text
stringlengths 52
13.7k
| label
stringclasses 2
values |
|---|---|
"Feast of All Saints?" Where...? When...?<br /><br />Was the Feast of All Saints storyline and theme edited out? <br /><br />What a waste of a wonderful title! There is never anything in the story that has the remotest connection to the "Feast of All Saints." Nor is there anything in the story about "All Souls Day" which the term is referencing. Why bother to use this title if you never intend to including any kind of storyline or theme about "All Souls Day" or the "Feast of All Saints"? <br /><br />Embarrassly Bad Script & Amateur Writing <br /><br />How did they attract such great talent to this clunker? The writing is so amateur--characters that have known each other all their life go into big long speeches about their life history for the sake of the audience. Not at all the way people talk to each other. <br /><br />What was the Director Thinking?<br /><br />The directing is equally bad! The forced and overly deliberate style feels amateurish. In one scene, a character is yelling "Take your hands off of me" and NO ONE is touching him! The most badly directed scene however, is the incredibly over-the-top battle scene at the beginning of the film.<br /><br />Excessive Gore in a Very Fake, Silly Battle Scene<br /><br />There are so many dead people in the most fake battle scene. It looks like a Saturday Night Live skit!! You can see extras waiting for their cues to walk across camera. Everyone plays their death scene like 4th grade boys--exaggerating every little gasp and twitch. The blood on battle victims is so excessive and carelessly applied it looks like someone used a ketchup dispenser and just squirted straight lines of red on the costumes.<br /><br />This whole battle scene comes off as the spoof of a really cheesy war movie. You almost expect someone like Will Ferrell and Mike Myers to ride up on a horse and deliver the punchline.<br /><br />Who in Real Life Would Ever Behave this Way?! <br /><br />The most ridiculous bit of writing, directing and casting is actually the focus of the scene: <br /><br />A little girl is standing under the dead body of her hanging father--who is terribly mutilated, and literally dripping blood form his gaping wounds. Even a totally idiot would know he is dead! Yet she is--very monotonously--repeating over and over "Daddy, daddy..." while looking at someone off-screen. She delivered it with about as much believability and passion as you could expect from an non-actor kid that had been repeating the line for the cameras all day.<br /><br />Even if the poor kid had any acting skills, the scene is completely unbelievable. The little girl wouldn't even BE in the middle of the battlefield after hours of carnage--surrounded by hundreds of dead bodies, while she calmly stands there!! Natural instincts would had the kid screaming and terrified, running AWAY from the bloody carnage! <br /><br />Are we Suppose to be Horrified or Laugh...?!<br /><br />One particularly goofy detail, that gives the scene an SNL satire tone, is the father hanging, with a huge hook through his mouth and cheek. He looks like a fish on a hook! The unintentionally funny details, make the whole scene come across as fake and silly.<br /><br />In Fantasy La-La-Land, Mothers and Daughters are the Same Age! <br /><br />Another funny detail, is that you see a central character--the little girl's mother--at the end of the scene and in the next scene, that occurs 20+ years later, she looks exactly the same! She is still young and beautiful, and now the same age as her daughter! <br /><br />I almost turned the movie off right there because the direction and writing were obviously awful--but I tried to stick it out because I wanted to see the Louisiana settings and I like all the actors. I don't know what these fine actors were thinking when they accepted these roles!<br /><br />Who was the Targeted Audience?<br /><br />The excessive amount of blood and badly acted violence in the opening scene are weirdly out of place with the soap opera storytelling tone that follows. It is also a strange way to start a movie that, for the rest of the time, seems targeted to romance novel reading females. Weird inconsistency in tone! | negative. |
The story and the show were good, but it was really depressing and I hate depressing movies. Ri'Chard is great. He really put on a top notch performance, and the girl who played his sister was really awesome and gorgeous. Seriously, I thought she was Carmen Electra until I saw the IMDb profile. I can't say anything bad about Peter Galleghar. He's one of my favorite actors. I love Anne Rice. I'm currently reading the Vampire Chronicles, but I'm glad I saw the movie before reading the book. This is a little too"real" for me. I prefer Lestat and Louis's witty little tiffs to the struggles of slaves. Eartha Kitt was so creepy and after her character did what she did The movie was ruined for me; I could barely stand to watch the rest of the show. (sorry for the ambiguity, but I don't want to give anything away) Sorry, but it's just not my type of show. | negative. |
There's so little here of the fantastic Anne Rice book that what IS here makes no sense. Some of the characters--intense and surprising characters--don't make it to the screen at all, and those who do are watered down to the point that there's no reason for their existence.<br /><br />Where's the relationship between Christophe and Marcel? Where's the continued affair between Marcel and Juliet? Why does Dolly Rose appear at all, since her story's never explained? Where's the rape and redemption of Marie, whose greatest attribute (and downfall) is that she can pass for white--and her marriage to Richard? Why does the film end with Marcel's beating at the hands of his father? We learn nothing of Aglae beyond that she's a bitch who hates her husband; why no backstory explaining this hatred? <br /><br />As for the performances, there's not a one that's better than mediocre, though that's likely due to the lousy script. Best of the lot is that of the actor playing Richard--but Richard's not on screen enough to salvage the film. Worst is Jasmine Guy as Dolly Rose, though again, it comes down to the actress having nothing to do with what little she's given to work with.<br /><br />All in all, this is just terrible. I thought it'd be impossible for any Anne Rice book-turned film to be worse than EXIT TO EDEN, but FEAST OF ALL SAINTS makes that mess look like a critical hit. How is it that Rice is such a slut she'll allow her best works to become such junk on the screen? | negative. |
A slick romanticizing of the sexual exploitation of NewOrleans black women by white men of power and privilege. Ooh. Does that whet your appetite? Well, then, belly up to a VHS or DVD and gorge on this gratuitous trolling through a seamy segment of history. For good measure, it's adapted from the book by celebrated hack Anne Rice. The directing is as cloying and melodramatic as the cheesy dialog. Most of acting is amateurish. The production's sole worthwhile note is that it employed practically a dozen black actors, all of whom have scarcely been in employed in today's market (Jasmine Guy, Ben Vereen, Pam Grier, Eartha Kitt), including some faces that have barely been seen at all (Bianca Lawson, Rachel Cuttrell). It also is, despite itself, a sterling showcase for Nicole Lyn. The pompous and ponderous James Earl Jones is on-hand as well. So, is the late Ossie Davis, a minimal talent who owes his success to having been affiliated with the legendary Negro Ensemble Company. This film should be rated "T" for tripe. | negative. |
College students, who are clearing out a condemned dormitory, are stalked by an elusive killer.<br /><br />The Dorm That Dripped Blood (aka Pranks) is a bit of a mixed bag for slasher fans. The movies production values are pretty low and the story for the most part is pretty routine, there's even a creepy bum hanging around for a red herring. In fact much of the story's build-up is pretty forgettable, save for one or two brutal murders. But the movie is really made better by its surprisingly intense climax (in an atmospheric setting) and one fairly bold, unconventional conclusion.<br /><br />The cast is lackluster for the most part. Stephen Sachs is the best of the lot as he does a pretty nice turn in character. Also look for a young Daphne Zuniga as an ill-fated student.<br /><br />Over all this is a pretty standard B slasher effort, but the finale is well worth savoring and for this viewer saved the movie from being a complete ho-hum.<br /><br />** out of **** | negative. |
Daphne Zuniga is the only light that shines in this sleepy slasher, and the light fades quickly. If not her, than what other reason to watch this. five college kids are signed up to prepare an old dorm for its due date of demolition. Problems are automatically occurring when a weird homeless man is soliciting, and the group are short a few people. Then, a killer is on the loose. I honestly wanted to say I was going to enjoy this one. It had a fair set up, or maybe that was just Daphne Zuniga in it. The film is too slow, and almost as silent as a library. Most of the acting is below average, and the "point-of-view" moments are so old news. Acclaimed composer Christopher Young of such films as "Hellraiser" and "Entrapment" scored this, in a repetitive cue line that was better made for a TV movie. Still, it seems higher than the movie deserves. So, other than Young and Zuniga, this one scrapes the bottom of the barrel. | negative. |
Over Christmas break, a group of college friends stay behind to help prepare the dorms to be torn down and replaced by apartment buildings. To make the work a bit more difficult, a murderous, Chucks-wearing psycho is wandering the halls of the dorm, preying on the group in various violent ways.<br /><br />Registered as one of the 74 'video nasties' listed by the U.K. in the 1980s, The Dorm That Dripped Blood had a good reputation built up for it prior to first viewing. The term 'video nasty' strikes into mind some images of some great explicit gore, violence, sex, etc.: All the things a horror fan dreams of. So, after hearing all of that info, I settled into Pranks (alt. title) expecting a sleazy slasher experience. . . and that's what it tried to be, but failed pretty much completely. Visually, the film's not great. The cinematography, gore (except for a couple scenes), and overall direction all fail. It's simply not enjoyable to watch. The unoriginal script is lacking and often throws in random things without any real reason (like the opening kill). There are some cool death scenes, including a pretty nice face melt (which can be seen on the poster), but that's about it for the positive. The acting is pretty bad, the story seems unimportant, the killer isn't cool or scary, and it suffers the one major error that any slasher flick should always avoid: it's a bit boring. Overall, for a film done by a few UCLA film students for $90,000 (which would be over double that today), The Dorm That Dripped Blood isn't a total mess. It has a couple good things, and is fairly watchable. . . But, as a slasher flick looking to be on the level of films like The House on Sorority Row and Pieces. . . it just cannot compare. Don't expect much, and you may at least be entertained. I hate to say it, but this is one of the few films I've seen that would actually be better with a remake. . . and yet, they go after great works like Black Christmas. Oh well. . .<br /><br />Obligatory Horror Elements:<br /><br />- Subgenre: Slasher<br /><br />- Violence/Gore: There are some brutally cool kills, and the gore is okay for the most part. . . but nothing special. Also, they off-screened some of the best murders.<br /><br />- Sex/Nudity: There's a little unappealing (to me) nudity, but not very much.<br /><br />- Cool Killer(s): Nah. The ending monologue(s) of the killer made him/her pretty uncool.<br /><br />- Scares/Suspense: A jump scare or two, but nothing too effective.<br /><br />- Mystery: I suppose, yeah, but I simply didn't care enough, and it's as obvious as the nose on the killer's face.<br /><br />- - -<br /><br />Final verdict: 3.75/10. Bah! Humbug! <br /><br />-AP3- | negative. |
I'm not looking for quality; I'm just trying to get through the 74 famous video nasties that were banned in Britain. This one was initially banned and re-released in 2001 with a whole 10 seconds cut.<br /><br />Some college kids spend their Christmas vacation preparing a dorm for renovation. There are some creepy characters lurking about along with the four kids. Which of them is the slasher? The actual killings are not very gory, so this video nastie is not really nasty. There is the requisite flashing of the boobies, but it has nothing to do with the college kids.<br /><br />I had a suspect very quickly and I turned out to be right. Maybe I've seen too many of these. The end twist was clever; I have to give the writers credit for that bit of originality. | negative. |
Probably one of the most boriest slasher movies ever, badly acted and badly written.<br /><br />THE PLOT Five students staying behind during the holidays closing down a dorm, but somebody has designs on them and starts killing them off one by one, the main suspect is the creepy groundskeeper John Hemmitt played by Woody Roll, or could it be one of the five characters.<br /><br />ACTING Not that bad not that great either apart from Daphne Zungia who dies way too quickly and should have been the main heroine, and the rest well quite dull although Laura Lapinski the main heroine sometimes has her charm and you do feel sorry for her in the end.<br /><br />THE KILLS Can't really see why they banned this, the kills look fake mostly, one guy has his hand sliced in half in the beginning which looks really fake, but the others are quite nasty like one girl gets her head run over by a car, one girl gets boiled alive and another gets burned alive.<br /><br />OVERALL Not really a great slasher could have been a lot better | negative. |
An uninteresting addition to the stalk 'n slash cycle which dominated the horror genre in the 1980's. This was filmed as Pranks but released as The Dorm That Dripped Blood which is an obvious steal from the 1970 horror anthology The House That Dripped Blood. Daphne Zuniga is the only recognisable face in the cast and this was her first horror movie (she has also appeared in The Initiation and The Fly II). | negative. |
The two things are are good about this film are it's two unknown celebrities.<br /><br />First, Daphne Zuniga, in her first appearance in a film, young and supple, with looks that still encompass her body today, steals the very beginning, which is all she is in, and that is that. She is obviously just starting out because her acting improved with her next projects.<br /><br />Second, the score by then known composer Christopher(Chris) Young is what keeps this stinker from getting a one star...yeah, I know one star more is not much, but in this movie's case, it is a lot.<br /><br />The rest is just stupid senseless horror of a couple a college students who try to clean out a dorm that is due for being torn down, getting offed one by one by an unsuspecting killer, blah, blah, blah...we all know where this is going.<br /><br />Watch the first eighteen minutes with Daphne Zuniga, then turn it off. | negative. |
Eh, not a particular good slasher flick. So-so acting, effects, decent yet familiar and uninventive soundtrack.<br /><br />There are three deaths in close succession near the beginning of the movie that make for a fairly good scene in which it would seem anything goes. Apart from that, there's a lot of characters wandering around, not realizing what's going on, or chasing after red herrings; more killing of time, than of people. There are other deaths, and the killer is an equal opportunity murderer, not partial to any one implement. The killer also likes to set other people up to kill innocent people as well. The identity isn't revealed towards the end, and motive is pretty thin, and we really don't care.<br /><br />Supposedly the movie takes place around Christmas, but this isn't a major factor. One scene gets lit by Christmas lights, that's about it.<br /><br />The movie is rather dark with a muddy picture most of the time, at least on the videotape I watched. Some of the dialog got a little lost in some of the opening scenes. The ending should have been stronger than it was. We think we realize what happened, although there's a chance something else did. | negative. |
I heard so much about this movie how it was a great slasher and one of those early 80's movies that die hard fans of most slasher movies just had to see. Well, I rented it and I have to say that although it kept my attention as far as the suspense goes for most slasher films such as "April Fools Day", "Friday 13th" and "Prom Night", this film could have been right up there with the above mentioned only it lacked true enthusiasm and potential from the characters as well as the on going story. Characters that I found were unfortunate to be in this movie was the weirdo guy with the frizzy hair that kept creeping around the dorm and of course leading up to his true climatic role during the end with he faces the killer. Another would be the dirty scruffy looking guy with the jean jacket, he could have played more roles in this movie that might have made the movie more interesting, instead, the movie played this guy as just another loser out there making unknown calls while he sleeps with his girlfriend and then drops his part and cuts him off until the end which was a waste, I was disappointed in his part in the end. As far as the true identity of the killer goes, when the identity was released as to who he was, I just laughed, but it was all to obvious and he really made a true jerk out of himself as well as an annoying character after his true intentions were revealed. This movie should be one to at least watch once for all slasher fans but don't spend your hard earned money on it in some rare hard to find collectors inventory. | negative. |
It's the early 80s. There's a group of suspiciously old-looking teens. And there's a maniac stalking around. Yes, this is slasherville.<br /><br />This movie is called Pranks. Why is it called Pranks? I haven't the faintest idea. Unless your idea of a great prank is to repeatedly hit someone's dinner with a baseball bat - on balance, not a great prank; in fact quite a rubbish prank if truth be told. But there you go.<br /><br />The film itself concerns a group of teenagers who are tasked with cleaning out a decommissioned dormitory. They become aware that a psychopath is on the loose. To combat this development, they split up and wander about in the dark. It ends in tears for most of them.<br /><br />Pranks is a badly made slasher movie. The DVD release I viewed was the Vipco one. It appears to be cut of a fair bit of violence. This makes the DVD even more pointless because, let's face it, a slasher movie shorn of violence is a waste of time. For slasher-film and video nasty completists only. | negative. |
((NB: Spoiler warning, such as it is!))<br /><br />First off, this is a teen slasher flick -- the Spam-In-A-Cabin genre, as Joe Bob Briggs piquantly put it. If you're looking for Roshambo, this isn't it and wasn't going to BE it. I'm desperately unimpressed by stabs at its cinematography, directing or acting performances.<br /><br />Secondly, this wasn't Zuniga's first horror flick, it was her first screen appearance period, cinema, TV, whatever. For what it is worth; neither is Daphne Zuniga Susan Sarandon or Katherine Hepburn.<br /><br />Thirdly, you have to give even a lame slasher flick props. Sure, it follows the deeply insulting formulaic message of its genre: any young woman having or showing interest in sex is beef on the hoof, and the harvest time is now.<br /><br />Except this one gives the chop to the sweet, virginal protagonist as well! Now THERE is a mediocre teen death film that has the courage of its convictions! Interesting that this was said ingenue's only film role. Another One Hit Wonder, except that term gives the lass too much credit.<br /><br />(Then again, this film probably has one of the highest percentage of one-movie actors in history. Of the nineteen credited actors, a whopping thirteen never appeared in any other film. Three appeared in one other movie by the same producers. Only one other besides Zuniga has as many as six screen credits. What was this, the Has Been And Never Were Mutual Aid Society?)<br /><br />Granted, I saw this a long time ago on late night cable when I was bored and never anticipate being that bored in my life again, but I see no reason to hunt down everyone involved and toss them in the incinerator with Joanne.<br /><br />2/10. | negative. |
One of a multitude of slashers that appeared in the early eighties, Pranks is notable only for an early performance by Daphne Zuniga (The Sure Thing, The Fly 2); her character dies fairly early on, and the rest of the film is totally forgettable.<br /><br />During their Christmas break, a group of students volunteer to clear a condemned college building of its furniture. A crazy killer, however, throws a spanner in the works by methodically bumping off the youngsters one by one in a variety of gruesome ways.<br /><br />Exploiting every stalk 'n' slash cliché in the book, director Jeffrey Obrow delivers a tedious and unexciting horror that had me praying for the characters to be killed, so that I could get on with watching something more worthwhile. The majority of the deaths (which, let's face it, is why we generally watch this kind of film) are brief and not that gory; the only truly grisly imagery comes right at the end when the bodies of the victims are discovered by the remaining survivor (there is one notably bloody dismembered corpsethe film could've done with more).<br /><br />At the last minute, the film saves itself from the disgrace of receiving the lowest possible score from me by having a nice unexpectedly downbeat ending, but this really is one for slasher completists only. | negative. |
This one probably does not fit in the bottom of the barrel of mediocre Slasher movies but it's surely a damn bad movie.<br /><br />The Holiday premise made it kind of interesting but after the first scenes the movie demonstrates it's poor production values and stupid plot. I mean, the sub-genre was at the moment all about an unseen maniac slashing teens for no apparent reasons but this one took it too far. There is absolutely no coherence in the events or nothing else to add.<br /><br />The clichès are more than boring, the gore is minimal, and so does the mystery.<br /><br />This is a fairly mediocre slasher entry that shouldn't be hyped even if it has a video nastie label.<br /><br />I am truly disappointed by this overrated piece of trash. | negative. |
If you've ever seen an eighties slasher, there isn't much reason to see this one. Originality often isn't one of slasher cinema's strongpoints, and it's something that this film is seriously lacking in. There really isn't much that can said about Pranks, so I'll make this quick. The film was one of the 74 films included on the DPP Video Nasty list, and that was my only reason for seeing it. The plot follows a bunch of kids that stay behind in a dorm at Christmas time. As they're in a slasher, someone decides to start picking them off and this leads to one of the dullest mysteries ever seen in a slasher movie. The fact that this movie was on the Video Nasty list is bizarre because, despite a few gory scenes, this film is hardly going to corrupt or deprave anyone, and gorier slashers than this (Friday the 13th, for example) didn't end up banned. But then again, there's banned films that are much less gory than this one (The Witch Who Came from the Sea, for example). Anyway, the conclusion of the movie is the best thing about it, as although the audience really couldn't care less who the assailant is by this point; it is rather well done. On the whole, this is a dreary and dismal slasher that even slasher fans will do well to miss. | negative. |
What the ........... is this ? This must, without a doubt, be the biggest waste of film, settings and camera ever. I know you can't set your expectations for an 80's slasher high, but this is too stupid to be true. I baught this film for 0.89$ and I still feel the urge to go claim my money back. Can you imagine who hard it STINKS ?<br /><br />Who is the violent killer in this film and what are his motivations??? Well actually, you couldn't possible care less. And why should you? The makers of this piece of garbage sure didn't care. They didn't try to create a tiny bit of tension. The director ( Stephen Carpenter -- I guess it's much easier to find money with a name like that ) also made the Kindred (1986) wich was rather enjoyable and recently he did Soul Survivors. Complete crap as well, but at least that one had Eliza Dushku. This junk has the debut of Daphne Zuniga !!! ( Who ?? ) Yeah that's right, the Melrose Place chick. Her very memorable character dies about 15 min. after the opening credits. She's the second person to die. The first victim dies directly in the first minute, but nobody seems to mention or miss him afterwards so who cares ? The rest of the actors...they don't deserve the term actors actually, are completely uninteresting. You're hoping they die a quick and painful death...and not only their characters<br /><br />My humble opinion = 0 / 10 | negative. |
I've always liked Fred MacMurray, andalthough her career was tragically cut shortI think Carole Lombard is fun to watch. Pair these two major and attractive stars together, add top supporting players like Jean Dixon, Anthony Quinn, Dorothy Lamour and Charles Butterworth, give them a romantic script, team them with noted director Mitchell Leisen and you get
a mediocre movie experience.<br /><br />Skid Johnson (Fred) and Maggie (Carole) "meet cute" during her visit to the Panama Canal, and spend the next few weeks falling in love. Skid's a great trumpeter, so he embarks on a musical career, which is predictably meteoric in both its rise and fall. During his climb to musical stardom, he neglects Maggie, who later inspires him to start over after he's hit rock bottom. Ah, yes
it's the true Hollywood happy ending, which comes none too soon.<br /><br />Stars and a director of this caliber should guarantee success, but this movie is so predictable and slow-paced that it's difficult to watch at times. The early scenes set in Panama are so draggy that they seem to go on forever, and later an alcoholic Skid just wanders endlessly in New York. Fred and Carole try their best, but the tired script and S-L-O-W direction just don't give them a chance. Even the final scene, in which Maggie encourages Skid to rise from the ashes of alcohol and disappointment, just doesn't ring true.<br /><br />This movie should be seen once to watch some early performances from stars MacMurray and Lombard. However, I guarantee that watching it will seem to take about 48 hours. | negative. |
I am a big fan of Fred MacMurray and Carole Lombard. And, in addition to them, Charles Butterworth (a very enjoyable supporting actor) was in this film,...so why didn't I particularly enjoy it?! Well, despite a good cast, this is one of the poorest written and most clichéd "A pictures" I have ever seen. Given the talent and money spent to make this film, it is shocking how slip-shod the writing was. I knew the film would be tedious when time after time early in the film I found myself predicting EXACTLY what would happen next--and I was always right! And this isn't because I am some sort of "movie savant", but was because almost no imagination or effort went into it. In fact, it seemed almost as if the film was just a long string of clichés all strung together! Also, I found it a bit irritating that Fred mistreated Carole so bad throughout the film and yet, true to convention, she came running to him in the end. Uggh! There is MORE suspense in a Lassie film ("will he bring people to rescue Timmy or will the rope he is dangling from break?").<br /><br />Despite the very, very tired and clichéd script, there were a few positives about the film. It was pretty cool seeing Fred look like a broken lush at the end of the film--it was pretty believable and he looked like he hadn't eaten, shaved or slept in days. Also, Charles Butterworth's "prattle" did provide a few mildly humorous moments. But all this just wasn't enough to make this film look any different than a "B movie". It's a shame,...it could have been so much better. | negative. |
In what would be his first screenplay, based on his own short story "Turn About," William Faulkner delivers a bizarre story of loyalty, sacrifice, and really strange relationships. The story originally was about only the Tone, Young, and Cooper characters, but MGM needed to put Joan Crawford in another picture to fulfill her contract, and Faulkner obliged by creating a female role. Crawford insisted that her lines be written in the same clipped style as her co-stars' Young and Tone, leading to much unintentional hilarity as these three communicate in a telegraph-like shorthand that sounds like a Monty Python sketch ("Wuthering Heights" performed in semaphore). Seriously, the almost entirely pronoun-less sentences make Ernest Hemingway read like Henry James.<br /><br />The film also reflects some familiar Faulkner themes, with an almost unnaturally close relationship between brother and sister (as may be found in his "Sanctuary," and elsewhere). When Young proposes to Crawford, in Tone's presence, in lieu of an engagement ring ALL THREE exchange their childhood engraved rings with one another. The closeness of Tone and Young is also noticeable, especially as they go off to their Thelma & Louise fate. Frankly, it's creepy.<br /><br />Not as creepy to this New Yorker, however, as the recurring theme of the massive cockroach, Wellington, which Crawford cheerfully catches (and which is shown gamboling over her hands--I had to turn away!) and Young turns into a gladiator. Blech.<br /><br />That being said, there are some nice performances. Young is particularly engaging in a scene where he's taken up in Cooper's fighter plane, and Roscoe Karns is delightful as Cooper's flying buddy. Tone, despite his inability to express himself through realistic dialogue, has a nice moment, dashing away his own furtive tears over his buddy Young's fate. Crawford, stripped of meaningful dialogue as well, mostly comes across as either wooden or melodramatic, which is quite a balancing act for one role.<br /><br />The battle scenes--not surprisingly, for a Howard Hawks film--are the most exciting part of the entire picture. But not enough. As far as I'm concerned, this is 75 minutes of my life I'm never going to get back. | negative. |
My wife and I thought that with this cast and director, the movie would have to be at least worth watching. We were wrong. In fact, we gave up on it after 45 minutes. The idea that Crawford, Young and Tone are British but speak with American accents was, for me, impossible to get past -- hard to believe this is England when no one talks with a British accent. There is zero chemistry between Crawford and anyone, and to echo a previous comment, the idea that Cooper and Crawford suddenly declare their love for one another without any reason is ludicrous. There is no reason to care about any of the characters, which is why we threw in the towel halfway through. I found it hard to believe that Hawks directed this, as none of the actors spoke with the trademark Hawksian rat-a-tat delivery. So save your time, and skip this one. | negative. |
Couldn't believe it! Clipped sentences? Good grief! Know what? All true! Real people ever talk like this? Don't think so. Good girl! Stout fellow! Stiffen upper lip! Only reason given movie 2 instead of 0 Gary Cooper such a dish. Movie as a whole ridiculous unless you like watching endless biplane dogfights. Seemed endless, anyway. Think all Franchot Tone's dialogue dubbed. When Crawford and Young make a special effort to sound British they come over as Irish. Handy tip - we Brits clip words, not sentences. And somehow we manage to draaaaaaaawl at the same time. But that's only if we've been to a really good public (that's private to you) school. | negative. |
Lulu (Louise Brooks) works as a typist and is missing something in her life. She enters a Miss France contest against the wishes of her boyfriend Andre (Georges Charlia) and she wins. She sets off for the Miss Europe title leaving her boyfriend behind. She wins again but returns home to Andre because he has asked her to. Once back together, her life becomes mundane again so one night she writes a note to him and leaves to experience the fame that is waiting for her as Miss Europe. Andre follows her.....<br /><br />This film is a silent film with a piano music-track all the way through. It is also sped-up so everything seems fast. Limited dialogue has been added on afterwards and it is very phony. The cast are alright bearing in mind that it is a silent film. The best part of the film comes at the end but the story goes on a little too long. After watching this, I'm not really sure what the big deal was over the looks of Louise Brooks - she has a terrible haircut that makes her face look fat. I don't need to watch it again. | negative. |
Please Note: I see from the various posts that there was an original silent version and also a sound version of this same film. I saw the sound version and it was esthetically yicky. Considering some indicate that the original version was LONGER and without crappy dubbing, my review must be read with this in mind.<br /><br />Although I know that Rene Clair has a lovely reputation as a film maker and Louise Brooks has a bit of a cult following as well, this is in many ways a technically poorly made film. While Hollywood had already pretty much switched to sound mode around 1929, up through the early to almost the mid-30s, a lot of famous French films were essentially silent films--with some dialog and sound effects very poorly slapped over top the film. The lip movements in many, and in particular this film, don't even come close to matching what is being said and this would explain why an American like Ms. Brooks could do a French film. This is just sloppy and I would have preferred they had just made a silent film--and as a silent film this is would have been an average film--with excellent camera work (at times) and some decent silent-style acting.<br /><br />The problem I also found with the film was the overly simplistic plot. For a silent morality play circa 1920, it would have been fine, but by 1930 standards the plot is a bit hoary (that means "old"--not "slutty"). A lady wins a beauty contest and her macho fiancé can't handle it. She gives it all up, temporarily, but is lured back to the fancy life and this spells her end! A tad melodramatic, huh? And also a bit simplistic and underdeveloped.<br /><br />Finally, the character of the fiancé's friend(?) I found very disturbing and unreal. He looked like Harold Lloyd and spent much of the movie being abused and picked on by the friend and everyone else. As he just took it throughout the movie and no resolution came about, his character seemed superfluous and the treatment he received mean-spirited. Were audiences supposed to laugh as he was abused? This seems to me that's what is implied and I don't like it at all.<br /><br />There are FAR better French films of the era (Le Million, La Femme du Boulanger, Fanny, Regain, and others) as well as better silent films. I just can't understand this film's high rating. | negative. |
This review may contain some SPOILERS.<br /><br />Just when you thought they didn't make them so extremely bad anymore, along comes Rae Dawn Chong as a space vixen and Willie Nelson as a Native American witchdoctor! It's even worse when you factor in that these two are the BETTER aspects of `Starlight,' a film that should only be viewed for laughs.<br /><br />Chong is an alien sent to Earth to seek out the only remaining half-breed, part man and part alien. Apparently, the Earth is in dire straits. Something is wrong with the genetics of mankind, and in a few decades the world will be turned into a polluted wasteland. Only by duplicating the DNA of the half-breed can the kindly alien race save the planet. Don't ask me how that is, since the movie gives the impression that the world will be destroyed by pollution, which is caused by humans. You would think Earth could only be saved by getting rid of the polluting creatures, not saving them! Anyway, the half-breed turns out to be Billy Wirth, a man living in a small Southwestern town and is part Native American from his mother's line, despite the fact that his mother is a red-headed Caucasian and his grandfather is Willie Nelson. Wasn't this the sort of malarkey that made the bombastic Carmen Electra bomb `The Chosen One' such a howler? Chong arrives in her ship just as Wirth nearly drowns after driving his motorcycle into a lake in a fit of recklessness being the result of just breaking up with his girlfriend. Before you can say utter the word `hogwash,' Chong is revealing her secret to Wirth, who isn't surprised for a moment, and spreading the word to Wirth's family. Chong also makes pals with Wirth's mother, who seems to have lost a few of her marbles over the years. Well, this is because Wirth's father was an alien that abandoned her. Of course, he is the standard rogue alien that has conveniently picked this moment to come to Earth for Wirth so he can use Wirth's DNA to make the people of Earth his slaves. (Huh?) His laughable attempts to use his telepathic powers and capture Wirth suck up most of the screen time and are the worst scenes in the movie. Not only are they boring, but they are the scenes where you will be spotting the flubs the most.<br /><br />The ideas might be nice on paper, but they are handled here with the utmost of stupidity, particularly in the aforementioned scenes with the rogue alien. But the effects are the bane of the movie. The opening scene involves Chong on her spaceship, communicating with her superior, someone who we do not see but that Chong communicates with through a vat that emits pink light. They use no spoken words, but telepathy, so we are treated to subtitles. Trouble is, both Chong and her superior's subtitles both look alike, and the director gives you no indication as to which of the two are actually `speaking' at any given moment, which makes the whole conversation nothing but gibberish. The spaceship is the worst effect to come out of Hollywood this side of an Ed Wood film. Now, I am usually lenient on effects when dealing with a low budgeted film such as this, but these effects really got to me. The most offensive was the most simple one: a fake night sky. The stars in the sky are so phony they almost sound off a dial tone. Most notably are the moments where Chong tells someone she comes from Pleiades, and we get a shot of the seven stars. Thing is, the seven stars take up about half the night sky in the movie, but any stargazer knows that Pleiades is a star cluster between the constellations Perseus and Taurus, and the cluster doesn't take up much room in the sky at all. These effects just get so lousy that your jaw will hang lower and lower with every passing moment. Be careful, for it will go right through the floor during the finale when the effects have Willie Nelson turn into a human spotlight and . . . Oh, it has to be seen to be believed!<br /><br />Starlight, star bright; Last star I see tonight; I wish I might, I wish I may; not have to watch any more of this trash today.<br /><br />Zantara's score: 1 out of 10. | negative. |
I finally caught up to "Starlight" last night on television and all I can say is. . . wow! It's hard to know where to begin -- the incredibly hokey special effects (check out the laser beams shooting out of Willie's eyes!), the atrocious acting, the ponderous dialogue, the mismatched use of stock footage, or the air of earnest pretentiousness that infuses the entire production. This truly is a one-of-a-kind experience, and we should all be thankful for that. I nominate Jonathon Kay as the true heir to Ed Wood! | negative. |
This has an interesting, albeit somewhat fanciful sci-fi plot, but it's wasted with poor direction and shlocky special effects. Rae Dawn Chong is appealing, despite the lack of a believable story and direction consistent with her talent. | negative. |
All I can really say is that I'm glad that I was knitting socks while watching the movie, or I would be very angry for having wasted 2 hours of my life. The acting was terrible, the plot was even worse. There were some scenes that were meant to be serious that had my husband and I laughing out loud. I highly recommend this movie to people who like to do their own version of MST3K. | negative. |
I shudder to think what people must have thought of environmentalists after viewing this piece of overbearing, preachy cinematic trash. Larded with enough Indian-wannabe nuttery and space brother buffoonery to stock a new-age shop, Starlight makes anyone who gives a damn about the planet look like a feather-wearing crystal-fondling idiot.<br /><br />The plot? Alien Rae Dawn Chong arrives to guide a flute playing underwear model in a mystical quest to avert Earth's impending environmental collapse. But first they must defeat an evil alien who looks nothing so much like a refugee from a Castro street bar. Fortunately, they've got mystical grandpa Willie Nelson along to help (who looks faintly embarrassed by the proceedings, as well he ought to be) along with buckets of cheap F/X and reams of pointlessly swelling music.<br /><br />Sure, the clunky script helps to obscure the film's trite plot and staggering pace, but that's just the tip of this melting movie iceberg. Everyone concerned with this film should have their union cards revoked until they complete a real course in environmental science. | negative. |
I wanted to see it because of two reasons. One, it was the remake of High Sierra with Bogart, two, the Bogart part was played by Jack Palance, whom can play dramatic roles with some subtility, as in The Big Knife.<br /><br />But now I wonder why they decided to shoot this remake. The film follows the same plot as Hig Sierra; only here, the actors don't care, the director is lost in his thoughts, and who knows what the producer was thinking. Jack Palance is getting bored looking at Shelley Winters and Shelley Winters is asking herself what she's doing in this film. I don't even want to compare her to Ida Lupino in the same role. And of course, they had to use the dog story again! They surely could have come up with some different ideas. Perhaps the color makes it nice to see the same location where they shot High Sierra, but that definitely doesn't add any quality to the film.<br /><br />It's a waste of time if you've seen High Sierra before. Otherwise, why not see a pseudo-film noir. As for me, I'd rather die than see it one more time... | negative. |
City girl Meg Tilly receives a horrifying phone call from her mother and, understandably shaken, returns home to her family's rural digs, only to be faced with a mystery: why are all the homespun residents acting out in bizarre and unsettling ways? Radiation thriller, with barely a nod to ecology, has small town residents going berserk, which (laughably) includes two women gazing at each other with desire in a public place and Tim Matheson receiving oral attention from a girl on an office bench. The picture is too silly for words, wasting Tilly's wistfulness and quiet intensity on trash while forcing itself into a corner it can't possibly hope to get out of. Some of the cinematography by Thomas Del Ruth is good (particularly a fire sequence set inside a garage), though he is let down by the scrappy editing--and a fairly bathetic finale. Simplistic screenplay has nary a surprise nor a shred of originality up its sleeve. *1/2 from **** | negative. |
I have been known to fall asleep during films, but this is usually due to a combination of things including, really tired, being warm and comfortable on the sette and having just eaten a lot. However on this occasion I fell asleep because the film was rubbish. The plot development was constant. Constantly slow and boring. Things seemed to happen, but with no explanation of what was causing them or why. I admit, I may have missed part of the film, but i watched the majority of it and everything just seemed to happen of its own accord without any real concern for anything else. I cant recommend this film at all. | negative. |
...let me count the ways.<br /><br />1. A title-only 'remake' that pulls out every cliché in the slasher handbook.<br /><br />2. A plot so predictable that it becomes quite pathetic.<br /><br />3. A completely weak execution of all attempts at suspense or thrills.<br /><br />4. A PG-13 rating that insures no gore, violence, or sex.<br /><br />5. A villain that is not frightening or even mysterious.<br /><br />6. A cast of characters that are so thinly written and stereotyped that we couldn't possibly care about them.<br /><br />7. A lack of any effectively creepy atmosphere (much unlike the original Prom Night).<br /><br />8. A script of dialog that's beyond poor - it's mind numbing. <br /><br />9. A series of cardboard performances (not sure whether to blame the actors or the lousy aforementioned script for that).<br /><br />10. A completely inept teen-targeted slasher remake that's not brave enough to attempt to have an imagination - or even to show a puddle of blood.<br /><br />It's a no-brainer horror fans, save your money.<br /><br />BOMB out of **** | negative. |
Prom Night is shot with the artistic eye someone gives while finely crafting a Lifetime original film. You know the one. This October, Lifetime takes a break from the courageous tale of a woman surviving (insert disease name here) to tell the somewhat creepy tale of a woman pursued by a stalker ex-boyfriend. It's dramatic
it's sappy
it's immensely dull. It does nothing to further a genre, tell an original story, or strive for ANY sort of newness. Prom Night shares this plight. Watching the killer poke holes in his victims, we sit silently as they slump to the floor with not a drop of blood spilled. It occurred to me that this was the cleanest killer in movie history.<br /><br />Our director is working with a fairly good-looking killer so he is forced to pour on the camera angles to make him appear creepier. Think about Matthew McConaughey coming at you with a knife. You'd probably go
"OH! Good lookin guy is going to kill me? Naaaa." Not scary even for a second, so the director throws Schaech into shadows and over the shoulder in the mirror. This mirror shot is repeated to the point of sickness as it practically becomes a fetish of the creator. You'll get 15 jump scares in this film, 2 of which made my date jump (I might mention she is afraid of EVERYTHING). I'd also mention she decided to take a nap halfway through the film and at one point threatened to leave me.<br /><br />As if this film were not disjointed enough, it appears to be cut to shreds. I'm not saying it looks like key points were left on the cutting room floor as the crew scrambled to salvage some semblance of a horror film; I'm saying as the film moves from scene to scene, you often get a jarring jump. This is the kind of thing you'd expect when a film catches fire and a projectionist is forced to splice ends together, cross his fingers, and hope for the best. The editor should be shot.<br /><br />With a plot you can pack into two sentences, one stray spray of blood, an emo killer, and the tension of a very special episode of "Silver Spoons", we're left with no reason to support horror this weekend
at least on the big screen. In fact, this is the sort of film that should be punished. Is it really that hard to make a scary movie? Was this crew even aware they were making a horror film??!! A complete waste of my time and yours. I bit the bullet to get you this review. Don't let my sacrifice be in vain. DON'T GO INTO THE MOVIE!!! | negative. |
Poor acting, no script, no plot, no convincing killer, no suspense, no original setups, it uses the same closet/under the bed/person-behind-you-in-the-mirror tactics over and over again making it repetitive and boring, and NOT in a foreshadowing way either, and the fact that NOBODY ever "really" gets killed (at least not on screen) , which in turn zaps any suspense it may invoke right out of it and makes everyone feel eve MORE cheated for spending money on their admission ticket....its a horror film w/o any horror LMAO. The MOST you see is what looks like someone having taken a ketchup bottle and spraying it across a plastic sheet.<br /><br />You have to be a teen who was sitting there screaming in the theater and scaring yourself to have enjoyed this, or you were high/drunk at the time.<br /><br />Honestly, I have a life and don't bother writing reviews that often unless I really really hated something, or enjoyed it tremendously.<br /><br />But this film is AWFUL and I feel I have a duty of sorts to warn you NOT to give your money to Hollywood and encourage this kind of filmaking ever again! <br /><br />It is one thing to rent a "bad" movie at blockbuster from the Weinsteins, its another when you have to sit through it in a theater.<br /><br />Also, in case you want some remake nostalgia, forget it! This is NOT a remake, nor is it a re-imagining. It is not scary, nor engaging, nor is it satisfying enough to be "funny" like others on IMDb have claimed...it is just stale and booooring.<br /><br />Here is what you will take away from this film: remembering the scar on Brittany Snow's head that stands out more than the plot, the fact that Jonathan Schaech MUST be having some sexual affair with J.S. Cardone of "The Forsaken" to have gotten another role as a killer(because he is as frightening as my poodle, and too cute to kill just about anyone) and that for some reason (duh) everyone who goes back to the hotel suite never comes back. What kind of person would NOT get worried at the prom when they decide to announce the candidates for prom king and queen and the fiercely competitive girl just somehow doesn't show up? This is my warning to you. DO NOT waste you're money like I did. The "original" sucks too but is more of a guilty pleasure for Jamie Lee Curtis fans, though no way near as bad as this piece of crap (sorry to sound vulgar or rude, but once you see this, you will understand why I say what I say). | negative. |
Prom Night is about a girl named Donna (Brittany Snow) who is being chased by a psycho killer trying to kill her at her prom night. And by doing so killing her family, friends, and her enemies. <br /><br />Now before I begin let me say have you been tired of PG-13 horror movies that haven't been scary lately. Are you tired of stupid girl dialog 'Oh my god' and talking about girlish things. And are you really tired of girls in relationships and then crying. And the last thing are you tired of the US remaking Asian, Japanese, and Chinese films. That pretty much sums up Prom night but I'm still not done with the review.<br /><br />The only reason to see 'Prom night' is to crack a laugh at the kills. If not, don't see Prom night. You never see the kills an only hear screaming and you see some blood on the wall. And by the way the deaths are repeating like 24/7. So not only aren't they scary but it's obnoxious. By the time I met the cast I think I was ready to hurl. Too much girl talk, too much guy talk, and lots of 'Oh my gosh. It's our prom'. I understand it's fun but seriously is it too much to ask not to concentrate. <br /><br />If I were to put Prom Night on the list of worst films of 2008 without seeing the other films I'd be the first one too. I'm not going to be surprised if it gets released on DVD for cheap and quick. Seriously don't spend your money or the time for dull acting, cheap scares, and a 'Night to die for' when watching the film.<br /><br />1 star out of 10. (P.S. If I could give the film zero stars I would). | negative. |
I am the guy who usually keeps opinions to himself, but I just got back from this movie, and felt I had to express my opinions. Let me start by saying that I am a HUGE horror fan. But what makes a horror movie? I sure like to see even a tiny bit of a good script and character development. I know they often lack in horror movies, but Prom Night looked like it didn't even put forth ANY effort in that department. Next, we all love suspense. That on the edge of your seat suspense with unpredictable surprises. Yeah, Prom Night had none of that! Of course, we like a terrifying killer. Prom Night have that? Nope, it has a pretty boy with a cute lil' knife. And when all else fails...at least horror has its guilty pleasure to make it enjoyable like gore gore gore, and the occasional nude scene! Yeah, well when you have a horror movie rated PG-13 like Prom Night, they leave that stuff out too. So with all of these elements missing, I ask....does this still count as a horror movie? Nope. I'd call it more of a comedy. People in my theater were laughing more at this then they were when I saw "Semi-Pro" that was supposed to actually be a comedy (which also sucked, but thats another story!). I think I am just going to have to give up on new horror. All the good horror movies of the good ol' days have been remade into garbage so movie studios can make money. The people I went to see it with didn't even know this was a remake! Which made me mad! I wonder what will happen when there's no more movies to remake??? Where will horror go next??? | negative. |
So, Prom Night was supposed to be a horror and thriller movie. I'm a big wuss and was scared to see this movie at the beginning, but upon seeing it, it is neither horror or thriller.<br /><br />I was basically making fun of the movie in my seat because it was so predictable. You could predict what was going to happen next. The young actors were alright at playing their characters, but I'd have to say the killer was definitely at the top of the game - acting wise.<br /><br />Yes, I'll give props for the plot because it was good, but it's not thrilling or scary. There were almost zero "jump-in-your-seat" scenes. So, don't waste ten dollars seeing it in theatres, wait 'til it comes to DVD. | negative. |
When I first saw the trailer for Prom Night, I have to admit, the trailer looked good and like this would be a fun horror movie. So my friend and I saw Prom Night last night and I have to say I must be growing up because this was such a ridicules film, not to mention I am so sick and tired of the typical horror slasher movies with the loud noises as an excuse to scare people. There was no tension, the characters, how was I supposed to care about them? They had no development what-so-ever, the killer?! Oh, my God, this was very possibly the most stupid serial killer that has ever existed, I know it's a film, but why would a man who never(or at least we know of) killed any one before, kill a girl's family and friends that he's just obsessed over? I mean, was he going to kidnap her or was he going to kill her? I have no idea, because this film made no sense and is too predictable and insulting to true fans of horror.<br /><br />Donna's family was just brutally murdered by her teacher, who has become very obsessed over her, he was captured and put in jail. It's been 3 years and she's just now getting some peace in her life, she's even going to her senior prom. But the killer has escaped and still has Donna on his mind, he follows her to her prom which means bad news for her friends, and the hotel maid, and the bell boy, because it is such a good idea to kill the maid and bell boy so no one become suspicious enough to check to see where these employee's are. Donna is in big trouble because also this killer who is clearly human can apparently get into houses un-noticed and can kill people so silently, just, wow.<br /><br />I'm sorry, I really did want to love this movie, we haven't had a good slasher flick in a long time, but this was just a stupid movie that I was not impressed with. Just the situations were unbelievable and the actors were obnoxious. I know that this was a PG-13 movie, but I just love how someone was brutally stabbed to death and they only have just a little blood on their clothes? Not to mention no stab holes? I wouldn't recommend this movie for anyone unless you're a teen, this movie was made for the teenagers, not adults, and not for those who know a real horror movie, no offense to those who did enjoy this film, but I don't understand how anyone could.<br /><br />2/10 | negative. |
I saw this trailer and thought to myself my god is this movie for real, who would want to see this movie and at the same time i thought that, my girl friend turned to me and said "we have to go see this movie"...enough said so i saw this about 5 minutes go and I tried to put on a brave face and enjoy the cheap scares but there weren't even any of those. It has to be one of the worst movies I have ever seen the director has no influence no perspective the same shots were used again and again he did not build up suspense the cast probably were simply told scream cry run fall. I would love to see the script as the first 40 mins was mostly annoying girly giggles and bad music, there was absolutely no character development.<br /><br />The plot is just...well there was no plot it was basically I know we will terrorize a high school group on their prom night with a stalker serial killer, That's brilliant! hmmm The acting was what you expect in a Australian soap opera hopeless, that main character the Blondie god dam she annoyed me. her longest line must have been half a sentence, and every time she was on camera she was just pulling another rude facial expression.<br /><br />Please listen to me if you have any taste in movies don't go see this, and if your like me and don't have a choice well then I wish you good luck, maybe smuggle in an ipod or magazine. Can't believe this film got made! | negative. |
In Bridgeport, the deranged high school teacher Richard Fenton (Johnathon Schaech) is obsessed by the teenager student Donna Keppel (Brittany Snow); she witnesses him murder her family to stay with her, but Richard is arrested and sent to prison for life. Three years later, the traumatized Donna is feeling better but is still under psychological treatment and taking pills. On her prom night, she goes with her boyfriend Bobby (Scott Porter) and two couples of friends to the Pacific Grad Hotel for the party. But the psychopath Richard has escaped from prison and is lodged in the same floor in the hotel chasing Donna, stabbing her friends and staff of the hotel that cross his path.<br /><br />The forgettable slash "Prom Night" is a collection of clichés with a total lack of originality. The stupid story is shallow and silly, with a bad acting of Johnathon Schaech in the role of an insane killer. The predictable screenplay is amazing since it is possible to foresee what is going to happen in the next scenes. My vote is three.<br /><br />Title (Brazil): "A Morte Convida Para Dançar" ("The Death Invites to Dance") | negative. |
I'm not particularly fond of remakes, or to steal the modern jargon "retellings", but this film truly peeved me off. The original Prom Night, while not in my humble estimation a masterpiece, still realized what it was... horror. There are some simple things to remember when making a horror film. Suspense is crucial to maintaining the interest of the audience. Sorry folks, but a white knuckle film this was not! The scares were cheap, and foreshadowed terribly. (A good example of scare which has been done to clichéd excess now, is the cat jumping out of the closet, followed soon there after but a now unexpected appearance by the villain of the film) This film couldn't successfully pull that off, so how could I expect it to fulfill any of the other conventions of horror film. There needs to be a likable hero or heroine. This film doesn't have one. The person I most identified with was the head detective. His calm demeanor, but level headed approach to the escape of a killer was what more films of this ilk should have. Common sense approach to events that occur. (If you're running from an Axe wielding psycho, you turn and sprint in the opposite direction. Not jog, whilst looking back ever three seconds, gaging the killer's progress, only to trip over every branch and inanimate object in your path.) If you friend disappears, you don't go looking for them alone. And if you suspect foul play you tell someone, not investigate yourself. These clichés are tired and well overplayed. In the horror genre in general, and in this film in particular. | negative. |
Imagine the scenario - you are at the movie theater only because you are in Washington for the weekend and it's raining and you're finished with the Museums. You think you might go see the Sarah Marshall movie as the trailer look so so and you don't have to engage your brain. It's sold out. Options? - The Bank Job, In Bruges, The Leatherheads or Prom night. You've seen the Bank Job (suprisingly decent heist movie that) and In Bruges (again, pretty good) so you're down to two. You don't fancy watching Clooney or the nice one from the Office run around in 1930 football uniforms, so you go see Prom Night right? Wrong. You take the $8.50, walk up to a stranger in the street and ask him to punch you in the face for $8.50. It would be money better spent.<br /><br />It actually plays like more of a comedy than a horror/thriller or whatever it is supposed to be. If I was financing that movie and they showed me that as a final cut I wouldn't know whether to laugh or cry. Probably both. An insult to anyone's intelligence... my roommate was laughing out loud most of the movie, as for the acting, they might as well have cast robots (or maybe dogs) in the roles, they would have been more realistic. The detective has to be possibly the worst actor I have ever seen (Ben Affleck and Hayden Christansan (I hate his acting so much I don't care how you spell his name) you are relieved on your title(s)) <br /><br />So in summary 'not good' | negative. |
and rent a GOOD horror movie. It's like the writer had never seen a horror movie before and didn't realize every single thing he wrote was clichéd and hackneyed and has been parodied to perfection in movies like "Scream" and "Scary Movie".<br /><br />In between the scary bits is the most BANAL and BORING dialog ever written. Stupid "we're going to the prom" junk. I wanted to claw my ears off. Honestly, "The Hills" has better dialog.<br /><br />There really was no need to make this movie. Leading lady is uninteresting and I kept thinking "Her? Really? Guy is obsessed with her? Really?" <br /><br />All the characters act in stupid ways, including the police. (Cover the place in teams of 2! Front and back! Not one sleepy cop sitting in his car with the window rolled down just waiting for his throat to be slashed.) <br /><br />The serial killer just swans about murdering everyone he wants without the least bit of problem. No resistance from victims (or doors). Nobody has any protection or the least idea of fighting back (or flipping the security lock on the hotel room door). The people are like mentally disabled sheep.<br /><br />By the by, if you're a gore fan, you'll be disappointed too. All the killing is kept offscreen and is -- ahem -- tastefully done. (So boo hoo for you!) <br /><br />None of the killings is the least bit interesting. Most of the time they've already happened by the time we find out.<br /><br />The only cliché missing was the cat that always pops out in this kind of movies. "Oh kitty! You scared me! I thought you were the killer -- AIIEEEE!" <br /><br />And then at the end when it's time for the killer to die -- well, let's just say it's the easiest and most obvious choice. Snore.<br /><br />The audience was jeering and talking back to the screen throughout. It was too dumb to believe and not really scary enough. Don't encourage this kind of lazy film-making.<br /><br />(Oh, and by the way -- no crowning of a prom king or queen. No tiara. No bucket of blood.) <br /><br />So save your money and rent "Carrie" or "Friday the 13th" or "Halloween" or "Scream" or "Scary Movie" (any of them) to get a good scare with some original twists. | negative. |
Okay. So I just got back. Before I start my review, let me tell you one thing: I wanted to like this movie. I know I've been negative in the past, but I was hoping to be surprised and actually come out liking the film. I didn't.<br /><br />It's not just the fact that every horror cliché imaginable is in this. And it's not just the fact that they make every little thing into a jump scare (walking into a baseball bat left on the floor? Are you kidding me?). It just wasn't scary. One thing I was surprised about: there was more blood than I thought there was going to be.. which isn't saying much.<br /><br />The film starts off with Donna being dropped off by Lisa's mom at her house. She comes in.. goes upstairs. Camera pans to her father dead on the couch. Spooky. She goes upstairs, where the aforementioned baseball bat scene happens. Finds her brother on his bed, apparently dead (how could she tell? He didn't have a spot of blood on him). Killer comes in, Donna hides under bed, mom dies. She runs outside screaming for help. Killer behind her: "I did it for us." Cut to therapy session. This confused a lot of people- everyone was asking whether or not her family actually died or if she imagined it- and she mentions how the nightmares have started coming back. Filler dialogue ensues.<br /><br />THey cut to the chase pretty quick. Few scenes at the salon, they go to the hotel. Of course the killer is already there (for some reason, he escaped 3 days ago but the police/family weren't informed until he's already there). More filler ensues.<br /><br />I'm not going to go on about what happens in the film, because I don't want to spoil it too much. If you want to know who dies, Horror_Fan made a post about it already. But on the subjects of deaths: they weren't that exciting. People in the theatre actually laughed out loud (an experience I've never had before in a horror movie, not even in When A Stranger Calls) during several of them. One in particular: the bus boy guy who gives the most hilarious 'scared' face I've ever seen. The only death involving any blood was Lisa's, and that was pretty scarce. Her throat is slashed, blood (if you can even call it that- it was practically black) splatters on the curtain-thing. The only other blood was on Claire when we see her body. Apparently, Fenton decided to stab her a few times after he choked her to death. Um, okay? The movie was one of the most clichéd I've ever seen. Let's see here.. obligatory close-mirror-curtain-BOOM! scene. Check. Twice, actually (you could tell they were struggling). Mandatory backing-up-into-killer. Check. There's also the backing-up-into-lamp scene, but you've all seen that. Oh, you say you want a birds-flying-away scare? Well, you got it! (Yes, they managed to incorporate one of those in here). And, of course, the we-have-security-on-all-exits-but-he-still-escaped scene. Shall I go on? I could.<br /><br />For anyone saying the characters weren't stupid, are you kidding me? "Oh, even though the massive alarm is ringing, literally saying PLEASE VACATE THE BUILDING, and 3 of my friends are missing, I'm going to go upstairs to get my wrap." These characters were some of the most flawed and stupid characters ever. The only likable character - Lisa - made one of the most stupid moves in the movie. "Oh, I just realized the psycho-teacher is here! I must leave my strong boyfriend behind to run off by myself to warn her! Oh, shoot, the elevator is being to slow? Guess I'll take the stairs and run off into the construction site!" Ugh. By the end of the film, they all deserved to die. The only death anyone felt any remorse for was Donna's boyfriend (I can't even remember his name- is that bad?), and by that time, the audience was completely drained out of this scareless, clichéd film.<br /><br />There were SOME positives- the acting was decent for the most part, and it was well-shot. But that's about it.<br /><br />I'd give it a 1/5, and that's being generous. Just for the laughs (and believe me, the audience had a few), and Brittany Snow.<br /><br />Oh, and the reaction was bad. Very bad. People were boo-ing after the movie ended and buzz afterwards was very negative. Expect bad legs for this one. | negative. |
Good grief I can't even begin to describe how poor this film is. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't expecting much to begin with. Let's face it, a PG-13 slasher flick is pre-destined to be missing the ummm... slashing, so no one should be surprised by the lack of gore. But it was the level of incompetence and cliché on display in all the other aspects of this movie is what really blew me away. <br /><br />We have a protagonist who is quite simply so completely useless that you find yourself rooting for the bad guy. And here's a turnup for the books... SHE NEVER CHANGES - hence breaking the cardinal rule of basic screen writing - character development. If you think by the end of this film the poor little girl is going to turn around and finally kick some arse then think again. <br /><br />On top of this, we're handed possibly the least intriguing (and definitely the least scary) killer ever to grace the genre. I'm not joking when I say that Dora the Explorer has scarier villains than this movie.<br /><br />Finally, because all the potential for tension or gratuity is removed by the inept (and apparently thirteen-year-old) director, what could possibly be left to fill up 2 hours of screen time? <br /><br />Closets, that's what. <br /><br />Lots and lots of closets: big closets, small closets, mirrored closets, closets to Narnia, so many damned closets you'll not want to dress yourself for another year. In fact this movie should have just been called "CLOSET", and had a picture of a big scary coathanger on the DVD case. On the back it could have had a photograph of the audience falling asleep and a quote by Roger and Ebert - something to the extent of: "what the f*@! did we just waste our time watching!" | negative. |
This movie is a good example of the extreme lack of good writers and directors in Hollywood. The fact that people were paid to make this piece of junk shows that there is a lack of original ideas and talent in the entertainment business. The idea that audiences paid to see this movie (and like an idiot I rented the film) is discouraging also.<br /><br />Obsessed teacher (3 years prior) kills teenager's family because he wants her. For no reason he kills the mother, father and brother. From the first five minutes you see the bad acting and direction. Years later, obsessed teacher breaks out of prison. HMM--usual bad writing--no one in the town he terrorized knows until the last minute. Obsessed teacher somehow becomes like a Navy SEAL and can sneak around, sniff out people and with a knife is super killer. Sure!!! Now obsessed teacher kills hotel maid for no reason, knifes bellhop for the fun of it, and starts to hunt down the teenager's friends. Now there is the perfect way to get the girl to love you. Obsessed teacher sneaks out of hotel---again it is stupid, ever cop would know his face--but he walks right by them. Now he kills two cops outside teenager's house and somehow sneaks into her bedroom and kills her boyfriend.<br /><br />There is not one single positive thing about this piece of garbage. If any other profession put out work of this low quality, they would be fired. Yet these idiots are making hundreds of thousands of dollars for writing and directing this trash. | negative. |
I wish I could give this movie a zero out of ten. Before going to this movie the day after it came out, I came on IMDb to check out the comments. A comment called the movie predictable and cheesy with terrible dialog. I never go by other people's opinions, so I wasted seven dollars for this crap movie. It had to be one of the WORST movies I've ever seen.<br /><br />The person who wrote the script should be pushed off a cliff. Since when do scary movies have sappy scenes? I swear, I'm amazed there weren't any GROUP HUG ^-^ moments.<br /><br />I think I jumped. Once. And that's because I zoned out, thinking about my research paper for English. The clichéd, birds/cat popping out of nowhere thing when you THOUGHT something was gonna happen.<br /><br />And the characters were STUPID. My friend and I almost DIED laughing when the alarm went off and the main character said, "I have to get my mom's shawl!!!" You. Idiot. Screw the shawl! Safety is just a few steps away, but NO, my mom's shawl (that didn't match the dress By the way) is WAYYYY more important than my health and safety. And to top it all off, they take her BACK to her house, knowing that the killer knew where she lived. God.<br /><br />My friend and I also predicted the ENTIRE movie. And not just the, I bet he's hiding under the bed, moments. It was the, "HE stole the bellhop's clothes and sneaked out of the hotel" and "It's the detective coming down the hallway, not the killer!" moments. Movies should NEVER be THIS predictable. Disney movies aren't even this predictable.<br /><br />I'm gonna complete my rant now by saying, this was a terrible movie. I'm glad I went to see it in theaters so I wouldn't buy it for $15.00 and then hate it. It was just bad. It would've been better if only one thing would've happened. If, after being shot by the detective, the killer would have fallen down in the same position he got shot in. Knife in hand, falling and stabbing the girl on his way down. Oh, how lovely that would've been.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money. Go see a GOOD movie. | negative. |
PROM NIGHT (2008)<br /><br />directed by: Nelson McCormick<br /><br />starring: Brittany Snow, Scott Porter, Jessica Stroup, and Dana Davis<br /><br />plot: Three years ago, Donna (Brittany Snow) witnessed the death of her entire family at the hands of her teacher (Jonathan Schaech) who has a bit of a crush on her. Now, she is preparing for her senior prom with her stupid annoying friends. Once there, they start dying one by one because the killer escaped from prison and no one bothered to warn Donna because apparently her prom is too important to interrupt. <br /><br />pros: I got a few good laughs out of the film due to the terrible dialog and the dumb character moves.<br /><br />An example:<br /><br />Everyone decides not to tell Donna that the man who is oddly obsessed with her (she doesn't seem that great) has escaped from prison. Their reason: They don't want to embarrass her in front of all her friends. LOL<br /><br />cons: Let me start off by saying I'm a huge slasher fan. Usually I can have fun with even the bad ones. I even like some PG-13 horror films. TOURIST TRAP (1979), one of my favorites, was originally rated PG. I also enjoy POLTERGEIST (1982) and THE GRUDGE (2004). So the fact that this is a dumb slasher film that is rated PG-13 does not have anything to do with me not enjoying the movie.<br /><br />First of all, I had a big problem with the story. I like slasher films that don't even have stories. At least they can be entertaining. This is about a teacher who falls in love with his student, so he kills her entire family. A few years later, he tries to make it up to her by ruining her prom and killing all of her friends ...? Then there were subplots that I doubt anyone cared about. Claire (Jessica Stroup) is fighting with her boyfriend, she has cramps, and I couldn't care less. This should have been a Lifetime feature, not a remake of PROM NIGHT. <br /><br />And then ... this is a slasher film with terrible death scenes. I don't even care that it's not that gory, some of my favorite slashers (HALLOWEEN, CURTAINS, the original PROM NIGHT) were not that gory but they still had effective murders. Here, we have half the characters dying in the same hotel room off screen, a woman being stabbed several times with no stab wounds, and a closeup on a bad actor's face as he screams in agony. I'm sure that 10 year-old girls were terrified, but not me.<br /><br />I also hated the characters. There was Donna's unrealistically sensitive boyfriend Bobby (Scott Porter) and I can almost guarantee you will never meet a boyfriend that sensitive in your life, unless you are a gay male. Then we had Donna's annoying friends Claire (Stroup) and Lisa (Dana Davis), and the token mean girl Chrissy (Brianne Davis). If you thought the characters in DEATH PROOF were annoying, try watching this movie. And don't get me started on Ronnie (Collins Pennie) and the DJ (Jay Phillips) who gave me flashbacks to Usher's performance in SHE'S ALL THAT.<br /><br />Add to all that predictable plot turns, a terrible soundtrack and a big lack of respect to the original material, and you have quite a stinker. | negative. |
Note: I couldn't force myself to actually write up a constructive review of Prom Night. It just can't be done. Instead, I went through what I thought about while watching the movie.<br /><br />Things that I thought about while watching Prom Night: <br /><br />-I'm so tired of those dreams where these elaborate deaths will take place, only for the main character to wake up right before she bites it. Of course, when I say "elaborate deaths", I mean off screen throat slashes or stabs in the stomach. Didn't the whole "it's just a dream" thing get ruined by Dallas? Speaking of which, I wonder if a couple stabs in the gut will cause immediate death.<br /><br />-The film is only ten minutes into and I can already count the horror clichés on two hands. Not a good sign.<br /><br />-Even after just meeting the protagonist's boyfriend, I'm convinced he will die. Anybody want to place bets? <br /><br />-The killer in this movie is a teacher that is obsessed with the main character, Donna. (By the way, does anybody think that "Donna" is a horrible name for a main character in a horror film?) He spends three years in a maximum security prison before breaking out and finds Donna celebrating her high school prom. While there is no accounting for taste, I seriously wonder who would take all that time to stalk somebody as dull as Donna.<br /><br />-High schools allow proms to take place at hotels and doesn't keep track of the students. Apparently students are perfectly able to buy a hotel room and go in and out as they please. I suppose if this plot point wasn't in place, the movie would be 90 minutes of people being bored out of their mind and randomly biting the dust whenever they go to the bathroom. I suppose the trade-off for their excitement is my utter boredom with everything. I've already played "count the pieces of chewed bubble gum under the seat" and "guess how much money I have in my wallet" and I'm only in the 20 minute mark. How else will I entertain myself? <br /><br />-Note to self: Don't forget milk and bread on the way home.<br /><br />-Dear screenwriter: You've used up enough false scares to get through this movie and every other horror remake this year.<br /><br />-The 1980 version of this film wasn't that good but compared to this remake it was like Citizen Kane, or at least The Godfather. It had Jamie Lee Curtis in one of her many post-Halloween horror flicks and it did have a little "twist" at the end. I miss Jamie Lee. I wish she'd act more.<br /><br />-Apparently at prom there isn't much dancing going on. Instead the girls get in fights with their boyfriends over where they plan to attend college. I hear all these colleges being brought up by name, and I can't help but wonder who these girls have to cheat off of on the entrance exam to get in.<br /><br />-The killer must carry a bag of really effective cleaning supplies and wipes up his mess between scenes. That's the only logical explanation for why he could stab somebody to death on the carpet or in the bathroom and by the time somebody goes up to the hotel room, there is no trace of a struggle. (On another side note: This is a very lazy killer. Michael Myers went hunting after his victims. Just saying.)<br /><br />-It's official: the entire audience in the theater is rooting on the killer. What triggered it? Was it whenever Donna went back up to her hotel room while sirens were going off ordering everybody to exit the building? Was it her constant dreams, and how even after going through something dramatic in said dream she insisted on reenacting her steps to a tee? Or was it Brittany Snow's unconvincing performance? I'll have to say it was all of the above.<br /><br />-Okay, who had "he dies off screen in the third act"? You win the pot.<br /><br />-Finally, the movie is over. My friend turns to me and says "Donna wasn't too smart." That's the understatement of the week. Kind of like saying that a tornado is a small gust of wind, or a week long power outage is a slight inconvenience.<br /><br />-I can't wait to get on Rotten Tomatoes and see if anybody gave this move a favoring review.<br /><br />-I can't recommend this. I refuse to recommend this. This is as lazy of a horror film as any, and the only way to enjoy its cheese smelling plot is if you are under the influence of at least ten beers. And unfortunately for theater patrons, alcohol isn't served.<br /><br />Rating: * out of **** | negative. |
I went into this with my hopes up, by twenty minutes into the movie I couldn't have been more let down. Despite thinking that this would be another horribly bad remake, I kept my hopes high that maybe...just maybe someone would get it right this time around. Sadly, Prom Night is about on the same quality level as the recent April Fools Day remake, bad script, bad direction, cheesy overdone acting and generally bad horror.<br /><br />From beginning to end it's boring, repetitive and worthy of about a dozen eye rolls. We've seen it all before and we've seen it done a million times better then this. If you go to see Prom Night in the theater (I'd say wait for the DVD or PPV), get ready for the audience to laugh, because laugh they will. The laughs aren't at points in the movie that are supposed to be funny, they are in response to key "thrilling" moments in the film that are so poorly done you feel as if your watching the newest installment of Scary Movie. Seriously, was this supposed to be a remake or a spoof? The film makers missed the mark so badly here, that a large number of the audience in the theater I attended walked out about halfway through the movie. Which in retrospect, I wish I had done. Not me though, I had to torture myself and stick with it hoping it would get better. Needless to say It didn't. The "horror" scenes are a joke, not even so much because of the acting but because of the direction, the script, the "special effects" and the camera work. The movie manages to look as if they spent a fortune to produce it, but still came out of it with a micro budget movie. I halfway expected to see dollar store tags on some of the props and kept thinking I would spot a porn star in the cast somewhere. <br /><br />This movies scary alright, if this is the future of big budget horror then the horror genre is doomed. | negative. |
"Prom Night" is a title-only remake of the 1980 slasher flick that starred Jamie Lee Curtis and Leslie Nielsen. This movie takes place in an Oregon town, where Donna (Brittany Snow) is about to go to her senior prom and let herself have some fun after going through some extremely traumatic events in the past few years. She and her friends arrive at the prom, which is taking place in a grand hotel, and try and enjoy what is supposed to be the most fun night of their lives. Little does anyone know, a man from Donna's past, who has haunted her for years, is also at the prom... and is willing to kill anyone in way of his pursuit of her.<br /><br />I'm a fan of the original "Prom Night", so I tried to maintain a little hope in this movie, but I have to admit I was quite disappointed. "Prom Night" suffers from the worst affliction a horror movie could have, and that is predictability. There are absolutely no surprises here, and I felt I had seen everything in this movie done dozens of times, often better, before. What does this equate to for the audience? Boredom. Unless of course you have never seen any horror movies, or are part of the pre-teen crowd, but the majority of the audience will most likely be able to guess nearly everything that is going to happen. The plot is simplistic, but the entire script is void of any type of surprise, twist, atmosphere, or anything, and this really, really hurts the movie because it never really gives the audience anything to sink their teeth into. It all just seemed very bland.<br /><br />A lot of people seem to complain with the fact that this is a PG-13 slasher movie as well, and I understand what they are saying, but I don't think it's impossible to make a good slasher movie with minimal gore. Take Carpenter's "Halloween" for example - little to no on screen violence, but still an extremely frightening and effective movie. You don't need gore to make a film scary, but even had "Prom Night" been gratuitously violent (which it is not, it is very tame), it still would have added little to the movie because there is not much in the script to build on to begin with. The tension and suspense here is mild at best, and I spent most of the movie predicting the outcome of situations, and was correct about 99% of the time. Our characters aren't well written enough either for the audience to make any connection to them, and their by-the-numbers demises are routine and careless.<br /><br />I will point out a few things I did like about this movie, though, because it wasn't completely useless - the cinematography is really nice, and everything was very well-filmed and fairly stylish. Among the "jump" scares (that are for the most part very predictable), there were a few that were kind of clever. The sets for the movie are nice too and the hotel is a neat place for the plot to unfold, however predictable the unfolding may be. As for the acting, it's mediocre at best. Brittany Snow plays the lead decently, but really the rest of the cast doesn't show off much talent. Johnathan Schaech plays the villain, and is probably the most experienced performer here, but even he isn't that impressive. However, I did like the character he played, which was a nice change from the typical 'masked-stalker' type killer we see a lot. As far as the ending goes, the last fifteen minutes of the film had me bored to my wit's end and it was very anti-climactic.<br /><br />Overall, "Prom Night" was a disappointment. Everything was very by-the-numbers, routine, and predictable, which is somewhat upsetting considering this had the potential to be a decent slasher movie. There were a few neat moments, but the movie lacked any suspense or atmosphere, and had little plot development, nor believable characters. I'd advise seasoned horror fans to save their money and wait till it's out on video, or rent the original instead, because there are absolutely no surprises here. Some may find a little entertainment in it, but it was far too predictable for my tastes. I expected better, and left the theater very disappointed. 3/10. | negative. |
If I could give this film a real rating, it would likely be in the minus numbers. While I respect the fact that somebody has to keep making these terrible "horror" films, seriously, people, buying a ticket for this film is a waste of money you could be spending on something far more worth your time.<br /><br />Despite it being a horror film, there is nothing scary about it, unless the idea of seeing how many horror cliché's you can fit in one movie scares you. If the rating had been higher, it probably would have made for a better film in the long run.<br /><br />Whoever made this version of "Prom Night", you screwed up. The actors could probably have done a decent job if it weren't for the questionable scripting. This was a terrible waste of a cinema trip. I'd sooner go and see "One Missed Call" again, at least that had some plot. | negative. |
I think it was an overrated PG-13 crap! At least BRITTANY SNOW's performance was good and some others like IDRIS ELBA were good too, but some others teens in the prom like the leads friends were not that convincing. The killer was so dumb and looked so stupid too. The deaths were stupid, boring and completely unoriginals. The movie was very boring too and very overrated. It wasn't suspenseful at all, i almost fall asleep. Its another bad PG-13 remake, its really a dreadful movie IMO. The ending was so stupid and the climax was very rushed and boring. The movie is pretty slow too. Overall the only good thing about this crap fest is maybe BRITTANY SNOW i think she gave a good performance and IDRIS ELBA too, but besides that it was a completely dreadful movie and horrible remake. Well thats just my opinion. i gave it a 2/10. | negative. |
I saw this movie a few days ago and gamely jumped during the scary parts. I must admit, I found it pretty decent...until I started to THINK about what the characters were saying. Logical problems:<br /><br />1. Her boyfriend, who seems to be a pretty fit dude, makes no sound while being killed. Don't you think that he might have at least tried to take the killer? <br /><br />2. When the remark is made that the gym teacher is "SOOOO in love with Lisa," I almost screamed at the screen. When your best friend's family HAS BEEN KILLED BY A TEACHER WHO WAS IN LOVE WITH HER, you don't make comments like that if you have half of a heart.<br /><br />3. As soon as Nash asks the uncle how many exits they have in the house and the uncle catches on that there may be danger ahead, wouldn't the smart thing to do be to get Donna, boyfriend, aunt, and uncle into a car and drive far, far away, then bait the house with the HRT and police force so that the killer has no way to get out?<br /><br />I could go on. And on. And on. Basically, the plot was decent, the characters weren't profiled enough for you to actually feel any empathy when they were slaughtered and there were way too many errors.<br /><br />HOWEVER.<br /><br />This movie might be good for teenagers, or young couples just looking for a fun night out. If you don't consider all the goofs, it's a mediocre film. | negative. |
Why Hollywood feels the need to remake movies that were so brilliant their prime (The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Hills Have Eyes) but is it considerably worse why Hollywood feels the need to remake those horror films that weren't brilliant to start with (Prom Night, The Amityville Horror) Much like their originals these remakes fail in creating atmosphere, character or any genuine scares at all. Prom night is so flat and uninteresting its hard to watch, but for all the wrong reasons.<br /><br />It's a poorly acted, massively uninteresting and ultimately dull excursion that fails at everything its designed to do. It's clear Hollywood Horror is dead. Even The likes of The Hills Have Eyes and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre managed to ruin their franchises in style with buckets of blood and a decent plot. Prom night is virtually bloodless and I'm not even going to mention how bad the plot is. Its inability to seal the killers identify makes this the least suspenseful horror movie since erm... the original.<br /><br />One of the most notorious slasher films of the 1980s returns to terrorize filmgoers with this remake that proves just how horrifying high school dances can truly be. Donna Keppel (Brittany Snow) has survived a terrible tragedy, but now the time has come to leave the past behind and celebrate her senior prom in style.<br /><br />When the big night finally arrives, Donna and her best friends prepare to enjoy their last big high-school blowout by living it up and partying till dawn. But while Donna is willing to look past her nightmares and into a brighter future, the man she thought she had escaped forever has returned for one last dance. An obsessed killer is on the loose, and he'll slay anyone who attempts to prevent him from reaching his one and only Donna.<br /><br />Who will survive to see graduation day, and what will Donna do when she's forced to confront her greatest fear? Scott Porter, Jessica Stroup, and Dana Davis co-star in the slasher remake that will have tuxedo-clad teens everywhere nervously looking over their shoulders as they file out onto the dance floor. A plot that will probably put you off going to see this. Witch if you ask me is a good thing.<br /><br />Without much to work with, McCormick gamely tries to milk tension out of the most banal of situations. At one point, a girl backs into a floor lamp (a lamp!) and McCormick tries to pump it up into a jump-scare moment. Desperate times really do call for desperate measures. There haven't been this many shots of closets since the last IKEA catalogue.<br /><br />In the era of The Hills, My Super Sweet 16 and To Catch a Predator, there probably is a freaky, scary movie to be mined from the commoditisation of glamour and society's creepy obsession with youthful beauty. This is not that movie.<br /><br />My final verdict? Avoid at all cost. Nobody will like Prom Night, it's even a disappointment to thoses who usually enjoy hack-job remakes. Considering its absolute lack of blood or frights. A night you'll be in a hurry to forget. | negative. |
OK this movie was made for one reason and one reason only TO MAKE MONEY!!The producers obviously didn't care about killing a classic horror movie. I knew this movie would suck as soon as it was going to be a pg-13 how many pg-13 slashers movies have turned out to be good? Thats like asking how many women have been on the moon? The answer is NONE!! Prom night 1980 was of cource no masterpiece but it certainly deserves to be recognised as a movie that stays true to its genre and deosnt try to be anything more than that.<br /><br />My problem with Prom night 2008 is the way that it handles the killer and i have 3 major problems with him.....................<br /><br />1)The way he escapes, he was locked up in a mental institute and he escapes through a air conditioning vent!! WHAT THE HELL? why would they have an air conditioning vent in the patients room? Do they want him to be comfortable during his stay or something? 2)His intentions are somewhat uncertain the killer want all of the main victims family and friends dead so he can have her all to his self, he says he loves her but the next minute he trys to kill her, so does he want to kill her, love her or just plain rape her?? 3) The killer is too good, how did he develop all of his skills? He used to be a teacher, so in this one scene where he kills the main victims boyfriend while hes basically on top of her asleep and she doesn't notice, it all silly 2 stars out of 10 terrible,silly,stupid attempt at a horror movie | negative. |
The night of the prom: the most important night to any shallow girl composed almost entirely of plastic. And so the characters kept reminding us every ten minutes when some head-peckingly miniscule event occurred in their miniscule lives.<br /><br />There really is no excuse for Prom Night. There is less than nothing original about it and I truly would have given it zero or less stars were it possible on IMDb. The only part of my viewing that I enjoyed was when a group of teenagers sitting in front of us decided to play a game of 'ghosts'. It was a lot more exciting than whatever was going on on the screen in front of them.<br /><br />The plot was basically some guy going on a rampage. And the thing was, it wasn't even a slightly exciting rampage. Maybe if the guy had been remotely frightening rather than a tame Robbie Williams lookalike with a baseball cap, I might have sat there feeling slightly anxious. The fact that I cared less about the characters than I did about the colour of the cinema carpet didn't really add to the effect, either. And to make matters worse, the rest of the characters were equally one-dimensional and oblivious. The hotel staff didn't seem to notice or care that one of their maids had vanished and are further proof that a murderer is unrecognisable after he has had a shave. I was incredibly surprised that the bitchy, stereotypical girl in the blue dress was the only person to notice who he was. She realises this and then proceeds to fall down the stairs, entangle herself in a plastic sheet and then knock over a pile of paint buckets. Nice one.<br /><br />The worst thing was, I hold the belief that that the director was trying his absolute hardest. He really pushed all boundaries by not showing any killing actually happening. Shocking! And the music, don't even get me started. It was almost as appropriate as stripping at a funeral.<br /><br />I really wish that Prom Night was a joke. It was terrible and stupidly predictable. No one, in their right mind or otherwise, has any reason to see this film. Mainstream cinema seems to be going downhill and films like this worsen the situation. If you get the urge to see this absolutely awful film, hear my plea. Don't do it. There are better things to spend six pounds on. Like a sheet to play ghosts with. | negative. |
The acting was horrendous as well as the screenplay. It was poorly put together and made you almost want to laugh at the several terribly acted out murder scenes. The ending was even worse. Everyone kept dying, but somehow the ending made it look like everything was perfectly OK! They did not give enough history about the obsession the teacher had, etc. The movie needed more time to perhaps develop a better storyline. The only reason I give this 3/10 is that I kind of feel bad for the young actors. They needed better coaching. They could have really made this an OK film, but the screenplay and acting failed miserably. | negative. |
i saw this film by accident and this movie was an accident...well it must of been. blonde women being stalked,the villain appearing then disappearing getting from one place to another in minute's then disappearing and reappearing,hiding.he was'nt even a super hero so i don't know how he did it.he could'nt frighten a cat and that's not hard to do.<br /><br />the old "mirror in the bathroom"is just not scary anymore in fact it stopped being scary years ago. you had the cop on the trail of the villain,another cliché(played by idris elba with a very convincing American accent,he's from London) the director did'nt have a clue and has made a film full of cliché's and make's "scary move"which was a COMEDY look scary. pathetic! | negative. |
When I first saw the preview for this movie, I really couldn't wait to see it. The plot seemed good and the setting was great. I mean, a slasher movie that takes place on prom night, great idea!! And the plot: A High School teacher that becomes sexually obsessed with one of his students, goes crazy, gets arrested, and escapes three years later on prom night! Prom night, a night that is supposed to be happy and memorable, turns into hell!! However, I saw it and was extremely disappointed. It was not only the worst "horror movie" I have ever seen, but it was one of the worst movie in general that I have ever seen!! First of all, it wasn't even scary. There was not one moment in that movie when I jumped out of my seat. Also, the murder scenes were so cheesy and dull. All the slasher did was either stab his victims in the stomach multiple times or cut their throats. Also there was absolutely no gore (its rated PG-13). The scene with the most blood was probably the one where the killer murders the black girl. He slits her throat and blood splatters on the sheets hanging around them (they don't actually show him cutting her throat).<br /><br />Next, you see the killers face the first time he is introduced in the movie. He isn't mysterious, creepy, or scary. He's just this guy who kills people.<br /><br />Also, everything in the movie was so cliché. An example is when, at the end, the killer is about to kill the main character and at the last moment, the detective shoots and kills him. Also, every single thing in this movie was so predictable. The victim, after seeing the guy with a knife, runs for her life, hides, thinks she gets away, and then the killer just pops out and kills her.<br /><br />Finally, the sequence of the movie was extremely bad. The guy goes into the hotel, kills a few people, the bodies are discovered, someone pulls the fire alarm, and everyone evacuates. The main character forgets something in her room, has an encounter with the killer, runs and escapes. Thats it! She and her boyfriend go home, the slasher kills the guards patrolling the house, finds the girl, then gets killed by the detective. The movie sequence was so stupid and cliché.<br /><br />If your thinking of seeing this movie all because the preview looked good, trust me, don't waste your time or money. No wonder this movie was being shown in the smallest theater in the movie theater. My friend and I, along with these two girls sitting in the back, were the only ones in the theater. That should have told me something about the movie beforehand. | negative. |
We have all been asking ourselves "why don't they remake the slasher films that were only OK instead of remaking the ones that were great already, that way they can only make it better?" well with Prom Night they have remade the average but trashy fun 80s Jamie Lee Curtis film and made it even WORSE. Its a paint by numbers slasher film which is clearly trying to attract the young teens (hence no violence etc), the knife in this slasher flick is blunt.The director spends so much time focusing on trying to make the rather attractive killer look somewhat creepy that anything else goes out of the window.The cast who include Britney Snow (who was superb in Hairspray) try their hardest but the material gives them nothing to do but pout and look scared.More annoying is how the death scenes are handled (we will hear the attack but wont see it). It also looks like the only place the knife in this film worked was in the editing suite since the film looks like it has been butchered (im guessing anything remotely scary ended up on the cutting room floor so as not to scare the kids) Yet in pours the money from Americans sending this film to number 1 at the box office!!! Slasher movies are a lot of fun but in Prom Nights case it made me want to download the original.I've seen scarier OC and Dawsons Creek episodes | negative. |
I'm a big fan of the TV series Largo Winch. This movie was pain for me. I had to use fast forward not to fell to sleep. It was boring! How can somebody ruin this title so much? The story was the only good thing. Actors were sh.t. They can't live the role. The main actor(Tom ... ) is a null. Watch the other roles of this actor. The fighting scenes were unbelievable boring and not to followable,somehow they were not to follow the situation. Like other reviewer said low budget film with bad actors.Maybe next time somebody else can do better thing out of this title. French can't do right thing with big films,like Alien 4. That was bit brrr, after Alien 1,2,3. | negative. |
First of all, if you'r a fan of the comic, well, you'll be VERY disappointed I'm sure ! Low budget movie !!! Largo is supposed to be Serbian in the comic, now suddenly he becomes croatian, pfff! chicken producers, it gave some spice and guts to the comic ( By the way, in the film, his father speaks Serbian and he speaks croatian... Lol ). The striking N.Y. Winch building becomes a common average-small yacht in H.K. The good looking Largo becomes some unshaved Tzigan/Turkish looking guy. Freddy the cool 'scarface' pilot becomes some fat, out of shape, sad, average guy. Simon, Largo's good buddy, does not exist at all !? He gave some pepper ! Largo doesn't throw knifes at all, but just some snake stares... The whole story is confused and looks like a pretentious TV-film. French directors and producers, if you don't have the money, the ability or the technology to adapt correctly the comic, please stick to some romance shooted in Paris. Very very bad film, good thing I just rented it, don't count on me to watch the sequel ( If there is any ! ). | negative. |
In my knowledge, Largo winch was a famous Belgium comics (never read) telling the adventures of a playboy, a sort of James Bond without the spy life! So, when I had to choose a movie for a 5 years-old kid, I picked it up because the kid was already a great fan of James Bond!<br /><br />But, just after the opening credits, I got heavy doubts: when American movies offer amazing start, here, no action and a torrid sex scene
Then, the story get very complicated with financial moves
I thought I lost the kid.<br /><br />But, strangely, he had been caught by Largo, and more than James Bond! <br /><br />Was it the excellent interpretation of Tomer Sisley? The difficult relationship Largo has with his father? The multiple box story in which the friends are the bad guys, the bad guys are the friends? The exotic locations of Honk-Kong, Yougoslavia? <br /><br />Dunno, but he really cares about Largo ("Will he get up?) and we enjoyed our moment. | negative. |
Chilly, alienating adaptation of Rebecca West's book about an Army Captain returning from duty in WWII with his memory impaired (now there's an original idea!). It seems he remembers old flame Glenda Jackson but not current wife Julie Christie, which should be enough to set off some emotional sparks. This extremely well-cast soaper brings together leading man Alan Bates with director Alan Bridges and co-stars Jackson, Christie, Ann-Margret, and Ian Holm, but the burners are all on low. There are a handful of good scenes (particularly whenever Jackson is on-screen), but Bridges' pacing is unrelievedly sluggish and the film's dulled-out color is enervating. Long on the shelf, this "Soldier" is best left forgotten. *1/2 from **** | negative. |
but "Cinderella" gets my vote, not only for the worst of Disney's princess movies, but for the worst movie the company made during Walt's lifetime. The music is genuinely pretty, and the story deserves to be called "classic." What fails in this movie are the characters, particularly the title character, who could only be called "the heroine" in the loosest sense of the term.<br /><br />After a brief prologue, the audience is introduced to Cinderella. She is waking up in the morning and singing "A Dream is A wish Your Heart Makes." This establishes her as an idealist (and thus deserving of our sympathy). Unfortunately, the script gives us no clue as to what she is dreaming about. Freedom from her servant role? The respect of her step-family? Someone to talk to besides mice and birds? In one song (cut from the movie but presented in the special features section of the latest DVD) Cinderella relates her wish that there could be many of her so she could do her work more efficiently. You go girlfriend! In short, Cinderella is a very bland character. She passively accepts her step-family's abuse, escaping into her unspoken dreams for relief. She only asserts herself once by reminding her stepmother that she is still a member of the family. For this, she is given permission to go the ball if she completes her housework and finds something to wear, a token gesture that is clearly absurd to everyone except, of course, Cinderella. Can anyone see Belle or Jasmine being such a doormat? If Cinderella is dull, her male counterpart is nothing short of lifeless. The Prince in Cinderella gets no dialog and almost no screen time. We are given no indication if he is a good man, if he respects Cinderella or anything. All we know is 1) he is a prince and 2) he dances well. Heck, even the prince from "Snow White" got to sing a romantic song at least. Not only does this lack of development make the romance less interesting, it makes Cinderella look like either a social climber or an idiot, weakening her already tenuous appeal.<br /><br />Perhaps realizing how dull the main characters were, the animators chose to give excessive screen time to the movie's comic relief, Cinderella's friends, the mice. Granted, these characters are amusing. Even so, when the comic relief steals the show from the principals, well, let's just say your story has some problems.<br /><br />Dinsey loves to proclaim all its animated features as "masterpieces." While many of them are, there are some that do not deserve this appellate in any way. Cinderella is a prime example of this fact. | negative. |
Just saw it yesterday in the Sao Paulo Intl Film Festival. Just before going I came here to see how it was rated, and at that time it was 7.4, a pretty nice rate...<br /><br />After 15 minutes I was dying to get out (never did this), but felt embarrassed to do so as the producer of the movie was in the screening.<br /><br />I did not like at all, the dialogs are shallow and lead nowhere, the characters are shallower than the dialogs, nothing lead anywhere, and the worst and worst: plenty of Siemens and Organics advertising on the movie. Despite the fact that I already paid to go to the movie and entertain myself, I still have to be bombarded by the main character chatting on the internet and Siemens mobile popping-up all the time on her lap-top; or another character having a bath or cutting her hair just to have Organics shampoo displayed enormously on the screen! All of this would be bearable if the plot, characters, romances, anything was good, but was bad, really bad! A "don't know how to do" sex-in-the-city.<br /><br />Don't waste your time or money. | negative. |
When I bought this DVD I though: "It seems to be a nice light comedy about love and relationships made up in Portuguese standards
let's give it a chance
" I was TOTALLY WRONG! What a disappointing movie! First, it's not a comedy; it's a cheap drama which can be so melodramatic that it's even worse than many Portuguese soap operas! Second, the plot is so boring, and leads nowhere
It has no structure, it just flows, like the wind, in one or another direction
The production is also bad! The sound mixing is horrible, because sometimes the voices are disconnected. It made me remind some old Portuguese movies from the 80's
The acting should have been better too
Well, to sum up, it's not with films like this one that Portuguese cinema will improve! In fact, it was one of the worst Portuguese movies I have seen in the last years! Bad argument, bad acting, bad production
I had no high hopes for this movie, but it was much worse than I've ever imagined! Just forget about it! | negative. |
(I'll indicate in this review the point where spoilers begin.) My dissatisfaction is split: 30% tone-deafness, 70% lackluster writing.<br /><br />The 30%: I agree with the first commenter's synopsis about the lack of diversity in the characters and scope of the stories. I was surprised how, this film, at best, woefully shortchanges the real NYC by presenting a collection of people and relationships so narrow as to come across as if it's inhabited only by the cast of Gossip Girl (this is coming from someone who likes Gossip Girl). A few minority characters are written into the stories, but they are included by obligation, while we can see the gears under the film so clearly, striving to "be diverse" but falling ever-so-short.<br /><br />The 70% is why everything falls short. All characters, white plus a few token minorities, are one-dimensional, cardboard cutouts of people concepts. Worse, their interactions with each other are scripted in such a way that for each vignette in the film the audience is treated to what I'd say is a "gag": we get a basic conceit, then some punchline intended to be a clever twist. But even if we suspended cynicism for a moment to say, "Okay, that was a surprise"...the stories are still not that interesting, because they, too, are shallow. When you fashion stories so that their existence hinges solely on the unexpectedness of the ending, you're writing jokes.<br /><br />Spoilers below...<br /><br />The movie primarily tries to tell romantic stories. That's fine. But romance is amazing, deep, sometimes complex. These "romantic" stories each feature a girl and a boy who at some point share the same location and get to look at each other. Words exchange, thoughts are projected through voice-over, but they too only manage to communicate to the audience merely that one person is attracted to another.<br /><br />Meaning, there is no seduction (in the broad sense), no tension, and neither confrontation nor communion between the wills of two different people trying to reconcile their existence to accommodate the Other. The only story involving a superficial "seduction" is told just so the audience ends up being surprised that the guy (Ethan Hawke) gets outwitted by the girl he's hitting on, who unexpectedly turns out to be a hooker. Sure, his words when trying to pick her up are interesting to hear and we are amused as we'd be if we were next to them, but there is nothing of substance to this story outside of "A then B". So it unfolds, if something like a postcard could "unfold", with all the other tales as well: A then B--That's It, the only point being that these happen to occur "on set" in Manhattan. By the way, the only Brooklyn we see is the Coney Island sketch; the only Queens is the flickering of a train ride taken by a character traveling to the West Village.<br /><br />It's easy to pick at movies that play into all the common stereotypes of race, gender, sexual orientation, and so on. _New York, I Love You_, however, deserves to be held to stricter scrutiny because of its title. We expect to see the real New York, and real New Yorkers, but instead we have paraded before us the selected slice of a demographic, its characters flown in from The O.C., plus a few others to make it SEEM as if we are paying attention to diversity. But when we look closer at who those characters are, the whole sham becomes an affront to the very notion of diversity and the ethnicities and cultures the movie shamefully fails to represent.<br /><br />For example, the story with the Latino man with the little white girl in the park, who gets mistaken by two ladies as her manny (male nanny) when in fact he's the father. Notwithstanding the last scene of this part was unnecessary from a dramatic-construction point of view (it would have been far more interesting to end it when the mother and boyfriend/stepfather are strutting the girl away), it is frankly a bit disgusting that the scene where we learn for sure that the girl's father is Latino ALSO must inform us that he is a sexually desirable dancer. What, the dad can't be just some guy from South America? Now that he's obviously hot, is the audience better prepared to accept that he had a kid with a middle-to-upper-class white woman? Are we that naive as to require such? As if a Mexican construction worker would obviously be too unpalatable.<br /><br />It's not my place to dictate where the movie should have gone. But in every conceivable set-up and plot twist, the direction taken screams status quo, appeals to safety. All these stories could have been made more interesting, even if we were forced to keep the single-dimensionality of the characters inhabiting them, at the very least by not choosing from standard and obvious stereotypes. Asian girl living in Chinatown being leered at by a scraggly old white guy? How 'bout an Asian cougar pursuing a white college kid instead. Again, I'm not saying the entire conceit has to be changed. It's just that every. damn. story premise. is so hackneyed--and thus they fail to convey anything about why one might love New York, outside the trite. The real way to have improved the film would be to have written a script worth reading.<br /><br />I will concede the pleasantness of the soundtrack, the good pacing of the movie (even if what was being paced was, well, dredge), and the general feel of many of the scenes. The movie was just fine to sit through, and I wouldn't dissuade anyone from doing so. However, it is telling that the most significant homage paid to non-superficiality is when the old opera singer says (paraphrased) "That's what I love about New York: everyone's from a different place." Well, you wouldn't know it from watching this one. | negative. |
Having loved 'Paris, Je T'aime', I highly anticipated this film and I admit I went in with high expectations, but was sorely disappointed for a number of reasons.<br /><br />Although, I was not expecting a re-make of 'Paris' in New York I was expecting the same structure. What I liked about 'Paris' was the breakup of the neighborhoods. You got a sense of each directors style and the story they wanted to tell. In 'NY', there is no clear separation of the stories, at different points in the film, characters from different stories run into each other which made me confused as to who I was watching and what exactly was going on. Also, the switch in directing was evident but confusing since there was no flow.<br /><br />Another thing I loved about the 'Paris' film was the different takes on love. It wasn't all romantic. There was love between parents and their children, unrequited love, a lonely, middle-aged woman yearning for love etc., it explored so many layers of the complexity of love between humans. 'NY' seemed to only go for an edgy, over-the-top sexuality. There were some redeemable shorts (the older couple having spent a lifetime together, Julie Christie's short), but overall the'NY' film didn't evoke any emotion for me. I didn't connect with any of the characters like I did with 'Paris'. I remember watching 'Paris' and feeling a deep sadness, loneliness, yearning, hopefulness, wonder... it just had so much soul. For me, there was no soul in the 'NY' film.<br /><br />Maybe if I had gone into it without having 'Paris' looming in the back of my brain as a comparison this film might have elicited a more favorable response, but as a self-titled re-take of 'Paris, Je T'aime' I was sorely disappointed. | negative. |
I saw this regurgitated pile of vignettes tonight at a preview screening and I was straight up blown away by how bad it was. <br /><br />First off, the film practically flaunted its gaping blind spots. There are no black or gay New Yorkers in love? Or who, say, know the self-involved white people in love? I know it's not the love Crash of anvil-tastic inclusiveness but you can't pretend to have a cinematic New York with out these fairly prevalent members of society. Plus, you know the people who produced this ish thought Crash deserved that ham-handed Oscar, so where is everyone? <br /><br />Possibly worse than the bizarre and willful socioeconomic ignorance were the down right offensive chapters (remember when you were in high school and people were openly disgusted with pretty young women in wheelchairs? Me either). This movie ran the gamut of ways to be the worst. Bad acting, bad writing, bad directing -- all spanning every possible genre ever to concern wealthy white people who smoke cigarettes outside fancy restaurants. <br /><br />But thank god they finally got powerhouses Hayden Christensen and Rachel Bilson back together for that Jumper reunion. And, side note, Uma dodged a bullet; Ethan Hawke looks ravaged. This, of course, is one thing in terms of his looks, but added an incredibly creepy extra vibe of horribleness to his terrifyingly scripted scene opposite poor, lovely Maggie Q.<br /><br />I had a terrible time choosing my least favorite scene for the end of film questionnaire, but it has to be the Anton Yelchin/ Olivia Thirlby bit for the sheer lack of taste, which saddens me because I really like those two actors. I don't consider myself easily offended, but all I could do was scoff and look around with disgust like someone's 50 year old aunt. <br /><br />A close second place in this incredibly tight contest of terrible things is Shia LaBeouf's tone deaf portrayal of what it means for a former Disney Channel star to act against Julie Christie. I don't mean opposite, I mean against. Against is the only explanation. I realize now that the early sequence with Orlando Bloom is a relative highlight. HIGHLIGHT. Please keep that in mind when your brain begins to leak out your ear soon after the opening credits, which seem to be a nod to the first New York Real World. This film is embarrassing, strangely dated, inarticulate, ineffective, pretentious and, in the end, completely divorced from any real idea of New York at all. <br /><br />(The extra star is for the Cloris Leachman/ Eli Wallach sequence, as it is actually quite sweet, but it is only one bright spot in what feels like hours of pointless, masturbatory torment.) | negative. |
I've never been to Paris, but after seeing "Paris, Je t'aime" I'm crazy to visit this city! I've been to NY several times and I LOVE the city and its boroughs. I kinda expected to be touched by this film, to feel like jumping into a plane and fly there right away, but, lo and behold, I regret the time and money I spent with it. There are no love stories between people or a person and the city. There's a lot of dysfunctional meetings and relations or people who know each other and it just doesn't work out fine. Maybe this reflects a characteristic of the city, where it's said to have thousands of people living on their own. Can't you find love in New York? | negative. |
This was a movie i could not wait to see! So i finally got it and I was pretty disappointed. For starters,the movie has so little said about New York,just a bunch of confusing shots of buildings,streets,bridges and cafes.It really doesn't stay focused on the New York magic.Another thing that changed my mind was the french movie set inside this movie.I know that it is a remake,but it is not a french style remake! Anyway,here you will notice elements that remind you of french movies,such as long and messy scenes,no or little talking and of course everyone is smoking french style ! The story follows many lives ( too many for my taste) and they somehow seem connected in the end. I feel like there was no dedication to the characters as much as there was on the stories. The movie was too short to cover every single destiny everyone's happy ending.So we can see about 30 people for about 5 minutes each.And there you have your 120 minutes ! if you like active scenes dialogues and stuff this is not the movie for you ! i give it 4 just because i love New York and i loved the cast ! | negative. |
Following the success of "Paris, Je T'Aime", a group of directors decided to get together and make a similar anthology style film based in New York. Unlike the original film, the stories in this film seem to sometimes come and go too quickly--by the time you think are getting into a story, it's over in too many cases. And, the often start up and stop and then begin again--with the stories woven together. As a result, there is no title to indicate that a story is complete and it is less formal in structure.<br /><br />Sadly, however, while "Paris, Je T'Aime" was hit or miss (mostly hit), most of "New York, I Love You" was miss. The stories tended to be much more sexual in nature but also far less sweet--and often quite terrible. It was an amazingly dull and uninteresting film with only a few exceptional stories--and perhaps the often depressing music made it seem more so. Now understand, it was good quality music but its somber tone really, really made me feel like cutting my wrists! Among the better ones was the story about the young man who took a girl in a wheelchair to prom, the couple talking about cheating outside a restaurant (though this was also in the first film) and the crotchety old couple. This is all so sad because I had loved the first film so much--and I really WANTED to love this film. I respected what they tried but simply didn't like it very much.<br /><br />By the way, and this is NOT really a complaint, but I was amazed how many people were smoking in the film. For a recent film, that was unusual in our more anti-smoking culture.<br /><br />Also, if you get the DVD, there are two segments included as extras that were not included in the film. One consists of Kevin Bacon (wearing a cool fedora) eating a hotdog....and absolutely NOTHING more for almost ten minutes. The other features a teen who spends the film videotaping the world--including a very unhappy couple. | negative. |
A few years back the same persons who created Paris,J'TAIME., which was imperfect but very enjoyable ( my rating was a 7), created this piece of garbage about New York City.<br /><br />In Paris, I Love You (J'taime)created a feeling for Paris & it was made in many parts of beautiful Paris.<br /><br />In this current film, I did not recognize New York City, I did not feel that I was in the city of my birth.<br /><br />New York does have 5 boroughs,I saw no scenes in The Bronx, or Queens ,There is one scene in Brooklyn,(Brighton Beach), I saw no scenes in Times Square or Greenwich Village/ No scenes of the beautiful hotels or theatres. It does have a large cast,most of the performers were not even stereotypes, they were caricatures of the lowest sort.<br /><br />The very few humorous moments are all of a course sexual nature or quite insulting to the many fine New Yorkers that we all know & love.. <br /><br />A few of the films nominated for the 'razzie' awards were far better.<br /><br />Ratings: * (out of 4) 20 points (out of 100) IMDb 1 (Out of 10)<br /><br />In my way of thinking I think the title should have been<br /><br />NEW YORK, I HATE YOU. | negative. |
An anthology is always risky business and I think this endeavor should be praised. There's a lot of talent involved here. A great many talented actors, directors and writers. Unfortunately, I couldn't really enjoy this movie based on three issues I had.<br /><br />First of all, the segments vary incredibly in tone and quality. And unfortunately some of them clash with the others. <br /><br />Secondly, several segments feel underdeveloped to me. Like seeds of good stories that never come to fruition. I'm not talking about happy endings here (or even an ending period) but rather, they lack even basic development or even solid setups that draw you in. <br /><br />Last but not least, I did not feel New-York and its inhabitants were properly portrayed.<br /><br />What you're left with is high-brow short films that may still be of interest to some but will leave the average viewer unsatisfied. | negative. |
New York, I Love You, or rather should-be-titled Manhattan, I Love Looking At Your People In Sometimes Love, is a precise example of the difference between telling a story and telling a situation. Case in point, look at two of the segments in the film, one where Ethan Hawke lights a cigarette for a woman on a street and proceeds to chat her up with obnoxious sexy-talk, and another with Orlando Bloom trying to score a movie with an incredulous demand from his director to read two Dostoyevsky books. While the latter isn't a great story by any stretch, it's at least something that has a beginning, middle and end, as the composer tries to score, gets Dostoyevky dumped in his lap, and in the end gets some help (and maybe something more) from a girl he's been talking to as a liaison between him and the director. The Ethan Hawke scene, however, is like nothing, and feels like it, like a fluke added in or directed by a filmmaker phoning it in (or, for that matter, Hawke with a combo of Before Sunrise and Reality Bites).<br /><br />What's irksome about the film overall is seeing the few stories that do work really well go up against the one or two possible 'stories' and then the rest of the situations that unfold that are made to connect or overlap with one another (i.e. bits involving Bradley Cooper, Drea DeMatteo, Hayden Christensen, Andy Garcia, James Caan, Natalie Portman, etc). It's not even so much that the film- set practically always in *Manhattan* and not the New York of Queens or Staten Island or the Bronx (not even, say, Harlem or Washington Heights)- lacks a good deal of diversity, since there is some. It's the lack of imagination that one found in spades, for better or worse, in Paris J'taime. It's mostly got little to do with New York, except for passing references, and at its worst (the Julie Christie/Shia LaBeouf segment) it's incomprehensible on a level that is appalling.<br /><br />So, basically, wait for TV, and do your best to dip in and out of the film - in, that is, for three scenes: the aforementioned Bloom/Christina Ricci segment which is charming; the Brett Ratner directed segment (yes, X-Men 3 Brett Ratner) with a very funny story of a teen taking a girl in a wheelchair to the prom only to come upon a great big twist; and Eli Wallach and Cloris Leachman as an adorable quite old couple walking along in Brooklyn on their 67th wedding anniversary. Everything else can be missed, even Natalie Portman's directorial debut, and the return of a Hughes brother (only one, Allan) to the screen. A mixed bag is putting it lightly: it's like having to search through a bag of mixed nuts full of crappy peanuts to find the few almonds left. | negative. |
The problems with this film are many, but I will try to mention the most glaring and bothersome ones. First of all, while the theme suggests a number of vignettes about Manhattan life, the reality was that everything, as usual in movies and TV, was about something bizarre, usually of a sexual nature. The story lines were thin or nonexistent, and virtually every scene, camera shot, line of dialog, and expressed emotion was absolutely, and totally fake. It finally reached a point after an hour of so of mind numbing garbage that I walked out (something no uncommon for me in recent years.) I would have guessed the fi9lm was directed by some wannabe auteur drop outs from some 3rd rate film studies program, but I believe the (at one time, pre-Amelia, talented)director Mira Nair took part in this disgusting travesty, so perhaps the directorial talent in America has descended en masse into the cesspool. | negative. |
There is a reason this went straight to video- the story is smarmy, Nick Cage plays Johnny in a sleazy way- sex in churches, and other scenes that border on tasteless(like the scene in the laundry room) taint this movie. Judge Reinhold as the cuckold is okay- but the movie itself with its themes of degradation and revenge are not well done. But it is a good film for trivia contests- because so few people saw it. | negative. |
Thanks to some infamous home video distributor who brought in the so called German Independent Series, Four For Venice is not only awful, but really awful. So awful, that i have it dumped at the second hand goods store for extra cash.<br /><br />Nick and Charlotte is a married couple who reached an agreement of having sex only on Tuesday due to their hectic schedule of their profession. Eva and Luis is a pair of couple living from hand to mouth, where Eva works as a waitress and Luis, an artist. Nick indirectly causes Eva to lose her job as an waitress. Luis and Charlotte had an affair at the back of Eva and Nick. Luis cheated on Eva by lying to her that he would be flying off to London to do something related to his artwork, but the fact is, he is flying off to Venice with Charlotte for an adultery holiday. Eva kidnapped Nick and dragged her 2 kids along to Venice for confrontation. The trip to Venice ends up both Nick and Eva falling for one another.<br /><br />The presentation of the journey from Germany to Venice between Nick and Eva marks the failure of the comedy. It not only look senseless, but also draggy. In the film, Nick try to seek help for several ways, but it ends to no avail. It is either the strangers around him who acts like morons, or they are just simply dumb.<br /><br />The comedy also had the tendency to add in unnecessary scenes to lengthen the story. While some of the problems that can be solved with common sense, no one in the film are using common sense to solve the problem. They prefer to go through one big round to solve the problem.<br /><br />It fails so bad, that even the beautiful sceneries in Venice fails to pull up the reputation of the film. | negative. |
Garson Kanin wrote and directed this look at "modern day" Las Vegas and the gap between generations, his first directorial effort since the 1940s! David Janssen is somewhat miscast as a big-shot casino owner who reunites with his son (Robert Drivas, who looks disconcertingly like an older Jason Bateman). Janssen approaches every scene the same way: defensively, with a chip on his shoulder. Playing this role cool and laid-back is asking too much from Janssen, who barks at everyone like a grouchy put-upon husband (he even chews out Don Rickles and makes him cry!). His son, a ne'er-do-well in search of his own identity, makes hip comments about how young people look down on Vegas (give them another ten years), and his disapproval of Dad's lifestyle causes friction. Brenda Vaccaro is cute as a self-conscious secretary and Edy Willaims has a fun bit as a showgirl at an audition. Unfortunately, "Where It's At" doesn't have much else going for it other than the now-dated ruminations on ethics between adults and their kids, some quick T&A shots and amusingly jaded satirical bits on the high-stakes world of gambling--most of which has been covered by now, ad nauseum. ** from **** | negative. |
Casting bone to pick: David Jannsen was 38 playing the father of Robert Drivas, who was then, 31 (yeah, I realize he's supposed to be just out of college, but clues in the script have him being a loafer and so he's probably 24-25 in the script--- that still puts Jannsen in parenting classes in Junior High). I assume the AMA wrote medical miracle up in their 1938 Year in Medicine. This movie hasn't aged very well at all and now it's main appeal is just to see a snap shot of Sin City, circa 1969 and all the incessant smoking, the weird hair (Drivas has an atomic comb over that makes him resemble a well-groomed hip Cousin It) and trendy fashions that went along with it. If anyone remembers, LV wasn't exactly London... the city coddled the mob and codger gamblers in those days. Drivas comes off as sexually ambiguous; his dad thinks he might be gay (in a sad irony, Drivas himself died of AIDS at 47) and the soapy conflict is from the generation gap issue (ahem, as if one may call 7 years a gap). Sonny boy wants to be his own man and dad wants to pull him into the casino (Caesar's Palace!), and plies him with girls (including the horny-for-money Edy Williams). Interestingly enough, the son doesn't seem to mind being thought of as gay--- unusual for the time and a cute Brenda Vaccarro is nearby to swoon platonically over him. What nudity there is is awfully lame--- just what was needed to pull the audience in for an 'R' rating in the early days of the MPAA rating system (which then was G-M-R[16]- and X). The editing is HORRIBLE and there's stupid-silly overdubs by The Committee (a late 60's neo-avante-garde comedy troupe that mercifully faded off the map within a couple of years). Don Rickles is on board as a blackjack dealer... seemingly preparing him for a role as a floor manager in the much better CASINO two decades later. Not to give anything away, but they would've dealt with Mr. Rickles' character with power tools and a hole in the desert back then. A curiosity at best, far from Joshua Logan's usual caliber of work. Dos/Dias. Now go watch CASINO again... | negative. |
I can only believe that Garson Kanin must have been two people. The one who wrote the brilliant "A Double Life" and the funny "Born Yesterday" and co-wrote such excellent screenplays as "Adam's Rib" and "Pat And Mike" with his wife Ruth Gordon and then the one who wrote and/or directed such tiresome, sad drivel as "Bachelor Mother", "Some Kind Of A Nut", and this. The cast tries, but the script is so tired and clichéd that even the efforts of the always wonderful Brenda Vaccaro are defeated. The script sinks to it's nadir in the truly offensive sequence in which Janssen's character tests Drivas's character to make sure he's not gay. An ugly sequence, but sadly one which could easily play in a film today. "Ethnic" jokes are now totally verboten, but "fag" jokes are still "good, clean, family fun". | negative. |
I was thrilled to watch this movie expecting it to be the sequel to the cult classic "Private Lessons" which portrays the dream of any male teenager.<br /><br />"Private Lessons II" has NOTHING to do with the title I mention. It's just a regular soft-core Cinemax flick that won't make a change in your life. There's just one hot sex scene in a rooftop but that's it. I watched this a long time ago but believe me, this is just a regular boring soft core flick.<br /><br />The women are hot but that's not enough to rent or buy the movie. My advice is to watch this only if it airs on cable. | negative. |
Up until the last 20 minutes, I was thinking that this is possibly Jackie Chan's worst movie (excluding his pre-1978 work, which I am not familiar with). The final fight sequence changed all that: it is long and good and intense - indeed, one of the highlights of Chan's career. But to get to it, you have to sit through a lot of "comedy" that might amuse five-year-olds (oh, look! someone threw a tomato at that guy's face) and endless "football" scenes. Not to mention the dubbing (which includes the line "How can I turn it off? It's not a tap" - watch to find out what it refers to). "Dragon Lord" is worth renting for the final fight alone, but the rest of the movie is only for Jackie collectors, and even then only for those who've already seen at least 15 of his other movies. (**) | negative. |
When I sat down to watch this film I actually expected quite a bit, as the plot takes on quite complex issues. Using football as launching pad for the complication also was an interesting approach. Still unfortunately, despite its bravery of dealing with controversial issues as culture clashes between Muslim and western culture, adding generation conflicts and prejudice towards gays/lesbians, it lets you down towards the resolution with a rather simplistic relief to all the suspense built up throughout the film. This leads me to the impression that the makers took on a little too big a task for themselves to tackle, attempting to be more profound then they managed to deal with.<br /><br />However, this does not mean that the film is directly bad, as it's rendering of the conflicts where quite believable and also amusing. The film succeeds in being engaging and entertaining in this matter, but as mentioned above the writers seem to have spun themselves a little too deep. This has led to some quite unrealistic character behaviour towards the end to confront the surging conflicts. By this dropping the ball at a time where the makers could really have shown brilliance taking the film to another level of appreciation.<br /><br />Even if the film does at no point really attempt to be a profound piece of drama, the setting has so much potential in the plot it becomes a disappointment when "the ball drops". This way the film moves from being a good and reflected comedy to a standard cliché that becomes ridiculous in its happy-ending. Nothing is left out in the Hollywood like ending. So even if the story is engaging and one can stomach the large amount of montages, one can't help but roll eyes towards the resolution. Personally I was close to shouting "finish already!!" at the screen.<br /><br />There were some decent acting in the film, and the two young female central characters had some good moments. So did their parents and other bi-characters. However the handsome Irish coach was an embarrassing piece of acting, that lets the film down quite a bit in terms of realism. He didn't even appear very likable, but rather self involved despite his good deeds, which makes the impending conflict between the girls seem a little strained.<br /><br />I give the film a 4, as it was an engaging story and they sought out a nice perspective to approach the subject from. The script and cast had many good believable characters, giving the audience a chance to recognise either themselves or others. Had the let-downs not been this disappointing, I'd easily give the film a 7 or 8. If you enjoyed this film, I'd recommend the film "East is East", which I think is an as good, if not better rendering of cultural conflict, as well as being amusing and engaging. | negative. |
Long, boring, blasphemous. Never have I been so glad to see ending credits roll. | negative. |
An executive, very successful in his professional life but very unable in his familiar life, meets a boy with down syndrome, escaped from a residence . Both characters feel very alone, and the apparently less intelligent one will show to the executive the beauty of the small things in life... With this argument, the somehow Amelie-like atmosphere and the sentimental music, I didn't expect but a moralistic disgusting movie. Anyway, as there were some interesting scenes (the boy is sometimes quite a violent guy), and the interpretation of both actors, Daniel Auteil and Pasqal Duquenne, was very good, I decided to go on watching the movie. The French cinema, in general, has the ability of showing something that seems quite much to life, opposed to the more stereotyped American cinema. But, because of that, it is much more disappointing to see after the absurd ending, with the impossible death of the boy, the charming tone, the happiness of the executive's family, the cheap moral, the unbearable laughter of the daughters, the guy waving from heaven as Michael Landon... Really nasty, in my humble opinion. | negative. |
First of all, I was expecting "Caged Heat" to be along the same lines as "Ilsa, The Wicked Warden". Boy, was I wrong! In no way is this film 70s exploitation, "chix in chains", or "women in prison". Sure, the plot consists of a bunch of women in prison, who wear street clothes btw (quite comical), but NOTHING happens.<br /><br />There aren't strong rivalries, no one tries to seduce the warden or doctor in order to try and escape, and no inmates make out. There are 2 shower scenes, that I suspect is just recycled footage, but no fights breaks out / no one is seduced here - or anywhere for that matter! Aside from the lack of plot, unconvincing, unsympathetic, and flat characters, a couple of inmates that do manage to escape actually return to the prison in order to "free" their fellow inmates??!!<br /><br />PUH-LEASE, the movie should have just ended off with the escapees riding off into the sunset...as opposed to letting this mess continue!<br /><br />I feel scammed. | negative. |
Nicholas Walker is Paul, the local town Reverand who's married to Martha (Ally Sheedy), but also is a habitual womanizer and decides to fake his own death to run away with his current affair, Veronica (Dara Tomanovich). However in so doing, he gets a bout of amnesia (hence the name of the film). Sally Kirkland is also on hand as a crazy old coot who pines for the good Reverand in a shades of "Misery" type of way. It's sad to see a pretty good cast wasted like this. Not the least bit John Savage in a horridly forgettable role as a shoddy private investigator. In a film billed as a 'black comedy', one has to bring BOTH elements into said movie. While this does bring the former in spades, it sadly contains none of the latter. Furthermore you can't emphasize with any of the characters and as thus, have absolutely no vested interest in them. Technically not an all-together bad movie just an extremely forgettable one.<br /><br />Eye Candy: Dara Tomanovich gets topless; Sally Kirkland also shows some skin <br /><br />My Grade: C- <br /><br />Where I saw it: Showtime Showcase | negative. |
Towards the end of this thriller Ally Sheedy's gaunt latter-day image is used creatively to make up more than one hauntingly evil image. She convinces one that, if a nasty Bette Davis-type role were to come her way, she could carry it off brilliantly. Unfortunately, I can't find many other reasons for seeing this. If you've wondered what Sheedy looks like in a pair of old-fashioned glasses (but why should anyone?) then here's your answer. For the rest, Sally Kirkland's sex-starved crazy woman is really tiresome, and even if you like this sort of thing more than I do you'll have to admit that the tension sags badly during these scenes. Savage's drunken brute of an insurance agent is equally distasteful but at least it's a small role. Of the leading actors, Nicholas Walker inspires no sympathy at all for Paul Keller's plight and his acting is wooden. Dara Tomanovich is better and during her scenes with Sheedy the level rises a little. Sheedy's meticulous, understated performance (though she often seems to be on automatic pilot) is admirable in itself but out of context with the rest. The sets are drab, the camera-work undistinguished. | negative. |
Where to start... If this movie had been a dark comedy, I would say it was FANNN-TASTIC! Unfortunately for me, and anyone else with free time and a buck to spare (mind you that was the price I paid, got it from Wal-Mart), this movie was meant to be a thriller. The only THRILL I got was watching Kirkland's lousy rendition of Anne Wilkes from Misery sans snowy woodland area. If you want a good laugh, on a rainy Friday night with some friends, then I highly recommend this movie. But if you want to watch something at least half way decent, then don't even bother.<br /><br />I for one enjoy crappy films, the worse the better in most cases. But Wow... I Meant WOW!! The only person in the entire film that didn't stink it up was the little boy, played by Vincent Berry. The only reason why I even give it 3 stars is because it gave me something to do. | negative. |
Instead, go to the zoo, buy some peanuts and feed 'em to the monkeys. Monkeys are funny. People with amnesia who don't say much, just sit there with vacant eyes are not all that funny.<br /><br />Black comedy? There isn't a black person in it, and there isn't one funny thing in it either.<br /><br />Walmart buys these things up somehow and puts them on their dollar rack. It's labeled Unrated. I think they took out the topless scene. They may have taken out other stuff too, who knows? All we know is that whatever they took out, isn't there any more.<br /><br />The acting seemed OK to me. There's a lot of unfathomables tho. It's supposed to be a city? It's supposed to be a big lake? If it's so hot in the church people are fanning themselves, why are they all wearing coats? | negative. |
I had quite high hopes for this film, even though it got a bad review in the paper. I was extremely tolerant, and sat through the entire film. I felt quite sick by the end.<br /><br />Although I am not in the least prude or particularly sensitive to tasteless cinema--I thouroughly enjoyed both Woody Allen's 'Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About Sex,...' and Michael Hanneke's 'Funny Games'--I found the directors' obsession with this ten-year-old wanting to drink women's milk totally sickening. And when the film climaxed in an "orgy" where the boy drinks both his mother's milk, as well as that of the woman he has been lusting after for the whole film, I almost vomited with disgust for the total perversion and sentimental pap that it is.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the vast majority of European cinema, as well as independently made films, so this flick should have pleased me enormously. Avoid this film at all costs, it should be relegated to the annals of History as a lesson in bad cinema. | negative. |
"Plan B" is strictly by-the-numbers fare except for one thing. I surprisingly found it to be rather insulting.<br /><br />Jon Cryer is the "star" of this film and plays his usual, smarmy, egotistical, snotty character that was actually endearing in "Pretty In Pink" and has NOT been amusing ever since. Grating doesn't even begin to describe his performance. Ricky (Mark Matheisen) is a muscular, blonde, struggling actor who (gasp!) is only worried about his hair and getting laid. Talk about a stock character...ugh. At least the other three characters are somewhat engaging. Lisa Darr and Lance Guest play a grounded, optimistic, caring couple who are struggling to conceive. Since they are not whiny drama queens, however, their roles are apparently considered boring and they aren't given enough screen time. Sara Mornell rounds out the cast by playing Gina, your usual nice and good-looking young woman who just can't seem to find the right partner in love. I've seen this character a million times before but at least her performance overcomes some of the shortfalls caused by the predictability of her situation.<br /><br />What startled me about this film was its juvenile promotion of stereotypes. They introduced a Russian character for the sole purpose of mocking him and making fun of the way he talked. He was portrayed as being wild, ignorant and amazingly shallow. They were just getting warmed up though for the usual nonsense about gays. Gina decides to be gay for a while since she isn't having any luck with guys. Honestly. That wasn't that bad except they really went overboard when Gina brought a lesbian to a Christmas party her friends were throwing. Her lesbian date had very short hair (like I'm sure all lesbians do). She also got quite upset (like I'm sure all lesbians do) when Gina had the nerve to put on lipstick(!). Finally, her date goes around the party hitting on just about every woman there and mouths off when Gina expresses her disappointment. Of course, we all know how gay people can't stay faithful for so much as a couple of hours much less months or even years, right? (Please note the sarcasm in that statement. Thank you.)<br /><br />This film was based on a tired and predictable premise to begin with but Cryer's unlikable performance combined with the idiotic stereotyping sinks this movie to the lower depths of cinema. 2/10 | negative. |
I had the misfortune to sit through the full 102 minutes of what, in my opinion, is this shockingly bad film. It fails on pretty much all levels; the cast is awful, the acting - ham at best and the plot lacks any depth, leaving me feeling violently apathetic as to the outcome of any of the convoluted story lines.<br /><br />Plan B has none of the charm this genre has the scope to convey and I found myself physically cringing at the various points where the script makes its regular misjudged meanderings anywhere towards the region of comedy.<br /><br />A bona fide saccharine coated turd of a movie. | negative. |
Even though there's a repertoire of over 180 films to choose from, this 'Succubus' is often named as THE best Jess Franco film. Heck, even the legendary filmmaker Fritz Lang counts 'Succubus' among his personal favorites. So, maybe it's me but I thought this was a dreadfully boring and overly confusing movie. The opening is great, though, and shows Janine Reynaud performing an SM act on stage. It's all downhill from here, unfortunately. Reynaud's character is a maneater who eventually kills her lovers in some sort of trance. Franco had a decent budget to work with and spends it well on nice locations, beautiful photography and a mesmerizing musical score. This COULD have been his greatest film indeed, if it wasn't for the lame and uninteresting story. It's supposed to be psychedelic but I'd say sophomoric is a better term to describe what's shown here. Half of the time, you don't have a clue what's going on or what exactly is said so even the short running time of 80 minutes seems to last ages. This most certainly isn't Franco's best film according to me. I wouldn't even recommend it to die-hard exploitation fans. If you're looking for more superior Jess Franco film, try to get your hands on 'Las Vampiras', 'The awful Dr. Orloff' or 'Female Vampire'. | negative. |