Hated movies

t even Sandra Bullock saved it

I am seriously going to owe my "man friend" for life after dragging him with me to see this film. As a fanatic of the original series I was giddy with excitement about this film... until i watched it. What happened to the character's that I used to love and know?? Somehow on my screen instead of seeing the girl's and the men that they love the way I had come to love them over the years, I found on the cinema screen in front of me a bunch of screaming idiots wearing expensive clothing and carrying around over the top accessories... nothing at all as they used to be. In the end I blame the writing because the script was the movie's biggest down fall and has let us all down. They had years to make this movie great, but now oh how i wish they had just left it as it was... a great show that ended after 6 seasons... a memory now tainted by this film.

Okay. So I just got back. Before I start my review, let me tell you one thing: I wanted to like this movie. I know I've been negative in the past, but I was hoping to be surprised and actually come out liking the film. I didn't.

It's not just the fact that every horror cliché imaginable is in this. And it's not just the fact that they make every little thing into a jump scare (walking into a baseball bat left on the floor? Are you kidding me?). It just wasn't scary. One thing I was surprised about: there was more blood than I thought there was going to be.. which isn't saying much.

The film starts off with Donna being dropped off by Lisa's mom at her house. She comes in.. goes upstairs. Camera pans to her father dead on the couch. Spooky. She goes upstairs, where the aforementioned baseball bat scene happens. Finds her brother on his bed, apparently dead (how could she tell? He didn't have a spot of blood on him). Killer comes in, Donna hides under bed, mom dies. She runs outside screaming for help. Killer behind her: "I did it for us." Cut to therapy session. This confused a lot of people- everyone was asking whether or not her family actually died or if she imagined it- and she mentions how the nightmares have started coming back. Filler dialogue ensues.

THey cut to the chase pretty quick. Few scenes at the salon, they go to the hotel. Of course the killer is already there (for some reason, he escaped 3 days ago but the police/family weren't informed until he's already there). More filler ensues.

I'm not going to go on about what happens in the film, because I don't want to spoil it too much. If you want to know who dies, Horror_Fan made a post about it already. But on the subjects of deaths: they weren't that exciting. People in the theatre actually laughed out loud (an experience I've never had before in a horror movie, not even in When A Stranger Calls) during several of them. One in particular: the bus boy guy who gives the most hilarious 'scared' face I've ever seen. The only death involving any blood was Lisa's, and that was pretty scarce. Her throat is slashed, blood (if you can even call it that- it was practically black) splatters on the curtain-thing. The only other blood was on Claire when we see her body. Apparently, Fenton decided to stab her a few times after he choked her to death. Um, okay? The movie was one of the most clichéd I've ever seen. Let's see here.. obligatory close-mirror-curtain-BOOM! scene. Check. Twice, actually (you could tell they were struggling). Mandatory backing-up-into-killer. Check. There's also the backing-up-into-lamp scene, but you've all seen that. Oh, you say you want a birds-flying-away scare? Well, you got it! (Yes, they managed to incorporate one of those in here). And, of course, the we-have-security-on-all-exits-but-he-still-escaped scene. Shall I go on? I could.

For anyone saying the characters weren't stupid, are you kidding me? "Oh, even though the massive alarm is ringing, literally saying PLEASE VACATE THE BUILDING, and 3 of my friends are missing, I'm going to go upstairs to get my wrap." These characters were some of the most flawed and stupid characters ever. The only likable character - Lisa - made one of the most stupid moves in the movie. "Oh, I just realized the psycho-teacher is here! I must leave my strong boyfriend behind to run off by myself to warn her! Oh, shoot, the elevator is being to slow? Guess I'll take the stairs and run off into the construction site!" Ugh. By the end of the film, they all deserved to die. The only death anyone felt any remorse for was Donna's boyfriend (I can't even remember his name- is that bad?), and by that time, the audience was completely drained out of this scareless, clichéd film.

There were SOME positives- the acting was decent for the most part, and it was well-shot. But that's about it.

I'd give it a 1/5, and that's being generous. Just for the laughs (and believe me, the audience had a few), and Brittany Snow.

Oh, and the reaction was bad. Very bad. People were boo-ing after the movie ended and buzz afterwards was very negative. Expect bad legs for this one.

The bored guru it must called instead The love guru, probably the worst movie I ever seen, I want my bloody money back. Anyway, yes this one is getting panned and so it should as this is the worst film that you will see for some time, and that is no mean feet considering that at least half of the films that come out of Hollywood are frankly awful.

I was made to go through work and all of the bad reviews I read prior to watching this were correct in every way. In fact you will seldom find such universally negative consensus on a film, the only recent exception would be The Happening.

Myers last titles were good, but the sequels only survived because of the solid foundation that the first films laid, I refer to Wayne's World and Austin Powers. This film truly is terrible and what only shocks me more is that, on reading some of the other reviews here, some viewers liked it...?

My last point is Jessica Alba, as stunning beautiful as she is, as an actress she is quite average..

I give it half star, I would give it a zero star

Enjoy...NOT

This is the most disappointing movie in the history of film for me.


Every single individual whether it be producers, director, writer or actors (minus Chris O'Donnell) should be "Bat-Whipped" for this piece of junk. This is your typical "absolutely cannot fail" franchise in film getting raped by studio execs making critical content decisions about a film when they have no talent to do so. Batman is popular simply because of the comic book not because of that retarded TV show starring Adam West, but this movie is more fashioned after that campy trash. This was nothing but a slap in the face to every true fan of the Batman. The direction of Joel Schumacher was deplorable. The set designs looked cheap (the ice looked and acted like dried craft glue) and were visually painful, especially the overuse of the red neon hue in many scenes. The digital effects were OK but often over done. The production cost was extensive, and I wonder what percentage of the budget went to the salaries of Arnold, George, Uma and Alicia. I'm sure it was high. I know Arnold got $20 million, so the percentage had to be fairly high. Well, everyone one of them needed to give back large portions of their salaries because their performances were atrocious. Alicia Silverstone needs to give her entire salary back. Hers was probably one the worst performances ever in a major motion picture. Arnold can't act anyway so I wasn't really expecting much, but I was disappointed when I heard he was cast as Freeze because he in no way fits that character. Freeze was a scientist and when I look at Arnold my first thought is not "Scientist". Ben Kingsly or Patrick Stewart would have fit better. Uma, who is normally a credible actress, was too "drama queen" which made it hard to immerse yourself in scenes she was in. Clooney was totally miscast as Bruce Wayne/Batman. I mean it's hard not to laugh when Batman is shorter than Robin. George like Uma was too overly dramatic, especially in scenes with Alfred, which made it hard to take him seriously. Chris O'Donnell was really the only actor that seemed real. With all that, I would have to say the overwhelmingly worst part of this movie was the script. Akiva Goldsman should have been banned from Hollywood after this script. It was a completely brainless jumbled mess. The story, which was pitiful at best, gets completely lost in entirely too many characters. It was so frustrating seeing the origins of certain characters ripped too shreds as Goldsman attempted to jam them into the script. Batgirl, who should have never been in this film in the first place, was changed from Commissioner Gordon's daughter to Alfred's niece, which made absolutely no sense. In an attempt, to explain why Freeze was so muscular it was explained he was an Olympic gymnast. How freakin' stupid is that? Gymnasts by necessity need to be small in stature to perform well in gymnastics and Arnold is enormous. Goldsman's use of dialogue was highly irritating consisting of nothing but one juvenile one-liner after another after another after another. One other thing that really irritated me was the complete mishandling and waste of the character Bane. Bane is a much more complex and vicious villain in the comics, and this movie version with Bane reduces him to a mindless henchman. Bane deserves much more character development than he received in B&R. The same thing happened in Forever, when one of the most highly complex and interesting villains in the comics, Two-Face, got reduced to second billing but I enjoyed the movie. Note to Warner Bros. stop screwing with Batman he can sell himself, and stop trying to cram so many characters into the films, and understand nobody wants to see a Campy Caped Crusader.

I wasn´t intrested in this movie, but my friend insisted me to go and see it so I did it and I feel sorry about that, here´s why:

I have stated before how much I hate romantic comedies, at least the one's that are the same concept over and over again, just different actors, but I had a chance to see Made of Honor for free today and I figured, why not? I mean, the thing is that you really have to give movies a chance, sometimes, you never know, your doubts are put behind you and you find yourself enjoying the movie. I mean, I love Patrick Dempsey and Michelle Monaghan, both great actors and are a lot of fun to watch on screen. So together it seemed like this movie might have stood a chance, but unfortunately once again, this is the exact same movie that we've seen five million times. I know that to people who haven't seen the romantic comedy genre, this is new, but Hollywood is just running out of idea's sadly. This story is no different from any other romantic comedy we've seen.

Tom and Hannah have been best friends since college, Tom is the player who has had every girl, except Hannah. She has feelings for him, but hides it and he doesn't notice, but when she goes to Scotland for work, he realizes how much she means to him out of no where. Hannah comes back, but she's got a new thing going on, she's engaged, and Tom's plan to tell her how he feels is now ruined when she asks him to be her maid of honor. But Tom figures that he has a good chance to point out that she doesn't know her fiancée that well and that her and Tom "truely" belong together.

The thing is, you can predict every moment before you know it's going to happen, it's sad when you could write a similar script, and just put different actors in it, there is a good chance that people will fall for it, at least it's good to have that kind of chance at making money. Made of Honor isn't the most horrible movie by any means, it had good intentions, but I would recommend if you really want to see it, just wait for the rental. As cute as Patrick and Michelle are, the chemistry is off and the script is just amateur. You've seen this movie five million times, believe me if you're into the romantic comedy genre.

I sat in the theater so absolutely stunned by this ridiculous, boring disjointed rot of a movie. I just could not believe that any person could have give this trip the green light. Not since The Mist has a movie been so badly written, acted and directed and I find it astonishing that anyone liked it. One of the other commenter's stated that the people in the theater were laughing and clapping??? I don't know what theater he goes to, but it must have been filled with escaped mental patients with sever vision and hearing impairment.

It is so sad to see huge amounts of money being pumped in to create such garbage whilst people starve around the world. I feel quite perturbed that these Hollywood movie makers have such low respect for their audiences, what is wrong with them.

Just an example of the stupidity in this movie

1) Eddie and the lady are thrown from huge Dave and hit the concrete after falling like, 100 metres and were fine! 2) that extremely irritating bursting out of the closet gay alien, just moronic 3) the stereotypical black guy theme peppered throughout the movie, I would have found that very offensive if I were black 4)the tiny Eddie talking to a crowd of people form the large Eddie-spaceships tongue, i mean how could anybody hear a 1cm alien whisper talking 10 metres away!! 5)the aliens look, act, talk the same as Humans, this just showed no imagination and lack of care 6)the noises and behavior and ability of spaceship-Dave seems to go unquestioned by all the characters. Somebody who can eat 30 huge hot dogs in like 5 seconds, i am sure, would arouse suspicion.

I know I am being very critical of this movie and I am aware that the movie is meant to be a light, silly comedy. However, the movie is a perfect paradigm of everything that is wrong with Hollywood these days - ignorance and laziness.

Walking into the movie one must admit they aren't expecting the same comedic genius as a Mel Brook's film, but perhaps that was the main draw of "Norbit" in the first place. Personally, I walked in expecting a ridiculously vile and obscenely immature show of comedy. I walked away seeing a lackluster prequel to Dr. Dolittle and The Nutty Proffesor combined. It would be honestly hard to say anything in this film is worth seeing, aside from the few momentary chuckles provided by Eddie Griffin and Katt Williams as stereotypical pimps (a consistently typecast role both have fallen into).

As it can be best surmised, Eddy Murphy has inadvertently passed the torch, from his hysterically funny prime in stand up comedy (see: Eddy Murphy - RAW) and the Beverly Hills Cops franchise, to the mainstream Hollywood "everything is predictable" yawn-fest which is NORBIT. The script is nothing more than the recycled remains of every romantic comedy stir fried with an inexcusable amount of fat jokes and simmered over an unbelievably whipped pathetic excuse for a main character by the utterly incomprehensible name of Norbit.

Simply stated, if you are over the age of 10, you will not enjoy a single second of this movie. If you want to see a funny fat movie with Eddy Murphy rent The Nutty Professor and save yourself two laugh less hours of gaggingly pathetic fat jokes and continuity errors. It seems Norbit is one big joke, oddly enough however, no one is laughing.

Had I seen C. Thomas Howell in any major motion pictures since the 1980's? No. Should I have had any expectations of seeing a good film at all? No. Was this a good film? Not even close.

So why am I angry? I'll tell you. The first Hitcher film is one of my favourite thrillers of the 80's that had you on the edge of your seat the entire film and actually had the balls to dispatch main characters along it's course. This film is nothing but a cheap and pathetic rip off of the previous film, right down to supposed "twists and surprises" that are so lame you begin to wonder why they attempted a sequel in the first place. Well you are in the same both with the rest of us poor saps who actually spent money (thankfully only $.79 in my case) on this stinker.

The plot is simple, our hero from the original film (Howell) returns aged but still haunted by what happened to him 17 years ago. Because of this, both his job and his marriage are on the rocks so he decides to take a road trip (despite past experiences) with wife (Wuhrer) in tow. Along the way they run along to a stranger (Busey) who is essentially a replacement of the far superior Rutger Hauer in an inferior attempt to replicate the first films excitement.

If you are a fan of the first film, AVOID THIS AT ALL COSTS. This is only a sequel in name, and even C. Thomas Howell must have known that this was nothing but a paycheck in an attempt to cash in on the classic original. If you haven't seen the first film, I would still reccomend that you avoid this, but perhaps you can find more redeeming qualities in this junk than I could.

3/10 (and I'm being generous)

It's hard to believe, after waiting 14 years, we wind up with this piece of cinematic garbage. The original was a high impact, dark thriller that achieved "cult" status demonstrating the fine art of cinema as directed by Paul Verhoeven. This film adds nothing, delivers nothing, and ultimately winds up in the big box of failed sequels.

The opening sequence could have triggered an intriguing set of plot developments using a considerably talented and able cast. Unfortunately we are treated to a 90 minute dissertation in the self-indulgent life of Catherine Tramell... or is it Sharon Stone. Possibly a copulation of both.

If the desire is too see a continuation of the sensually provocative stying of sex as in "B.S.1", forget it. You wind up with soft-porn boredom which ultimately upholds the old adage that a woman can be more alluring in clothes than out of them. It's interesting to note that the wonderful Charlotte Rampling was romping around in her skivvies, via the 1966 GEORGY GIRL, when Ms. Stone was only 8 years old. A very talented actress and quite adept at holding her own even here.

If you're a true cinema fan then you must see this film and judge it using your own rating system. If not, you might as well wait for the DVD release in the "rated" version, "unrated" version, "collectors" edition, or "ultimate" version, and perhaps in another 14 years we will be saturated with news of "Basic Instinct 3" at which point Ms. Stone will be 62 years old and nobody will really care.

After the last one ROTLD 5 sounded bad.In fact it is bad.It is just another recycling of the classic first film.But it seems that the mythos have been trashed this time around.Since when do regular bullets kill the Trioxin Bunch?I can except that in a Romero movie.But seriously this is the ROTLD Series!

The Only plus here are the exceptional Make-up EFX.The Zombies looks pretty good and Imaginative.As for the locations you can tell they filmed this in some part eastern European.

Action-wise.No one here is really engaging or memorable.Bad Lines.Bland Acting.Recycled characters for a Wes Craven Teenybopper flick.It is fun to watch Peter Cyotoe slum it again for a paycheck..

Not recommend.Even on a minimal entertainment level.

If you're a fan of the first Return of the Living Dead movie, please don't watch this one. You'll loose ten years of your life from aggravation. The film is supposed to be set in the United States, but was actually shot in Romania and most of the actors' accents are worse than Jurgen Prochnov's on a good day. The Return of the Living Dead: Necropolis won't even qualify as a "good bad cult movie" 20 years from now. Parts 2 and 3 were already pretty bad, but this one is just embarrassing. Trash, Suicide and even Julie Walker will roll over in their graves. I wonder if the makers have even bothered to watch the first three films. Unlike Romero's walking corpses, the Return of the Living Dead zombies are not supposed to die when you shoot them in the head! Nor do they give speeches or box. The movie does have one thing going for it, though: it proves that all those B actors they got playing KGB agents in cheap 80s crime flicks got their accents right after all.

I felt truly ashamed of being a Dragonball fan after watching this film. i had practically grown up with Goku and his epic adventures. however this was like watching my retarded sibling have a fit in public for 90 minutes. it was awkward and embarrassing. After watching most of the recent Hollywood adaptations of comic books, it is evident that in order for these sort of films to be interesting on the big screen they have to be at least a little bit dark. Well, really if you ask me they should be as dark as possible. Not cheesy and wet like an old towel. Its not even anything like the cartoons! hopefully someone with some vision will give this film a go over because with such a great franchise and such a global fan base it could really be a hit. although even the greatest of directors will have trouble pulling in a decent cast after this train wreck. This really is a c*m tissue of a film. i wouldn't even wipe my arse with it.

Okay, perhaps it is a fan film, but still just horrible. You get bad acting in all cheap flicks and this is no exception. So that isn't really the issue. This is bad because the authors clearly have no idea of movie making.

Juvenile script, no effective lighting, lousy camera-work and the scenes are way too long and just boring. And the agonising thing lasts for 22 long minutes. If you're going to make an amateur movie, it would be nice to learn some basics about visual storytelling and montage before shooting something this long.

I suggest that instead of wasting your time on this, watch any b-(or c-)movie from the 40's. At least those won't bore you to death.

I've got to say i wasn't too impressed with this to be honest. I love the original hellraisers and i just keep hoping that they make at least 1 more decent sequel but thats looking unlikely.

Having said that i've seen worse films but its seems to have gone down the the traditional slasher film a bit too much. The real shame is that there's some good ideas in it. They just don't seem to have been pulled off.

Don't go out of your way to watch this unless you're really into the series. It doesn't add anything, just offers a slightly different slant on the story.

This film is rather entertaining but the chills are pretty weak. However, it has strong leads by Robert Hardy and Christopher Lee. I bought this video for five bucks at the Reject Shop, so what was I expecting? Not much, obviously.

While the opening scene was promising and genuinely suspenseful, the rest of the movie wanders in a different direction to make it ultimately suck.

I like the idea of not looking at the antagonist - sounds like the concept of a creepy myth. So why didn't they put more emphasis in that and leave all of the crap out? I really don't want to spend too much time writing this, as such a disappointing film doesn't really deserve the time of day....so why am I wasting my time writing this? It's even more pointless than the film itself.

Oh well, I'll go now.

First of all: I watched this movie on TV and missed the first 20 minutes or so. Therefore it might have been better than I thought. Perhaps something super entertaining and Oscar worthy happened...

Anywho, What I saw was awful. The acting and setting was good or at least alright. The plot was...odd. Nothing seems to happen very logically. The main character is very stupid and does a lot of stupid things. This is not the actress's fault (because her acting was not the problem).

Spoilers!!!!!

Here's a good example: When she records the murderous confession, why doesn't she just quietly take it to the police? Why doesn't she use a tape recorder way earlier in the movie? Why does she join the society in the first place? Why doesn't she transfer to a non-insane people school? And come on! All that for an internship?! Imagine creating a complex, murderous web of crime, with incredible risk, over an internship! And why the hell was the ugly brunette Society leader chick believe everything the professor's son said?!!! ( She was waaaay too ugly for that role).

And it's a good thing that the other Ivy member (the prettier one) suddenly had a change of heart and decided to help Daisy for no logical reason.

On the other hand, this movie is great for men and young boys who are too afraid to buy porn.

Seriously, this was one of the most craptacular movies I've ever seen. I had the urge to turn it off halfway through (but I didn't because I don't leave movies unfinished).

Honestly, this was like a bad fan fiction made into film. I think the little snippet of back-story was nice, showed where Ivy came from and all. However, the first movie made no mention of a sister.

Another fact that the filmmakers for this movie (as well as those who made Poison Ivy 2: Lily) neglected to remember, is that Ivy was NOT said character's real name! The acting of every cast member was dull, the plot line pointless, and a lot of things went unexplained.

It was also pretty much just a "nudie film." Take out all the nudity/sex scenes and you have ten minutes of plot, tops.

I gave this film a 2/5. One star because it exists, the other because it has naked people in it.

Bad, bad idea for a follow-up to the original. Like "Highlander 2," this one is best forgotten.

The only link to the original is the name, and a reference to a former college student named Ivy...at an art college, of all places.

Alyssa Milano tried to pull off the good girl to bad girl to good girl transition, but it just wasn't that convincing. And to try and boost her career by having multiple sex scenes was a sorry way to do it. Really, who thinks of this film when they hear her name? I gave it an extra star just because I liked her as a child star on "Who's the Boss?" Unlike the original, there's not a lot of suspense via cinematography. Instead, they opted for multiple nude / sex scenes. Honestly, if that's what you want in a film, you're better off renting a porno...the acting will be better.

If it wasn't for the fact that I like to keep things in sets, I'd give this DVD away. If all you want is to see Alyssa Milano naked, then you'll enjoy this film. Otherwise...

This movie was made by a guy who watched John Carpenter's "The Thing" and then watched "Witchboard" or some related junk. He sat down and had his plot 5 minutes later. Not that one need be a genius to do good sci-fi or horror movies, but sometimes a little imagination or attention to story details couldn't hurt. By the way, there is no imagination or attention to much of anything in this movie. Strictly for the true couch potato.

I found this movie had made a crushing compared to the first original movie. I really didn't expect to but I actually laughed because I did not think the acting was good enough and really stunk. The story line or script for that matter was completely all over the place and should have been rewritten. Not good enough for my view. They should have got Drew Barrymore again when she was grown up in her teens for the same part but a better story line. That little girl in the movie, her acting was terrible, I am not allowed too, I am not allowed too, she kept saying those words in which you wouldn't expect her to say them. Who ever wrote that script should be shot compared to the original it was killed off and I feel sorry, other wise I was getting ready to see a very good movie but what I got was trash.

The whole thing seemed to be constantly on one median level, with very few shocks. It never really yanks you into the story, and the music is extremely loud and dirge-like, making you feel like you're watching a very tepid documentary made without much thought. An extremely peculiar, rather uninteresting film, a considerable step down from the first film (which wasn't terrific, but was at least exciting!)

I think they should have got Tobe Hooper in again - perhaps he was busy. It's very similar in feel to Halloween 4, which was a complete waste of time - there's a feeling that nobody knew what they were doing during the whole creation process, particularly the music composers, who were obviously filling time until they were discovered by Philip Glass.

SOME SPOILERS

Summer sequels are usually bad enough, but when it comes to straight-to-video sequels...? They're even worse.

"Beethoven's 3rd" does nothing to change that.

Judge Reinhold, once an actor who actually appeared in theatrical releases, stars as one of the seemingly endless Newton bunches. His brother, once played by the ten-times-better Charles Grodin (who has long since ended his film career and gone on to write books and become a news journalist for CBS), has dropped off the Saint Bernard Beethoven on his brother and his wife (Julia Sweeney) before they go on an RV trip. Aww, what a cruel thing to do. But, in reality, it's just as easy way of getting a sequel put together. Grodin won't come back? Get him a brother and avoid his appearance in the film! For example, at the end of the film, Reinhold is supposed to meet up with his brother, where they are politely informed by some old man that the original Newtons are still in Europe. Most likely for another year. Another YEAR?!?! Boy, how did they jump from a week to a year in Europe? Perhaps the film execs coaxed them into it...

The thing with "Beethoven's 3rd" is that it doesn't even try to come off witty, or even funny at that. Countless gags just do not work. Take a typical example: the bad guys in the film are a hyper-active caffeine addict and a "Star Wars"-quoting freak, both of whom are supposed to be funny but are not. In one scene they are trying to get into the Newtons' RV to steal a DVD (long story). They run around like children with little black capes on. Before they do so, they equip themselves with night-vision-goggles and a type of spray that blinds people. We hear Baddie 1 say, "Now, whatever you do, do NOT look at light with your goggles on, and do NOT release your spray!" We know exactly what's going to happen next, and sure enough--no surprises here--they look at light and release their gas cannisters. I mean, how *bleeping* obvious can you *bleeping* get?

The filming style seems like a ten-year-old directed it. A mentally-challenged ten-year-old. In one bit, Reinhold is supposed to be struggling in an RV with Beethoven, and to make it look like the RV is shaking, the director wiggles around a handheld camera, left and right, left and right. That trick is one of the oldest in the book. In the "Cheap Effects" book. What was their budget--two dollars?

And then, with all of that, the humor is literally non-existent. Instead of being at least AMUSING and SLIGHTLY FUNNY like the original "Beethoven" film (which I like mainly because it is a sweet, good-natured family film), this flick single-handedly rips off every genre and every joke. Ever. At times it's a bad mix between "National Lampoon's Vacation" and "Turner and Hootch," at other times a rip-off of "Star Wars" and "Meet Joe Black." See what I mean by bad combinations?

And furthermore, this sequel is completely cashing in on the first two flicks. I can put up with certain things in films, but I feel the most cheated when I know that a sequel was slip-shoddly put together to bring in some money and nothing more. That is when I really hate a film. But "Beethoven's 3rd" is still one of the worst films I've seen in a long, long time, regardless of being a cheap sequel.

The gags aren't there, the wit isn't there, the attaching and likable characters aren't there, the dialogue isn't there. Heck, the entire movie isn't there.

Followed by an equally-horrible 4th (and 5th?) sequel(s), I'd say this franchise is dead weight. What was once amusing and interesting because of attaching characters and a light-hearted script is now another chip off the ol' sequel-cash-in block.

Avoid at all costs.

I am always up for checking out a movie I never heard before, and seeing Robert Patrick in the credits, who would not be a little curious to see the T-1000 in another movie? Boy was I disappointed ... ANGELS is garbage and a confusing mess for everyone. The 'star' actors looked like they could not care less and key characters were poorly introduced and wasted. You could put cardboard cut-outs on the set and you would not know the difference.

If you survived the first twenty minutes without asking what the heck was going on, consider yourself gifted. ANGELS begins with two main stories, one of a mayor covering his past, and of a twin brother, returning home and continuing the search for his lost bro, went missing 20 some-odd years ago.

The real stars are Ashbrook and Rutherford, who mindlessly plod their way through the script looking pretty while acting pretty stupid. Scheider and Patrick should be ashamed of themselves as both look blank faced and unimpressive in every shot. The script a disappointing, predictable mess, the direction and camerawork positively abominable (I never thought I would say that in a review) and the production a laugh, it is no surprise here why ANGELS took two to three years before hitting the video stores.

This is a film I had to see, I mean, 'Lost Boys' is a classic! And the fact that a sequel has been made! Well, like I said, I had to see it.

To follow up a film like 'lost boys' it's gonna have to be something special. When I first heard about it I thought 'It'll be just some B movie fan film', but then I found out both Corey Feldman and Corey Haim are in it, plus the other actor that played the other Frog brother (can't remember his name) in the original film. On that basis I believed this could do justice as a sequel to the cult classic.

How wrong could I be! First up, Corey Haim and 'the other Frog brother' are both credited at the end of the film, but I don't recall seeing either of them in the film, in fact Edgar Frog (Feldman) mentions that his brother has died! And second, they tried to capture the humour of the original film and simply failed.

This film is more of a homage then a sequel, it follows the original story with only minor adjustments, eg. this time it's a brother and sister rather then 2 brothers, and this time it's the girl that gets seduced rather than the fella.

Another point - you would have thought that after 20 years since the first film the effects would be spectacular, but they're not, they could've been lifted from the original, which shows they're budget must have been tight.

Overall this film is very average, should've been a lot better, but then I've seen worse.

Dear, oh dear.

Quite an awful film. Michael Madsen and Brad Dourif have trouble keeping straight faces at the preposterous lines, Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa resurrects his role from Showdown in Little Tokyo, Richard Hatch from Battlestar Galactica makes a fool of himself, and lots of the fights look stunt-doubled.

On the other hand, Madsen's two assistants make an entertaining double act, and the guy in the wheelchair kicked some ass, despite not having any legs. Nice!

I really should have known better than to rent this, but the cast looked good. Ah well, better luck next time.

There's a fondly remembered Steve Bell cartoon for the Guardian in which, over a couple of pitch black panels, the strains of the Beach Boys' 'I Get Around' mysteriously float up from the darkness - until the lights are suddenly switched on to reveal the punchline: a bunch of singing sewer rats turd-surfing on an ocean of urine.

This brilliantly horrible image springs to mind while watching Wes Anderson's adaptation of Fantastic Mr Fox, which also uses The Beach Boys song in a film about endangered wildlife, some rodent-shaped. If we tell you that the soundtrack also features 'Heroes and Villains', 'Ol' Man River', and 'The Ballad Of Davy Crockett', and that the film has been voice cast almost exclusively with American actors, you might begin to appreciate how far this one's strayed from its leafy Buckinghamshire origins.

Up to this point, Dahl has been unusually well served by Hollywood, from Charlie And The Chocolate Factory (both flavours), to The Witches, Matilda and Henry 'Coraline' Selick's James And The Giant Peach; a rare misstep being Quentin Tarantino's segment of Four Rooms, adapted from 'Man From The South', an original Dahl screenplay for Alfred Hitchcock Presents.

It's nigh unheard of, then, for controversy to attach itself to a Roald Dahl project, but during the lead up to this release, reports emerged suggesting Anderson and the crew hadn't seen eye to eye ? literally: Anderson choosing to 'direct by email' from Paris while his animators toiled away for two years at east London's Three Mills Studios. "I think he's a little sociopathic" DoP Tristan Oliver told the press. "I think he's a little OCD. Contact with people disturbs him." While director of animation Mark Gustafson added, "He has made our lives miserable. I probably shouldn't say that." In Anderson's defence, this writer spent the early noughties working in Bromley-by-Bow, where Three Mills is situated, and frankly can't fault him in the least for wanting to steer clear of the place.

Moreover, in the absence of Anderson's corporeal presence, these grumpy animators have actually produced some sweetly nuanced stuff, filled with well-crafted little details and homages, such as Mr Fox's study being a meticulous recreation in miniature of Mr Dahl's garden hut, and the urbane Mr Fox, like the director, being quite the snappy dresser. While Mrs Fox, voiced by Meryl Streep, is indeed most foxy. "You're as fine looking as a crème brulee" leers Farmer Bean's sole security detail, Rat (Willem Dafoe), a finger-popping, flickknife-wielding Dennis-Hopper-with-a-tail from some 1950s B-picture. "Am I being flirted with by a psychotic rat?" is the wry response.

Suspiciously wry, some might say. If we reveal this film also features a Buddhist-chanting, yoga-practicing fox cub called Kristofferson, the least welcome new addition to a Roald Dahl story - or a canine family since Scrappy Doo; assorted critters who talk like American co-ed hipsters; laconic musings on existentialism; and lines like "You really are a kind of quote unquote fantastic fox", then alarm bells might just start taking your eardrums apart, piece by jagged piece.

Watching this, we're reminded of the game in which you pair entirely unsuitable directors with other people's films: think 'Eli Roth's The Full Monty', 'Sam Peckinpah's Bambi', or 'Neil LaBute's The Wicker Man.' (Can you imagine how embarrassing that might be for everyone if the latter were actually made? Ah.)

This is a Wes Anderson joint first and foremost, with Dahl - and indeed Britain and Britishness - running an extremely poor second. Naturally, only those nasty old farmers have British voices, c/o Michael Gambon and Brian Cox, while even that most English of icons, Jarvis Cocker, contributes a forgettable bluegrass-style number. Turning AA Milne's creations into baffled little rednecks was bad enough. But dear old Foxy?

In the big scheme of things, this shouldn't really matter - but somehow it does. It jars tremendously. The counter-argument runs that story always wins out; that story crosses genre and geographical boundaries. Which would be fine if Anderson had bothered to even slightly subjugate his singular style in its service. If Dahl is all about the story, Anderson's films are all about the attitude. Again, fine. But you'd hardly turn The Royal Tenenbaums, Rushmore or The Darjeeling Limited into bedtime stories for your children. Not unless you were feeling particularly sadistic.

It's also a stretch to imagine today's kids responding positively to the deliberately retro stop-animation, an earthier European-style familiar to elder generations, but which might seem abrasive to those suckled on Dreamworks and Pixar. By tying thousands of helium balloons to it, the latter has also raised the bar for family films to vertiginous heights. It's hard to see how Anderson's film, with its bafflingly charmless leading fox, could garner as much goodwill as Up, except among those who still think it's incredibly big and clever to subvert family fare with some tiresomely idiosyncratic shtick.

The best children's stories find magic in the trash. They seek to elevate the everyday. In their droll, archly detached way, Anderson and his co-writer Noah Baumbach seek to reduce. When all's said and done, Mr Fox acknowledges that he's just a "wild animal". Felicity Fox says that, although she loves him, "I shouldn't have married you". Bean's cider-craving Rat may have ultimately redeemed himself, but in the end "he's just another dead rat in a garbage pail behind a Chinese restaurant." Way to go, Wes and Noah. Hope that babysitting gig works out for you.

Honestly, this really isn't some kind of Transatlantic stand-off on our part. But how much longer are we expected to stand impotently by while Hollywood arrogantly Americanises our every British children's icon, from Winnie the Pooh to Peter Pan? Who's next - Paddington Bear? (Yes, we know he's technically South American, but you get the drift). Clearly, it's time to fight back, starting with an all-new adaptation of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn. Starring Ant and Dec.

This really was a poor film , full of corny lines , bad acting and dull special effects. You could tell the director is not English as all the characters were because of some stupid steriotypical moments such as red phone boxes in ever street scene,lemon tea being drunk by bobby's and whats with everyone carrying a gun??? This was not Across 110th Street!.Apart from that the film was dull. Dont confuse this film with THE MUMMY because although the mummy wasnt a masterpiece it was far better than this fair. If you wanna be scared dont bother with this tripe

To the small minority seen here praising this film GET SERIOUS. I know it's down to peoples personal opinion at the end of the day, but anyone with more than a couple of brain cells can surely see that this is total rubbish. So bad it does not deserve to be part of this franchise. I can only assume those saying how great this is are friends with somebody involved in the film and are trying to give their career a push. Poor in every way, don't con people by saying otherwise. Storyline is a weak rehash of the previous entries, script is likewise. Attempts to hide the lack of originality by using a girl instead (WOW!) don't disguise the film-makers lack of ideas,and there is sadly a complete lack of any scares. Absolutely no redeeming qualities, utter utter turd. I've awarded this pair of chancers one mark simply for having had the nous to get someone to fund this piece of crap. They must have put more effort into that than they did into actually making the film. Shame.

Bad-movie lovers, beware ?. Your standards will have to be set extremely low in case you want to remotely enjoy Herb Robins' "The Worm Eaters". This movie, produced by one of the über-gurus of crap cinema Ted V. Mikels ? is BEYOND bad! It has an irredeemably dumb plot, a totally incoherent narrative structure, humorist elements that are horrid and horror elements that are painfully hilarious. It's easily one of the worst movies ever made, and it is truly incomprehensible how the hell it managed to build up a rather solid cult status over the years. Probably this exclusively has to do with the fact that Herb Robins insisted on using real, live worms for the on screen consumption. Much of the footage is just close-ups of people (often with really terrible dental hygiene) slurping down & chewing up worms, and the only goal is to disgust and gross-out the audience. Robins himself stars as the dim-witted hermit Umgar, living in a lakeside shed in a corrupted little town. He collects and breeds worms ? and then feeds them to his opponents, like the town's council members that want to evict him and reclaim the lake zone. The consumption of the worms somehow transforms people into man-worm hybrids. "The Worm Eaters" introduces a seemingly endless series of demented supportive characters and ? obviously ? all the actors and actresses overact incredibly. The make-up effects are pathetic, as the hybrid monsters are simply imbeciles tightly wrapped in filthy brown sleeping bags and desperately trying not to use their feet when they crawl through the mud. But, as wrong as it may sound, the film isn't entirely without merit and there really are a couple of positive elements. Like the goofy but cheerful theme music ("You'll end up eating worms"), the creative animated opening credits and some of the gags that look like Benny Hill sketches. In conclusion, "The Worm Eaters" will undoubtedly one of the most bizarre low-budget, Z-grade schlock productions you'll ever encounter, so be careful who you recommend it to.

t's taken a few goes, but I have finally discovered that I can dislike a Bergman film. Perhaps Swedish humour shares some characteristics with Danish humour which tends to leave me cold and perplexed.

Several years on, I still cannot get the cheesy, syncopated version of "Yes, We Have No Bananas" out of my head.

The cast try their best but the material is beyond redemption. in fact, this cast does not include the best Bergman people anyhow.

This film simply is not at all funny nor is it interesting once you get 10 minutes in.

It is merely irritating.

This film is a lemon.

At the rate these movies are ploughing through the artifacts from the Amityville house it won't be long before we get down to the floorboards, but for now it's a mirror that's causing problems for more cardboard characters in this sixth entry in the series. A homeless man hands it over to artist hairdo Ross Partridge, who then has strange visions and discovers some unpleasant revelations about his past. This mundane horror trundles along at a dull pace, leaving us waiting for a build up that never comes as the various 'spooky' goings-on lead to a dumb finale. Bland and lifeless, with ropey acting and Partridge's huge hair not helping matters.

I wish never hear about the Morgans, but I did. I attended the London movie premiere for this on Tuesday and there is always one BIG PROBLEM about premieres... if the movie is bad you can't leave. I realised very early on in this movie that I had a BIG PROBLEM.

Getting through this movie and hearing other people chuckle politely at the jokes just so as not to offend SJP and HG made the atmosphere unbearable. The storyline was terrible, the dialogue was predictable and the characters were as if plucked straight from other movies: HG was Charles from 'Four Weddings', Sam Elliot was Virgil from 'Tombstone', Mary Steenburgen was Clara from 'Back to the Future 3' and SJP was Paula from 'Failure to Launch'... and you spend the entire movie thinking about how much better all of those other movies were!

When this ended, I thought to myself "Why has this been made at all?" and then it dawned upon me... MARKETING PLOY. SJP has SATC 2 coming out next year and needs to get back into the public eye just before that and HG needs to help his Ex (Liz) raise awareness for her charity. This movie will get them some column inches in magazine and some exposure on the Internet. It makes perfect sense now...

PRO: I smiled at the last joke in the movie. CON: I only smiled at the last joke in the movie

What were they thinking when they made this movie? There's not enough action in this to make it an action movie, not enough character development to make it a character movie, not enough fun to make it a comedy. It's barely got enough plot to make it a movie at all, but only barely.

The dialogues are mostly tedious, the malapropisms are not funny, and the red herrings are fishy.

Emily Watson gets a couple of points for cuteness, but cuteness doesn't make a movie. A major disappointment. Alan Rudolph has done much better than this.

Badness, badness, badness.

I can't stop laughing from all the hilarious comments from people thrashing this disposable excuse for teen entertainment. From the guy who shut it off three minutes before the end to the transcription of the final scene, these reviews are just killing me.

Was Freddie Prinze hypnotized to play baseball for this movie? I've never seen anyone with such a vacant a stare. Every one of his closeups he looks like he's dreaming about cashing Sarah Michelle Gellar's Buffy residual checks. Doesn't it bother anyone that Freddie's problem is supposed to be that he got kicked off his college team cause he has a "temper" but he doesn't get in a single fight with anyone or anything? And what's with Freddie calling his dad and brother failures? It's not like his dad or brother wanted to be baseball players and flunked out, right? They never say that his dad and brother aren't happy doing their jobs? It's honest work, right? What the hell's wrong with running a landscaping business or managing a bar? It's shocking how lazily this was thrown together.

I feel bad for the people who like this movie, because whether you realize it or not, you deserve better. Believe it or not, it is possible to make formula teen movies with Tiger Beat coverboys and TV actresses that aren't this lame.