Change Your Image
twwoodchuck
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againReviews
Carter & June (2017)
Actually - it was that bad
All the characters are indeed cliched. The entire plot and premise are, in fact less than fantasy. But it was also inept, and was indeed really, really, that bad
Shoot to Kill (1947)
See it for Gene Rogers playing the Boogie Woogie
Despite the fact that this is one of the most pathetic movies ever made it is well worth seeing for the opening scene, wherein GEne Rogers, a now forgotten piano player demonstrates his mastery of the Boogie Woogie.
As for the rest - bad script, worse acting, inept direction, and a plot that never gets anywhere. See it only if you are a shut it who can't find the remote.
Time of Death (2013)
Pathetic
This is about the worst movie I can recall seeing in the past couple decades. What plot there is has nothing to recommend it, The acting is completely lackluster, and the main character is so deadpan she makes Joe Friday from the original Dragnet tv show appear to have been over-emoting to the point of hysteria.
My personal rating system within the imdb universe is as follows:
1 Star - complete waste of time, to the point where I couldn't stand to watch it all the way to the end and turned it off. Usually this is 1/2 hour to 1 hour into the film. There are too many films worth seeing for me to waste much time on the turkeys.
2 Stars - basically a One Star movie, that I happened to watch all the way to the end. While I know I wasted time I can never get back there is a late night effect that makes me not want to start something else too late. So I take the attitude I always had when I went to the movies in theaters and paid cold hard cash to get in. To quote The Who - "Won't get fooled again."
4 Stars - I am basically house-bound so I watch a lot of gubbage that I really probably shouldn't. A 4 star movie is not a complete loss - although it can come pretty close. It certainly is nothing I would ever be willing to watch again. I know when I look up a film and discover I previously gave a flick a 4 star rating I will never make that mistake again. Consequently this is the most important rating I make.
a
6 Stars - this is a reasonable movie and I could end up watching it again.
8 Stars - Good movies get 8 stars. If I've not seen them recently I will probably watch them again.
9 or 10 stars - a great movie. This is the sort of film I can watch almost any number of times, sometimes even over a very short space of time - like the time I watched "Bringing Up Baby" twice in two nights.
Were I to use my preferred rating system I would make 4 Stars the top rating, with a symbol for complete trash (ie Leonard Maltin's BOMB rating). Quite frankly I think that 5 ratings in total more than adequately covers the field. Were I to publish a book like Shearer or Maltin or some others, I would not bother with half stars
My ratings are specific to my taste, obviously, but I think they give a pretty good indication of how I think others would react to these same movies, If they started with my rather eclectic taste and background. I tend to avoid Soaps, and "Heartwarming" movies altogether and my ratings reflect my distaste for this sort of gubbage. I am not an "It's A Wonderful Life" fan. Give me the
I like BITTER tales of nasty people gleefully doing vile things to each other - but usually with a sense of humour - or at least one of irony. I tend to avoid romantic comedies and "Scrooge" related stuff (although the Alistair Sim version of "A Christmas Carol" is a film I have watched roughly 1.5 times per decade since it first showed up on television in the 1950s. I've seen a couple other versions too - but mostly I can tell by watching the Trailers for these flicks that I would not be willing to watch the full movie (see "Heartwarming" above).
The Flying Saucer (1950)
Forget it
Dreck. Skip it. There aren't even any laughs to be had from it
Very Bad Things (1998)
A real "Bro" movie
A batch of overage frat boys go on a Vegas trip. They end up in a hotel room with a dead hooker. Her death was an accident caused by a protruding bathroom fixture but the Bros try to cover the incident up to avoid the complications of telling their wives and sweethearts, the Los Vegas Police, and the news media how they came to have unintentionally killed a hooker in a Vegas hotel.
I can see how this could have made a pretty decent "black" comedy, but they would have done better had they started with a script that was actually funny. Instead the writers went with a two hour whine fest. Only Christian Bale avoided the screaming panic of the rest of the bros - and of course he advised the others into doing all sorts of Very Stupid Things in order to "save" themselves from the consequences of their own stupidity. So their situation (of course) keeps getting worse.
Somewhere there must be a prison for bad writers. At this prison the punishment for bad writing is a big screen tv on the wall showing a 24/7 festival of this movie and a dozen or so other similar turkeys. There would be no way to turn it off, or turn the volume (set to at least 11) down.
I gave it two stars but in my personal imdb rating system a two star movie is no better than a one star movie Sometimes it is actually worse, but I have indeed watched the whole thing (One simply star means I couldn't take the film for any one of a hundred reasons) I really should have turned Very Bad Things it off before the hooker even arrived as it was terribly annoying from the very first unfunnny scene. Unfortunately I tend to watch movies without reference to any reviews and sit through just about anything - a habit I really should try to break - a leftover from the days of going to the theater and stubbornly watching the entire program just to get my money's worth.
I consider myself to be competent on the subject of films and have watched many many good black comedies over my seven decades of sitting in theaters, relaxing against the bench seats of 50s and 60s cars at Drive Ins, and on my home TV. I can tell good from bad and I know when I'm watching a Very Bad Movie.
Very Bad Things (1998)
A real "Bro" movie
A batch of overage frat boys go on a Vegas trip. They end up in a hotel room with a dead hooker. Her death was an accident caused by a protruding bathroom fixture but the Bros try to cover the incident up to avoid the complications of telling their wives and sweethearts, the Los Vegas Police, and the news media how they came to have unintentionally killed a hooker in a Vegas hotel.
I can see how this could have made a pretty decent "black" comedy, but they would have done better had they started with a script that was actually funny. Instead the writers went with a two hour whine fest. Only Christian Bale avoided the screaming panic of the rest of the bros - and of course he advised the others into doing all sorts of Very Stupid Things in order to "save" themselves from the consequences of their own stupidity. So their situation (of course) keeps getting worse.
Somewhere there must be a prison for bad writers. At this prison the punishment for bad writing is a big screen tv on the wall showing a 24/7 festival of this movie and a dozen or so other similar turkeys. There would be no way to turn it off, or turn the volume (set to at least 11) down.
I gave it two stars but in my personal imdb rating system a two star movie is no better than a one star movie Sometimes it is actually worse, but I have indeed watched the whole thing (One simply star means I couldn't take the film for any one of a hundred reasons) I really should have turned Very Bad Things it off before the hooker even arrived as it was terribly annoying from the very first unfunnny scene. Unfortunately I tend to watch movies without reference to any reviews and sit through just about anything - a habit I really should try to break - a leftover from the days of going to the theater and stubbornly watching the entire program just to get my money's worth.
I consider myself to be competent on the subject of films and have watched many many good black comedies over my seven decades of sitting in theaters, relaxing against the bench seats of 50s and 60s cars at Drive Ins, and on my home TV. I can tell good from bad and I know when I'm watching a Very Bad Movie.
The Ridiculous 6 (2015)
I shouldn't have watched this movie
Somehow I missed the fact that Adam Sandler was in this POS and I ended up watching it on Netflix. One of the worst movies I've ever watched all the way through - at 1 am I'm too tired to start a different film and just watch whatever I have started - I would have been better off just turning it off and getting more sleep. toward the end I felt the movie was punishing me for watching.
When I saw the title I thought this was related to the Hateful Eight. Bad conclusion on my part. Except for the title there was no relationship. Unless you can stand Adam Sandler and can watch really unfunny bad comedies without vomiting - find something else or got to bed. Missing this movie is like missing a bullet to the brain.
Ten Wanted Men (1955)
Even with Randolph Scott this flick is a complete clunker
Back in the 50s when the theaters didn't bother to post the title of the Saturday Matinée movie feature(s) It was always a crap shoot on what you were going to get.
Those of us who went to see the feature (as opposed to the kids just out to raise heck in the audience, were usually pretty pleased when the name Randolph Scott appeared on the opening credits. We knew there was going to be plenty of action and simplistic characters spouting rudimentary dialog to move the plot from action to action. It was cowboy day, and just about any oater would do but a Scott flick was usually considerably better fare than most of the films made for the 50s kiddie market.
I first saw Ten Wanted Men at the State Theater in downtown Schenectady New York. I don't remember if I got a soda or a Hershey bar on the way in, but those were my go-to matinée snacks at that time.
Scott made some pretty impressive "B" westerns but Ten Wanted Men had absolutely nothing going for it, other than Scott. The quality of the dialog was amazingly poor and every scene seemed to land with a palpable thud. By the middle of the movie I wished I was one of the kids who chose running up and down the aisles instead of watching the movie.
Naturally I would have chosen to avoid this film forever thereafter. But it popped up at least once again at a matinée. Time has not dulled my disdain for this remarkably poor excuse for a Randolph Scott western - but it has dulled my memory for titles. So, having no memory of the title - seen at least ten years before I started keeping notes on my watching habits, I ended up renting it recently from Netflix DVD. I realised my mistake during an early scene but it was too late. It was in my house, and I was left with no choice but to either watch the movie or send in back.
My sense of thrift just about compels me to be a good lad and sit in my seat paying strict attention to a movie I really would have rather avoided forever.Unless you are an absolute completest for Scott westerns I suggest you do your best to avoid my horrible mistake.
Pay no mind to the extensive list of reliable western bad men in the cast - even Richard Boone was a completely lackluster villain in this film. Leo Gordon almost saves the movie as Henchman Number One, at least his evil deeds do keep the plot moving briskly.