For those saying Giuliani was just tucking in his shirt, why lay down on a bed to do so instead of STANDING UP? And that, folks, is part of the genius of this film: that is shows you, live on video what's going on, and lets those who want to continue to lie to themselves, to continue to do so, while being laughed at by others. Don't miss it.
Reviews
7 Reviews
Whispers
(III) (2015)
DESPICABLE effort to DECEIVE with FAKE reviews
17 June 2017
While I understand that if you make a bad film, and you know it is a bad film, and no studio wants to buy it because it is a bad film and you are forced to sell and rent it by yourself on Amazon and through Redbox, the temptation to misrepresent such a film and to falsify and engineer fake reviews must be great. However, there is such a thing known as ethics, and so the practice of such misrepresentation is just despicable.
In short, this film (if one can even call it that) is so awful that the "horror" it is trying to sell you does not come from the screen, but from the realization that you fell for it. It is so dis-interesting and has so many plot holes and so much tedious confusion that one can make a game out of counting just how many plot holes it actually has, and how many times any companions doze off.
To be honest, no description of it can adequately describe its misguided ludicrousness or the way its infinite and varied sins against the traits of good cinema combine to produce one of the most banal, trite, hackneyed, clichéd, vapid, stale, tired and unimaginative films ever.
The good thing is that if one possesses a bit of common sense, spotting the fakes is quite easy. Sort by "Loved It", look at the join dates, other reviews, and look at the similarities in the made-up Reviewed By or Author Names, then click on each name and look at the similarities in all the UserNames (which are all different and purposefully changed from the Reviewed By or Author names). Finally, look at the style of writing in each positive review and especially at the titles, every which one contains the word "Horror!" (although once my review is seen, chances are some will change). Lastly, sort by Chronological order and look at the negative reviews from people who have actually seen it and do not stand to gain or lose be leaving a real review. See how everyone agrees it is utter garbage? Now look again and see how soon after these real reviews, three or four "excellent" ones are posted in order to hide and balance out the negative real ones. Again, pretty simple to spot if you look.
Do yourself a favor and avoid at all costs. Do NOT fall for the four or five reviews saying this is "a woman's film", or the eight reviews all stating that the bad reviewers are "haters" (LAUGH out LOUD), or worse, the four or five reviews that urge you to buy it over renting it. They are, each and every one, fake.
In short, this film (if one can even call it that) is so awful that the "horror" it is trying to sell you does not come from the screen, but from the realization that you fell for it. It is so dis-interesting and has so many plot holes and so much tedious confusion that one can make a game out of counting just how many plot holes it actually has, and how many times any companions doze off.
To be honest, no description of it can adequately describe its misguided ludicrousness or the way its infinite and varied sins against the traits of good cinema combine to produce one of the most banal, trite, hackneyed, clichéd, vapid, stale, tired and unimaginative films ever.
The good thing is that if one possesses a bit of common sense, spotting the fakes is quite easy. Sort by "Loved It", look at the join dates, other reviews, and look at the similarities in the made-up Reviewed By or Author Names, then click on each name and look at the similarities in all the UserNames (which are all different and purposefully changed from the Reviewed By or Author names). Finally, look at the style of writing in each positive review and especially at the titles, every which one contains the word "Horror!" (although once my review is seen, chances are some will change). Lastly, sort by Chronological order and look at the negative reviews from people who have actually seen it and do not stand to gain or lose be leaving a real review. See how everyone agrees it is utter garbage? Now look again and see how soon after these real reviews, three or four "excellent" ones are posted in order to hide and balance out the negative real ones. Again, pretty simple to spot if you look.
Do yourself a favor and avoid at all costs. Do NOT fall for the four or five reviews saying this is "a woman's film", or the eight reviews all stating that the bad reviewers are "haters" (LAUGH out LOUD), or worse, the four or five reviews that urge you to buy it over renting it. They are, each and every one, fake.
Cool as Ice
(1991)
WARNING! Review containts: **SPOILERS!!!**
25 July 2000
Warning: Spoilers
**SPOILER** The movie was great! For the life of me I can't see how this movie gets a bad rap (pun intended). Now I admit, Vanilla Ice is no Howie Mandel, but I could really identify with his character and the struggle he dealt with. Not since Scorsese's "Raging Bull" have I seen such an indepth character study such as this one. The excellet direction of David Kellog who went on to direct the beautifully crafted "Inspector Gadget". The Academy Award Winner Janusz Kaminski's sweeping cinematography. The insightful script by David Stern with lines like "Whackhead was playin' baseball on my homeboy's bike!". Right up there with Troll 2 and Police Academy 14 as possibly the best movie ever made. Of course, they are the only three I've ever seen, but other movies can't be this good, can they?
12 Monkeys
(1995)
I hate to sound pretentious, but some people are stupid
13 July 2000
Reading the comments from people who didn't like this movie and how they got a headache from it, almost gave me one. I think actually watching a complex and visually remarkable mainstream movie starring Bruce Willis and Brad Pitt confuses people who paid money expecting to watch some popcorn action fest where Bruce Willis kills some alien and Brad Pitt sleeps with an attractive woman. That headache was causes by actually using your brain during a movie for the first time in awhile. It's been turned to mush by Van Damme and Segal. Please, don't say you hate something because you don't understand it, bigots do the same thing. I know that's extreme, but you can't say this isn't a good movie. I didn't understand everything at first, I watched it a few more times so I could understand it all. Because I like to LEARN! That's all for my little vent.
-Loser Movie Snob
-Loser Movie Snob
The Shining
(1980)
Jack Torrence vs. The Overlook; Stanley Kubrick vs. Stephen King
11 July 2000
While I was watching The Shining I kept thinking why this movie is probably the most slammed Kubrick movie (maybe Eyes Wide Shut, but every Kubrick movie is disliked upon release then is regarded as a masterpiece down the road). I looked through the rest the rest of his movies and saw that all of his "best" movies had been atapted from novels. I read A Clockwork Orange and thought it was somewhat different from the novel, the book even had a different ending (and I've heard that Kubrick never read the ending when he decided to do it, but he heard about it during production, so...) It's because Anthony Burgess, Gus Hastvford, William Thackery, all the authors of the novels his films are based aren't names themselves. Kubrick always overshadowed them. In this case, Kubrick has to battle over a respected author over who was right. To me, King just wrote a horror story about a haunted house, though it was a little more than that, but, Kubrick made, sorry if it's cliche', a psychological story. It was his most metaphorical film (besides EWS maybe) and used over the top performances to enhance that idea. I don't think Kubrick films should be viewed in the same way as any other movies. He is definitely a latter day Freud.
Groove
(2000)
All right....I guess...
4 July 2000
My first impression of Gregg Harrison's film is that he definitely spent a lot of time researching the rave scene. It shows, I've been to a few myself and it looks authentic. But the film just falls flat when it comes to characters. It seems like he wrote the movie about a rave and used the characters to function the rave, not having the rave function the characters. I know that's not the point of a rave, it's a collective thing and so on, but this is still a movie. You have to have a reason to watch the thing. I thought the editing of the movie was very good though, especially the title sequence. It was funny seeing Digweed being portrayed as a celebrity like Michael Jordan (bad acting and all). Hate to be cliche' or an armchair director but a this movie seems to be a case of style over substance.
Fight Club
(1999)
Oh the humanity!
4 July 2000
The first half of the movie is good and presents great, progressive ideas and theories but then the second half shows how dumb people are and how, in general, humans mess things up, a la (in essence) "this is why we can't have nice things".
Tell Your Friends