Reviews

164 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
simplistic yet effective
1 January 2011
I saw the preview so many times involuntarily that in the end i decided to see this movie. Romantic films are not my favourite genre, but there was something pure about this film. The Italian countryside is lovely and the main characters are convincing. yes, it is predictable and has no bearing on "real life" but that is precisely what these films are for; to suspend disbelief and just watch a film for pure enjoyment. For what it is worth I definitely recommend this. I can almost forgive Amanda Seyfried for Mamma Mia after watching this and Vanessa Redgrave is always going to be good even if the material she is given may not be completely up to scratch.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Long on Drama, short on action
21 February 2006
The only reason I know this film exists is because I wanted to see what Nancy McKeon had been up to since The Facts of Life ended. When I searched her name, up came this relatively new TV movie. After much investigation I managed to locate a copy & was thoroughly disappointed with what I viewed. D Grade acting, poor script, terrible FX - it was like watching a toned down, more stupefied version of Day After Tomorrow that went for 3 hours. Despite the long running time the characters remain fairly under-developed, we do not care about them in the slightest & in most cases are longing for their demise. Combine that with terrible lighting & cinematography & you have a real disaster of a film. How they con-viced so many "name" actors (i.e Dianne Weist, Randy Quaid, Brian Dennehy) to appear in such trash is mind-blowing. In summary - I want those 3 hours of my life back!!!
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Abandon (2002)
3/10
Predictable & Boring
21 February 2006
This film was of interest to me mainly because of some of the supporting actors involved, especially Zooey Deschanel, Melanie Lynskey & Gabrielle Union. While they kept me from switching this off half way, it really is a tedious & ultimately bland & predictable psychological "thriller" It's another film where Katie Holmes shows her distinct lack of any real acting ability (a pre-cursor to Batman Begins perhaps?) While there is the occasional spark of originality, this film is too pretentious for it's own good. It's part Gossip, part Talented Mister Ripley, with a bit of Poison Ivy thrown in for good measure. Unless you are a MAJOR Katie Holmes fan don't watch this rubbish - there are many far superior thrillers out there to indulge in.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bug Buster (1998)
2/10
Cheap & Nasty
26 July 2004
Although I assume this film is meant to be tongue in cheek, it is still one of the worst comedy/horror films of all time. While I was watching this all I could think of was how good Arachnophobia actually was. The acting in this film is really average, it was disappointing to see an actress such as Meredith Salenger, who showed such promise in her younger years, reduced to a supporting role as a bimbo. Katherine Heigl was very wooden in her role, but then again...she did not have much to work with. The special effects at the end are shocking, quite reminiscent of Godzilla 1985, but this was made late 90's (there have been many technological advances since then...)Doesn't even rate as a B movie in my book, probably best to stay away from this film at all costs.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Audrey Rose (1977)
3/10
Overacted & Bland
19 July 2004
I revisited this film recently, after having watched it numerous times as a child. I saw this film on T.V when I was about 7 years old & I remember how scary it was...definitely not the case now. The main problem with the film is the acting. Overacting must have been the "In" thing in the mid seventies. Marsha Mason & Susan Swift are the worst offenders, making their performances laughable at best. Anthony Hopkins was not particularly effective, but there are glimpses of the sinisterness of Hannibal Lecter in some scenes. Given this was directed by Robert Wise, it really should have been better. However, it is nothing more than a poor imitation of The Exorcist with terrible staging, unsympathetic characters and a thread-bare storyline. Clearly there are some films that should stay buried...
7 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Jury Duty (1995)
1/10
Terrible
17 May 2004
In my opinion, a film starring Pauly Shore is going to be bad, however, while some of his films are good/bad (Encino Man), this is not one of them. This is Shore at his most gratingly annoying, throw in a tired storyline & terrible jokes & you have jury duty. Nothing can save this film, it's bad from start to finish. I expected better from some of the cast - they must have really needed the money. The strange thing is the premise of the story could really work - if it had different actors, an appealing lead & a much better script. Unless you are a die hard Pauly Shore fan I suggest you stay away from this one. There are thousands of better films to watch.
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Cutting Class (1989)
2/10
Cheesy 80's Horror at it's Worst
11 February 2004
This film seems to be saved from total video hell from one very inventive death scene. Pitt is a bad actor in this & still is a terrible actor now...The problem with this film is the acting, plot, setting, music etc.... Somewhere there was some potential for a campy/scary film , but unfortunately it seems to be more intune with an amateur gore hound & friends running amok with a second rate video camera.

There is nothing in this that has not been done better before. Only watch it if you either love one of the lead actors OR are an absolute sucker for cheesy horror films.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bring It On: Again (2004 Video)
1/10
Pointless
8 February 2004
This is a very average film. The acting is pedestrian at best, the characters are extremely one dimensional & the storyline is incredibly un-original. This film had no point other than to show the supremacy of the original film. Even by "made for cable" standards this film is totally unsatisfying. If you are a fan of the original - do not see this film - you will want those 90 minutes of your life back.
5 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Average
8 February 2004
Considering the cast, this film should have been great. However, there is only so much one can do with a flat script, dull characters & an average plot . There was a lot of opportunity to make this film work, but as a whole it just does not mesh. The two leads are incredibly likeable (as always), but the material is sub-standard. It's a really ordinary film, with some terrible cringe-worthy dialogue, especially near the end of the film. The premise is not too bad, but the way it is presented is really droll. A waste of talent, time & money.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The In-Laws (I) (2003)
3/10
Painfully Bad
1 February 2004
This is one of those films that is really painful to watch. There are plenty of times where it should have been funny - sometimes even hilarious, but all the jokes fall flat. There is nothing that's right with this film. The mixing of comedic genres just doesn't work. The comedic timing is way off. The direction is flat, the story is lame & it really serves no purpose but to rob unsuspecting viewers of 90 or so minutes of their precious time on this earth. Even if you are a BIG fan of some of the actors in this film, don't see this film unless you want to dislike them instantly from here on out. Avoid
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Carnosaur (1993)
2/10
Low Budget Trash
1 February 2004
The worst of it's kind. With cheesy special effects & bad acting you know it's likely to be a Corman produced film. However, this complete waste of time commits the cardinal sin of taking itself a little too seriously. Where are the funny one-liners that usually spring up every now & then??? The only reason to watch this ( or catch a glimpse of it for 5 minutes) is to marvel at the downward spiral of Jennifer Runyon's career after "Charles in Charge". Don't waste your time. There are heaps of so bad it's good films out there - don't be fooled into thinking this is one of them.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Slackers (2002)
3/10
Below Average
4 November 2003
This film looked promising but it was actually pretty bad. The premise was O.K, but the plot itself was terrible. The actors tried their best with limited material, but they could not rise above the mean spiritedness of this tacky college film. Jason Schwartzman was once again immensely irritating - even more so than in Rushmore, the rest of the cast were quite non-eventful. Scenes that should have been fun turned out to be off-putting & incredibly juvenile. Tries to be a Road Trip/American Pie but fails dismally on all levels. A total waste of everyone's time.
13 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Nowhere (1997)
4/10
Pointless, but strangely intriguing
4 November 2003
This is a strange film, it doesn't really have a plot, just lots of little sub-lots. The main reason to see this film is for the "before they were stars" element. There are heaps of famous faces in this mind-bender of a film. The ending is really quite odd, and there are some particularly nasty scenes along the way. It's watchable, but for all the wrong reasons. After the event - this film really has little merit. However, the shock value is magnificent (if you are into that kind of thing...)
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Bad Acting, Bad Script, Bad Film
4 November 2003
I was interested to see Susannah Hoffs in an acting role, however, it was made abundantly clear early in the film that she could not act, but then neither could most of the "performers" in this film. This is the worst of it's kind, the characters are dull & one dimensional, the sub-plots are ridiculous & worst of all it's just not entertaining. It's so bad that it is bad (and could never be good/bad), the filmmakers made it hard to care for the characters early in the film & you will be begging for them to disappear into oblivion by the end of this poor excuse at "grad humour". Stay Away!
10 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Piranha (1978)
3/10
Really Bad
4 November 2003
I was really looking forward to seeing this film, I had heard so much about it & John Sayles of Alligator fame had penned the script so how bad could it be? Actually it was really terrible. Possibly this is one of those films that has not stood the test of time. The opening is O.K, and there are some nice creature effects, but the acting is so bad and some of the sub plots so corny that there is no doubt that you are watching a Roger Corman production - and a bad one at that. Only watch it if you really have a burning desire to see it - otherwise stay away.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Pleasant, but average
19 October 2003
This is a fairly pleasant film. It's not shockingly bad, but it's not fantastic either - it's middle of the road. There are some funny one-liners, but overall the film is instantly forgettable. Some of the characters are not overly convincing, and some of the cameos (esp Lisa Kudrow) seem to be a bit forced & unnecessary. Watch it only if you have nothing else to do - but, remember that this is not one of the best films of it's kind - it's just really average.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Core (2003)
6/10
B-Grade entertainment
15 October 2003
I didn't mind this film, but then, I was not expecting much. The "disaster" was built up nicely in the first 30 minutes, with some decent special effects. The acting was above par for this type of film, but the characters seemed to be a little underdeveloped. Very much a poor mans Armageddon, this is good Sunday afternoon entertainment. The film is a little long, it drags a bit in the middle, and the ending is contrived - but it's a lot better than some of the other "blockbusters" currently released.
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Smokers (2000)
1/10
Pointless Trash
15 October 2003
This film is absolutely terrible. It has very little plot, the characters are two dimensional & boring. I expected better from Thora Birch - luckily for her, she was only a supporting character. The film tries very hard to be a "Heathers" for the next generation, but it fails on every level humanly possible. A complete waste of time.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mixed Nuts (1994)
2/10
Slow Moving & Boring
28 September 2003
This is an incredibly abysmal film. From the cast & the creators it had heaps of promise, but it failed to deliver on every level. Filled with unfunny characters, unbelievable scenarios and flat acting, this is one film to avoid. It felt like it went for about 3 hours, the characters seemed underdeveloped & even Liev Schreiber in drag & Adam Sandler in one of his earliest films cannot save this from the scrap pile of bad films. One to avoid.
9 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
They (2002)
3/10
Boring & Stupid
26 August 2003
I was not expecting much from this, in fact the only reason I saw it was it had Buffy's Marc Blucas in it and Wes Craven's name was linked to it - which nowdays unfortunately doesn't mean much. This started off quite well...but them it turned into the biggest heap of steaming junk. The lead actress was terrible, the others were wasted. You might close your eyes a few times during this film, not from being scared, but from falling asleep from sheer boredom. The premise was not too bad, and with a totally different script, better actors & SFX this might just be passable. Don't waste your time - unless you really, desperately want to see it.
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Just One of the Girls (1993 Video)
1/10
Truly Atrocious
26 August 2003
Usually I'm a bit of a fan of the bad eighties & early nineties film featuring now has beens...but this film is so incredibly terrible that it was a real endurance test to sit through. Guys dressing up as girls has been done to death - but never so pathetically. Corey Haim's performance was abysmal as usual, Nicole Eggert was not much better. This has no redeeming qualities, even if you are a number #1 fan of an actor/actress in this piece of trash - stay away!
5 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
976-EVIL (1988)
3/10
Terrible & poorly acted attempt at B-Grade Horror
7 July 2003
This has to be one of the most badly acted and boring horror films around. The atmosphere is dull and boring and the acting aside from Geoffrey's is abysmal. It has a story, but it seems to be more fitted to a short film then a feature length movie. It is fairly slow moving, which wouldn't be a bad thing, if it didn't take the most obvious plot line imaginable. I was hoping the film would have a sense of humour, with one or two classic oneliners, but no...it's just plain bad. The special effects are cheap and nasty, just like the film...Avoid at all costs!
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Ginger Snaps (2000)
2/10
Promising beginning
17 June 2003
The first 45 minutes of this film are O.K, until the creature feature takes over. This film is really lame, and by the end of the film I was totally bored. It could have been promising if they had opted against the copious gore in the last 30 minutes of this film. The special effects were O.K, but the psychological side of the sisters "bond" did not hold through to the end. There were some pretty comicial moments during the middle of the film, but they soon disappeared... The acting was pretty good for the quality of this film - which is z-grade monster trash, but if it's your thing then go for it!
8 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Ring (2002)
Incoherent Mess
7 April 2003
This film was an absolute stinker. I had heard great things about it, but when I finally saw it on DVD I was massively disappointed. The problems I had with it were... that it was not scary, the story was incoherent with massive plot holes and no motives, bad acting, bad music and a sell out ending. Stay away from this botched re-make and rent the original japanese version instead (at least it had some real style & atmosphere).
0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Bad, yet good eighties film
7 April 2003
There is something about the standard eighties film that is quite unique, they seem more light and fluffy than the films released these days. Even better, they seemed to attract fairly big name stars of that time...This is not a great film, but it is what it is. It's light hearted, funny, has some interesting musical interludes and outrageous costumes and is one of Jim carrey's earlier films. There is not much of a story but the slight premise it is based on is still entertaining. Would recommend to any child of the eighties!
17 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

Recently Viewed