Aging Movie Reviews

When I bought this two-pack, I hadn't seen Pearl Harbor, but my friends said it was good so I figured it was worth the price. I was wrong. Pearl Harbor is an awful movie; bad acting, bad directing, bad writing, bad action sequences, everything about it was just bad. With The Rock, it's the exact opposite; good acting, good directing, good writing, good action sequences, everything about it was good. I have no complaints about The Rock. It's a fabulous movie. Pearl Harbor: *1/2 The Rock: ***1/2

Shakespeare wrote plays that fit into three categories. His comedies, tragedies and histories. KING RICHARD II is one of those histories and is the first in a series of chronological stories. The characters in this small series (from RICHARD II through HENRY VI and culminating with RICHARD III) are pretty consistent as the title chacter in one play will rise or fall based on conflict with the person who will be the title character in the next 'episode'. With that said, RICHARD II focuses on a not-so-grand king who is happy with his throne but, he makes several mistakes. The largest of which involves banishing his own cousin and taking that cousins land. That cousin asks for it back but is refused. So, a battle is destined to happen. But, Richard is unsure and gives up his throne to his cousin who becomes HENRY IV (See Episode 2&3 of this series). I am glad this televised video exists if only for the fact that RICHARD II is not one of the more popular Shakespeare stories and thus does not get performed very often. It also hasn't been adorned with many cinematic appearances. This rendition is of the 'make-it-easy-to-understand-for-high-school-students' school of videomaking. And if truth be said, the performances and language use, understandable and clear, deliver. They did not, however, go through its scenic design in the same 'high-school-student' thought process. Whether, they are in a throne room or out on a battlefield, little is done to differentiate making story geography a challenge. Embarrasingly, many of the scenes are separated by brief music cues that literally must have come out of an old tape recorder as the music unintentionally slows and speeds up like the batteries are having a mini-Shakespeare Tragedy of their own. How is that error even possible? The video quality (And I mean 'video') is pretty low and on occasion carries a very blurry screen. This is unforgivable today as cameras for the past 20+ years have a feature called 'auto-focus'. If you are fan of Shakespeare and have not been able to see this work, this might be the only option for awhile. You will be fulfilled. But, the production is very lacking and should be priced in with the extreme bargain releases.

Of the two movies in this set The Langoliers was pretty mediocre but Stephen King's The Golden Years stands out as without doubt one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The plot is that an explosion in a secret laboratory sprays an old guard with unknown chemicals that begin to turn the man younger instead of older. As the government is interested in finding out more about this development, the guard is hunted across the country. The movie was so slow and uneventful that I fast-forwarded the last half hour hoping in vain for something to happen. The movie was so boring that there is no sign that Stephen King was involved in this. Please avoid at all costs unless you want to fall asleep!

Don't rent this piece of shere rubbish! This movie jsut wanted to cash in on the success of well made movies such as "Pulp Fiction" and "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrells". It fails... completely!

I had to select "1 Star" as I was forbidden to submit this review without seleceting a number. I wanted to submit "0" but that option isn't available.

What an utter waste of an evening!

24 Hours in London isn't the worst movie ever made, it just feels like it. It started off okay but you can tell right away that it's one of those straight to video B movies-- just bad enough to be good. I almost expected Eric Roberts or Rutger Hauer to show up. But it went from bad to worse to one of THE WORST movies you'll ever see. It was disturbingly bad, not to mention just plain disturbing. Like "Seven," or "Salo" (never seen the latter but from what I hear I never want to),it's one of those movies that makes you feel different for several days after watching it. You know a flick is bad when the villains tell you every detail of their sinister plan before they off you. It's good for a stoned laugh or two...maybe three because the acting and dialogue are deplorable. I wish I could give it a -5 stars. Ridiculous. The good news is it only cost me 1 dollar. I guess you get what you pay for.

24 HOURS IN LONDON is set in London (obviously) in 2009, where a sexy female doctor is seducing men and then drugging them to steal their organs (Not THAT one!) for sale on the black market along with (of course) drugs. Her trail is pursued by a pair of corrupt police officers whose idea of fun is blowing things up. Ironic, considering this movie comes within a hair's breadth of being a certified BOMB.
Written and directed by Alexander Finbow, 24 HOURS IN LONDON attempts to be flashy; but for half its duration the movie's mis-en-scene looks like it was purposely designed to make viewers feel like they're intoxicated- and if you genuinely ARE while watching this, then lucky you. Finbow's script appears to have been written just to please himself, because not many others will be. Add to this a soundtrack loaded with thumping techno music that amounts to nothing more than a 90 minute assault on the eardrums, and the only real organ stolen is the viewer's brain. It only gets 2 stars because I've seen far worse (Ever seen NAIL GUN MASSACRE or ANDY WARHOL'S TRASH?). The DVD also includes the trailer. Watch that first in order to discern if your really want to subject yourself to the torture of watching this movie. My "funny, sexy, clever" comment comes from some UK reviewer whose comments are on the DVD cover. It's probably safe to assume that Finbow blew a large chunk of the movie's budget paying this critic to say something nice about his movie. If he was paying ME I'd take the money, but I'd still trash his movie. I'm one of those guys who can't give anything other than his honest opinion, sorry to say. There is however, a memorable bit where a guy gets acid thrown in his face, resulting in a gruesome R-rated melting scene even the G-rated Wicked Witch Of The West would be proud of.

The animation is of poor quality, as is the story lines. Don't waste your money!

it's a basic old cartoon every episode has the same plot: a monster comes the earth defence force trys to fight it then the main charitor turns into ulraman beats up the monster and saves the day

I have to tell you a true story; the poster art was so cool I had to see this picture, yet what I got was the biggest disappointment next to The Avengers. The film starts off with a great idea and the opening scenes show good promise when the crew of a nuclear-armed space station has to react to World War 3. A few months later they have to bail out when an earth-based hacker discovers they might have a load of nukes onboard. Once on ground one of their party falls prey to an unknown predator while the other two have to contend with a gang run by a teenager. The rest of the movie is a bore as it turns into a cheap Mad Max/Road Warrior knock-off.

Like many of these films, they all lack the one element that made Mad Max so great, non-stop action. This movie is boring and looks cheap. The only cool thing is the opening scenes and the super cool poster. I wonder why this would even be released on DVD, as I can't remember a single actor I would recognize.

For many years, when I was asked what the worst movie of all time was, I would answer DefCon4. Without hesitation or a second lost trying to decide. DefCon4 was the easy answer.

I have not seen DefCon4 for many years now, and have come to call this period of time "the age of reason". And while Dracula: Dead and Loving It has seemed to take DefCon4's place as the most rancid piece of waste that I have ever seen, I still hold a special place in my lower intestine for that movie.

This movie is rewatchable,...there's alot to be said for that. Basically a post apocalypse theme with pretty thin plot line,...but the action and "actions" or should I say post nuclear war behavior is more than entertaining and almost funny if it weren't for the very real themes concerning lack of food and killing. Definately watch this film whether you like nuke films or not.

The picture quality and sound on this video are beyond words to describe how bad a dvd can be. It looks like a poor transfer of a six hour mode tape. There is no attempt to digitally clean up the picture or audio. Avoid this one like the plague.

The DVD is not very good quality print. Even the serial isn't that good. I got it because it was rare and had Bela Lugosi in it but I am sorry to say that it's not worth getting. Some of the actors are supposed to be of Oriental caucasion but it is obvious they were not in some cases. They could have called the serial "The Death" I am a fan of Bela lugosi but this DVD isn't worth it.

I can't even give this 2 stars as another reviewer did. This is another slap together dvd by Whirlwind Media who are only concerned with making money. The transfer is from a 16mm print off, most likely, a Sinister Cinema VHS tape. The only reason I even bought this is because it's one of those incredibly rare serials. The sound is pretty much muddied throughout the dvd and the print itself isn't much better. I had high hopes at first as the opening title sequence, although not crisp and clean, was viewable. After that, it becomes a hit and miss affair even more than their release of The Phantom Creeps. I wish Whirlwind would put some effort into cleaning up the video and sound--it isn't that difficult to do as one can see from the efforts of the Doctor Who Restoration Team. Again, as I stated in my Phantom Creeps review, STAY AWAY FROM WHIRLWIND MEDIA!!!

I thoroughly enjoyed reading King Solomon's Mine. I thought that I'd give this movie a try. Sometimes watching the movie after reading a book is enjoyable....book vs. movie comparisons, pick a few new nuances or different interpretations in the movie, etc....

But this movie is horrible. As an animated film it is bad. Animation, music, voices ...all horrible. And there are countless major differences in the plot and major characters. This movie is not just bad, it scarred my mental image of a great and enjoyable book. I'd give the movie negative stars if I could. I think I'll try the 1930-version of the movie....but avoid this one for sure.

This has to be one of the least inventive movies ever made. I mean, who could even think that it was possible for a man-eating computer to.... oh wait, wrong movie.
I give it 5 stars.

This is NOT the Wiilliam Klein film, contrary to what is written above.