21 Reviews
Sort by:
The stupidest plot of any Star Trek film... period
20 January 2018
The absurd plot in the movie is summed up in one line by Doctor McCoy: "Who would send a probe hundreds of light years to talk to a whale?" Spock then obviously infers in an exchange of dialog that whales not only have a entire language, but if only humans were smart enough to understand it, the Earth wouldn't suffer from global warming. Crap like that could only be written by someone like Leonard Nimoy. Obviously there's no plausible explanation presented as to why an alien civilization would destroy the entire Earth because they stopped hearing sounds from a single species on Earth from hundreds of light-years away. What really gets to me is that this idiotic plot combined with the time-travel element does not even seem to bother anyone who thinks this is one of the best Star Trek films ever made. Despite all the stupid plot holes, this movie is still more enjoyable than the next two installments, but nowhere near as good as Star Trek II or even Star Trek III.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The Enterprise is trapped inside of a giant mechanical sphincter!
13 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
This movie is completely nonsensical and ridiculous. The absurdity begins with Commander Sonak being introduced as the Enterprise's new science officer shortly before suffering a gruesome death in a creepy ass transporter effect. Later as the Enterprise departs the solar system, they just happen to do so during a rare alignment of all the planets. Almost immediately, the Enterprise gets caught in the only wormhole in the Star Trek universe with a quantum level oscillation delay effect, but they escape by blowing up an asteroid within it. When the Enterprise encounters the cloud, it somehow becomes the only vessel who's shields withstand a blast of its plasma energy. Moments before the second plasma torpedo hits, it simply vanishes after the Enterprise transmits linguacode. Once the enterprise enters the cloud, it gets stopped by a giant sphincter which puckers up every few seconds, It is then that Spock discovers that with just a blank stare on his face and not even looking at his monitors, he can gather facts not only about V'ger, but an entire mechanical civilization on the other side of the galaxy as well. At the end when V'Ger's true nature is revealed, the audience is treated to a series of loud fart-like sounds every time an absurd plot twist is revealed while Kirk looks around as if wondering where they came from. The purpose for those ugly belt devices the crew wears is never explained either, but I imagine they are "reward" devices similar to the one in Suburban Commando.

Despite all its flaws, annoyances and the fact that it's an obvious rip-off of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Star Trek: The Motion Picture is still much more watchable than any of the Next Generation or reboot films. The original cast always had great chemistry and the special effects combined with the orchestral music is relaxing to watch, even if it does drag the movie on far too long.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Red Heat (1988)
Horrendously bad acting, dialog and overall story
17 December 2017
Not many Schwarzenegger movies got a worse IMDB score than this one. I'll go along with that. At the very beginning of this movie, the viewer is shown gratuitous shots of Arnold's naked ass, giving people who enjoy that kind of thing reason enough to praise this movie, but at the same time, symbolizing what I thought of it.

I think maybe the worst part of this movie is the dialog. When Jim Belushi said "Stupid G**damn f***ing Russians!" it took all my willpower not to hit the stop button. I like Jim Belushi in just about anything, but his acting was awful in this movie, as was everyone else's. To their credit however, they didn't have much to work with as the writing was atrocious. A five year old could write a more watchable movie. As far as the Russian accents go, the actors take a stereotypical approach, omitting the word "the" while they invoke the phoniest accents I've ever heard. Speaking of bad acting, a must-have for every decent cop movie is a good villain who gives the viewer reason enough to dislike them, but this one tries too hard and by the end of the movie, you don't even care what happens to him.

I give this movie three stars and I think that's pretty generous for a movie I will never watch again.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
A completely UNrealistic take on the end of the world
7 May 2017
Warning: Spoilers
This is the type of artsy fartsy movie that is so so tragically stupid, it would rightfully even make an environmental activist groan. Who for instance came up with the absurd notion for this movie that once the ozone layer had fully depleted, a huge explosion would occur and shatter all the windows?

I'm normally the kind of person who is able to overlook the overall absurdity of the plot of any check-your-brain-at-the-door popcorn flick and just enjoy it, but this movie goes absolutely nowhere. It's a slow, boring movie with characters that are completely uninteresting and don't develop at all. Since an environmental crisis is so integral to the plot, I have to touch on it a bit. First of all, this movie was made 20 years too late to be believable. It was fashionable during the 80's to believe in the depletion of the ozone layer, but when it was discovered that was no longer the case, people often credit climate science even though there are now almost twice as many people on Earth. Furthermore, the sun is what creates the ozone layer. If pollution were the cause of ozone depletion rather than by the natural tilt of the Earth to the sun, holes would appear over the continents of the biggest polluters, rather than over Antarctica. Since it's been established that penguins and the occasional humans suffer no ill effects when there allegedly was an ozone hole, why not move closer to the Earth's southern polar region to survive? Never mind EVERYONE in the background driving their cars, running their businesses and going about their daily lives.

This movie is little more than a celebration of junk science and its champions, making this the type of movie that Leonardo DiCraprio would've done for free.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
No plot, miscast and horribly written, directed and acted
11 November 2016
This movie was so stupid, you would swear that it was directed by Michael Bay or Jar Jar Abrams, the type of Hollywood jerk who never seems to go away, even after beating franchises like Star Trek and Star Wars to death.

The plot is a totally original. Somehow, yet another Jurassic Park exists with no explanation of where it came from and the main characters once again travel to the island only to find themselves running from the dinosaurs later to escape from being eaten... Brilliant.

The director, Colin Trevorrow is now slated to write and direct Episode 9, no doubt ending that franchise on a low note. The characters in this movie are so vapid and one-dimensional, you will find yourself rooting for the dinosaurs, hoping they will kill lots of people in some grandiose fashion like in the previous installments. It tries to be suspenseful, but fails miserably. Chris Pratt, who was terrific in Guardians of the Galaxy looks totally out of place in this one, displaying the same idiotic expression on his face throughout the entire film that never changes. This movie is far worse than The Lost World and that's saying something.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Dear God, put the force back to sleep...
17 January 2016
Warning: Spoilers
...until a time when a halfway decent writer, director, actors, costume designer, set builders and music composer can be found. This movie was made for check-your-brain-at-the-door millennial bed-wetters, not for the more sophisticated movie-goer. It is a nostalgia movie and nothing more. Had this movie not been associated with Star Wars, it would've bombed at the box office and received overwhelmingly negative reviews much more akin to the recent Fantastic 4 movie.

As soon as I heard that Jar Jar Abrams was doing this updated Star Wars Holiday Special, I knew it was definitely not going to be good, but I wasn't expecting it to be this BAD. Jar Jar, still riding his fame for LOST, even though his only real involvement in that show was the pilot episode, has shown that he can completely beat to death time-honored franchises like Star Trek and flip the bird to its fans. The sets used in this movie made the original trilogy look state of the art in comparison. Every one of the costumes have a cheaply constructed fan-film quality to them. Kylo Ren's costume reminded me of Klytus from the 1980 Flash Gordon movie. As bad as the prequels were, you could still look forward to a cool light-saber duel, but even when that moment came in this new film, you were let down BIG TIME. From the very first shot, this movie made a concerted effort to copy the original Star Wars. The points made in every bad review reflected my exact thoughts. Every character in this movie is even more shallow and uninteresting as the prequel characters. Even the bad guys act silly and elicit about as much negative feelings towards them as the Nazis in the third Indiana Jones movie. If the entire First Order is looking for BB-8, as long as they don't need any cigarettes lit, why don't the main characters just leave this otherwise useless droid behind? I have my own theory about that. I believe that the soul of Jar Jar Binks was preserved in perpetuity inside the little droid. Hey, if you're going to make a parody version of a classic movie, why not go all out? Besides that, what happened to Carrie Fisher's voice? It doesn't go above a whisper and it sounds heavily slurred. She sounded just like that lady in the anti-smoking ads with the stoma in her neck. Chewie didn't even look like Chewie anymore but rather a Wookiee that had just walked out of a hair salon.

There are bad movies and there are movies that are so bad, they leave you in a lousy mood for the rest of the day. This movie is the latter. After watching this, I found it much more entertaining and cathartic to read all the negative reviews. If you hated this movie, the best thing you can do to express your anger is to boycott any more Star Wars movies and merchandise.
486 out of 834 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
If you're a typical brain-dead, hate-America-first, leftist douche, click the "No" button without even bothering to read my review.
23 February 2015
Not since United 93 has there been an honest feature film portrayal of the madness that has been brought about by the Quran. If there was ever a movie in your life to see in the theater rather than at home, this is definitely one of them. An amazing thing happens When the credits start rolling. Not a single person leaves the theater, then suddenly rousing applause breaks the silence. There are very few movies in life that make you feel special to have been born and raised in the U.S. and this is one of them. The fact that this movie has completely blown away the year's top grossing Oscar winner five times over in terms of ticket sales can make anyone restore their faith in this country. Thank the Lord for the few patriots in Hollywood like Clint Eastwood.

As I read the negative reviews of this movie, it makes me wonder what the hell kind of world we live in where we have Internet trolls on our home soil who in the most vile, offensive way possible make our Navy Seals out to be the bad guys in the war on terror. The men and women of our U.S. military are so heroic and fearless that leftist idiots like Hillary Clinton and Brian Williams try to appear as one of them by fabricating their own epic fail stories about being under fire. It's a good thing that the people who make their mark in history are not the idiot congressmen with their pie in the sky policies that always blow up in their face or the people who vote for them, but the people who actually change the world like Chris Kyle. If terrorists were out there plotting another attack on my home soil, I would take comfort in knowing that people like Chris Kyle were there to take them out rather than some vain, pencil-neck Alinskyite who claims in their usual leftist sophistry that if we reason with them and offer them jobs, that will miraculously cause them to rethink their terrorist ways! The only jobs they're qualified for are as butchers and there are only so many of those jobs available! This movie flies in the face of everything the media and our college professors tell us about our military and I can see why leftists use it to spew their hate-filled trash-talking rhetoric.

I never would've imagined on the day when 9/11 occurred that the people who committed those atrocities would one day be publicly embraced by our president of all people who refuses to even say the word "terrorist" and who claims that they have "legitimate grievances" against America. Nowadays, even the people who are guilty of some of the biggest acts of terrorism such as Che Guevara and Dzhokar Tsarnev are glamorized as rock stars. I guarantee you that if the terrorists cut the heads off of cute little animals rather than people and posted the video of it on YouTube, that would finally elicit a reaction from the left and even then, they would still probably blame Nakoula Nakoula for it.
35 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Best of the Best of the Best series
8 May 2013
I caught this movie on TV and wondered why I had never heard of it before. I love cheesy popcorn action flicks such as Cliffhanger, Speed and The Marine - movies that you might not enjoy as much unless you check your brain at the door first. This movie has it all: motorcycles, helicopters, machine guns, explosions and even some ridiculous one-liners. After seeing this, I couldn't wait to watch the first three movies in the series, seeing how most movie franchises hit their peak by the second movie. I was extremely disappointed in how slow and boring the first three movies are and the first one isn't even worth watching a second time. The fourth movie in the series isn't exactly Shakespeare, but unlike the first three movies, it maintains a good pace and has several recognizable, well-established actors in it such as Ernie Hudson, Paul Gleason, Tobin Bell and Art LaFleur.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Makes the previous outings looks like Batman Returns, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin respectively
11 July 2012
I wasn't expecting much from this movie based on the previous three Spider-man movies. I had been hoping for a reboot of the franchise ever since I had seen the first Spider-Man movie 10 years earlier.

This movie gives us a Spider-Man that's much more true to the original comics. I wasn't at all surprised when Tobey Maguire's Spider-Man wasn't considered for inclusion in The Avengers. The previous three movies did nothing to boost his career, but I can expect to see a lot more from Andrew Garfield in the coming years and I would love to see him in the sequel to The Avengers. Emma Stone also manages to outshine Kirsten 'Dunce' as the love interest, but in all fairness, that's not terribly difficult for such a sub-par actress like Kirsten.

Even if this story had been done before, it certainly hadn't been given the respectful treatment that it had in this film. The 3D is this movie could hardly have been done any better. The common denominator in all the bad reviews, besides the fact that they were apparently written by 12 year-olds (seriously, read some of them) is that people simply didn't like the villain, therefore they complain about the CGI to try to give themselves credibility.

This is on track to be the movie of the year and not The Avengers.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The same jokes from the first movie are flogged to death in this one.
14 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I'm willing to forgive the fact that Billy Crystal declared this movie better than the first one and overlook the very contrived inclusion of former cattle drive participants as well as an evil twin. All that notwithstanding, this sad sequel forgets the honest and genuine drama that was at the heart of the original film and replaces it with dopey, juvenile humor and an egregious attempt at sentimentality. We get to hear the same boring, recycled jokes from the first movie beginning with the birthday morning phone call, to the dialogue about setting VCRs, to the same dumb joke, "He's behind me isn't he?" I know Crystal's irritating screaming is always good for a chuckle, isn't it? It just goes to show if a joke doesn't work the first time, use it again, only louder. If you're a Jon Lovitz fan and want to see him do a halfway decent attempt at drama rather than his schmaltzy performance in this movie, I recommend Mr. Destiny. If you want to see Billy Crystal do drama, don't. I'll admit that I did like this movie when it first came out, but I've since graduated from Junior High. This movie was an overall eye-rolling train wreck which was only made to capitalize on the laurels of the first one.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Moonlighting (1985–1989)
I love this show, but they ruined one of the best episodes on the DVD
30 August 2005
Finally after years of waiting, the series that marked the career best of both Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepherd was finally released on DVD. They did a great job on the menus and so forth, but they absolutely destroyed one of my favorite episodes titled, "The Lady in the Iron Mask." They changed all the music which was originally very dark and moody and replaced it with this shrill garbage which even drowns out the dialogue in some places. At the end of the episode the hotel chase sequence was originally accompanied by the William Tell Overture which was the perfect choice for a hilarious climax. On the DVD however, they play the same crap that they played throughout the entire episode. Shame on you for whoever is responsible. It's better than not having the DVD out at all, but it just makes me mad.
26 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Another germ, from the monkeys behind this film
17 August 2005
This "plot" verges on incomprehensibility, but is not brilliantly complex. It's OK though, since you really don't empathize with any of the characters anyway. When I watched the scientists from the future who force convicts into "volunteering" for deadly assignments break out into a chorus of "I found my thrill on blueberry hill" to Willis when he comes back from yet another time trek, all I could think about were all the morons who actually like to watch stuff like that. What time travel, the psychiatric world, and animals rights activists have in common is unexplained from start to end and each of these themes aren't explored and converged to produce anything stimulating. What's more is that nobody on this site or elsewhere can seem to explain that, or at least give a thoughtful, provocative, or at least more than superficial analysis of why this movie is any good. They're all the mindless sputtering clichés like, "what a masterpiece!," "Gilliam is a genius!," Brad Pitt is brilliant!" I did notice quite a few people who wrote that like many of Gilliam's films, this movie is actually more enjoyable to watch the second or third time around. Well, so are Freddy Got Fingered and Episode I, so I'd have to say this film is in good company. To know that this movie is in the Top 250 behind other forgettable "classics" such as Toy Story 2 and Eternal Sunshine is unf***ingbelievable. Thank you lowbrows for once again recommending another sigh-of-relief-once-it's-over movies.
17 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
The work of the devil
28 July 2005
I watched this flick not knowing of the controversy surrounding it. Needless to say, a deep philosophical analysis of this film is not worth my time. Why are so many people wasting their time wondering what Jesus was like apart from scripture? Haven't you read the book of John, the one that starts "In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and THE WORD WAS GOD?" In other words, come to know the word and you will know Jesus. I've been studying the bible for ten years now, and the stupid comments I've read on this site speculating about how Jesus was probably mentally ill and comparing him to the alien in Stargate tells me why these people liked this film... they're imbeciles, doomed to spend an eternity continually being misguided by the devil. Say what you will about "The Passion." At least that movie was honest. This movie includes enough excerpts from the gospel thrown in to create dissentment among Christians and non-Christians, which I believe is the ultimate purpose in making this film. The scariest thing people can say is that they learned something about God from this movie. Well, if I learned something about this movie, it's that people are free and willing to accept God's love, but unwilling to accept His teachings, especially the writings of the apostles. How convenient.
6 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
What are you people smoking? This movie is awesome!
13 April 2005
For those of you who shop at Wal-Mart, look in the $5.50 DVD bin for this one, one of the most underrated movies of all time. Notice how in other people's comments that not a single one tells you why this film doesn't work. I can only guess that people who didn't like this just have a tight-assed sense of humor. Chevy Chase is every bit as funny in this movie as he always has been. There's even some emotional depth to the film when Jack Palance's character tries to fend off the Robberson's affection for him. To the dim lightbulbs who posted how much you loved The Truth About Cats & Dogs, and While You Were Sleeping to name a few mothballed, forgettable movies and to pass on this movie along with such classics as Liar, Liar, The Golden Child and Memoirs of an Invisible Man, I hope I never meet you at Blockbuster when I ask for a good comedy.
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Makes Dude, Where's My Car look like Shakespeare
13 January 2005
Tell me something, if this movie is so great, why didn't Dumb and Dumberer get any good reviews. What is the fascination with such shallow characters in movies nowadays? The two main characters Napolean and Pedro both act so heavily medicated it reminded me of other so called "wonderful" movies such as Donnie Darko and Garden State. I don't watch movies to juxtapose them with my own life experiences, I watch them because they contain experiences that you seldom get from life. I can't tell you how many brain cells I lost just in the process of watching this crap. If you like the sensation you get after being cold-cocked in the head by a baseball bat, check this out.
17 out of 34 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This movie should be placed eternally in a spot where the sun don't shine
28 October 2004
After seeing the user rating of this flick on IMDb and hearing from a Blockbuster employee of how "brilliant" this movie is, I decided to check it out. Needless to say I was extremely disappointed. Obviously, only the true Charlie Kaufman devotees seem to like this film as indicated by the rave reviews.

The story was half-assed and the characters are shallow and uninteresting, especially Joel. The chemistry between him and Clementine is contrived from the very beginning. Throughout the entire movie, we're treated to memory after memory them together while Joel tries to hang on to each one. By the time the movie gets to the sub-plot, who really cares? The characters in this film are only about as naive as the entire cast of Mystic Pizza.

I went back to reading reviews of this movie and none of them seem to indicate why this movie is any good. I hear "good cinematography," maybe; "artsy," sure; "original," not for a Charlie Kaufman film; but I would also add lackadaisical, pedantic and half-baked.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Listless, vapid and pointless. In other words, the perfect Owen Wilson vehicle.
21 July 2004
Combine a director that has directed nothing but a half a dozen flops since 1971, a screenwriter who couldn't write his name in the snow, and one of the most frigid, nasal and boring leading men and what do you get? The Big Bounce. Lite comedy is for sure. The laughs, for those that can be amused by a rubber hose, are few and far between. Every scene, shot after shot, is of Owen Wilson. I kept hoping somebody would poke my eyes out before this movie was over, which is never too soon. This movie and Starsky and Hutch are two of the worst movies of 2004. Whatever possessed anyone to make this imbecile, Owen Wilson a leading man, the world will never know.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Cheap thrill for the simple minded and easily entertained
15 May 2003
This was not a sequel worthy of a great movie the Matrix. It takes an original idea like the slow motion action sequences from the first movie and drags them out, as if the audience isn't bored to death of the idea by now. No significant plot and no real explanations take place. Just a 2 hour and 18 minute movie of comic book fight scenes and car crashes.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Awesome character study
4 February 2003
Every time this movie is on TV I always watch at least part of it. The gripes people said about this movie are...

No action: There was certainly more action than The Godfather, another mob movie.

No plot: Did you watch the friggin' movie, or do you find it hard to follow movies like Toy Story?

Don't know about the characters: The whole movie is a study on the disparate personalities of the three. What don't you know?

Don't believe the negative reviews of a movie like this. If graphic violence or strong language doesn't bother you then watch this movie the next time it's on the movie channel or rent it sometime. Also, could someone explain to me, what's up with the obvious dubbing over some of Adam Baldwin's profanity? This is even on the unedited video version of the movie. The movie already had an R rating. Were they trying to clean it up a little? Watch carefully whenever Tate is swearing at Travis and you'll see what I'm talking about.
13 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
#23 of all time? Give me a break!
18 December 2002
There was nothing entertaining about this movie. Kevin Spacey is an overrated actor and his performances are stale. I sure as hell don't want to pay $8 and sit through 122 minutes of him spanking his monkey! This movie is an indication of how far down the toilet Hollywood is willing to flush any sense of decency or morality. Tell me something, if this movie is so great, then how come Freddy Got Fingered didn't sweep the Oscars? It's basically the same type of shock humor.
12 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Best album of all time is the soundtrack to this film
14 December 2002
The soundtrack album puts this film to shame. Neil Diamond is a musical genius no matter what people think. He is the top selling solo performer even to this day. People who don't like the music to this film have no taste and waste their time listening to the Rolling Stones or rap music all the time.
9 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this