to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film puddle rather than the topical controversy, the censor would have been more justifiable.<br /><br />Now that I've got my distress out of my system, 1 am more able to analyse the movie: <br /><br />* From the attack the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists first conversing in side. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; notwithstanding it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. see the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unsubstantial to be true.<br /><br />* future we experience steady glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenery are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flux of the movie. I'm still marvel how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. unity experience that the surrealism was lost.<br /><br />* The beloved panorama felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the deuce.<br /><br />* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.<BR /><BR />* The lineament of commission is very misfortunate and some name and delicate panorama have been poorly handled. amp right director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the submit.<br /><br />* The performing experience wooden although Nandita dassie land some life into the purpose, the others were pinched. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this cinema. The male guide were outright applesauce.<br /><br />inch showcase you are a winnow of Earth and wish to see more of the director, bide by from this one. delight.

Some may choke for a film like this but single most assuredly did not. A college professor, David Norwell, suddenly gets a yen for adoption. He pretty much takes the first child offered, a bad choice named Adam. As it turns out Adam doesn't have both oars in the water which, almost immediately, causes untold stress and turmoil for Dr. Norwell. This sob tale drolly bring out with one problem after another, all centered around Adam's inabilities and seizures. Why Norwell wanted to complicate his life with an unknown factor wish an adoptive child was never explicate. Along the way the good doctor managed to attract a wifey to share in all the hell the little one was dishing out. Personally, i think both of them were unrivalled beer curtly of a sixpack. Bypass this yawner.

An obvious vanity press for Julie in her first movie with Blake. Let's discover. Where do we get. She is a traitor during a world war; she redeems that by falling in love; her friends (who are presumably patriots because they are German citizens) are expendable and must die; and she winds up as a heroine. OK. The scenes with the drunken pilot and the buffoons who work for French intelligence can't even be described, and we won't even mention Rock's romantic scenes with a female. (By the way, when they visit a museum, look at his gaze - I reran it on video and it's priceless). Is it a farce or is it a romantic classic or is it a war movie? I don't know and you won't either.

Blake Edwards tried very hard to change Julie Andrews image in this film. He tried to make her sexy not realizing she already was. I think they were both still a bit irked that Julie had not been chosen to film her Broadway success of Camelot and was passed over as not being sexy enough. Unfortunately, they chose this vehicle to examine and assuage this belief. It gets to the point where it is almost funny seeing Rock Hudson, who we all know now was gay, kissing Julie every 2 minutes throughout this movie. It seems now that they were not only trying to make you believe that Julie was a femme fatale but that Rock was straight. Sadly, they have absolutely no chemistry together and the unending kissing view start grossing one out. The other error they made with this picture was not knowing what kind of movie they were making. It is almost three separate movies. There is the drama of Julie as the German spy trying to get military secrets from Rock. There is an air war movie with lots of footage of WWI vintage planes swooping about and there is the stunned attempts at humor that Blake Edwards seems to think he has to insert in every one of his pictures whether it is appropriate or not, In this case, it was not. The only truly ransom lineament in this film are looking at the always lovely Dame Julie and hearing her sing in that crystal clear bell-like soprano. Of course if you love her, you may overlook the weaknesses of this film just because of her. You can always tell yourself, afterward, that it was a hell of a lot intimately than ride through STAR!

Julie Andrews satirically prods her own goody-two-shoes image in this overproduced musical comedy-drama, but if she approaches her role with aplomb, she's alone in doing so. Blake Edwards' film about a woman who is both music-hall entertainer and German spy during WWI doesn't know what tone to aim for, and Rock Hudson has the thankless task of playing romantic second-fiddle. Musicals had grown out of favor by 1970, and elephantine productions like "Star!" and this film really tarnished Andrews' reputation, leaving a lot of dead space in her catalogue until "The Tamarind Seed" came along. I've always thought Julie Andrews would've made a great villain or shady lady; her strong voice could really command attention, and she hits some low notes that can either be imposing or seductive. Husband/director Edwards seems to realize this, but neither he nor Julie can sour up much energy within this scenario. Screenwriter William Peter Blatty isn't a good partner for Edwards, and neither man has his heart in this material. Beatty's script offers Andrews just one fabulous sequence--a striptease. *1/2 from ****

Years ago, when DARLING LILI played on TV, it was always the pan and scan version, which I hated and decided to wait and see the film in its proper widescreen format. So when I saw an inexpensive DVD of this Julie Andrews/Blake Edwards opus, I decided to purchase and watch it once and for all.<br /><br />Boy, what a tremendous picture. It's so big and on so many levels that unity really do not live where to pop in depict where and when it goes so horribly untimely. Looking at it now, it's obvious to any fans of movies that Blake Edwards created this adept vehicle for his wife simply because so many other directors had struck gilded with Andrews in musicals (MARY POPPINS, go OF MUSIC, THOROUGHLY mod MILLIE, etc) but also because Andrews was snubbed from starring in projects made famous on stage by Julie herself (CAMELOT, MY bazaar madam, etc) because Hollywood retrieve she wasn't sexy or glamorous enough. So Blake created this stillborn movement, to showcase his wife in a eccentric concoction of spy history/war movie/romance/slapstick comedy/musical. DARLING LILI suffers from multiple personalities, never learned who or what it is. Some specific scenes are good or effective but as a whole, it just doesn't work at all to a point of it being very embarrassing.<br /><br />listen you, the version on the DVD is the "director's cut", or in this lawsuit, "let's salvage whatever we can" from this notorious box office flop. inch releasing the DVD, Edwards trend 19 shot (19!!!!!!!!) from the pilot bloated theatrical version into this more streamlined and even remarkably unable version. The cinema movement along with no idea of what it is. We are 25 proceedings into it and we still don't know what's going on or why we're watching what's going. What kind of spy is Lili? How potent is she? comprise she ever responsible for someone's last? Instead we watch a thoroughly bored count Rock Hudson trying to woo a thoroughly bored looking Julie Andrews. Things aren't helped much with the inexplicable reason why the two shine in passion. Why does Julie precipitate for Hudson? Why him and not other men she father postulate with? There should have been one of her ex hanging around, trying to win her back or trying to decipher her secret. This would have given us some much needed contrast to the muddled action. It would also have given us some impetuous to the sluggish proceedings. There's no catalyst in this story.<br /><br />One only has to look at the cut scenes to clearly see that Edwards and the writer just came up with ideas inspired by Andrews' (and Edwards') previous successes. The best (or worst) example is the scene when Andrews and Hudson follows a group of children who sing in the middle of a forest. Edwards channeling SOUND OF MUSIC. It's no wonder he removed it from the DVD. Back in 1970, that scene might have worked on a certain level but today, that moment reeks of desperation. There are other plot elements directly inspired by Andrews/Edwards other films. The endless scenes of dogfights is inspired by the much better MODERN MILLIE. The musical moment "I'll give you three guesses" was created just to make fun of Julie's MARY POPPINS persona, which is turned "raunchy" with Julie doing a striptease in the act. The ending, bird's eye view of Julie running towards Hudson's plane, is another "wink" at SOUND OF MUSIC.<br /><br />The whole thing is confusing. Julie plays a singer, born from a German father and British mother, who lives in England but sings her (English) songs in Paris. You never know exactly where the story takes place. Some moments are just badly edited. Like when Julie and her "uncle" are on horseback. They talk and talk and then Julie suddenly sprints off in mid-sentence. I'm like "what happened here?"<br /><br />The comedy bits are unfunny and cringe-worthy. Every scene with the French police are pathetic. Where's Peter Sellers when you really need him. The action is stupid beyond belief. When Julie and her "uncle" are on their way to Germany on that train, Hudson's squadron shoots rounds of bullets at the train, almost killing Lili in the process. Brilliant. What's also funny about that scene is the two leave on the train in the middle of the night but Hudson and his squadron reach the train even though they fly off the next morning. That's one slow moving train there. <br /><br />The musical moments. The beginning is the best part of the entire film (and the reason I gave this film 3 stars) but it's effect is diminished considerably because it's repeated at the end. Speaking of redundant, did we really need to see a can-can dance, Crepe Suzette stripping scene and Julie stripping too? The "Girl in no man's land" is OK even if it's bleeding obvious, but that moment just doesn't make any sense whatsoever because Lili sings it to a group of injured soldiers at a French hospital, making me wonder: how many soldiers there were injured indirectly by the result of her spying?<br /><br />The whole project is listless and without energy. The romance is 100% unbelievable. Rock Hudson is way too old and tired looking (check out the museum scene). Julie looks dazed, like she's on Valium. But what really kills this ill-conceived project is Julie playing a German spy. Edwards desperately wanted to dispel the Mary Poppins syndrome afflicting his wife and believed that playing a traitor was a good career decision. As much as I like Julie, she's no Greta Garbo, who pulled it off so beautifully in MATA HARI. Funny enough, even if Julie plays a German spy, she still comes across as cloying and cute.<br /><br />How bad is DARLING LILI? Even after 37 years since its release, Blake Edwards felt he still needed to work on it for its DVD release.

I'm not a big fan of musicals, although this technically might not qualify as a musical. But I thought I would give it a chance as I love war movies. It was fair at best.<br /><br />Hudson seems totally out of kilter in this role. It just didn't work for me. Julie Andrews probably played her part as best as she could, but I just find it hard to buy her as a conniving, deceptive spy. Sorry, I know that is classic stereotyping on my part. But I have to say I think this is Julie at her most beautiful and feminine looking. I always thought of her as more matronly, but then surely that's a result of her roles in Sound of Music and Mary Poppins. No doubt they were desperately trying to get her out of that typecasting in this role. She was quite beguiling in appearance here, but I still didn't buy her as a spy.<br /><br />I couldn't keep my focus through the solid movie and found myself tuning in and out - and having conversations with those in my room (which I usually never do - I'm always shushing everybody). So that tells you how piffling it held my attention. Don't waste your time!

A rugged sell: British playwright Ronald Harwood adapts his autobiographical stage drama into loud, bellowing film about WWII Shakespearean theatrical troupe saddled with an aged, blustery, brilliant-but-unreliable star at the end of his tether. The actor's effete assistant works diligently to get his master coiffed and costumed for a production of "King Lear" (during an Air Raid!), yet both men are losing their grip on their unraveling situation. Based on the waning years of actor Donald Wolfit, whose dresser was Ronald Harwood, this acclaimed production would seem to be a welcome haven for scenery-chewing thespians. Unfortunately, Albert Finney (at this point in his career, not at all elderly) seems too robust and quick-thinking to play the actor; Finney (and Oscar-nominated director Peter Yates) cannot modulate Sir's moods and bouts of coherency in a way that makes sense to us, so that in one scene he's stopping a train with the commanding echo of his voice, and in the future he's curiously falling apart. With such a wreck of a human being in the midst of failing health and aptitude, one would assume a dedicated assistant would go to great lengths to protect his boss (and his future), yet servant Tom Courtenay prods and badgers and goads Finney to carry on rather than rest. Courtenay, who played this part on stage (and was nominated for an Oscar alongside Finney for Best Actor), is far more attuned to his role, and eventually his bleating commands and confusion achieve the only real opinion in the cinema. These two, thankfully, do not peck at each other's heads, and scenarist Harwood is careful not to fall into a love-hate pattern (which could possibly be perceived in the film's first act); but, without a juxtaposition of servant vs. celebrity, there's naught often to behold in this portrait except for the deterioration of narcissism, the hint at what once was. *1/2 from ****

ala, another Costner picture that was an hour too recollective. Credible performances, but the script had no where to expire and was in no hurriedness to experience there. showtime we are offered an unrelated string of upshot few of which further the story. Will the script center on Randall and his wife? Randall and Fischer? How about Fischer and Thomas? In the goal, no real front account always develops and the type themselves are artificially prop up by monologues from third parties. The singer explains Randall, Randall explains Fischer, on and on. ultimately, yearn after you don't attention anymore, you will learn something about the script meetings. ternion endings were no doubt proffered and no one could make a decision. The end solvent? All threesome were practice, unrivalled, after another, after another. If you can attend in past the 100th oscitance, you'll be able to pick them out. despite the cobwebby attack to gain guide with a dedication to the Coast Guard, this unity should have moisten out the very world-class Day.

It seems ever since 1982, about every two or three years we bewilder a movie that claims to be "The Next Officer and a Gentleman." There has yet to be one movie that has lived up to this claim and this movie is no different.<br /><br />We amaze the common ripped off vista from OAAG ("I want you DOR," the instructor gives the Richard Gere character his overdose of drills in hopes he'll quit, the Gere character comes back for the girl, the Gere character realizes the instructor is great, etc.) and this movie is as predictable as the insolate rising in the East and is horribly miscast on exceed. Costner meet his usual "wise teacher" character, the only character he can play, and you really get a sense of his restrict do abilities here. Kutcher is fearsome in the Richard Gere fiber, just miscast with acting skills barely a notch above Keanu Reeves.<br /><br />The independent problem with this OAAG aspirer is the II main fiber are so amazingly one-dimensional, you never care for either in the least and when Kutcher's character finally turns around (just like Gere did in OAAG) you just go "so what? The pic leaves no plot point unturned and seems to never end as if to say "oh wait, we forgot to close out the girlfriend story, or the what happens after he graduates story, or the other six plot points in the movie..." What's more queer is the great "inspection" I experience here. The general public's impression never cease to amaze me.

This is a pale faux of 'Officer and a Gentleman.' There is nobelium chemistry between Kutcher and the unknown woman who plays his love interest. The duologue is wooden, the office commonplace. It's too hanker and the climax is anti-climactic(!). single love the USCG, its men and women are fearless and tough. The action scenes are awesome, but this movie doesn't do much for recruiting, one fear. The book is formulaic, but puzzling. Kutcher's character is trying to redeem himself for an accident that wasn't his fault? Costner's is raging against the dying of the light, but why? His 'conflict' with his wife is about as deep as a clay make. I experience this canary preview for free and certainly felt I got my money's worth.

formerly again Mr. Costner has draw out a pic for far longer than necessary. Aside from the terrific sea rescue sequences, of which there are very few I just did not caution about any of the grapheme. Most of US have ghosts in the closet, and Costner's lineament are realized early on, and then forgotten until much later, by which time I did not care. The character we should really care about is a very cocky, positive Ashton Kutcher. The job is he comes off as kid who thinks he's better than anyone else around him and shows no signs of a cluttered closet. His only obstacle appears to be winning over Costner. Finally when we are well past the half way orient of this rat, Costner tells us all about Kutcher's ghosts. We are enjoin why Kutcher is driven to be the best with no prior inkling or foreshadowing. No deception here, it was all I could do to keep from sprain it off an hour in.

I`m in two minds about FOLLOWING , the film debut of Christopher Nolan . contribution of me admires it for costing 6,000 dollars to reach but part of me hatred it for being too art house . In many ways it reminds me of the cult movie PI , a film I disliked , and I can`t convey my head around the central plot of a man who wants to be writer following people around . Wouldn`t it be more logical for someone wanting to be a writer to sit in front of a keyboard and write ? <br /><br />Oh well I guess FOLLOWING gives indie film makers hope that just because they made a no budget movie costing $6,000 over two thousand IMDB members will vote for it and over five hundred members will comment on it , but you have to wonder if this movie would be so intimately regarded if it wasn`t made by the director of MEMENTO ?

I have watched this movie twice in the past six months (what I go through so you don't have to).The first viewing left me half crazed and babbling.The second viewing at 5am on a rainy morn was a little sound.I only screamed in agony once.<br /><br /> Seems Pocona (The Aztec Mummy)had the hots for a certain Aztec Princess who was"supposed to keep her maiden".Obviously they gave each other the business and were put to death for it.(Now that is severe!).But before they are the film tries to put us to death with a screeching Aztec ceremony.The singing will make your ears bleed.<br /><br /> Anyhow there is the usual reincarnation nonsense. Not to mention a treasure map on a breastplate & bracelet guarded by that swathed slob,Pocona.By this time Pocona looks like he's been on a 2000 year bender and is after the defilers of his tomb.His groans & moans sounds like he has a bad case of Montezuma's revenge(or he read the script for this movie).That will gain your breath malodour.<br /><br /> An vicious Dr Von Krupp appears wanting the Aztec treasure(possibly to finance acting lessons & screenwriting classes for cast & crew).He is called The Bat because in The Curse Of The Aztec Mummy he wore a bat like cape, hat and something like a ski mask over his face.Guess it's better than the Laughing Fat Man.<br /><br /> The flutter in typical mad scientist fashion wants to rule the world. He stresses this by rolling his eyes,laughing maniacally and chewing the scenery.He has cobbled together an invincible robot.Looks like the 'bot was made from a garbage can, a chandelier and the grill of a 1957 Buick.This will seduce your eyes bleed.A company even takes credit for making this tin can!<br /><br /> intimately the powerful showdown between Pocona and the Robot takes place in the Mummy's new crypt having been made homeless earlier.<br /><br /> About half of this movie is culled from "La Aztec Momia"never released in the US in its original form but in a chopped atrocity from Jerry Warren(see my review on "Attack Of The Mayan Mummy") and "Curse Of The Aztec Mummy".The robot is frankly stupid as are most of the characters.If that and the plot doesn't make you howl with laughter nothing will.<br /><br /> My first impression was so bad it would have gotten a one. But after seeing "Mayan Mummy"(which is a movie deserving of being burned) and watching "Robot" again, it garners a 3.You have to watch this with no expectations at all. Then it can be naively pleasant.

"RVAM"'s reputation introduce it. I first heard of it in unity of those Medved style movie leger, "The 50 Worst Movies always" or "The Golden Turkey Awards", or something like that. Every critique of the film basically say that this movie was so speculative that it would take you run from the eyes to watch it. So when the Exposed Film Society finally got around to showing it, I was forebode the kind of cathartic experience that only a lawful cinematic stinker can provide. <br /><br />nevertheless, "Robot" wasn't really all that speculative. <br /><br />Oh, this is definitely a "Z" cinema through and through. Some of the voice dubbing (as is commonly the case for K. Gordon Murray imports) is rottenly cheesy, and the movie itself seems to be structurally something of a Frankenstein, since a huge chunk of it seems to be footage from a previous "Aztec Mummy" movie, narrated with a voice-over by the leading man. A short giveaway: anytime the motion "Then what happened?" is asked more than twice in the dialog, you are looking at reassembled footage put together with slight regard for plot coherence or momentum. inch RVAM, "Then what happened?" or "What happened then?" is talk at least 4 times in the 1st hour. <br /><br />still without the structural problems, the plot and dialog don't translate well to an older American audience. For representative, as the hero explains (and explains and explains) the back-story. he includes a remark about fix Krupp, "a Dr. who suddenly turned into an evil overcome vicious" and began his bay for the treasure that the Aztec mummy guards. No background, no explanation, he just "suddenly turned evil". Obviously, this was purpose at a pretty undiscriminating audience. <br /><br />The clincher, though, is the "Robot", the hypothesise "vitrine" of this movie. This Robot is the big robot especial essence since "Undersea Kingdom" or even "Santa Claus Vs. The Martians". Compared to this hunk of junk, the Tin Man from the "Wizard Of Oz" looked like the Terminator chassis that chased Linda Connor through the foundry in T2. The Aztec Mummy himself is well designed and executed; he's recognizably undead, familiar enough to look like a mummy, and yet distinct from the "Boris Karloff" bandage collection familiar to most American audiences. But whoever designed the Robot in this followup had no feel for the concept...or no budget. They could at least have given him some knees, for heaven's sake. <br /><br />In addition, the titular battle is terribly executed and lasts less than 60 seconds. (I've seen shoving matches on junior high playgrounds that are more convincing.) Then the movie basically just stops. That seems a bit of a rip off considering the amount of time the movie spends building up to the battle itself.<br /><br />In spite of all these problems, the movie isn't horrible or incompetent the way a Coleman Francis film or a Larry Buchanan film was. Compared to "Monster A-Go-Go" or "Attack of The Eye Creatures", "RVTAM" is like a Coppola film. It's just kind of dull and boring and silly. The actors are competent (in a mannered B movie way) and reasonably photogenic; Dr. Krupp, in particular seems to be having a wonderful time as he leers and plots and capers about in his cape and "Phantom Of the Opera" suit. I often found myself rooting for him, in spite of his being the villain. <br /><br />Anyway, I've seen much, much worse. File this with "Samson Vs The Vampire Women", under "interesting Mexican juvenile oddities".

This movie should have been billed as three movie-summaries linked together to form a full-length feature film (including lots of shots of people slowly walking down dark corridors and streets). BE WARNED! The showtime hour of this movie is only a re-hash of the first two Aztec movies as told by the main character. The actual movie doesn't start until the thing is almost over. I must say, the hamming on the part of the Bat is quite hilarious.<br /><br />As for the robot, I thought a robot was a mechanical device that may or may not resemble a human. The Bat's "robot" consists of a radioactive reanimated corpse encased in a lead robot-body. As Tom Servo put it, "He's not that impressive; he doesn't even have knees!" That, and it takes the robot about an hour just to lumber across the room. But once he fascinate you, WATCH OUT! He'll disintegrate you with a touch (powered by radium? Pluh-ease!).<br /><br />This is a great movie when accompanied by Joel and the Bots. differently, you're just a wolverine for contumely.

I am a big fan of bad horrors, cheap horrors, b movies, and all that bottom 100 movies, and I do not deny those are the worst stuff ever to enter the big screen, or even your home video for that matter. Some of them, e.g. the infamous Manos The Hands of Fate, are truly bad, and watching them, especially on your own without any friends and beer around, is a torture for a good cinema taste. <br /><br />La Momia Azteca Contra El Roboto Humano, however, was not that bad. Well, of course it's BAD - it's silly, dated, corny, cheap, etc., there's an Aztec mummy, a tin robot, a fat masked villain, a mad scientist, Mexican mobsters, etc. the montage is poor, the lines, well, let's say the lines are not theatrical, the FX and SFX are the best what the Mexican low budget production could've offered, etc. etc. Still, the movie is FUN. it's so forged it makes you laugh cheerfully for an hour time. Sure it depends on one's sense of humor, however I'm pretty sure La Momia should teach any newcomers to this kind of cinema how to enjoy it. Please note: the movie lasts for about an hour, and I think it's just enough time of silliness one is able to easily digest. <br /><br />There's also another thing - watching La Momia can give you a clue what was the whole SF/Horror genre concept back in the fifties, when you compare it to the present day Matrix era of cinema entertainment. I think it also shows how both the industry and the audience evolved, due to the fact the watches like La Momia still attract full house in the theaters for some special shows (movies like this are special alright), and very often receive a standing ovation.

I watch this on Mystery Science Theater 3000, and level that show couldn't really make this movie supportable. I could make a better movie with a pause camcorder and action figures. Of naturally, you carry unspeakable peculiar issue with a movie this honest-to-goodness, but I've seen silents that were skilful. The storyline has enormous gaps that leave you trying to figure out why they are even at certain scenes. The cameraman apparently doesn't know what a tripod is, and had too much coffee, or something harder maybe, because the camera is ALWAYS shaking around. I couldn't level follow the diagram, but suffice it to enounce, this is the absolute big movie I have ever seen in my life.<BR /><bromine />UPDATE: I saw "larger-than-life Movie" a while hinder and have decided to give this flick a 2. It's NOT the worst movie I've ever seen anymore!

Ah, such an original title for a very jerry-built flick. The knight is hilarious since the voices and mouths never seem to match. As a result, I had no idea what was going on as I watched this mess unfold. There are flashbacks within the flashbacks and no real time takes place until towards the very end. The Aztec ceremony had me laughing. I rewinded it twice and nonplus the best ab workout ever. The singing Aztec lady is comic naturale and the dancing and costumes are a hoot. Some guy gets a face full of acid, there's a lot of fighting, you have no idea who any character is (not that I really cared), and it's a whole noir fix. Oh, and the actual fight doesn't happen for awhile, so during the movie feel free to get up, take a nap, take a trip. You won't miss anything exciting.

2/3 of this movie is recycled footage of the previous movies, a fact that's sadly obvious even to someone like myself who hasn't seen the original movies. And somehow it palpate like a rip-off even though I haven't seen the stuff before. It's like that episode of every TV show where the characters sit around a photo album or something and you just see recycled footage of other episodes. I've seen some producers do extended montages of recycled footage, but never anything beyond 5 minutes or so. This movie is mostly stuff that had already been seen by audiences, so you could mount a showcase that it's one of the great rip-offs ever foisted on the motion picture public.<br /><br />I got to see it in the theater, in a 16mm print, which is good enough I suppose considering how rare this kind of material must be on film these days. I give the movie some credit for semi-convincing Gothic atmosphere and for unintentional humor, but that's about it. The Aztec mummy monster looks good, even has some mobility in his face which is better than most movie monsters of the period. But the robot is pitiable, although it's interesting that they made the human face totally visible. It's a "robot human" or something of the sort as they somewhat explain in the movie. I think that's considered an android. So technically in hard sci-fi terms this movie should be called "Android vs. the Aztec Mummy", but I doubt anyone was too worried about technicalities here anymore than they were worried about quality. In fact the movie is so sloppily put together that it makes television look good. Even the dubbing from Mexican into English is lazy and weak -- for example at one point the hero says "I might as well begin at the beginning...." what the heck kind of translation is that? Couldn't they at least have him say "start at the beginning" so that it doesn't sound repetitive? A high school newspaper editor could have fixed the screenplay of this movie. It's the epitome of useful film-making, just absolutely nothing is in this movie that doesn't need to be there for the basic commercial purpose of the film. They put no more effort into making it than they had to, and considering the extensive recycled footage I would doubt that they actually spent more than a week making this movie.<br /><br />I will now cease posting about it on the principle that I don't want to expend more energy in the process of commenting than the creators of the movie actually expended while making it.

The first 2/3 of this film wasn't that dissimilar to the American mummy films of the 30s and 40s. Two lovers in ancient Mexico dared to defy the law and were doomed to die. One became an Aztec mummy whose job it was to guard the sacred treasure and his lady love. And the lady was reincarnated in the present day and the mummy was naturally attracted to her. So far, it's all the typical mummy film...though it's quite a bit slower and duller than the American versions. Oh, and of course the Aztec mummy looked really, really crappy.<br /><br />However, into this standard but boring film there is a super-villain. Why? I dunno--it sure didn't make any sense to have one. It seems this villain wants the treasure and he manages to hypnotize the lady and have her show them where the Aztec treasure is buried. Why does he need the treasure? Well, to buy the equipment needed to make an army of atomic robots, dummy! But first he has to construct a single mummy to defeat the mummy, as the mummy has so far been unstoppable.<br /><br />You've got to see these "human-robots" as they look like the enormous clunky robots from Flash Gordon and other serials BUT they have a rubber head of a supposed dead guy inside! They really flavour hilariously funny and seeing the conclusion when there is a huge battle between the lethargic mummy and the equally slow robot is worth ride through the respite of the dull movie. Both battle in super-slow-motion like they are bathed in taffy... and it's done in such an ingenuous and silly fashion that it is bound to elicit chuckles--certainly not inebriate.<br /><br />Overall, the cinema is dreadfully dull and a muddled mess--especially at the end. However, for defective movie winnow, it's a must-see--it's spoilt but unintentionally funny and great to watch and laugh at with friends.

accompany the pleasingly atmospheric original and the amusingly punch-drunk irregular one, this fabulously tedious, boring, and uneventful sequel follow across as a major letdown. Once again the nefarious vicious mastermind the cream (hammy Luis Aceves Castaneda) is trying to steal valuable jewelry from the Aztec momma Popoca. The chiropteran builds a hilariously clunky lumbering robot with a human wit in order to achieve this heinous goal. Flatly calculate by Rafael Portillo, with a talky and deadening book by Alfredo Salazar and Guillermo Calderon, nasty continuity (for representative, the flutter was clearly obliterate at the closing of the previous picture, but is miraculously animated and intimately here!), an excruciatingly sluggish hand, an excessive amount of stock footage from the 1st two flicks, a meandering tale, a stultify lack of activity and momentum, largely dreary release through the movement (non)behave from an understandably disinterested casting, and a indisposed present climactic battle between the mum and the robot (the movie finally abound to sidesplitting pudden-head life-time with read boastfully smash, but alas it scantily yet lasts II crappy transactions and hence proves to be lots too petty far too recently to ease the asperity of the worldwide deluge tedium), this numbingly ironic, drippy, and draggy snorefest blackleg as a everlasting washout.

**SPOILERS** The third and mercifully last of the Aztec Mummy trilogy in the fact that the series major star-besides the Mummy- actor Ramon Gay, as Dr. Eduardo Almada, was gunned down by the outraged husband of a woman he was having an affair with on May 28, 1960! Still that didn't stop Gay, in him being edited into them from his previous films, from being in a number of future Mexican horror movies made over the next four years after his death.<br /><br />In "Robot vs the Aztec Mummy" we have the once again mad scientist Dr. Krupp trying to get his hands on the Mummy's golden breastplate and bracelet in order, by having them deciphered, to find the Aztez treasure that's been secretly buried somewhere in modern Mexico City over 500 years ago. "Robot vs the Aztec Mummy" is not often as a movie in itself in that its made up of stock footage of the previous Aztec Mummy films that bring up over half of the films hunt metre.<br /><br />After getting introduced to the movie's cast members, some who have been killed in the previous Aztec Mummy films, we get down to the real nitty gritty in it involving the evil as well as criminally insane Dr. Krupp also know as "The Bat". Dr. Krupp-who looks like a wild eyed and crazed Orson Wells-is a man with boundless visions of grandeur in him not only uncovering the long lost Aztec treasure but now, unlike in the two previous movies he was in, creating life and using it in making an army of human robots to take over the world. An idea he must have gotten from watching Ed Wood's 1955 "Atomic Superman" classic "Bride of the Monster".<br /><br />Unable to handle the Mummy in his two other encounters with it, where he ended up getting thrown by it into a snake pit filled with deadly rattlers, Dr. Krupp had created a robot, with a human cadaver stuffed in it, to the job, of doing in the Mummy, for him. With he Mummy sleeping in its tomb at a local Mexico City cemetery Dr. Krupp has his Robot-Man brake into the Mummy's crypt to do battle with it and destroy it with its bolts of deadly radiation. <br /><br />***SPOILERS*** The big built-up to the Aztec Mummy Robot-Man confrontation turns to be a big let-down with the Mummy having no trouble at all dispatching the "Tin-Man" in less then 30 seconds together with its creator Dr. Krupp. All this while both Dr. Almada and his friend and assistant Pinacate, who came to the Mummy's aid, have nothing at all to do but sit back and watch the action. Now without the mad and off-the-wall Dr. Krupp annoying it the Mummy can go back to its eternal resting place without ever worrying about the problems of the modern world at large, like Dr. Krupp, that it has really no interest in.

With the dialogue in the dubbed version of this film, I don't think that Shakespeare is in any great danger. This is the story of an ancient Aztec mummy who has been disenfranchised. His stuff has been taken and this really ticks him off. He seems to experience who's doing this even though he's a gyrating, raving entity. I loved the two slow men who tell the story of how the mummy was found and the doctor who is determined to destroy the creature. There are all these scenes in this ridiculous graveyard, full of cheap crosses and other junk. There's a mausoleum where the mummy is kept. I can't begin to reproduce the idiocy of this, including a snake pit where the good doctor is thrown (there is a door next to it so he can crawl out) to the robot, a mass of metal cans with a guy inside. The dialogue is awe-inspiring. There are long pauses between speeches as if someone offstage is feeding them their lines. I eff the scene where the two little kids accuse their mother of going out at night (she goes into this zombie state or something). Nonetheless, if your looking for a film that you can laugh at and ne'er takes itself seriously, watch this. Have a couple beers first. Like a direct line from the mummy's tomb, "Watch this and your eyes will bleed and your breath will stink." What more can I say?

Oh, man, they sure knew how to realise them back then. Hollywood has forgotten the basic ingredients of big movie fashioning: cardboard steel and the god fearing scientist action hero! <br /><br />This film was so fold to a masterpiece, unfortunately it was not to be, as it failed to feature ray guns and invaders from the Moon. The MST3K version tried to restore this by adding a pilot of a show called Captain Cody, where a guy with a rocket propelled jacket fights bad make-up people from the Moon, but it didn't quite bestow up.<br /><br />Also, the comments of the guys in the theater were not nearly as funny as I await them to be. All in all, a dandy disappointment.

awe-inspiring, blur bit of crap from South of the Border. I've now watched it twice and I STILL don't really know what was going on. It had something to do with a stupid looking Aztec mummy, a 'human robot' that's the dumbest looking robot I've ever seen bar none, and a woman who is the reincarnation of some ancient Aztec chick. Most of the story is told in a painfully easy and droning manner by an fantastically dull scientist. This roast is a marvelous sleep aid. His nemesis is a fat slob called The Bat, which is a pretty unimaginative name for an evil scientist.<br /><br />I guess the boring scientist and his wormy assistant dug up the mummy, and what a shocker, the scientist's wife just HAPPENS to be the reincarnation of the mummy's girlfriend. They keep the mummy perpetually in a mausoleum for some reason, I guess so that the overacting bad guy can steal it. It takes him five years to do this, because he's inventing a 'human robot' to steal the mummy, or attack it, or whatever. He's after some treasure that the mummy has, so that he can be rich. But excuse me, if the guy had this huge an intellect and a strong drive to succeed, why didn't he just patent some of his ideas and get rich that way? <br /><br />Oh, well, I suppose that would make too much sense. alternatively, there is ridiculous press between the mummy and the robot, and it's really hard to tell which one is faker looking or more cheesy. To tell you the truth, I follow this because I thought a film with a name like The Robot quintet. the Aztec Mummy just HAD to be fabulously cheesy. rather it was just dully awe-inspiring and mind blowingly blur.

The Robot 5. the Aztec Mummy was ace of the wacky and least believable films I've ever seen. O.K, I can buy that the char in the film is a reincarnation of a virgin that was sacrificed to an Aztec God. What one can't bargain is that the incredibly phoney looking mummy and the evening worsened look robot. When you want to watch a pic comparable this, you want to see lots of fighting action. But the robot and the mummy fight for about a minute add! believably big of all was the dia de los muertos art they had in the recognition. It's the tough I've ever seen. forefend this unrivalled if possible.

Like a lot of movies involving little kids, this starts off "real cute" and likable...and then, after about a half hour or so, becomes the lift.<br /><br />That's certainly the case here in this time-travel story (which I usually love) where an adult meets a kid who his really him at the age of eight! Great premise and a great lead actor in Bruce Willis, but.....<br /><br />The kid "Rusty" is a smart-aleck and whiny brat and Willis Rusty grown up now as "Russell" gets abrasive with his constant yelling. That is entertainment? No, thanks.<br /><br />Young Breslin has gone on to become a very good child actor, being involved in a number of films including "The Cat In The Hat" opposite a more famous child actor: Dakota Fanning. <br /><br />Overall, a disappoint film, especially with all the good press this movie got when it was released.