text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
When I ordered this from Blockbuster's website I had no idea that it would be as terrible as it was. Who knows? Maybe I'd forgotten to take my ADD meds that day. I do know that from the moment the cast drove up in their station wagon, donned in their late 70's-style wide collars, bell-bottoms and feathered hair, I knew that this misplaced gem of the disco era was glory bound for the dumpster.<br /><br />The first foretelling of just how bad things were to be was the narration at the beginning, trying to explain what cosmic forces were at play to wreak havoc upon the universe, forcing polyester and porno-quality music on the would-be viewer. From the opening scene with the poorly-done effects to the "monsters" from another world and then the house which jumps from universe to universe was as achingly painful as watching an elementary school production of 'The Vagina Monologues'.<br /><br />Throughout the film, the sure sign something was about to happen was when a small ship would appear. The "ship" was comprised suspiciously of what looked like old VCR and camcorder parts and would attack anyone in its path. Of course if moved slower than Bob Barker's impacted bowels, but it had menacing pencil-thin armatures and the ability to cast a ominous green glow that could stop bullets and equipped with a laser capable of cutting through mere balsa wood in an hour or two (with some assistance).<br /><br />Moving on... As the weirdness and bell bottoms continue... We found out that they're caught in a "Space Time Warp". How do we garner this little nugget of scientific information? Because the oldest male lead tells his son that, in a more or less off-the-cuff fashion, like reminiscing about 'how you won the big game' over a cup of joe or an ice-cold bottle of refreshing Coca-Cola. Was pops a scientist? Nope, but he knew about horses and has apparently meddled as an amateur in string theory and Einstein's theories.<br /><br />The recording I watched on DVD was almost bootleg quality. The sound was muddy and the transfer looked like it had been shot off a theater screen with the video recorder on a cell phone, other than that, it was really, really, really bad. (There's not enough 'really's' to describe it, really).<br /><br />I know some out there love this movie and compare it to other cult classics. I never saw this film on its original release, but even back then I think I would've come to the same conclusion: bury this one quick. | negative. |
I cheer for films that fill in subject matter gaps in world cinema. So after watching the trailer for "Water Lilies," I expected to like this film because I thought I'd stumbled on something unique: a movie that honestly portrays teen lesbian love - sort of a female version of "Beautiful Thing." <br /><br />The main characters are young French women 15 years old. Marie is slender, reticent and pretty in a tomboyish way; Floriane is outgoing, athletic and beautiful; and Anne is loyal, pudgy and behaviorally immature. The erotic interrelationship between Marie and Floriane is always simmering in this movie, if not at the surface, then just below it. <br /><br />"Water Lilies," however, is not about the dawning of lesbian love upon two teens; it is about sexual frustration, suffering, ennui, teens working at cross-purposes and - in at least two instances - joyless, mechanical sex. It also proves that screenwriters and film-makers mar their own creations when they become too manipulative.<br /><br />In the extra features on the "Lord of the Flies" DVD, director Peter Brook says, "French cynicism starts with the arousal of sex," meaning the French regard children as angels while they regard adolescents and adults with a pervasive cynicism. Part of the downfall of this film is film-maker Celine Sciamma has gulped a mighty dose of this cynicism.<br /><br />"Where is the joy?" I asked myself while watching this film. Yes, first love can be painful and frustrating, but it can also be joyful and triumphantly erotic in a fresh, life-affirming way. These positive aspects are missing from this movie; there is no balance.<br /><br />Organically, this movie wants to be a poignant celebration of first love. But Sciamma is too impressed with her own cynicism and cleverness and ruins the film. First, what is the point of showing only the plump girl nude? I know there is an established tradition of tasteful teen nudity in European cinema, as evidenced by films like "The Slingshot; The Rascals; The Devil, Probably; The Little Thief; Murmur of the Heart; Friends; Beau Pere" and "Europa, Europa"; but this instance is a petty authorial intrusion - "See, audience, I can make a film where I show only the unattractive person nude." Either no nudity or evenly distributed nudity would've been an honest way to go.<br /><br />There is a scene in a club where Floriane and Marie are dancing. What follows next is not just Floriane cynically manipulating Marie; it is film-maker Sciamma cynically manipulating her audience.<br /><br />Perhaps the biggest betrayal of authenticity and organic honesty takes place when Floriane warns Marie she's about to request something that is "not normal." Marie understandably asks, "Who cares about being normal?" Then Sciamma plays false with her audience and the hurtling momentum of the movie, because Floriane's request is a phony, derivative and substitute question - not the authentic, heartfelt question the movie, Marie's character and the viewers who've invested their time deserve. <br /><br />Here are also two moments which clank falsely on the viewer's nerves: 1) Since when do the French - of all people - take baths wearing bathing suits, and with a turtle to boot? 2) What teen - of any nationality - would chomp down on an apple core that's been thrown in the garbage in order to get a taste of the beloved's mouth?<br /><br />The three main actresses are promising and, if they find better vehicles for their talents, may become excellent actors. Louise Blachere (Anne) is the best actress in terms of technique and could have a successful career in supporting roles. Adele Haenel (Floriane) could become a leading lady, or a bombshell, or both. Pauline Acquart (Marie) possesses an intensity and magnetism which are unmistakable. In the future, she could play everything from an emotionally crippled librarian to a mysteriously sensual seductress to a reluctant politician riding a meteoric rise in acclaim.<br /><br />All in all, "Water Lilies" was very disappointing. Will an honest film-maker please make an authentic movie about two young women falling in love! No - not necessarily for the sake of this middle-aged guy - but so young lesbian girls can have something of quality they can watch and identify with. And yes, to fill a subject matter gap in world cinema. | negative. |
For anyone craving a remake of 1989's Slaves of New York. What are there, seven of you? Here it is... was.<br /><br />This undercooked movie has studiously vapid characters (Well they're club-kids, ya big jerk!) that are in holding patterns. The big question seems to be, just how long can a young adult remain juvenile? It took three people to write this 'story'? Good god, it was easier to come up with Citizen Kane. Rather than take viewers back, this movie should just embarrass anyone who was a scene-ster in the early 90s.<br /><br />The idea that a fifty year old woman envies a bunch of self-absorbed kids from a different era is the world as only self-absorbed, twenty-somethings could imagine it. The odd sidebar about library work is not the sub-plot one expects from the equivalent of Parker Posey's Breakin 2: Electric Bugaloo. Her "I'm serious about graduate school!" while a stripper grinds on her is hysterical. Posey's shtick is always amusing, but there are projects that are beneath her. I was asleep before it crossed the 40 minute mark. | negative. |
Besides being boring, the scenes were oppressive and dark. The movie tried to portray some kind of moral, but fell flat with its message. What were the redeeming qualities?? On top of that, I don't think it could make librarians look any more unglamorous than it did. | negative. |
For the first couple of seasons, I thought The Apprentice was a highly engaging and exciting show. The combination between reality TV and a 16 week job-interview was innovative, and the producers of the show managed to keep the show relevant and not too "out there".<br /><br />The new season 6 is nothing more than a big joke and it has absolutely nothing to do with business - at all. In the earlier seasons they used to put a lot more emphasis on the business-related tasks - now the focus is mostly in the boardroom where the contestants are expected to do EVERYTHING to keep them on the show (that means lying, trash-talking, backstabbing etc.). The boardroom can be entertaining to watch, but it's entertainment at it's low-point - Sometimes you wonder if you are watching a repeat of an old Jerry Springer episode. The tasks on the show are, at most, boring and mostly a showcase for the companies who are dumb enough to pay NBC for the publicity. And what is the deal about half of the contestants living in tents in season 6? That is just plain stupid and has nothing to do with business in real-life. <br /><br />I have absolutely NO respect for any of the contestants this season, they all seem like idiots to me. In earlier seasons at least some of the contestants had a bit of integrity, now it seems like the contestants would kill their own mother to keep them on the show. It also seems like Donald Trump's massive ego becomes bigger and bigger for every season that pass by and to be honest, I can't see why anyone with a common sense would want to work for him. His rationality in the boardroom mostly doesn't make any sense at all and sometimes it seems he just like to trash people for what it's worth.<br /><br />R.I.P The Apprentice. Please NBC, for God's sake, get the show off the air as soon as possible. It's just too embarrassing to watch. The Apprentice was once a great TV-show, but now it's just a big fat joke. | negative. |
I LOVED the Apprentice for the first two seasons.<br /><br />But now with season 5? (or is it 6?) things are getting just plain too tiring.<br /><br />I used to like the show, but its become Donald Trumps own ego fest. Granted its his company you'll be working for, but come on! some of the things says "You're FIRED" is just insulting.<br /><br />after watching the show, I would not want to work for him. not because he is arrogant, pompous or such. Its just that the show is unrealistic and the way he handles things makes me just squirm. Good Entertainment? YES, but tiring as the back stabbing gets so tiring.. its not team work, its not personal, its just business. watch your back jack. | negative. |
I bet you Gene Simmons and Vincent Pastore negotiated in advance how many episodes they would be willing to appear in. Isn't just too contrived for Gene to switch to the ladies team and then throw himself on his sword? And Big Pussy? What the hell was that "look at me, I'm a rat!" double episode crap? All that cliché mafia banter- COME ON! The big names voted off just happened to already have received money for their charity and got a custom tailored exit. Hmm... This is not reality but staged drama! Mark Burnett's other show, "Survivor" also raised questions for me when Johnny Fairplay stages his departure when he clearly had just a short time before his child is to be born.<br /><br />Yuk! | negative. |
I can't stand most reality shows and this one is worst than the one with Paris Hilton, and sure it's his company. But "you're fired" or "you're hired", for how many seasons now? After watching the show I wouldn't want to work for the guy with his ego and all and I think watching paint dry has more entertainment valve.<br /><br />I'd love to hear just one person get up and say "Donald I quit and take some of your money and buy a decent hairdo". I see he's even trying to buy fame in the wrestling WWE. I hope he gets hurt so I don't have to see his pathetic face anymore. It must be sad to want fame so bad and have no talent and make an ass of yourself trying to buy it. I'd give this show a negative mark if I could but it gets a 1 and it doesn't deserve that. | negative. |
One has to wonder if at any point in the production of this film a<br /><br />script existed that made any sense. Was the rough cut 3 hours<br /><br />long and was it trimmed into the incoherent mess that survives? <br /><br />Why would anyone finance this mess? I will say that Tom<br /><br />Wlaschiha is a good looking young man and he does what he can<br /><br />with the dialogue and dramatic (?) situations he is given. But<br /><br />characters come and go for no apparent reason, continuity is<br /><br />non-existent, and the acting, cinematography, and direction are (to<br /><br />put it politely) amateurish. Not One Sleeps is an unfortunate<br /><br />choice of title as it will probably prove untrue should anyone<br /><br />actually attempt to actually watch this film. | negative. |
Jochen Hick wrote and directed this little thriller of a suspense film based on the concept that the AIDS virus was a sheep virus mutated by the government to rid the world of gays and was apparently tested on convicts in the years before the outbreak of the hideous disease. Were it not for the poignancy of the concept of the film, this would fall into the category of the many films about the ruination of the world by a rampant non-prejudicial infective organism.<br /><br />Stefan (Tom Wlaschiha) journeys from Berlin to San Francisco to investigate his father's scientific suppositions about the induced sheep virus and its effects of the convicts in whom it was infused. He meets with some disdain and resistance to a dead theory, but also encounters some folks who know of the theory and support his investigation. Simultaneously with his visit a series of serial murders takes place, each victim killed in a similar manner and each murder apparently accompanied by strains of music from Puccini's opera 'Turandot' which just happens to be opening at the San Francisco Opera. A police investigator Louise Tolliver (Irit Levi) and her companion cop (Kalene Parker) follow the murders while Stefan makes the rounds of the sex clubs and bars in San Francisco trying to locate men who may have been guinea pigs for his father's theory. He encounters a strange lad Jeffrey (Jim Thalman) with whom he has a cat and mouse attraction and a prominent Doctor Burroughs (Richard Conti) who seems oddly involved in the cast of suspects. How this all come to an end is the play of the film, a story as much about the search for self identity between Stefan and Jeffery as it is a case for investigation of murders.<br /><br />While Tom Wlaschiha, Jim Thalman and Richard Conti do well with their roles (they are the only three who have any prior acting experience in the film!), the quality of the film sags considerably by the less than acceptable minimally talented Irit Levy and Kaylene Parker: when on screen the credibility of the story drops below zero. There are some small cameos by other actors that brighten the screen for the moments they inhabit, but in all the film is drowned by the incessant replay of 'Nessun dorma' as sung by Mario del Monaco from a recording o the opera - and that seems to be the reason for making the film! Good idea for a film and some good characterizations by the actors, but there is no resolution of the initial premise that started the whole thing. Grady Harp, February 06 | negative. |
Poorly written conspiracy drama/mystery about the possibility that AIDS was introduced to the public by the government. Wlaschiha plays a gay researcher looking for answers--that within this foggy plot would be hard for anyone to find. Despite the cinematography itself being commendable, the camera hungers for characters of true depth instead of the shallow, amateur acting it unfortunately has to convey. Grade: D+ | negative. |
I don't give much credence to AIDS conspiracy theories but its sociologically interesting to see the phenomenon dramatized. In the early years of the AIDS epidemic, the suffering and paranoia of the scared and dying often generated such dark fantasies. This was especially true in the politically radical and sexually extreme demi-monde of San Francisco. The city, renowned for its beauty, has rarely appeared uglier than in this film. A sense of darkness and decomposition pervades every scene.<br /><br />While the acting and plot can't be said to be well-done the films unique cultural context and oppressively dark mood at least partly saves the film from being a complete loss. Actually, I found the most interesting performance to be Irit Levi as a crusty and cynical Jewish, lesbian (?) police detective. She's interesting, though not necessarily convincing.<br /><br />Highlights: the film's use of the garishly tragic Turandot is an effective motif and there is a sublime silent cameo by iconic performance artist, Ron Athey. | negative. |
The cliché of the shell-shocked soldier home from the war is here given dull treatment. Pity a splendid cast, acting to the limits of their high talents, can't redeem 'The Return of the Soldier' from its stiff-collared inability to move the viewer to emotional involvement. Best moments, as another reviewer noted, come when Glenda Jackson is on screen; but even Jackson's crackling good cinematic power can't pull this film's chestnuts from its cold, never warmed hearth. Ann-Margret, she of sex-kitten repute and too often accused of lacking acting ability, finds her actual and rather profound abilities wasted here - despite her speaking with a nigh-flawless Middlesex accent. The hackneyed score, redolent of many lackluster TV miniseries' slathered-on saccharine emotionalism, is at irritating odds with the emotional remoteness of the script, blocking, and overbaked formalism of the direction; except for its score and corseted script and direction, 'The Return of the Soldier' has all the right bits but it fails to make them work together. | negative. |
The Good Earth is perhaps the most boring film I've seen in my life. The plot is slow and lacking. The acting is borderline comical. While I love Paul Muni, I can now say i have seen a film that does not do his true ability justice. The only saving grace I found with this film is it's production value. The use of hundreds of extras throughout the film creates a very believable and interesting environment. Also, the beautiful effects used to create the illusion of millions of wasps sells easily and was revolutionary at the time. Other than the production value I can say little else that is good or entertaining about this film. | negative. |
The Good Earth is not a great film by any means, it is way to ordinary. Maybe it was different in the 1930's but who would want to see the life of a farmer. It is not very interesting to me. Yes, Luis Rainer and Paul Muni do an excellent job acting but the film dragged on way too long. I could have told you the ending of this movie by the first act. In short Wang Lung (Muni) a small time farmer who does not want to be like his own father turns out exactly like him. Both falling in love with their wives just as they are on their death beds. The film does a complete 360 going from one generation to the next. Also this film did not have any good character actors or funny moments, it just was depressing stuff about lasting as a farmer during a time of crisis. | negative. |
A couple of farmers struggle in life in a small village in China. Wang Lung (Paul Muni) buys O-Lan, his future wife, who becomes his slave (Luis Rainer). American stars appear in the leading roles, talking with fake accents and emphasizing old stereotypes and patriarchal ideology. A good wife, many children and land are the best things for men to have. They are seen as property and investment. Because it is a big budget movie, in which many extras cooperate, big sets are built and special effects take place, the movie makers could not take the risk of hiring less popular actors. Luise Rainer won an Academy Award for this performance, which is definitely the worst in the movie. Her immutable face builds a barrier between her and the audience. O-Lan is supposed to be the heart of the family and the best character to sympathize with. On the other hand Paul Muni gives a better performance, showing his talent ones again. Another problem with the movie is the ending. It seems like Franklin did not know when to end the picture. This film could be dangerous if it is taken as a truly example of Chinese culture and traditions. | negative. |
Luise Rainer received an Oscar for her performance in The Good Earth. Unfortunately, her role required no. She did not say much and looked pale throughout the film. Luise's character was a slave then given away to marriage to Paul Muni's character (he did a fantastic job for his performance). Set in ancient Asia, both actors were not Asian, but were very convincing in their roles. I hope that Paul Muni received an Oscar for his performance, because that is what Luise must have gotten her Oscar for. She must have been a breakthrough actress, one of the first to method act. This seems like something that Hollywood does often. Al Pacino has played an Italian and Cuban. I felt Luise's performance to be lackluster throughout, and when she died, she did not change in expression from any previous scenes. She stayed the same throughout the film; she only changed her expression or emotion maybe twice. If her brilliant acting was so subtle, I suppose I did not see it. | negative. |
Well I'm probably about to be lambasted by everyone on this site, but The Good Earth is one of the worst structured films I've seen in a long time. We have a 2 and a half hour film that feels like its three and a half because it has two films in one. The first film tells the story of a family that has to move form their home because of drought and famine. They have to travel south to the cities to find food or work of some kind. Conveniently they happen to find a bag of jewels and at the same time they find out that the drought has ended. Yeah OK. With this knowledge they return home with their riches and everything is fine and wonderful again. <br /><br />Well that takes about an hour and a half of film and while its incredibly lifeless at this point it does have a nice arc to it. You would think this would be a fantastic place to end the film. However, the film then continues on for a whole other hour. And in this remaining time, its takes a simple story about a family dealing with the hardships of the world and turns it into a sappy melodrama about betrayal and jealousy between lovers. Oh yea and the age old, money is the root of all evil blah blah blah. Just because you know your making an epic film doesn't mean that your story can go on needlessly for more than it has to. Also the main idea I would gather about this film is that the earth is good to this family and holds them together. Then why do we spend an hour telling a story about a rich man falling in love with another woman, and why is the final moment of the film dedicated to a wife that our main character hasn't even cared about through most of the film. <br /><br />Oh wait and the film isn't the only thing thats poorly written, the main characters wife makes absolutely no sense. She complains a lot about how she was a slave and she never wants to have a slave and yadda yadda yadda. Then why at the drop of a hat is she willing to sell her only daughter into slavery. Even if they are starving at the time of this idea, it still doesn't make sense when 20 minutes later in the film she is complaining about not wanting a slave again. <br /><br />There are other films from the thirties that should be paid attention to. The only thing this one has going for it is the cinematography. The land is shot beautifully, oh and the sequence with the locusts is quite impressive. Too bad that were in a film that had nothing to say. <br /><br />One last thing. I know that at this point in time Hollywood was focused mostly on stars and they figured that a good actor can portray anything. For most of the film Paul Muni does portray an Asian man to the best of his ability, but once it hits the half point where the film goes on for no reason he loses it and just becomes regular old Italian Paul, they even cut his hair so he looks like Tony from Scarface(also a better film than this). Of all the main characters in the film I think maybe three are actually Asian, the rest are just Americans being silly. Oh and please Ms. Rainer that was a really nice one note performance, not, if i could i rip the Oscar out of your hands, oh i would. <br /><br />The Good Earth is one epic waste of time. If you want something along this vain to watch on nice evening get The Grapes of Wrath, a film that truly deserves all the praise it gets. Mainly because it wasn't written by a monkey. | negative. |
The Good Earth follows the life a slave girl and a poor farmer in China. The movie is based on the novel by Pearl S. Buck. The story is great, but I hated that they decided to cast Anglos in the lead roles. Walter Connolly is laughable as the farmer's father. He has such a heavy American accent, as do most of the lead actors, that I could not bear listening to him speak.<br /><br />It is a shame that Hollywood could not get past their racist beliefs to cast Asians in the lead roles. To take Anglos and make them look like Chinese is akin to Anglos putting shoe polish on their faces to play African-Americans. | negative. |
Well, what was fun... except for the fun part.<br /><br />It's my second least favorite so far, I even thought it was worse than 'Lazarus' and 'Ghost in the Machine'.<br /><br />Let's start with the good. The teaser, it was incredibly well done and also emotional. Being the great animal lover that I am, it was fun seeing so many beautiful animals in this episode.<br /><br />But then there's all the bad, and believe me there is a lot of it. Little made sense, so those animals were being abducted by aliens and impregnated? whaaa??? the dialog was also pretty awful. There were about one or two quotable lines. <br /><br />and worst of all, having pretty much all those animals die was very unpleasant for me. In the end... what's the point? they all pretty much died. We didn't learn anything, we weren't entertained, and I couldn't even find Sophia's death sad... just very frustrating.<br /><br />* star. shame because Season 2 was doing so well. | negative. |
Amazing. That's what you'd say if you sat through this film. Simply, incredibly, amazing. It's actually so amazing that anyone was stupid enough to dump money into making this monstrosity that you simply can't believe what you're seeing. That, my friends, is what is truly scary about this film. Somebody thought it was a good idea to make it. <br /><br />Well, here's another amazingly original story: High School student (occasionally seemed like collegego figure) has whore for a mom, lives in a trailer park, and is an "artist" who is ridiculed for his "being all different." Well, of course, this poor ridiculed boy is eventually killed and, here's the original part, his soul inhabits a scarecrow (beneath which, he is killed by his slutty mama's latest john). Then he goes around with the standard killing off of all the people that done hurt him. Awww.<br /><br />Here's the breakdown:<br /><br />The Good:<br /><br />--Amazingly funny movieeven if that's not what the clearly drunk filmmakers wanted.<br /><br />--This and the sequel on one disk in the Wal-Mart $5.00 binso it's only a little overpriced.<br /><br />Didn't Hurt It, Didn't Help:<br /><br />--The violence and gore are kind of sub-standard. One person is stabbed with a corncob.<br /><br />--Sounds like they put some effort into the musicbut it doesn't really fit the movieand isn't all that good.<br /><br />The Bad:<br /><br />--Terrible, terrible acting.<br /><br />--Another slasher let-down with sexy womennone of them removing clothing. When did that cease being a staple of low-brow slashers??<br /><br />--Ridiculous story.<br /><br />--The scarecrow vomits up one-liners that would make Freddy Krueger and Arnold Swartzenegger blush.<br /><br />--Standard underlying love story goes nowhere, and is poorly done.<br /><br />--Some of the people killed seem like they were chosen at randomyou never really know who anybody is and then they're killed. And you only assume that they must've had it coming.<br /><br />The Ugly:<br /><br />--Extremely average slasher fare, just with a murdering scarecrow instead of
well, all that other crap.<br /><br />--Nowhere near as interesting as Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees, Pinhead, Chucky, or even Angela from the "Sleepaway Camp" seriesall of which are better than this atrocity.<br /><br />--The absolute worst dialogue I have ever heard in my LIFE. The script is laden with a level of retardedness that I never imagined could exist. I'm serious hereit's a full step beyond terrible. Don't get me wrong, though, it's funny as hellbut I've never heard more asinine bantereven in "Slumber Party Massacre III." This film makes "Jason X" look like Shakespeare.<br /><br />--The man who kills the boy that becomes the scarecrow: Worst wig ever. Dialogue to match.<br /><br />Memorable Scene:<br /><br />--The one where elementary-school youths spew out their own witty dialogue: "Hey, let's go find small animals to torture. Huh huh."<br /><br />Acting: 3/10 Story: 3/10 Atmosphere: 2/10 Cinematography: 1/10 Character Development: 2/10 Special Effects/Make-up: 5/10 Nudity/Sexuality: 1/10 (No nudity, Mom's a whore, girls wear no bras) Violence/Gore: 5/10 (Low quality, mediocre amount) Dialogue: 0/10 (Extremely ridiculous, blatant, over-the-top and painfully funnyso bad it's good. My first rating for dialogue in any film!) Music: 5/10 Direction: 2/10<br /><br />Cheesiness: 10/10 Crappiness: 9/10<br /><br />Overall: 3/10<br /><br />Another one for just people like me who enjoy watching pure crap. Or Slasher-film completists. This is not a good movie, at all. Laughable dialogue and characters keep it from being truly boring.<br /><br />www.ResidentHazard.com | negative. |
This movie could be used in film classes in a "How Not to Script a B-Movie" course. There are inherent constrictions in a B-movie: Budgets are tight, Time is precious (Scarecrow was apparently shot in 8 days) and the actors are often green and inexperienced. The one aspect you have complete control over is writing the best script you can within the limitations set before you. Scarecrow's script seems to have been written in a drunken haze. I could go through about fifteen examples of the nonsensical scripting of this movie, but I'll just mention one: The Gravedigger. The character of the gravedigger is introduced about an hour into the movie. He seemingly has no connection to any of the other characters already in the movie. He is shown with his daughter, who also has no connection to anybody else in the movie. The gravedigger is given a couple scenes to act surly in and then is killed to pad out the body count. Why give the Gravedigger a daughter? Why give the daughter a boyfriend? Why introduce them so late in the movie? Why not try to make them part of the ongoing storyline? Scarecrow doesn't seem to care.<br /><br />The "story" of Scarecrow goes something like this: Lester is a high school kid (played by and actor who'd I'd peg to be in his early 30's) who is picked on by the other kids. He is an artist who draws birds and has a crush on a classmate named Judy. His mom is a lush and the town whore. One of her reprobate boyfriends makes fun of his drawings (by calling him a "faggot" for drawing birds instead of "monsters and cowboys." If you have a high school student still drawing cowboys I'd think him to more likely be gay than a high school student who draws crows) and later, kills Lester, in a cornfield, under the titular scarecrow. Magically, Lester's soul goes into the scarecrow. Somehow, this transference changes Lester's soul from that of an artist into that of a wisecracking gymnast (I know some reviews have called the scarecrow a Kung-Fu scarecrow. I disagree. The scarecrow practically does a whole floor routine before jumping onto the truck during the climax of the movie). The scarecrow then goes on to kill those who tormented him, those who smoke pot in the corn field, those who dig graves, boyfriends of daughters of gravediggers, pretty much anyone who showed up on the movie set.<br /><br />The bonus feature on the DVD should be mentioned. The director (a Frenchman) does an impromptu version of rap music, admits he enjoys not having executives around on set so he can screw his wife while working and gives a quote to live by (and I'm paraphrasing): "Life ez a bitch, but et has a great ass"<br /><br />Number of Beers I drank while watching this movie: 5 Did it help: No Number of Beers needed to enjoy this movie: Whatever it takes to get to blackout drunk level. | negative. |
I desperately want to give this movie a 10...I really do. Some movies, especially horror movies are so budget that they are good. A wise-cracking ninja scarecrow who can implement corn cobs as lethal weaponry...definitely fits this 'budget to brilliance' system. The depth of the movie is definitely its strong point and the twists and turns it implements, keeping the audience at the edge of their seats really drives the creepy...ninja... puberty-stricken... pre-thirty year old student...non-cowboy drawing...wise-cracking...son-of-a-bitch scarecrow into the limelight as the creepiest horror icon of the year. All I can really say is, 'can you dig it' and recommend watching movies such as Frankenfish if you enjoy this sort of hilarious horror.<br /><br />(WHAT THE HELL WERE THEY SMOKING!?' | negative. |
This movie had the potential to be a decent horror movie. The main character was decently done and I felt sorry for him and there was a decent amount of backstory. HOWEVER, everything else sucks. The director, Emmanuel, is quite incompetent at film-making. He uses some of the most idiotic shots ever.<br /><br />- a couple of random sequences of random images dispersed throughout the film. I don't know if he tried to be deep and intelligent and poetic but he wasn't. It was stupid. Random shots of the trailer the main character lived in, random buildings, random pan shots of buildings, random cat which walks away. WTF? And clouds. Lots of gloomy dark clouds.<br /><br />- he really liked this technique of having a scene cut up into different shots rather than being just one continuous shot. EX: Guy is trying to light his weed and the camera circles around him. Instead of just one shot, he edits it into like 10 different shots so its really EDGY! and HIP! and SMART! stupid.<br /><br />The acting is horrible but it's what makes the movie so funny. And the scarecrow is a gymnast cause he flips and spins and twirls all the time. And some of the deaths could have been better. You expect the main bully to have a long well built up death but nope. A simple corncob in the ear . The love interest was hot. Voluptuous. Which is why this movie gets a 2. | negative. |
Oh dear lord. This movie... It was horrible. I am a HUGE fan of horror movies. And most of the time, horror movies other people say are bad, I like. The actor who played 'Scarecrow' was amazing, I will say that. But this plot was awful. It made no sense! It had way too much gore, and an unnecessary (and revolting) sex scene at the beginning. I do believe the director was trying to be 'shocking' or whatnot, but it just came out awful. To add to the pile of festering crap they called a plot, the actors (besides 'scarecrow') we're awful, and I cared so little about them that I soon forgot who was who. In conclusion, this movie made me sick. If you can avoid watching this movie in anyway, please do. | negative. |
Spirit of a murdered high school geek animates a scarecrow which then takes revenge on everyone.<br /><br />This movie really annoyed me. It has a great looking monster, has some good low budget effects, some atmosphere but manages to short circuit the good stuff with bad. Half way in I started to fast forward and then step through the chapters on the DVD.<br /><br />The problems with this movie are many. First off the cast looks about thirty and yet they are suppose to be in high school. You don't believe anything from the get go as a result. The scarecrow, while looking great isn't much beyond that. He says stupid one liners and moves in a manner more designed to be funny then scary. Is this a comedy or a horror movie? Its a problem that goes beyond the one liners to much of the dialog and set up. It seems more send up of every cliché than heartfelt horror film. I some how expect that the film was made for a very narrow audience in mind, horror fans who want to mock the genre rather than embrace it.<br /><br />Despite the good looking monster this is a film to avoid. Even if you pick it up in the bargain bin for under five bucks, you're paying too much.<br /><br />Avoid. | negative. |
With all the excessive violence in this film, it could've been NC-17. But the gore could've been pg-13 and there were quite a lot of swears when the mum had the original jackass bad-hairdewed boy friend. There was a lot of character development which made the film better to watch, then after the kid came back to life as the scarecrow, there was a mindless hour and ten minutes of him killing people. The violence was overly excessive and i think the bodycount was higher than twelve which is a large number for movies like this. ALmost every character in the film is stabbed or gets their head chopped off, but the teacher who called him "white trash" and "hoodlum" (though the character lester is anything but a hoodlum, not even close, i know hoods and am part hood, they don't draw in class, they sit there and throw stuff at the teacher). The teacher deserved a more gruesome death than anyone of the characters, but was just stabbed in the back. There were two suspenseful scenes in the film, but didn't last long enough to be scary at all. As i said, the killings were excessive and sometimes people who have nothing to do with the story line get their heads chopped off. If the gore was actually fun to see, then it would've been nc-17. Two kids describe a body they find in the cornfields, they describe it as a lot gorier than it actually was, they explained to the cop that there were maggots crawling around in the guys intestines. His stomach had not even been cut open so there was no way maggots were in his stomach, though i would've liked to see that. The acting was pathetic, characters were losers, and the scarecrow could do a lot of gymnastix stunts. I suggest renting this movie for the death scenes, i wont see it again anytime soon, but i enjoyed the excessive violence. Also, don't bother with the sequel, i watched five minutes of it and was bored to death, it sounds good but isn't. The original scarecrow actually kept me interested. | negative. |
The director states in the Behind-the-Scenes feature that he loves horror movies. He loves them so much that he dedicated the movie to Dario Argento, as well as other notable directors such as George A. Romero and Tobe Hooper. Basically dedicating this movie to those great directors is like giving your mother a piece of sh*t for Mother's Day. The first thing they did wrong was the casting. CAST PEOPLE THAT CAN ACT. Also, don't cast a person that is 40 years old for the role of a misunderstood, 18 year old recluse. That's right, he's been in high school for 22 years. The reactions made by people as they watch their boyfriends get their hearts ripped out is amusing. Or like one part when a guy gets stabbed in the ear with an ear of corn (haha get it), and his girlfriend just goes, "Oh..my.. God?" The scarecrow himself is quite a character. Doing flips off cars and calling people losers.<br /><br />The movie does have one redeeming factor... oh wait, no it doesn't.<br /><br />If you absolutely MUST see this movie, than just watch the Rock and Roll trailer on the DVD. It covers about everything and has a really gnarly song dude. | negative. |
Scarecrow is set in the small American town of Emerald Grove where high school student Lester Dwervick (Tim Young) is considered the local nerdy geek by teachers & fellow students alike. The poor kid suffers daily humiliation, bullying, teasing & general esteem destroying abuse at the hands of his peers. Unfortunately he doesn't find much support at home since his mom is a slut & after Lester annoys one of her blokes he chases him into a corn field & strangles the poor kid. However something magical happens (no, the film doesn't suddenly become good), Lester's spirit gets transfered into the corn fields scarecrow which he then uses as a body to gain revenge on those who tormented him & made his life hell...<br /><br />Co-written, co-produced & directed by Emmanuel Itier who according to the IMDb credit list also has a role in the film as someone called Mr. Duforq although I don't remember any character of this name, I suppose anyone who ends up looking at the IMDb pages for Scarecrow will probably already be aware of it's terrible reputation & I have to say it pretty much well deserved since it's terrible. The script by Itier, Bill Cunningham & Jason White uses the often told story of one of life's losers who gets picked upon & tormented for no good reason getting their revenge by supernatural means in a relatively straight forward teen slasher flick. We've seen it all before, we've seen killer scarecrows before, we've seen faceless teens being killed off one-by-one before, we've seen one of life's losers get his revenge before, we've seen wise cracking villains who make jokes as they kill before & we've seen incompetent small town Sheriff's make matters even worse before. The only real question to answer about Scarecrow is whether it's any fun to watch on a dumb teen slasher type level? The answer is a resounding no to be honest. The film has terrible character's, awful dialogue, an inconsistent & predictable story, it has some cheesy one-liners like when the scarecrow kills someone with a shovel he ask's 'can you dig it?' & the so-called twist ending which is geared towards leaving things open for a sequel is just lame. The film moves along at a reasonable pace but it isn't that exciting & the kills are forgettable. You know I'm still trying to work out how someone can be stabbed & killed with a stick of corn...<br /><br />Director Itier doesn't do a particularly good job here, the kill scenes are poorly handled with no build up whatsoever which means there's never any tension as within two seconds of a character being introduced they are killed off. Also I'm not happy with the killer scarecrow dude doing all these back-flips & somersaults through the air in scenes which feel like they belong in The Matrix (1999) or some Japanese kung-fu flick! To give it some credit the actual scarecrow mask looks really good & he looks pretty cool but he is given little to do except spout bad one-liners & twirl around a bit. Don't you think that being tied to a wooden stake in the middle of a corn filed all day would have been boring? I know he's a killer scarecrow but I still say he would have been bored just hanging around on a wooden stick all day! There's no nudity & the gore isn't anything to write home about, there's a decapitation, someones face is burnt, someone is killed with a stick of corn, someone gets a shovel stuck in their throat, some sickles are stuck in people's heads, someone has their heart ripped out & someone has a metal thing stuck through the back of their head which comes out of their mouth.<br /><br />With a supposed budget of about $250,000 this was apparently shot in 8 days, well at least they didn't waste any time on unimportant things like story & character development. Technically this is pretty much point, shoot & hope for the best stuff. If you look at the guy on the floor who has just had his heart ripped out you can clearly see him still breathing... The acting sucks, the guy who played Lester's mum's bloke is wearing the most stupid looking wig & fake moustache ever because he played two roles in the film & the makers needed to disguise him but they just ended up making him look ridiculous & don't get me started on his accent...<br /><br />Scarecrow has a few fun moments & the actual scarecrow himself is a nice creation with good special make-up effects but as a whole the film is poorly made, badly acted, silly, too predictable & very cheesy. If you want to see a great killer scarecrow flick then check out Scarecrows (1988). Not to be confused with the Gene Hackman & Al Pacino film Scarecrow (1973) or the upcoming horror flick Scarecrow (2008) which is currently in production. Scarecrow proved popular enough on home video to spawn two more straight to video sequels, Scarecrow Slayer (2003) & Scarecrow Gone Wild (2004). | negative. |
This movie is so aggrivating. The main character looks like he's 35 and I've seen scrawny beanpoles with more balls than this guy. The plot twists are so predictable its not even worth watching for the humor factor.<br /><br />Also some of the worst dialogue I've heard in 3 years, "lets go find a small animal to torture".<br /><br />Ugh.....I can't even continue, don't watch this pile of garbage, it was made in 8 days.<br /><br />The one highlight is the drunk dude calling the main character a faggot for drawing pictures.<br /><br />2 out of 10, unwatchable | negative. |
Holy @#%& this movie was still warm and juicy from the pile it was made with. I tried to watch this pile of festering waste but found it easier to slash my wrists and slug back a shooter of Lysol floor cleaner than endure more than half of the crap that was on my screen. I rank this well below anything I have ever watched on film or TV, and thats saying something. I once witnessed a cow crap in a field. I watched the steaming pile for a hour and a half, who knows... it might have moved or something. Well that was time better spent than watching this tripe. The acting was non-existent, the plot was somewhere other than on this film. I think I saw a cut seen early on where the plot managed to escape and was riding off in the background on the back of a old pickup truck heading to Portland in hopes of becoming a Steven King shi77er. Please tell me director is getting medication he so desperately needs. It's pretty clear he needs heavy medication and I'd willing to front the money needed for his lobotomy reversal. Bah... I can't give this review the full punch it needs because nothing this painful can ever be done justice in typed word alone. Let me just say that if your looking for a flick to pass some time and you see this Chilton on the rack, walk to your car, start the engine, then shove both of your fists straight into the fan until it you can't feel your bones vibrate anymore. Be sure to have your wallet in hand also because you were going to waste the cash anyway. You might as well have the privilege of wasting it yourself.<br /><br />By the way, I watched this after a "buddy" of mine sent his girlfriend over so I could see it. HE dint come over, SHE had too. Whats worse is that she had to watch this $%&@ thing TWICE! I heard their married now and he gets to visit his balls once a month. I hope it was because of this film. | negative. |
I saw this not too long ago, and I must say: This movie is terrible. I watch crappy movies for fun. Scarecreow is not fun. Scarecrow is stupid. You have an incredibly corny villain that enjoys screaming awful puns as he kills his victims(actually worse than the one contained in this sentence). He has his hard luck story that he uses to justify his killings. "Everyone picks on me. The only girl that thinks I'm not trailer-trash likes one of the guys that pick on me. I want to kill everybody. Wah." OK, I'm exaggerating. But the premise to this movie alone is enough to put it near the bottom of the list of crappy movies.<br /><br />Adding to what I just said, the kid's mom is promiscuous, he walks in on his mother and her current boyfriend getting it on, mom's boyfriend tells him to leave, kid refuses, insisting that he isn't going to leave his own house. Boyfriend chases kid into corn field. He kills kid right in front of mom, mom screams in terror, boyfriend is like, "OMG! I didn't mean to!" Then he tells mom not to say anything to the police about it. Kid was killed under a scarecrow, though. So, like any kid who gets murdered under a scarecrow, he comes back as a killer scarecrow with a vengeance. His victims "haven't been stalked like this before..." (Scarecrow's official tag line)<br /><br />To make matters worse, this movie was filmed in a whopping 8 days. That's right, 8 days. I was going to give this movie a 2, because in spite of itself, it has one or two redeeming moments. (They're spoilers, so I won't spoil it for you, if you actually want to see this crap.) I could have somewhat forgiven the bad acting, the horrible special effects, the abysmal script, and the bad camera work, but I simply have no respect for lack of effort on that level.<br /><br />This movie isn't nearly as good as I'm making it out to be. If you want to see an example of how not to make a movie, or if you enjoy watching bad movies, like I do, then watch this at your own risk. Everyone else should stay a safe distance away from this movie at all times. | negative. |
WOW is all i can say if your reading this is either watched it or are thinking about it. trust me watch it!<br /><br />i laughed so hard at so many parts of this movie the worst acting ever made is very funny! I cant believe they superimposed the school sign! I must have played that scene over and over again just to laugh more and more every time. If a movie like this can be made it gives us all hope in making our own movies. even the costume was bad. it looked like my 7 year old cousin could have done a better job on making it. heck i bet he could have written and acted better as well. all i know is that i have to watch the second part just so i can see if it was as bad as the first. its a cool idea about a killer scarecrow but a much better job could have been done. hopefully another killer scarecrow movie comes out, just not like this one. | negative. |
Perhaps one of the worst teenage slasher films I ever did see. I'll start with the bad points of t he movie, which pretty much covers the entire film. First of all, something no one can avoid: TERRIBLE ACTING. I swear they picked up some random kids off the street based on how they looked. Secondly, BAD/UNCONVINCING CHARACTER WORK/DEVELOPMENT. You hardly even know half the kids who are killed in here. All you figure is that they deserved it one way or another. The scarecrow's character was overdone, and a cheap rip-off of the other great fantasy killers such as Freddy or Pinhead. Next: BAD DIALOG: The Scarecrow was full of horrid one-liners that would make you laugh, only because it was so terrible. Lines like "Let's go find some small animals to torture!" really just leaves you with an eyebrow raised. Last but not least: Next off: BAD CASTING. How old was the guy who played Lester? Like 30? The back of his head was balding for God's sake. There is much more I could say about this film, like it's cheap special effects, it's "high school film class" effort, but the point is understood. It's just bad film making at it's worst. As for what I found to be "good" in the movie: -Entertaining for those with low, low, LOW standards -Would help put insomniacs to sleep. -A very cheap laugh, or even a giggle. | negative. |
First off, let me start with a quote a friend of mine said while watching this movie: "This entire movie had to have been a dare. You know, like, 'DUDE, I BET YOU COULDN'T MAKE THE WORST MOVIE EVER'". With this movie, they've made a good effort at achieving that title. The effects are, of course, poor. The plot/dialogue is like a collage of of bits stolen from every B horror movie ever made. The actors, I'm assuming, are supposed to be in college. Yet parts of it (especially at the beginning) make it seem like they're supposed to be in high or middle school. It makes no sense. The Scarecrow going around killing people isn't the least bit enjoyable. (SPOILER: At the end, when they chant Lester's name and he reappears, the black guy and Scarecrow are both laughing, probably out of relief they were on their last scene, and at the cheesy dialogue.) | negative. |
Let's face it; some lame kid who dies and has his soul transfered into a scarecrow. Das no gonna happen neva! OMFG This stupid loser kid who can't stand up for himself gets his ass handed to him by some drunk bastard screwing his mom. Right as he dies, he looks up at the scarecrow and he let's his spirit go into the scarecrow. The drunk guy covered up his death by making it seem suicidal and thought he had gotten away with it. We later see he is tossed out of the trailer and later earns another encounter with the scarecrow. They had a brief encounter which includes the drunk calling him a loser and the scarecrow rebounding with "Takes one to know one, loser!" The scarecrow flips off the building, calls him "daddy-o", and then beheads the poor man. We can see how this awesome movie unfolds from that. He goes on to kill many people, afterward. He mainly kills the people who gave him a hard time in rl and goes off to kill some random ass people, just for some laughs. No laughing here. He adds a punchline to every kill, too. Every time he killed someone, he would do some karate flips and finish it all off with one of his signature punchlines. In the case of someone who was hard of hearing, he would say "Here, have an EAR of corn!" then shove it up their ass. OR we can actually take an example from the movie! He just got done killing a cop and was on his way to killing the only person who ever stood up for him. Her father, the sheriff, yelled to the madman to stop, and he said "Hey, stay awhile!" and threw a dagger threw his chest and stuck him onto some tree. In the end of the movie, he killed two guys and threw in the punchline "Gotta split!" and killed two guys by shoving a scythe into their heads. Wowzors, this movie made me want to cream my pants so bad. Maybe next time this guy makes a movie, it won't be gay. | negative. |
I've gotta say, I usually like horror movies that i've never seen... however, this one was just to pathetic for my gory taste. I'm used to the gory, gut wrenching types... but this particular movie was lame. The acting was horrible (yet the corny (no pun intended) one-liners were cute). And the sequel to it, Scarecrow Slayer was even worse! Yes, probably, when it first came out, there was a huge rave about it and people liked it. But when movies like The Ring and The Exorcist of Emily Rose come out, movies like these make movies like Scarecrow seem childish. If you want a movie to just pass the time, pick this one! The special effects are cheesy as heck. But seeing that it was a low budget movie, I can kind of see where that would come in. This will kind of remind you of the movie "Children Of The Corn." Independent movies rock.... most of the time. So if you want to see a scarecrow killing people with corncobs, or in the sequel, 2 scarecrows going at it, then these movies would be for you. | negative. |
I'm watching this on the Sci-Fi channel right now. It's so horrible I can't stop watching it! I'm a Videographer and this movie makes me sad. I feel bad for anyone associated with this movie. Some of the camera work is good. Most is very questionable. There are a few decent actors in the flick. Too bad they're surrounded by what must have been the director's relatives. That's the only way they could have been qualified to be in a movie! Music was a little better than the acting. If you get around to watching this I hope it's because there was absolutely NO other option! The sequel (yes sequel) is coming on now....I think I'll skip it! Jason | negative. |
Wow, what can I say about this film? It's a lousy piece of crap. I'm surprised that it got rated as high as it did. What's wrong with this film? Here's a better question: What's NOT wrong with this film.<br /><br />The story itself is just crap and cliché. Here's pretty much what it's about...Some kinda nerdy kid with no friends gets picked on, gets killed, and comes back as a scarecrow for revenge. "All" of that is packed into 86 minutes of worthless film. If you haven't seen this movie don't waste your time watching it. Also, the second one isn't much better, so don't bother watching that either...I rated this movie a three because I liked the scarecrow's outfit, not because there was anything good about the movie. I think you get the picture. | negative. |
A far as B-movies go, SCARECROW is one of those that are so bad, that it becomes incredibly annoying to sit through. A lonely loser high school student who is constantly picked on by classmates and rejected by girls, ends up walking in on his trailer trash mother having sex with a drunk redneck. He then chases the kid out into a nearby cornfield and kills him. Apparently, the kids soul was transfered into a scarecrow which then goes around killing the bullies who tormented him as well as teachers. This scarecrow, aside from having a snappy one-liner for each of his victims, can also do Matrix-like flips through the air and kill people on sidewalks in broad daylight. Also, why did he always look like a rotted corpse? Just like the two needless sequels that followed this, this isn't even worth a laugh. | negative. |
Okay, 'enjoy' is a pretty relative term, but flexibility is in order when you're dealing with a filmmaker of James Glickenhaus' calibre.<br /><br />McBain is truly one of the most ridiculous, over the top action films I've ever seen, without the nasty edge of The Exterminator. Other reviews have commented on a suspension of disbelief regarding the film's heroic middle aged commandos, but how about making a film in the Philippines that is set in Colombia? All the extras are Filipino. In fact the only character who looks remotely Hispanic is good ol' Victor Argo as the much reviled 'El Presidente'! Oh yes, we also have Maria Conchita Alonso overemoting like crazy as a rebel leader. There are tons of explosions and bodies flying everywhere in this amusing paean to the glories of American imperialism. | negative. |
I purchased this film on the cheap in a sale, having read the back of the DVD case and assuming that either way I can't lose, it if was rubbish then no loss, if it was any good then bargain...<br /><br />Then I watched it...<br /><br />I am normally a fan of Christopher Walken, but in this film he commanded very little screen presence, seeming not to do a whole lot, even the death of his friend near the beginning which sparks off the "action" in the plot seems to affect him very little, and his eventual revenge is just boring and undramatic.<br /><br />Normally a film which has themes as grand as revolution and revenge are able to capture the audience and snare them into feeling something for the characters, however watching this film felt more like seeing a series of confused, and almost random events that loosely tied together towards it's eventual conclusion...<br /><br />At this point I wept...<br /><br />I thought this film was the most horribly painful piece of viewing I have ever been subjected to, the scene where the pilot sacrifices himself by refusing to jump out the explosive laden truck due to not wanting to kill any civilians is not so much tragically sad as it is unnervingly horrible and painful, although not quite as bad as the emergency surgery on the wounded girl. The acting was poor all round, the script and story was weak, the "action" was even weaker, and the "visuals" were but bluntly not all that visual. To summarise there are films which are good, films that are bad, films that are so bad they are good, films that are terrible...<br /><br />And then on a whole new level is "McBain" | negative. |
This was an absolutely terrible movie. Don't be lured in by Christopher Walken or Michael Ironside. Both are great actors, but this must simply be their worst role in history. Even their great acting could not redeem this movie's ridiculous storyline. This movie is an early nineties US propaganda piece. The most pathetic scenes were those when the Columbian rebels were making their cases for revolutions. Maria Conchita Alonso appeared phony, and her pseudo-love affair with Walken was nothing but a pathetic emotional plug in a movie that was devoid of any real meaning. I am disappointed that there are movies like this, ruining actor's like Christopher Walken's good name. I could barely sit through it. | negative. |
Creep is the story of Kate (Potente), an intensely unlikeable bourgeois bitch that finds herself somehow sleeping through the noise of the last underground train, and waking up to find herself locked in the tube station. After somehow meeting workmate and would-be rapist Guy on a mystery train that runs after the lines have closed, things go awry and she finds herself pursued by what lurks beneath the city's streets. Her story is linked to that of George (Blackwood), an ex-con working in the sewer system; they meet in the final third of the film, brought together by their attempts to escape the monster that pursues them.<br /><br />The pair proceed through a set of increasingly unlikely locations; from the Tube station, they end up in the sewage works before somehow finding themselves in some sort of abandoned underground surgery. Most Tube stations don't have toilets, so how one has a surgery is beyond me. Naturally, the film cares to explain that the surgery doesn't have running water. Yet it has electricity? Just one of many inconsistencies that work against the atmosphere of everyday believability that the film tries to create.<br /><br />The monster itself is a problem. There's a complete lack of reasoning for its actions, it just kills people for no obvious reason. And then of course it keeps some alive for no real reason either, perhaps just so that they can eventually escape and give the film an extra 15 minutes or so running time. I understand that natural evil is supposed to be scary, but then the film attempts to explain itself via a photo of a doctor and his son, and a few shots of some jars containing babies, and yes, it is just as tired and pathetic as it sounds. It also fails to explain how the creature has been underground long enough to lose the ability to speak, communicating only in raptor screams, but not long enough for its pair of shorts to decay. Hmm.<br /><br />This doctor business leads to scene that is the film's desperate attempt to implant itself on your memory, and while it is gory and uncomfortable to watch, it just isn't enough. The final third of the film hinges on an emotional relationship that never existed, and the characters break down and recover for little or no obvious reason. George breaks down, unable to cope with something despite stating that he wants to escape so he can see his daughter again, and Kate becomes emotionally tough seconds after going to pieces over someone that ripped her off for a travelcard. Yeah.<br /><br />After starting out as a "this could happen to anyone" movie, it quickly falls apart as it introduces ideas that make it more and more unrealistic. A complete lack of emotional interest in the characters and an absence of suspense make this one to avoid. | negative. |
The London Underground has something inherently creepy about it, with its long winding tunnels, the escalators taking you deeper and deeper underground, and of course the rats roaming the tracks.It a source of wonder that it is not used in horror films more often. It was used in the seventies horror Deathline aka Raw Meat, featuring a cannibalistic tribe living in a disused tunnel, and the celebrated chase sequence in American Werewolf in London. So I was pleased to see that someone else had tried to capitalise on the atmosphere of the tube at night with the recent UK production Creep.<br /><br />I thought the film started off well, with a highly effective credit sequence that was genuinely unnerving, followed by a scene in the sewers that sets up the premise of there being something evil lurking below the streets of London. However, Creep went downhill from here, and I found myself wishing that I'd switched it off after this opening scene, leaving me with a favourable impression of the film. All the characters become unsympathetic and unlikable, even Potente herself, and the director felt the need to hit us over the head with social commentary about homelessness. he also made the mistake of showing the "monster" in full lighting, where he ceases to become remotely scary, and reveals his name to be Craig. How can you have a monster called Craig? It turns into an X Files-type thing, and reminds one of the episode Tombs. In fact, I was wishing Mulder and Scully would turn up and sort them all out for me.<br /><br />As for the infamous sexualised violence, it is very graphic, disturbing and totally unnecessary. It seems to be there merely to shock the audience rather than for any intrinsic plot value. The trouble is it is so over the top and horrific that it actually numbs you to the rest of the horror, which is a mistake as it's only halfway through the film.<br /><br />So there you go. The only redeeming feature of the film for me was a rare appearance from Ken Campbell, one of my favourite occasional actors. You don't see him very often, but when he's on screen he acts everyone else into a corner. Casting him as a sewer inspector was a stroke of genius, unfortunately the only one evident in the film. | negative. |
The potential was there. I saw Creep and thought, 'Oooh, this is getting interesting' several times. Yet somehow the interesting plot lines wound up unexplained or ignored, like they never happened. The lead character was irritating throughout the movie, and at one point my fella and I both shouted that we wanted her to die. There are some genuinely spooky/scary moments, but these are grossly overshadowed by the moments that just annoyed the hell out of me. It's another one of those horror movies that crops up and intrigues you for a while, but ultimately leaves you frustrated and a little confused about what the movie makers were trying to achieve.<br /><br />The one saving grace of this movie is the bad guy, but when the baddie is more likable than the lead character you know you're on to a loser. | negative. |
I'll keep this short as a movie like this doesn't deserve a full review.<br /><br />Given the setting, this movie could have been something really special. It could have been another "28 days later" or even a "Blair Witch Project"<br /><br />The first 20 or so minutes of the movie I was really excited, directer did a decent job with cinematography and suspense, although I don't think He managed to capture true eeriness of an empty London Underground.<br /><br />Characters were a big let down. Our "heroine" in this movie is a worthless piece of crap, and you really don't care if she dies or not. As many people have said before, I was rooting for the homeless people and the black guy, who managed to give me a chuckle or two(whether intentional of the writers or not).<br /><br />The main villain, is kept in the dark for the first half of the movie, but when he is revealed I was really disappointed. I won't spoil it but lets just say my 10 year old sister could probably beat him in a wrestling match.<br /><br />All in all this is just another mediocre horror film which falls into the trap of following a simple Hollywood formula. This film had a lot of potential but really failed to hit the mark.<br /><br />Just to highlight how lame this movie was, the characters in this movie had at least FIVE TIMES to finish off and kill the main villain. INSTEAD THEY RUN AWAY. | negative. |
I was so disgusted by this film, I felt obligated to warn off others. This film has no story, plot or hint of purpose. The film starts after the standard "lets be scary" movie intro, which by now every film watcher has become accustomed. So we can ignore the beginning completely. We are soon introduced to the main actress and from this point it becomes clear to all that you have just wasted your hard earned and would be better off watching static. (Unless you have seen white noise - EEK) Acting is a DISGRACE and all of them should return to the travelling pantomime from where they came. Having said that, even the best actors in the world would struggle to make this film remotely watch able. Their poor performances merely contribute to the disaster. Senseless violence and what I can only assume is the written word of yet another junked up "eccentric" writer, who probably considers himself to be an artist, has resulted in a film which will test your patience. It was not until my fellow watcher turned to me and said, "We have been watching this for 45 mins" did I realise that this film is as thin and tasteless as a cup of tea without a tea bag. Clearly something was missing and unfortunately it wasn't the audience. Rather than suggest what the film is missing, let me tell you what it has: Dumb Blonde (surprise surprise), Victims, bad-monster-guy-thing, about 2 mins of storyline which is stretched over hours, days, weeks, months... and credits.<br /><br />Want a silver lining? Well, the blonde girl is a bit saucy looking in some of the scenes, but expect to want to see her face ripped off for the rest of the film! | negative. |
Absolutely laughable film. I live in London and the plot is so ill-researched it's ridiculous. No one could be terrorised on the London Underground. In the short time it is not in service each night there are teams of maintenance workers down there checking the tracks and performing repairs, etc. That there are homeless people living down there is equally unlikely. Or that it's even possible to get locked in and not have access to a mobile phone in this day and age...<br /><br />The worst that's likely to happen if someone did find themselves there after the last train is that they might get graffiti sprayed on them. Although this has been coming under control due to the massive number of security cameras on the network, another thorn in the side of the story. (Remember in London as a whole we have more security cameras than any other city in the world.)<br /><br />If it had been set in a city I am not familiar with perhaps I could have enjoyed it through ignorance, but it's not a high quality film so I just couldn't bring myself to suspend my disbelief and try and enjoy it for the banal little tale that it is.<br /><br />I would have given it 0/10 if such a rating existed! Possibly the most disappointing film I ever thought I would like. | negative. |
Yet another example of the complete waste of UK Lottery money. Just how commercial did this film prove. The Film Council ,who funded this miserable garbage should be stranded, on one of the London Undergrounds disused stations, for allowing this clichéd, dismal specimen to be committed to film, a half mutant thing made up of all the horror movies the director has seen and felt fit to imitate, most notably Deathline. Amongst its many sins is the quite obvious failure to make the lead character remotely sympathetic until the last minute. It's a little bit too late then! Surely all those development executives, at the UK Film Council, could have noticed this at the script stage. Add to this the terrible acting and the laughable appearance of the creature and you get a prime example of how not to scare. | negative. |
!!!!! OF COURSE THERE'S SPOILERS !!!!! I'm sure this project started off as a screen writing workshop on avoiding clichés in horror movies: Female protagonist - Check Bad things happen to drug takers - Check Heorine knocks out villain - Check Heroine doesn't notice villain recovering unconsciousness - Check Frame the sequence so we see recovered villain creep up behind heroine - Check Unfortunately it seems someone has sent this cliché list to a film studio instead of using it for class . Dear oh dear if only London transport was as regular as the clichés turning up here . In fact there's so many clichés and seen it all before moments that no one actually thought about going into detail as to what the eponymous creep is or how long he's been killing people on the underground . I'm led to believe it's the result of some human experiment and perhaps it's not until that night he decided to take his revenge out on humanity but all this is so vague as to be meaningless Not to be totally negative I doubt very much if the producers thought they'd be making a film that was going to sweep the Oscars that year and there's always a market for horror movies . Likewise I doubt if it cost too much produce and had one eye on the DVD market rather than cinema distribution and I will state that it's slightly better than 1972's DEATH LINE which also featured a murderous cannibal hiding in the London underground . it's just that when you think all the clichés have been used up in this film another cliché comes along to raise its ugly head | negative. |
......in a horror movie that is. Alright first off , lets start with Kate. Her main goals include getting laid by George Clooney, looking good and last but not least screwing everyone over. Gotta love her. She had about 3 amazingly good chances to finish off this sicko but ..... instead she ran. I mean she didn't wanna bring Guy out for 10 minutes and when she did it was too late. I mean the guy tried to rape her. I cant get into these movies where the main character is a sad idiot. I mean who honestly would have any sympathy for a guy who finishes off everyone she has meet in a night. The movie kept going on. And as a result lost all its credibility. | negative. |
Okay I must say that before the revealing of the 'monster'. saying that he really didn't fit into that category, just some weird thing that had an annoying screech! And personally I think a granny could have ran away from that thing, but anyway. I actually was getting into this film, although having the main character a drunk and a heroine addict didn't come as an appeal. But such scenes as when she runs away from the train, and you can see the figure at the door was kind of creepy, also where the guard had just been killed and the 'monster' put his hand on the screen.<br /><br />But then disaster stuck form the moment the monster was revealed it just became your average horror, with limited thrills or scares. Slowly I became more bored, and wanted to shut the thing off. I like most people have said was rooting for the homeless people to make it, specially the guy, he gave me a few cheap laughs here and there. I think this film could have really been something special instead it became what every other horror nowadays are! Just boring and well not worth the money.<br /><br />if you are looking for a cheap scare here and there, or a mindless gore fest (which is limited, hardly any in fact) by all means give it a go, but for all you serious horror watchers look somewhere else, much better films out there. | negative. |
Please, be warned: this movie, though a pretty bad storyline, was one of the most gruesome movies I have seen...EVER. Just remember that before you settle on your sofa to enjoy the movie.<br /><br />So, it officially begins with a party. Just your average party but there's some guy there. He's pretty into Kate...if you know what I'm saying. Memorise his face; it'll help later.<br /><br />So anyway Kate goes of to find George Clooney (didn't I say the plot was bad?) and so takes the tube. That's London underground at the middle of the night, but she's just stupid like that. So the timetable says the next, and last, train will come in 7 minutes. Now Kate, dumb party girl that she is, decides that she can have a nap in the spare 7 minutes. Typically, she misses the train and finds herself locked in the London Underground. Alone. Well, almost...<br /><br />So the movie just carries on from there. Blood, guts, limbs, even certain parts of the body I shall not mention are slashed and gashed and eventually amputated from the body.<br /><br />In short, it's a typical horror; pretty but thick damsel in distress-type women and sick, weird psycho. Or as the case may have it, Creep.<br /><br />I'd say give it a go if you're into Saw, Hostel or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre but for the rest of us, Scream with satisfy out horror needs thankyou very much. | negative. |
This film is a perfect example of the recent crop of horror films that simply are not fully realized. There are two routes to take in horror films: either you don't really explain what's going on (or who the killer is, like in Texas Chainsaw Massacre) or give the characters a lot of back story and characterization so that everything is explained (Halloween could potentially be an example of this).<br /><br />Unfortunately, Creep fails in this area. I see absolutely no reason to give a small shred of the back story for Craig without fully capturing the essence of his character or his motivation. No character is fully realized, although the circular nature of Kate's character in the film is the most accomplished part of the story.<br /><br />In the end, this story is mostly unmotivated and none of the performances give it the necessary life to make it enthralling or interesting enough to overcome the lack of context and empty film-making that drag down the film.<br /><br />This film will go down as another example of a film (as most are) that could be so much better even though it would never be great. The only thing that was used properly in the film was the setting: the characters, story, direction, and overall writing would have benefited from a serious face lift.<br /><br />Creep does serve a purpose as a mindless, silly horror movie with no intellectual or emotional investment, but sadly, that's about it... | negative. |
Basically what we have here is little more than a remake of the hilarious 1970's classic kitsch horror 'Death Line' which ironically was like this cobblers, also partly filmed at the disused Aldwych underground station.<br /><br />Making good use of the now disused Jubilee Line platforms at Charing Cross as well as the aforementioned Aldwych, this film contains basically the same plot - dodgy murdering mad zombie in the tunnels preying on the lost passengers who have missed the last train - originality is not this film's strong point.<br /><br />Indeed strong points are sadly lacking. The gore ranges from the poor to the unnecessarily over gory whilst the sub-Gollum nutter is never really fully explained as seems little more than an under developed plot device.<br /><br />Franke Polente has little to do with a thin script than run down a lot of tunnels and scream every so often, indeed she was like pretty much everyone else in this film, out-acted by a small dog and a pack of tame rats.<br /><br />If creepy films set on the London Underground are your bag, or you just want to play 'spot the tube location' them pick this up on DVD when it hits a bargain bin. If you are looking for classic horror, go and dig up a copy of Death Line (aka Raw Meat).<br /><br />If you are looking for a quality well written and acted film, you will need to change trains..... | negative. |
Creep - "Your journey terminates here." Some very graphic scenes and...well, yeah, that's about all for this film.<br /><br />No real plot, no storyline. No likable characters, well, 'characters' isn't correct considering you don't have a clue who anyone really is. I mean, they are being chased by some weird looking 'thing' in the sewers (who is this thing? why is he there?), that's quite scary I guess, but do I really care? No, I don't. Why don't I? Because I don't have a clue who these people are and I don't know if I should want them to live or die. It's one dimensional and relies upon gore and sound effects to scare you, which it rarely does.<br /><br />This film lacks any meaning, any purpose. It feels like I fell asleep and missed out the 45mins of build up. It jumps right into the action. Basically, some women and her friends get locked in the London Underground, get chased by a weird creature, then they eventually escape from it.<br /><br />Creep has its moments which make you jump, the art is good, the location is excellent and the sounds are OK, but that isn't what makes a decent horror film, so unfortunately all that goes to waste.<br /><br />It's nothing new. Another predictable modern 'horror', where Kate (the lead 'character') consistently does the stupid "hey, I know you lot sitting at home think I should do the sensible thing in this situation, but, oooh no! I'm going to do the total opposite because I'm a dumb blond" thing. I wish they wouldn't do that, it's done so many times, it's boring and gets predictable. In fact, I'm pretty annoyed the silly woman didn't get stabbed by the, erm, grey alien-looking creature.<br /><br />"Your journey terminates here" is the films tag line. Well, Creeps journey terminates only a short while into the film. If you've had a few beers, got a couple of mates back at yours,then sure, watch it by all means. But if you want something original and clever, avoid. | negative. |
I just rented Creep and was not at all impressed. I didn't feel anything in this film. I felt sick because the gore alone was shocking.<br /><br />I walked out of my living room several times in desperation that something would happen with this film. Haven't we seen this all before? I didn't like any of the characters barr the guy in the sewer cage. I felt bad for him. But then again I couldn't think as to why he was still alive and not murdered by the Creep? So many questions need to be answered.<br /><br />Someone mentioned references to the PS2 game Silent Hill and I can see similarities vaguely.<br /><br />Not a bad film, not a good one. judge for yourself. | negative. |
This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. Worse than the most abhorrent American dross; worse than Glitter - Mariah Carey in American dross par excellence. I can only imagine that the writer and producer were taking huge amounts of recreational pharmaceuticals, and when discussing the plot actually thought it was a good idea. it's not. It is abject rubbish from very bowels of Satan himself (who could probably have written a better script had he put his mind to it). Robert Jones as Exce Producer, spending our tax payers money (lottery money folks) on this piece of nonsense, should be accountable. Who on earth thought it would be a good idea to re-make Deathline??? I ask you - camp as a Christmas Tree, Deathline ... 'Mind the doors' is classic of really bad British film, we really don't need a reminder. And we certainly don't need a poor, second rate, badly scripted, badly developed and badly piece of rubbish like this. All this this from the UK funding agency that brought us Sex Lives of the Potato Men... I rest my case.<br /><br />Do Not Pay ANY money to see this. It is absolute and utter crap - the one saving grace for the producers is that they got a huge wedge of cash... our cash... for making it. They should hang their heads in shame.<br /><br />I am staggered at the low, low standard of this film. It makes me Mgr that our national body for the support of film actually thought it was worth supporting. There is no hope for the British film industry whilst idiots are running the show. Harvey Wienstein where are you? Come back, we forgive you!!! | negative. |
All logic goes straight out of the train window in this British horror film, set in the London underground and starring the usually reliable Franka Potente (Run Lola Run), Franka plays Kate, a businesswoman on the way from an office party to meet friends who falls asleep at an underground station, only to wake up and find she has been locked in and finds herself being chased by "someone" or "something" with killer intentions.<br /><br />Plot holes and unbelievability are rife and there are very few moments that are actually jumpy/ scary but plenty that are just plain dull.<br /><br />All in all an unpleasant film that should just stay locked underground forever and do us all a favour.<br /><br />The only plus point here is the inclusion in the cast of popular veteran actor Ken Campbell, who's done better than this that's even including "Erasmus Microman"!. | negative. |
I was really, really disappointed with this movie. it started really well, and built up some great atmosphere and suspense, but when it finally got round to revealing the "monster"...it turned out to be just some psycho with skin problems......again. Whoop-de-do. Yet another nutjob movie...like we don't already have enough of them.<br /><br />To be fair, the "creep" is genuinely unsettling to look at, and the way he moves and the strange sounds he makes are pretty creepy, but I'm sick of renting film like this only to discover that the monster is human, albeit a twisted, demented, freakish one. When I saw all the tell-tale rats early on I was hoping for some kind of freaky rat-monster hybrid thing...it was such a let down when the Creep was revealed.<br /><br />On top of this, some of the stuff in this movie makes no sense. (Spoiler) <br /><br />Why the hell does the Creep kill the security Guard? Whats the point, apart from sticking a great honking sign up that says "HI I'm A PSYCHO AND I LIVE DOWN HERE!"? Its stupid, and only seems to happen to prevent Franka Potente's character from getting help.<br /><br />what the hells he been eating down there? I got the impression he was effectively walled in, and only the unexpected opening into that tunnel section let him loose...so has he been munching rats all that time, and if so why do they hang around him so much? Why is he so damn hard to kill? He's thin, malnourished and not exactly at peak performance...but seems to keep going despite injuries that are equivalent to those that .cripple the non-psycho characters in the film.<br /><br />The DVD commentary says we are intended to empathise with Creep, but I just find him loathsome. Its an effective enough movie, but it wasted so many opportunities that it makes me sick. | negative. |
I was sadly disappointed by this film due to the fact that it felt false and the characters were not strong enough to carry the films pretty weak attempt at horror. The basic idea for the film was interesting but unfortunately it wasn't able to excite, really scare or shock me - there was one part in the entire film that I thought was gruesome but even that didn't redeem it. I did get to like the character of Kate by the end of the film as she seemed to soften and become a little more realistic by the end, the character played by Jeremy Sheffield was not actually needed for this film and I think the director/writer got carried away with the myriad of characters used for no purpose, if he had left it at the basic characters making it more of a solo effort on Kate's part, it may have worked - Jeremy's acting was wooden to say the least and I felt uncomfortable watching the bad on screen chemistry - or lack of it. Such a shame. Disappointing. | negative. |
Honestly, I went to see the movie, not because of the actors, not because of the plot but because it was rated 17 here in Luxembourg and a movie has to be really brutal or pornographic to be put in this category. Believe me, being a movie-freak, I have seen quite a lot of brutal films in my lifetime (Ichi the killer, Irreversible, Hellraiser) but this movie was by far the most disturbing and brutal picture I have ever seen. <br /><br />The plot is plain stupid, the directing is awful, acting was mediocre even the music was a cheap copy of so-called "Horror Soundtracks". There isn't a single intelligent aspect in the whole movie, and some of the scenes are really hard to stand. (especially the scene, where you see the embryos in the glasses and hear the baby cries--horrible). I can't understand why the movie was rated 16 in Germany, where normally the criteria are real tough (e.g. kill-bill (brutal but it made fun of itself and had great allusions to Asian cinema and besides a magnificent directing) even a movie like state of grace is rated 18). No one can call this a Horror movie, because actually it was more about showing gore than about scaring the public (Showing the "Creep's" face in the middle of the movie was a very bad decision); for me (excuse my expression) it is just one insane director living out his disturbing fantasies. In some scenes you see violence, that has absolutely nothing to do with the plot nor does it explain anything. The plot has holes and flaws, the dialog is boring, honestly I can't mention a single positive aspect of the movie except for the British and Scottish accent.<br /><br />If I had something to say, I would ban this movie from the theaters, I fully understand why none of the big production companies invested their money in this crap.<br /><br />I'm looking forward to getting feedbacks to my thread and I'd be happy to discuss about one or the other topic.<br /><br />"Livin' the dream baby, livin' the dream" David Aames | negative. |
I am compelled to write a review of this IMAX feature as a means of warning others to SAVE YOUR MONEY. Almost any episode of Desmond Morris' "The Human Animal" or David Suzuki's "The Nature of Things" could have bested the material presented. Not only does the director fail to make use of IMAX's incredible 65 to 70 mm film stock and gigantic presentation screen, everything on screen is extremely unimpressive given the accessibility of such programming mentioned previously. Viewers are introduced to a pregnant Heather, her husband Buster, and their niece and nephew. We follow them for an interminable forty-odd minutes as they eat, sweat, listen to music, etc. Although we are given access to scenes inside the human digestive track and learn about babies' natural diving reflexes, do we really learn anything more than most grade-school graduates? Are we even remotely entertained by the trans-Atlantic Heather? Do we care? Avoid this film at all cost. If you do wish to see an IMAX feature, I suggest the beautifully photographed "India: Kingdom of the Tiger" or the technically thrilling "Space Station 3D". Trust me. | negative. |
This film differentiates itself from the run-of-the-mill "wonder of the human body" documentaries by bravely, if bizarrely, opting to elicit disgust in the viewer. In one scene, the camera closes in on a gigantic 50-foot zit as a teenager squeezes pus and fluid out of it. In another, the camera is semisubmerged in a swamp of half digested food and stomach acid as parts of a pasta salad drop in from the esophagus and plop into the goo. In a final tour de force, the camera takes the viewer on a harrowing ride through a forest of...teenage armpit hair. Unfortunately, I'm not making any of this up. See this film if you must, but: bring your vomit bag, and don't have pasta salad beforehand. | negative. |
After what I thought was a masterful performance of two roles in Man From Snowy River, WHY was Kirk Douglas replaced by Brian Dennehy in the sequel? It just wasn't the same without Spur and Harrison, as portrayed by Douglas. Maybe he recognized how poor the plot was--Jim returns after extended absence, to find Jessica being pursued by another man. He could not expect any girl to wait that long with no contact from him, and not find competition. For a Disney movie, this contains foul language, plus the highly unnecessary part when Jim & Jessica shacked up without being married--very LAME. Quite an insult to viewer intelligence, according to members of my family. I'll stick with the first one, and try to forget I ever saw the sequel! | negative. |
The original movie, Man From Snowy River, is one of the best I've seen, nearly perfect. A Lady and the Tramp storyline in two senses--rich girl/poor boy, and ability vs. bloodline. The sequel, however, is not only a shameless attempt to capitalize on the good name of the original but also a ridiculous, overblown Disneyfied mess best summarized as "Rambo Meets the Black Stallion." Without the charm of The Black Stallion. The young hero comes back from a 3-year absence, and suddenly he's Superman on horseback; in the original, good film, he was real and believable, but sadly reduced to a caricature in the sequel. I've hardly been as disappointed in a movie, and at times this thing made me quite angry--they missed hardly a cliché. Brazen audience manipulation--do studio heads think that all you have to do with a horse-loving audience is put pretty horses in front of them, to make them happy? A mess of a movie. | negative. |
This film, like the first one ("The Man From Snowy River") has the same good and bad features, perhaps even more so than the original. Unfortunately, the bad outweighs the good. <br /><br />The GOOD - Magnificent scenery, better than the first film. I love those high country shots in Australia. Tom Burlinson is still a likable guy, as "Jim Craig." Bruce Rowland did a nice job with the music, too.<br /><br />The BAD - Once again we get an extremely obnoxious feminist heroine "Jessica" (Sigrid Thornton) who is a world-class pouter with an extremely annoying face and manner about her. In this film, we also get a big downgrade in who pays the father. Previously it was Kirk Douglas, now replaced by the always -profane Brian Dennehy. Speaking of that, it is a disgrace that a Walt Disney film would includes usages of the Lord's name in vain. That was one reason was almost totally down the tubes in the 1980s. This film, like the first one | negative. |
I bought this adaptation because I really liked Anne Brontë's novel when I read it some time ago and usually particularly enjoy BBC dramas. But I'm very disappointed, I never thought it would be as bad as that: the whole series made me laugh much more than moved me as the novel had.<br /><br />First of all, the music (and songs) seems totally out of place in a period drama (sounds as if it's been written for a contemporary horror film)and like another commentator, I was particularly annoyed by the way the cameras spun and spun round the actors. I've seen some scenes filmed that way in "North and South" and it seemed all right there but in The Tenant, it's definitely overdone and simply annoying. Camera movements cannot make wooden acting lively.<br /><br />Most of the second roles were difficult to distinguish at first and the script lacked clarity. None of the characters were properly introduced at first. The little boy gave a very good performance, he's very cute and the best feature of the film.<br /><br />SPOILERS Tara Fitzgerald's characterisation of Helen Graham made her appear cold and harsh, letting no emotion pass through. She doesn't seem to be able to cry at all in a realistic way. I just couldn't believe Markham could have fell for her and I'm not mentioning the awful hairdo she was given. I could not help feeling some sympathy with her husband! Fancy being married to such a virago... Besides, he was the only main actor that sounded right to me. Toby Stephens I found just OK, Helen Graham's brother not very good. <br /><br />Maybe it's difficult to adapt a novel that deals with such bleak subjects as alcoholism and cruelty. Besides, what is only hinted at and left to the reader's imagination in the book is dwelt upon with complaisance in the TV adaptation: making some scenes both gross and comic, (like when Huntingdon's eye starts bleeding) and others far too sexed up for a period drama! I mean, don't we get enough of those bed scenes in contemporary dramas? | negative. |
Brilliant book with wonderful characterizations and insights into human nature, particularly the nature of addiction, which still resonate strongly today.<br /><br />As for the movie... eh. Nothing special. The cameraman clearly had an unfortunate addiction to circling and circling and CIRCLING around everything, making the viewer quite nauseous. Why the director didn't put a stop to this is beyond me--but maybe he was too busy trying, and somehow failing, to draw good performances from these normally excellent but inappropriately-cast actors. All in all, a weak adaptation. Your three hours would be better spent reading (or re-reading) the book. | negative. |
Before I go on I have to admit to being a huge Bon Jovi fan. In fact thats what attracted me to the DVD case in the first place. I probably would have bought it anyway being such a big horror fan and having enjoyed the first Vampires title so much.<br /><br />But this isn't half as good. Not even Jon could save this film for me. My main problem would be that it simply isn't scary. Apart from Jon's character Derek Bliss none of the other characters make an impression and you couldn't care less whether they die or not, especially the annoying vampire / drug addict woman. The female vampire simply isn't scary or sexy. Rather she looks like an anorexic 14 year girl, no wonder she is so desperate for blood then. Another huge problem is that everything is just "too bright". There is no atmosphere or sense of dread. I know the first Vampires being set in New Mexico wasn't exactly the twilight zone in terms of creepiness but yet it still managed to be dark and foreboding when it needed to be. This film has no tension like that.<br /><br />The story is basically the same as before. Vampire wants Berzier's cross to be able to walk in daylight. However the story has less cool bits this time. There is no wow factor in knowing this is the master of all master - the original vampire, as in the first film. You really don't care who or what this one is. There is no army of masters. Instead she hides out in some old ruin which looks more like a Disneyland attraction then a creepy temple.<br /><br />So there you have it really. Lack of scares, lack of atmosphere, lack of interesting story. A real let down for me personally. | negative. |
Really bad movie, the story is too simple and predictable and poor acting as a complement.<br /><br />This vampire's hunter story is the worst that i have seen so far, Derek Bliss (Jon Bon Jovi), travels to Mexico in search for some blood suckers!, he use some interesting weapons (but nothing compared to Blade), and is part of some Van Helsig vampire's hunters net?, OK, but he work alone. He's assigned to the pursuit of a powerful vampire queen that is searching some black crucifix to perform a ritual which will enable her to be invulnerable to sunlight (is almost a sequel of Vampires (1998) directed by John Carpenter and starred by James Woods), Derek start his quest in the search of the queen with some new friends: Sancho (Diego Luna, really bad acting also) a teenager without experience, Father Rodrigo (Cristian De la Fuente) a catholic priest, Zoey (Natasha Wagner) a particular vampire and Ray Collins (Darius McCrary) another expert vampire hunter. So obviously in this adventure he isn't alone.<br /><br />You can start feeling how this movie would be just looking at his lead actor (Jon Bon Jovi); is a huge difference in the acting quality compared to James Woods, and then, if you watch the film (i don't recommend this part), you will get involved in one of the more simplest stories, totally predictable, with terrible acting performances, really bad special effects and incoherent events!.<br /><br />I deeply recommend not to see this film!, rent another movie, see another channel, go out with your friends, etc.<br /><br />3/10 | negative. |
Listening to the director's commentary confirmed what I had suspected whilst watching the film: this is a movie made by a guy who wants to play at making a movie. The plot is the kind of thing that deluded teenagers churn out when they're going through that "I could write a book/screenplay/award winning sitcom" phase. There's a germ of an interesting idea buried in there (probably because its a sequel to some-one else's movie), but it is totally buried under an underwritten, badly executed and laughably un-thought-out script.<br /><br />The lines are dire, and the performances are un-engaging, though again, I'm inclined to blame the director. He does not appear to have consulted the actors at all about what is required, rather plonked the script in their hands, pointed the camera at them and told them to get on with it. Who knows, with a little coaching, these actors could have acquitted themselves better (say what you like about musicians in movies, Jon Bon Jovi was excellent in Row Your Boat and more than acceptable in The Leading Man).<br /><br />As it stands, the cast have no chemistry whatsoever. A beautiful opportunity to use the classic sex and vampirism parallel is passed up when, in order to infect Bon Jovi's character with vampire blood from his ailing co-hunter, he is given a transfusion. She should have bitten him. Mind you, they should have looked vaguely interested in each other throughout the rest of the film too. The only real moment of sexual tension, between the two female leads, is by the directors own admittance accidental. He had originally intended to use this silent sequence as an excuse for more pointless plot exposition - so, I suppose the finished product could have conceivably been worse. But not a lot.<br /><br />Frankly, as movies go, this is badly plotted, silly and forgettable. Even as trashy movies go it's not sexy enough or gory enough to be entertaining. It could have been a fun and bloody little romp, but the director has left with more of a comedy, for all the wrong reasons. | negative. |
This is not a good film. The acting is remarkably stiff and unconvincing.The film doesn't seem to know whether it is going for a real horror approach or to go down the camp and kitsch route. I never saw the first film but this one doesn't stand up on its own merits, there are several unconvincing plot twists and the viewer is never made aware of the importance of the lead female vampire. Not worth the effort of watching | negative. |
First of all, Jon Bon Jovi doesn't seem to be in place in a vampire movie. Together with the other not so interesting characters and the poor storyline the whole movie becomes predictable. If you keep that in mind and you're a total vampire movie fan, you can have some fun with a few of the scenes. Don't expect any Tarantino-style chapters here and neither an Anne Rice storyline. (I expect to have have forgotten the whole movie by tomorrow ;) | negative. |
Hi folks<br /><br />Forget about that movie. John C. should be ashamed that he appears as executive producer in the credits. bon jovi has never been and will never be an actor and the FX are a joke.<br /><br />The first vampires was good ... and it was the only vampires. This thing here just wears the same name.<br /><br />Just a waste of time thinks ...<br /><br />JAKE Scorpio | negative. |
This movie isn't very good. It's boring, and not much blood for a horror film. The plot just trods along with not much happening. And I think the female vampire was so stupid. She had many chances to kill the vampire hunters since it shows her having lighting like reflexes. But, whenever she has one of them pinned, she just takes her time and something always happens where she doesn't bite them. No wonder this went straight to cable.<br /><br />FINAL VERDICT: Not anywhere near as good as the first Vampire movie. You're a SUCKER if you waste your time on this. | negative. |
This movie was messed up. A sequel to "John Carpenter's Vampires", this didn't add up right. I'm not sure that I enjoyed this much. It was a little strange. Stick to the first "Vampires", it's a good movie. "Vampires: Los Muetos" wasn't a good attempt of a sequel.<br /><br />4/10 | negative. |
The last reviewer was very generous. I quiet like the first movie, but can't say I enjoy this one very much. The beginning is bearable, but it goes downhill pretty quickly. I just don't see Jon Bon Jovi as a "bad-ass vampire hunter" and the vampire princess is neither sexy nor scary. A lot of the scenes just do not make sense. I mean any normal person would suspect something is up when a strange woman suddenly appearing out of nowhere to seduce you, let alone an experienced hunter. Why Una is able to communicate with Jovi? Nothing was ever explain in this movie, you wouldn't mind if it was entertaining, but that was too much to ask. This has to be one of worst vampire movie I have seen. | negative. |
Ugh, what can I say other than, ugh. I rented this film because it was labeled as a sequel to the original Vampires. This movie could not have been any lamer. Lacking not only in plot, but the acting is atrocious. Combined with some obvious plot holes makes this movie a very hard one to watch. Many times I questioned my own sanity at continuing to watch the film long after the plot had jumped the shark. Here's a sampling of the lamer aspects...<br /><br />***SPOILERS***<br /><br />Professional "Slayer" insists on sleeping outdoors by himself at night. He wakes up to a woman crying, sitting no more than 3 feet from him in the middle of nowhere. He immediately goes to comfort her without questioning her sudden appearance. She goes from crying to seducing him, and he lets it happen with obvious results...<br /><br />One of the main characters is Zoe, was bitten by a Vampire, but as long as she takes these "experimental pills" she got in Mexico City, she's fine, although her body temperature is below room temperature...<br /><br />Guard outside of monastery where hero is staying the night is killed by vampires, hero leaves the next day. He then returns a day later only to be surprised that the vampires attacked the monastery the night after he left...<br /><br />...avoid this movie. | negative. |
I only rented this because i loved the first movie. However, calling it John Carpenters Vampires: Los Muertos is just a con trick to get you to rent it. He is in fact executive producer and clearly had nothing to do with the making of this film (Jeepers Creepers Anyone?)<br /><br />A tragic storyline, terrible special effects and Jon Bon Jovi as the least convincing Vampire Hunter of all time. It's not even comically bad.<br /><br />What we end up with is a dull, uninvolving film with a terrible script and indefinsibly bad and clichéd acting. It just reeks of low budget.<br /><br />Avoid like the Bubonic plague. | negative. |
John Carpenter's career is over if this sad excuse for a movie is any indication. His excuse is that he only produced it. Jon Bon Jovi looks like a girl. In fact, Bon Jovi and the two Vampire girls, Natasha Wagner and Arly Jover probably all fit in the same clothes. In short, it was hard to tell which one was cuter in an anorexic ramp-model sort of way. Bon Jovi has the most charisma. At least he looks happy when he is smiling. The two Vampire Girls on the other hand are all cramps and complaints. At one point they are about to give each other a wet kiss, but stop. Amazing how each Vampire movie has some set of morays for the respective vampires. At one point, Arly Jover is providing fellatio to a very dumb Vampire Hunter and then she sucks his blood while doing the sex act. It would have been an erotic moment except that it was filmed like a total goof, and the male actor looked mildly amused as he watched Arly Jover move her head to mimic something that was very obviously not happening. As far as gore is concerned, a few heads are ripped off, and the blood spurts profusely. These scenes have so little suspense or build-up that when they happen it is almost funny, and there is no "horror" pay-off from the scene. All you get as a member of the audience is a feeling of "Wow, that sure was a lot of red paint splattering on the walls. I wonder who has to clean it up." Throughout the movie, these Vampire Hunters who are obviously trying to kill Arly Jover (the top vampire in the world??) keep reaching out to her. At one point, Bon Jovi goes into the abandoned Church and after he just shot her with an arrow (and has done so on other occasions), he says "I am not trying to hurt you. I just want to talk to you. I want to get to know you." HUH?? Of course, the dumb vampire Arly jumps out to say hello and Bon Jovi sticks her again with another impaling device. "Why Can't We Be Friends" the 1970s hit song by WAR should have been the theme song for this movie. Aside from all of the other silly moments, there is a transfusion sequence when Natasha Wagner has all her Vampire blood removed, and the town people all line up to donate blood for her transfusion. I guess Blood Type is not important? Anyhow, all her Vampire blood is removed. Bon Jovi then decides that if that blood is transfused into him, he can beat Arly by becoming a vampire also. Of course, as the vampire blood is transfused into him, none of his healthy blood is removed. So apparently Bon Jovi is walking around with twice as much blood as any human can have in his body. And just like the first VAMPIRES, this one also has the vampires-bursting-into-flames special effect. | negative. |
Thanks for killing the franchise with this turkey, John Carpenter and Tommy Lee Wallace. This movie sucks on so many levels it's pathetic. The first VAMPIRES was fun, but this low budget retread makes me yawn.<br /><br />Jon Bon Jovi (the poor man's Kevin Bacon) drives around Mexico with a surfboard housing a hidden compartment holding his vampire killing gear ala Antonio Banderas's guitar case in DESPERADO. He picks up some lame "hunters" along the way (including an annoyingly feminist infected girl who takes pills to keep from turning into a vampire), and they set out to stop some female master vampire who is given no backstory and so we could care less about her or her quest (to walk in the sunlight by stealing the Black Cross and performing a ritual to allow her to do so). If you've seen the first VAMPIRES, you've already seen this, and done much better.<br /><br />John Carpenter has been responsible for a lot of bad movies lately. Frankly, I think he's past his prime and incapable of making another horror classic. The only decent film he's done since THEY LIVE (1987) is VAMPIRES. Everything else is complete crap, right up until the unbelievably cheap looking and retarded GHOSTS OF MARS... and now this waste of celluloid. Where are more greats like ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13, HALLOWEEN (1), ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK and THE THING?<br /><br />Carpenter crony Wallace proves he can't write his way out of a paper bag with his paper-thin script packed with yawns, groans and recycled gags from the original. Did I mention I hated every character in the movie? There was not a single memorable character in the whole film. How does that happen? This film has nothing to recommend it. Not even the DVD presentation is good; the menu looks awful.<br /><br />By comparison, JASON X: "FRIDAY THE 13th IN SPACE" was a masterpiece. Now that is how you make a sequel and (re)energize a franchise, ladies and germs, as well as create an exciting DVD menu. | negative. |
This "Debuted" today on the SciFi channel and all I can say is "I am speechless" I taped it today so I could watch it tonight after work. I had high hopes, Now I am tearing apart the closets looking for a length of rope so I can hang myself. Possibly the worst movie I have ever seen. I wish I could say something nice like "It was fun to make fun of this movie" but this movie is giving me nothing to work with. I know you are not supposed to post spoilers here with out prior warning but I am going to anyway "This movie sucks" There I said it! They should show this flick to film students to show them what NOT to do! My nine year old niece could make a better film. The only decent thing about this film is the sound and/or sound track. OH! I just found a rusty C-clamp in my old tool box. I am going to put it on the thumb of my left hand and tighten it until the pain erases the memory of what my eyes have seen. I could just tape over this VHS but I think I will burn it in the fire pit instead. I could wash with soap but I fear I will never be clean again. Christmas is coming. Buy this movie and give it to people you hate. -Mike | negative. |
This movie is one of the most awful movies ever made.How can Jon Bon Jovi play in a movie? He is a singer not an actor, What?Is he killing vampires with his guitar? And what about the dreadful plot? O my God this movie really sucks. In the end is the Queen of vampires played by the eternal vampire Arly Jover (Blade) surrounded by an army of vampires, but when the "fantastic" slayers arrive only 4 vampires are left!! What happened with the other 10-15 vampires? They run out in the sun??? And what about the "Grand Finally" when Bon Jovi blows her head with a shotgun??? That's really a "NOT" . In "Buffy the vampire Slayer" in 100 episodes not a single vampire is killed with A SHOTGUN??? This really is a lack of originality! | negative. |
This movie was very very mediocre and very very gory. everyone left their acting lessons at home and totally forgot how to act I mean it was so bad and had no real plot and kindergarteners could have written a better story plot wait what story plot. not at all scary! | negative. |
The same difficulty I have with the musical version of "Les Miserables" applies equally to "Oliver." Instead of the composers' writing in the stylistic period of the play settings, they merely wrote Broadway-type melodies, which were historically unidiomatic and stylistically skewed.<br /><br />Too, the blatant brutality and unsavory activities of the dramaturgy do not mix well with some of the sunny ditties which permeate the score. It's a uncomfortable mixture that leaves a decidedly sour undertaste.<br /><br />The casting of the boy Oliver doesn't help matters: tentative of timbre and vexingly precious, there's something less than solid here. Fagin performs his traditional routine adequately, though the tunes he's obliged to sing have little basis in period manner.<br /><br />"As Long As He Needs Me" is given a strident rendition, throaty and strained. The two big production numbers, "Who Will Buy" and "Consider Yourself" seem over-produced, with everything but the kitchen sink thrown in. It's one thing to go all out, yet another to cross over the line into excess. <br /><br />The gloom, despair and depravity of much of the novel does not seem to lend itself to such ditties and choreography. While the novel is considered a classic, I must confess I have trouble with Mr. Dickens' consciousness, in that his works tend to emit a negative vibration. This may be due to the extension of his joyless personal life, which was full of disappointment and regret. <br /><br />Not all the combined talent of this production, either on- or behind camera, can overcome the unconstructive nature of the basic material. All this results in an uncomfortably downer experience for me.<br /><br /> | negative. |
The producers made a big mistake casting Mark Lester, who couldn't act or sing, in the title role. Aside from his very bad "acting", all of Lester's singing had to be dubbed by a girl. I don't know why they cast him at all, since there would have been so many boys who could have played the part infinitely better and done their own singing as well. Shani Wallis was far too old to play Nancy, who was only supposed to be 16. The current West End version is so much better than the movie in every way. Ross McCormack is the best Artful Dodger of all time and he is certainly far better looking than Jack Wild ever was. It was clearly political to award this old-fashioned musical so many Oscars after the tumultuous events of 1968. | negative. |
Must every good story be "improved" with added corny Broadway music? Apparently those who can't come up with their own plots think that classic literature is just there for the plundering. I confess that Oliver Twist and similar stories are not my favorites, as it is certainly true that Dickens often wrote things that leave you considerably bummed out, and this was a great example of just that... So of course, take this serious tale and add nauseating music and camp it up with every character from prancing orphan boys to mincing bobbies and suddenly it's uplifting? Argh. Fetch me a basin.<br /><br />The four stars in my rating come from casting, which I could liken to that of My Fair Lady. Each of these films had a cast that a play version could be proud of, but then they must go and have them sing (see complaint above). Unlike My Fair Lady, those singing here could actually do so and they mercifully spared us the singing voice of Oliver Reed (pardon if I'm mistaken, it's been a while).<br /><br />My biggest complaint I've stated. Why embarrass everyone except the truly shameless by putting silly songs into a perfectly good story? Seldom has this been done to good effect. Generally it ruins the story. It did with this one. Jury's still out on whether this story is worth saving, but with all that gadding about, it's impossible to tell. | negative. |
I like musicals but as a Dickens fan I HATE this one. **MILD SPOILERS** Starving boys who have enough energy to sing and dance in the workhouse? The poor of London coming out to sing? Fagin and Dodger walking off into the sunset? Not exactly faithful to the novel. As I recall, Dodger was publicly hanged and Fagin went crazy in prison. **END OF SPOILERS**<br /><br />Oliver Reed is very weak as Sykes, doing little more than growling to indicate his evil. Worst however, is Mark Lester as Oliver, who often comes across so awkward and passive you wonder if he's really the main character. His portrayal is in no way helped by the fact that the best they could do when he sings is dub in the voice of a girl. Guess they didn't realize that boy trebles can be found in almost every church in England.<br /><br />Self-respecting Dickens fans: stick to David Lean's amazing 1948 film or the BBC 6-hour adaptation from the mid-80's. Avoid this bloated whitewash of a musical. | negative. |
Well, I saw this movie yesterday and it's - unfortunately - worse than you could think. First of all the plot is idiotic, it has no sense at all. The screenplay is full of intentionally funny dialogues. The audience was laughing many times. And the suspense is very low. Actors play so-so, with an exception of Sharon Stone, who has some good moments but also some awfully bad acting moments. The saddest parts are when she tries to be aggressively sexy and says things like "I want to *beep* you " and it looks like, let's say it gently, a very very mature woman acting rude and not sexy at all. That erotic tension from BI1 is totally gone. From the technical point of Basic Instinct 2 is a mediocre movie - better than typical straight to DVD, but on a far lower lever than the original movie. For instance the scene of crazy joyride is done poorly. The director of Basic Instinct 2 is no Paul Verhoeven and it shows. The new composer is no Jerry Goldsmith and its shows. The script is done by people who are no match for Joe Eszterhas. There's no substitute for Michael Douglas in it. The film looks cheap and badly edited at times. I'm sorry but my first thought after I left the theater was: "Why heaven't they made this movie earlier and with original talents behind the success of the first movie?" All to all the original movie is like Citizen Kane compared to this. The first Basic Instinct is a classic and was a kind of break-thru in the popular cinema. It was provoking, sexy and controversial. It had the best Sharon Stone's performance in her career. It had this specific Paul Verhoeven's style. Unfortunately Basic Instinct 2 is a unintentionally funny movie, badly directed and a sure Razzie Award Winner in many categories. It's a pity that they made this film. | negative. |
It's not like I have overwhelmingly fond memories of Verhoeven's original pants-down shocker - it always struck me as a glossy, well-made airport-novel-of-a-movie. Thrilling, sexy trash, but trash nonetheless. It was also a film that tapped into a certain sexual zeitgeist. After a decade of anti-sex AIDS-induced hysteria, a film about a wildly-sexual hotbod who thrill-kills to heighten her sexual pleasure was pretty enticing stuff. Basic Instinct 2 was always going to struggle to provide the same social relevance and immediacy, so the fact that it's desperate attempts at raunchiness are so lame can sort-of be overlooked. All it really had to provide was that thin veneer of titillation and a mildly engaging story and all would have been watchable. That it resoundingly fails on so many levels, and in such a way to be a career nadir for everyone involved, is really quite extraordinary to watch. Let's state the obvious for starters - Sharon Stone is too old for the part of sexual magnet Catherine Trammell. What was so photogenic thru Verhoeven's lens looks like mutton dressed as lamb in the hands of gun-for-hire Michael Caton-Jones, who's flat, drab colours and static camera render her undeniable beauty totally moot. I like Sharon Stone a lot, but if the first film launched her career, BI2 could kill it. She has no chemistry with stuffed-shirt David Morrissey - their only sex scene is embarrassing too watch. His dough-faced mamma's boy of a character made me yearn for the swaggering, orange-skin machismo of Michael Douglas. Supporting turns by David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling waste these fine actors on talky exposition scenes and cliché-heavy posturing. And what of the much-touted sexual shenanigans? Poorly-lit, fleetingly-glimpsed, as utterly mainstream as an episode of Desperate Housewives - the European sensibilities that Verhoeven brought to the sexual content of the first film are sorely missed. Don't watch this film for carnal thrills - there are none and what there is is tragic. The film is, as a whole, convoluted to the point of utter confusion, boring and laughable. The last 40 minutes in particular, where you come to the realisation that the film is, in fact, not going to go anywhere of interest at all, are particularly gruelling and hilarious in equal measure. As a failed sequel, Basic Instinct 2 will come to occupy similar cinematic ground as Exorcist 2 The Heretic, Beyond The Poseidon Adventure and XXX2. As a vanity project, it rivals Battlefield Earth in its misconception. As a multi-million dollar piece of Hollywood film-making, it's a travesty that will be hard to top as the years worst. | negative. |
I saw this film at the London Premiere, and I have to say - I didn't expect much, but I did expect something that was at least mildly entertaining.<br /><br />The original "Basic Instinct" was no great film and is still something of a "smut classic" but it was entertaining. I can recall countless times flipping through channels on TV on a late Friday or Saturday night having come across the movie and finding myself beginning to actually pay attention to it.<br /><br />However, this lame-brain, waaay-belated sequel has nothing. Is Sharon Stone still gorgeous? Well, let's put it this way -- for a 47-year-old, she's pretty hot. Is she as beautiful as she was in the original? No. She also has clearly had plastic surgery on her face, and her haircut in this movie is somewhat unappealing. She doesn't look as soft or genuine or innocent as she did in the original -- which is sort of the whole point of being an evil seductress, and whatnot.<br /><br />The rest of the performances range from bad to terrible -- and Michael Caton-Jones (a typically safe director -- one who doesn't always do great work but manages to make worthwhile movies) has officially delivered his first true turkey; a movie so bad people were laughing at certain moments that were intended to be serious.<br /><br />I hear the film went through multiple editing sessions, and it's very clear from the start. Nothing makes much sense. The whole plot is a cosmic mess and the ending -- oh my! Talk about stupid AND unbelievable. (Still predictable, though.) I saw "Gigli," I saw "Son of the Mask" -- and although I'm not looking to "smear" this film, I can say with my own authority (which you don't have to agree with at all, mind you) that I prefer both those films over this catastrophic failure.<br /><br />By the way, Stone left five minutes before the movie began and people in the theater began throwing things at the screen during a particularly outrageous and insulting scene inside an orgy-type nightclub.<br /><br />"Basic Instinct 2" -- basically, it stinks, too. | negative. |
It's been about 14 years since Sharon Stone awarded viewers a leg-crossing that twisted many people's minds. And now, God knows why, she's in the game again. "Basic Instinct 2" is the sequel to the smash-hit erotica "Basic Instinct" featuring a sexy Stone and a vulnerable Michael Douglas. However, fans of the original might not even get close to this one, since "Instinct 2" is painful film-making, as the mediocre director Michael Caton-Jones assassinates the legacy of the first film.<br /><br />The plot of the movie starts when a car explosion breaks in right at the beginning. Catherine Tramell (Sharon Stone, trying to look forcefully sexy) is a suspect and appears to be involved in the murder. A psychiatrist (a horrible David Morrisey) is appointed to examine her, but eventually falls for an intimate game of seduction.<br /><br />And there it is, without no further explanations, the basic force that moves this "Instinct". Nothing much is explained and we have to sit through a sleazy, C-class erotic film. Sharon Stone stars in her first role where she is most of the time a turn-off. Part of it because of the amateurish writing, the careless direction, and terrifyingly low chemistry. The movie is full of vulgar dialogues and even more sexuality (a menage a trois scene was cut off so that this wouldn't be rated NC-17) than the first entrance in the series. "Instinct" is a compelling torture.<br /><br />To top it off, everything that made the original film a guilty pleasure is not found anywhere in the film. The acting here is really bad. Sharon Stone has some highlights, but here, she gets extremely obnoxious. David Morrisey stars in the worst role of his life, and seems to never make more than two expressions in the movie- confused and aroused. "Instinct 2" is a horrible way to continue an otherwise original series, that managed to put in thriller with erotica extremely well. Paul Verhoeven, how I miss you....<br /><br />"Basic Instinct 2" never sounded like a good movie, and, indeed, it isn't. Some films should never get out of paper, and that is the feeling you get after watching this. Now, it is much easier to understand why Douglas and David Cronenberg dropped out, and why Sharon Stone was expecting a huge paycheck for this......-----3/10 | negative. |
It's hard to believe, after waiting 14 years, we wind up with this piece of cinematic garbage. The original was a high impact, dark thriller that achieved "cult" status demonstrating the fine art of cinema as directed by Paul Verhoeven. This film adds nothing, delivers nothing, and ultimately winds up in the big box of failed sequels.<br /><br />The opening sequence could have triggered an intriguing set of plot developments using a considerably talented and able cast. Unfortunately we are treated to a 90 minute dissertation in the self-indulgent life of Catherine Tramell... or is it Sharon Stone. Possibly a copulation of both.<br /><br />If the desire is too see a continuation of the sensually provocative stying of sex as in "B.S.1", forget it. You wind up with soft-porn boredom which ultimately upholds the old adage that a woman can be more alluring in clothes than out of them. It's interesting to note that the wonderful Charlotte Rampling was romping around in her skivvies, via the 1966 GEORGY GIRL, when Ms. Stone was only 8 years old. A very talented actress and quite adept at holding her own even here.<br /><br />If you're a true cinema fan then you must see this film and judge it using your own rating system. If not, you might as well wait for the DVD release in the "rated" version, "unrated" version, "collectors" edition, or "ultimate" version, and perhaps in another 14 years we will be saturated with news of "Basic Instinct 3" at which point Ms. Stone will be 62 years old and nobody will really care. | negative. |
In my book "Basic Instinct" was a perfect film. It had outstanding acting on the parts of Stone, Douglas and all the supporting actors to the tiniest role. It had marvelous photography, music and the noirest noir script ever. All of it adding up to a film that is as good as it will ever get!<br /><br />This sequel is the exact opposite, it cannot possibly get worse, bad acting and a lame script, combined with totally inept direction, this is really bad, boring, annoying. The only thing that somewhat keeps you concentrated is the relatively short wait for the next scene that is an exact re-enacted copy of the original. These copies are so bad they make you laugh and I laughed a lot in spite of myself, because it was like watching the demolishing of a shining monument. The only thing that is good in this horrible mess are the excerpts of the Jerry Goldsmith score of BI1. Michael Caton-Jones and the half-wit responsible for the script even included the "There is no smoking in this room" dialog in the interrogation scene and yes she sends her attorney (who is now a solicitor) away! <br /><br />I am sorry I have seen this awful film that should have never been made! It does damage to the original, so bad is it. The only redeeming value is the realization that cosmetic surgery (and I am sure Ms Stone afforded the best surgeon money can buy) can do a good job but can obviously not restore the perfection of the original. And what concerns the human body applies to film-making, too. There should be a law: Don't ever make a sequel to a perfect film! | negative. |
The film is pretty confusing and ludicrous. The plot is awful...but on the plus side the acting is pretty good, with a few good shouts and rants. Sharon stone is OK this time...not even half as good as the original mind you. The murders aren't as gory as the first one either, which is a shame. Its not the unpredictable mess everyone say it is though. The sex is pretty graphic at times while others it is clear it is fake (they are fully clothed). The script is weak most of the time, but the scenes with banter and arguments between Dr.Glass and Washburn are highlights. The plot twists a few times, but the ending is awful. The tension is always constant with a huge dollop of 'Oh my god!'. The chase sequences are brilliantly directed, and shots and camera angles are impressive and bring a bit of class to an otherwise, rush-felt film. Sharon stone is a bit old for this too. The bits where we see her breasts were, in the first one, delights. This time around, they are too horrid to describe. The films its self is rather average, but it is worth a go. Mainly because the film does deserve some good buzz...with the opening sequence being a highlight. Not to be critical, but if you liked the first one - leave this one. Don't ruin the run. You'll be glad you left this stone unturned. | negative. |
This film is awful. The screenplay is bad, the is script mediocre, and even the sex scenes are worthless. The thrill and intrigue of the original film are completely lacking. This movie was shot in a dark, shadowy and monochromatic style (a la "War of the Worlds"), which is so disappointing after the beauty of the original film. Greg Morrisey's brooding character displays one facial expression throughout the film. The twists and turns of the original plot are woefully lacking here; the few that do exist are simply anticlimactic. The only highlight is Sharon Stone's performance as Catherine Tramell, faithfully continued in this sequel, but it isn't enough to make up for the other shortcomings. The only circumstance under which a "Basic Instinct 3" should be made would be if Michael Douglas agrees to join the cast. | negative. |
After eagerly waiting to the end, I have to say I wish I wouldn't have joined the whole series at the first place. The final episode was everything against the previous seven years. It has ruined everything. The journey was 23 years, but captain Janeway has the power to reduce it... let say, seven years only. Why seven? Why not just one? Or nothing? Why not avoid the whole adventure? Crewmemebers were dying all along the journey. Why she wants to save Seven of Nine only? The others don't count or what? The most ridiculous part when the crew states that getting home is not really the most important thing to them. As the say, "journey is more important than the destination". Unbelievable. And at the finale scene the are surrounded by other Federation ships and the Earth is in sight. Nothing about landing, returning to the normal life.<br /><br />Worst ending ever. | negative. |
I sat through almost one episode of this series and just couldn't take anymore. It felt as though I'd watched dozens of episodes already, and then it hit me.....There's nothing new here! I've heard that joke on Seinfeld, I saw someone fall like that on friends, an episode of Happy Days had almost the same storyline, ect. None of the actors are interesting here either! Some were good on other shows (not here), and others are new to a profession they should have never entered. Avoid this stinker! | negative. |