Posted on 3/19/13 06:46 PM
This movie was probably the crappiest movie I ever seen. I watched it in Manitoba, at my friend's. I found it on my friends' coffee table, and had to see how bad it was. People all over were bashing the film, and I had to see for myself. Holy jeez, it's so damn freaking' awful, a ridiculous and stupid plot, unimaginative jokes, and nasty characters.
Here's the plot.: King's Ransom is about a very nasty rich king named Malcolm King. His wife is angry with him, and wants him to pay her money he owes. I don't know what it's for, I wasn't really paying attention. When she wants him to pay, he plans his own kidnapping so he doesn't have to pay her. At the same time, other people are planing to kidnap him, too! When one of the kidnappers DOES kidnap Malcolm, he thinks the kidnapper is following his ridiculous plan, but he's not! I'm not saying anymore for the plot.
The deleted scenes were better than the movie, it was crap. Take my word for it. I'd rather get punched repeatedly in the face than watch this again. Ugh! A ONE out of ten for King's Ransom. I would have gone with zero, but you can only go a minimum of one.
Posted on 8/14/11 12:42 PM
Allow me to save you $8 by offering something you can do at home that is just as entertaining as watching this movie. Go get a load of whites and throw it in your dryer. Now, add in one red sock. (Make sure everything's dry so you don't end up with a bunch of pink laundry.) Now, hopefully you have the kind of dryer that has the clear window in front. If you do, start the load and watch the laundry spin around. Every time you see the red sock pretend to be scared.
That's it. That's the equivalent to seeing this movie. As entertaining as watching your laundry dry and every bit as scary as a red sock.
Others have already punched all the holes in the plot (or complete lack thereof) that are necessary. I won't beat that dead horse. As mentioned, the acting was completely mailed in. The CGI was hokey, stilted and throw in in a lot of scenes unnecessarily. This wasn't just a really bad movie, this was a really bad horror movie. Most horror movies these days suck to one degree or another, but this moving distinguishes itself as being among the worst of the worst. Seriously, save yourself the time and energy and steer clear of The Fog. I haven't seen a horror movie this bad since I saw the remake of The Haunting.
Posted on 8/14/11 12:02 PM
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
Seriously....what is it with this trend of remaking classics, and replacing the casts with Benetton models? This movie was weak, compared to the 1972 original. It copped out on all the 'sleazy' elements that MADE the original such a hit, and replaced it with silly macho heroics, a cast devoid of ANY personality, and pointless gore. Look at the 1972 version.....that was a nasty movie, that earned the criticism it provoked. The cast was excellent, haunting music, just enough on-screen violence to get it's point across, but plenty of what Hollywood is too scared to replicate nowadays......NASTINESS. At least the original portrayed what actually happens to people taking the law into their own hands, in a realistic manner. This remake gives the impression that it's OK to torture people, afterwards (losing all of what made the original movie so dark) Look at the end of LHOTL (72) the father and mother are morbidly disgusted by their actions (however justified) and are soon to be carted off to prison for their actions. The remake has no connection with reality at all, and even feels the need to tack on an extra amount of added brutality, as if to keep up with HOSTEL 2, whilst forgetting that it's missed the point completely and portrayed the parents as even bigger psychopaths (hell, their daughter doesn't even die in this one!!!!!)
In the original, i actually felt sorry for Mari and Phyliss (they came across as ordinary-looking, young girls) which made the actions of Krug & Co, even more deplorable. The (ahem) actresses in this one were vile, Hannah Montana wannabes (with zero personality, character or dialogue) Don't get me started on the Krug from 2009 version either.......
All-in-all, another nail in the coffin of genuine 'horror' cinema, by the hacks at Hollywood (who treat it's audiences with the contempt, you obviously deserve)
Shame on Wes Craven, for having anything to do with it (he surely has enough money, these days?)
Posted on 8/14/11 11:53 AM
Frankly, I would give this one 0 stars if I could!
I've watched the previous 6 American Pie movies, waiting eagerly for each of them to be released.
Band camp was bad, but Naked Mile and Beta House were quite funny, though not as good as the first 3.
However, The Book of Love made me, for the first time ever, regret watching a movie.
I'm not the type who criticizes movies as bad easily, but this has to top it as one of the worst movies ever.
Yes, the tits were nice, but like one person mentioned in Amazon.com, the tits-to-asses ration was skewed heavily in favor of tits, making the movie a bit of a dampener.
I suppose I could've given 2 or 3 stars had someone else better played Stifler.
Frankly, either John Patrick Jordan never watched the preceding 6 parts of AP or else he's a really bad actor.
I mean, his acting was the type where you'd love to somehow kick him in the mid-section if you got a chance. He completely ruined the Stifler 'legacy' with his rigid acting and his laugh, which sounded more like it was coming from a smurf! (Apologies to the smurf community for the insult)
Posted on 8/13/11 09:32 AM
There's a popular football (soccer) chant that applies very well to this film. What a load of rubbish!
Bad script. Bad acting. Bad plot. Bad direction. Add them up and you get ... well rubbish.
Why does Elisabeth Shue's character sound permanently out of breath? And why is she so wooden? An actress of her talent has put in an amazingly amateurism performance.
Val Kilmer as the Saint? Nope, just can't see it. The Saint was supposed to be a snappily dressed, slightly roguish character. Val is none of this. Possibly not entirely his fault.
Oh, and there is far far too much explanation of the background of The Saint. This is intolerable, and ruins what made the TV series so good. Roger Moore's method of acting may be just to raise and lower his eyebrows but he did a better job than anyone in this film.
Two and a half hours out of my life. Wasted.
Posted on 8/13/11 07:46 AM
was quite disappointed with the hype surrounding the film, especially with Jet Lee's interview where he said the action scene in the film doesn't use special effect at all. Ok, fair enough, the action is real, but that's about the only good thing in the film.
First of all, the story is so typical of Hong Kong action, where there's this one good guy surrounded by a whole bunch of bad guys wanting to kill him, and he's got this innocent and helpless girl who needs his protection, or maybe he feels he's obligated to protect her, or whatever.
And then there's the action. It doesn't use special effect, true, but the camera work is so bad it's hard to follow the action. The shots are too close to be enjoyed properly. All I saw was Jet Lee kicking around and his opponents fell down one by one, without knowing what really happened to them.
Thirdly, the acting. Boy, the acting was so bad it actually makes the film feels silly. Most of the cast are either Chinese or French, with one exception in the American Bridget Fonda. The actors don't really speak good english, so it feels funny to see them either speak too slowly, or try to speak fast without realizing that their english is hard to understand.
And of course, the violence is just too gory. One scene shows a guy got blown up by a grenade and all that is left is his legs. It's totally unnecessary.
Combine all the factors above and you got one really cheap-looking and mindless film.
Posted on 8/11/11 05:09 AM
No, not utter shock at this dull movie, but utter shock at that wildly positive response to such trifle. I love trashy vampire horror flicks as much as the next guy, but "Blade" isn't even that. It's a poor excuse for Kris Kristofferson to work, for Wesley Snipes to flex, and for Stephen Dorff to act tough.
When did vampires become such wussies? Garlic-tipped bullets kill them? A blood-derivative serum makes them explode? It's worse than the "holy-water balloon grenades" in "From Dusk Till Dawn".
Aside from the fact that I abhor this film, I think that the poor special effects have been wholly overlooked. Has anybody but me noticed how bad the CGI effects are in this film? I've seen Playstation games with better graphics. Go see "Vampires" for some classically styled effects, and not all this CGI crap.
Posted on 8/11/11 05:08 AM
well to start off, I've read all four books, and saw the first movie which i loathed.It had horrible acting, and cringe-worthy dialogue. so i was extremely disappointed with that one.I saw the trailer for new moon and became very anxious to see it. i was hoping it would be better since they got a new director......well i was wrong.i got my tickets in advance. pulled up to the theater with my mom-she has read the series to and thought twilight sucked-and we couldn't sit together because there was so many screaming teen girls.we got there half an hour earlier thinking there'd be no one there..... anyways,so the movie starts, i'm feeling pretty good.....sure as hell did not see this piece of crap coming.WORST.ACTING. but not from everyone.just Kristen and Robert.there was no chemistry at all between them as some claim. half the time he wasn't even looking at her!he mumbles his lines and its just BAD. then Kristen cant show emotion to save her life. she does this rapid blinking thing i don't understand.if they were replaced it would make a huge difference. Taylor was pretty good for the most part. he over acted at times and it came off as fake to me. like something you would see in a soap opera. but the rest of the Cullen clan,the wolf pack,and her school mates were excellent. the cgi was good,had really good stunt work. some lines seemed out of place to me. the leading roles need to FEEL the words and not just say them nonchalantly. the ending was bad to. they cut too many scenes from the book that would make a big difference to. so overall I'm disappointed. why this is such a big franchise i have no idea. fans are too obsessed, boggles my mind.i was left dissatisfied, but of course the rabid fan base will approve.
Posted on 8/11/11 05:04 AM
'Pi' is independent filmmaking at its best. Without the constraints of the studio/corporate system, Aronofsky and Gullette created a film that is bizarre, intelligent, and unlike anything that came out of Hollywood in the 1990's. Who would have thought to blend Wall Street, the Kabbalah, computer science, Go, number theory, and the most fascinating number in the universe in a solute of obsessive-compulsive, paranoid genius and then strain through gritty B&W cinematography and hyperkinetic editing? The mixture is definitely not for everybody, but I certainly loved it.
Plus the soundtrack (featuring Orbital, Clint Mansell, Aphex Twin. Gus Gus, Spacetime Continuum, and other techno talents) just flat-out rocks
Posted on 8/11/11 05:03 AM
This is a seriously poor film... and I don't know where to start. The product placement of the i-pod? The fact that the production wants you to call Dracula Drake (in a hip move that makes you think of comics and naming conventions over the fact the guy is called Dracula!)? The stupid on-foot chase between Blade and Drake? The fact Whistler is beaten by the Feds, when he survived Vamps? The inappropriate comedy? The stupid blind woman? The fact Drake was just resting, wasn't in a tomb at all, and woke up when he chose to? The crapness of the script? The poor introduction of Whistler's daughter? The lack of tension? The horrendous ending?
I can't go on... please kill me. I knew I should have seen Polar Express.