Reviews written by
The Dude-

Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]
44 reviews in total 
Index | Alphabetical | Chronological | Useful

Dead Heat (1988)
2 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Worth watching ONLY for the Chinatown-deli sequence., 30 April 2001
2/10

This awful horror-comedy really grates on my nerves every-time I see it. It's not just because of the lame acting and awful script (and a really annoying and un-funny Joe Piscopo). It's because this movie had quite a few really cool ideas that could have been turned into a kick-ass movie, much in the tradition of The Toxic Avenger and Re-animator.

It's really hard to pinpoint where exactly the movie went wrong since it's such a mess from start to finish. A lot has been mentioned about the fact that Joe Piscopo was given free reign to improvise all of his pathetic one-lines. There are tons of scenes where the other actors seem completely embarassed due to him acting like a complete moron.

The only bright spot in the whole film, is the only scene where the movie shows some life: the Chinatown-deli sequence. In fact, when I want to show this movie to people, I usually just fast-forward to that scene. Watching all of the meat in the deli come to life (and who could forget that headless/skinless cow attacking Treat) and attack the actor's is hilarious. There's also a really cool exploding ambulance scene, and another where a zombified and badly burned Treat Williams and a bad zombie shot each other with uzi's for about a minute straight!

If you've never seen this monstrocity of stupidity, once you do you'll easily see why it was on numerous critic's Worst of the 80's lists.

Rating: 1.5 (only because of the deli scene)

1 out of 2 people found the following review useful:
A really bad PG-13 "tease" movie that should have been made as an R-rated guilty pleasure., 25 April 2001
3/10

Coyote Ugly might have been much more effective if the film-makers had made it an R-rated guilty pleasure/exploitation film (with plenty of nudity.) But since the PG-13 rating is what all the studios are wanting these days, we end up with a movie like this: a PG-13 "tease" flick that isn't allowed to go nowhere near as far as the movie should have gone.

The script is go generic that it is easy to guess what plot point is going to occur 15 minutes before it actually happens. The acting is adequate, but the characters are so paper-thin that nothing could be done with them. There were also a lot of points where it seemed like I was watching a music-video rather than a movie.

The film's only assets are the amazingly beautiful female leads. We get to see them in some extremely tight and pretty revealing outfits.....but only so much could be shown due to the PG-13 constraints. There's plenty of cleavage and toned, heaving bodies doing some well-choreographed dance numbers, but there's no nudity or sex to speak of. Tyra Banks (she keeps getting even more insanely beautiful with age) is also in the movie for a very small amount of time. Sexy newcomer Piper Perabo is also very easy on the eyes (and she has a killer smile) and shows some genuine acting potential.

The only people I could see this movie appealing to is pre-pubescent boys who aren't allowed to watch R-rated movies yet. That audience might get a lot out of it from a titillation aspect, but adult audiences will feel annoyed and cheated.

Rating: the movie-1 the women-10

Q: How much Keeffe is in this movie? A: Miles O'Keeffe!, 23 April 2001
1/10

Like almost everyone else, I became aware of this turkey on Mystery Science Theater 3000. It easily ranks as one of my favorite MST3K episodes of all time. I really couldn't imagine attempting to watch this film on it's own though.........it's really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really bad.

Miles O'Keeffe stars as Ator, a muscle-bound Fabio wannabe who lives during the time of cave men. We the viewer are asked to suspend our disbelief in that he knows alchemy and chemistry and can manage to build a complete hang-glider in about 5 minutes. Yeah, right! There's also a fairly attractive actress (can't remember her name) who wears a hub-cap as a chest shield. Oh, and I can't forget that wacky Asian side-kick Thong. He had the easiest role in the movie since he doesn't utter one word of dialogue throughout the entire movie. He had to figure out how to make his character interesting without talking.....and he failed miserably.

The film isn't watchable in any way and should be only viewed in it's proper MST3K format. If you watch that version, you'll laugh yourself silly!

"I'm HUGE!!!!"

Rating:1

18 out of 27 people found the following review useful:
Jamie Pressly's amazing butt keeps this "movie" from being complete garbage., 20 April 2001
2/10

The third film in the series of awful Poison Ivy films doesn't add anything new to the established formula. Sexy girl who does bad things moves in with straight-laced family and quickly starts turning things upside down and sleeping with every male in the cast. Everything about this movie is awful......well, make that almost everything.

The film is a showcase for the awesome physical "assets" of then new-comer Jamie Marie Pressly. Out of the three movies she is easily my favorite. Awesome eyes, perky breasts, sumptuous lips, long lean legs and one of the best butts to ever grace an actress is what she brings to this movie. She can't act, but who cares. As long as she's naked it doesn't matter.

A terrible movie that is only worth watching for Ms. Pressly's nude scenes.

Rating: the movie: 2 Jamie Pressley: 9.5

0 out of 1 people found the following review useful:
Snuff Maximus was here!, 19 April 2001
6/10

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I recently got to see the re-edited American version called Doctor Butcher M.D. after hearing about it for ages. Well, I've never laughed this hard watching a "zombie" flick in quite some time.

SPOILERS: The film starts out with a clearly tacked on intro (from a different movie) of a zombie rising out of the grave. My friends and I were laughing like crazy over the name on the tombstone: SNUFF MAXIMUS. Yes, Snuff Maximus. From there the film is remarkably similar to Lucio Fulci's Zombie in both setting and pacing. But the real reason to watch this movie is the delightfully cheesy and over-the-top gore effects. You get to see a man get impaled on a spike trap only to have his throat slit by the the cannibalistic natives. They then proceed to gut him and eat his organs. There's also a hysterical eye-gouging and probably the most inventive weapon that I've seen yet in a zombie movie: a boat motor propeller!! There's also a scalping and various other nasty acts that are more humorous than disgusting since they clearly only had an effects budget of $1,000 (or less!).

Another thing I found interesting is that there are hardly any actual zombies in the film. Most of the nasty acts are committed by a crazed tribe of native cannibals.

While it's not a great film by any means, I highly recommend it for a ton on unintentional laughs and for gore-hounds as well.

Rating:6

5 out of 10 people found the following review useful:
As enjoyable as an ear infection., 13 April 2001
1/10

Yet another in a seemingly endless stream of really bad hollywood remakes of really bad cartoons/t.v. shows/old movies.

This film can't even work as a tease flick due to the casting of 3 decidedly unattractive leads. I've seen Rachel Leigh Cooke in some other films and she looked beautiful. But I'm not sure what happened to her in this one. And someone really needs to tell Tara Reid that she's just not attractive, not matter how skimpy she dresses.

Basically, just a live action re-make of the really bad cartoon of the same name, the film has a paper thin plot, laughable direction and terrible music. Nothing worth recommending here whatsoever.

Stay away from this movie like it's a rabid doberman.

Rating:1

A immensely entertaining and original film that suffered from horrible marketing., 13 April 2001
9/10

I had wanted to see this movie when it was in theaters. But before I could blink it had exited them. So with great anticipation I rented it last night, and man was I impressed.

Before I give my impressions of the film, the marketing executive who thought it would be a good idea to market this as a straight-ahead screwball comedy should be fired immediately. While there are some comedic elements to the movie, it is more of a edgy and sometimes brutally violent road-movie/thriller. A lot of people went to see it expecting a light-hearted comedy, but a little bit into the movie a certain and very violent scene had people wondering if they had wandered into the wrong movie. Maybe it can finally find it's proper audience on video (though they are still inexplicably pushing it as a straight comedy...........)

Everything from this movie is great. The acting (especially Renee Zellwegger and the always perfect Morgan Freeman) is flawless. Even Chris Rock is not annoying like he usually is. The script flawlessly juggles quite a few different genres into a fine stew: at some points it's a violent hit-man film, other points it's more of a road movie, and even at other times it's sort of a twisted buddy movie. Kudos should be given to the director who really pulled this material together and didn't go the easy way out.

The movie drags just a hair during the middle (hence why I didn't give it a perfect 10), but it's easily the best and most original movie to come out in quite some time.

and Renee Zellwegger was robbed of an Oscar nomination in my opinion!

rating:9

4 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Full frontal Heather Graham nudity!, 12 April 2001
10/10

Sorry, I got a little carried away for a second. Once you get past the pleasant experience that is the physically perfect Heather Graham getting completely nude, this is one of the most excellent films since Pulp Fiction.

Everything from the acting to the direction and the fantastic editing is top of the line. Plus, the script is filled with some truly memorable dialogue. Surprisingly, since this film is based on a fictional porn star (who was based somewhat on real life John Holmes), it isn't as sleazy as one would think it would be. What I found fascinating about this movie is that writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson wisely chose not to judge his characters, but to just show them as human beings who just happen to have a questionable lifestyle/profession.

I agree with Roger Ebert's assessment that the only reason this film got by with an R-rating (though 40 seconds of sex had to be cut to get that), was that it demystified sex, instead of glamorizing it. But I'll admit that when I saw this in theaters, I was surprised how much they were able to get away with. In my eyes, this film should have been rated NC-17, since I couldn't imagine anyone under 17 watching this film. There's some pretty strong and unsettling stuff in this movie, but it's not done in an exploitative way, instead it's very artistic and filled with class.

A great film that is practically flawless in my opinion.

Rating:10

Bedazzled (2000)
3 out of 5 people found the following review useful:
Strictly for fans of Elizabeth Hurley., 12 April 2001
3/10

This is one of those movies where it's really hard to put your finger on where it exactly went wrong. It has a good director, a great cast and inventive scenarios, but the movie left me wondering why I wasn't laughing when I thought it was supposed to be a comedy.

The only bright spot in this movie were the makeup-effects work (mainly on Branden Frasier), slick special effects and that piece of female perfection that is Elizabeth Hurley. If you find her as beautiful as I do, then you'll really want to check out this movie just for her "performance". She goes throughout the whole movie wearing very skimpy and revealing outfits that clearly was the reason for the PG-13 rating. The red bikini was my personal favorite......WOW!!

But for everyone else there isn't much to recommend here. It's just not that funny or entertaining and just comes across as bland.

rating:the movie:3 Elizabeth Hurley: 10

2 out of 4 people found the following review useful:
A trashy, amateurishly acted, poorly edited and forgettable movie., 9 April 2001
1/10

(my comments are based on the 121 min. unrated version)

A friend of mine recommended this film to me saying "It's a Mexican/Spanish version of Natural Born Killers." After watching this awful movie, the main differences between the two movies is that N.B.K. was actually good and it made a valid point about the media. Dance With the Devil is similar in the two law-breaking immoral lovers on the run angle, but that's where the similarities end.

It became apparent to me shortly into the movie that the director's main goal was to try to shock the audience at any and every given oppurtunity. If a point of some sort is actually trying to be made (like N.B.K.) than this can be really effective. But this movie just comes across at times like no-one involved with the movie had any idea what exactly they were wanting to make.

The acting is pathetic, the direction is muddled and poor, the editing is very confusing at times and there is basically no plot to speak of. All this movie is is a hodge-podge of graphic sex and extreme violence at every corner that would be offensive if the movie wasn't so poor to begin with. (the rape of the young girl was also pointlessly/disturbingly explicit and went on far too long.)

Basically, my advice is just to stay away from this movie like it never existed. It's terrible in every way!

rating:1


Page 1 of 5:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [Next]