An Irish British American romance directed by Gerard Stembridge.
3 women from the same family are all interested in the same man.
I could tell within 5 or 10 minutes that this movie was not for me. I waited until 35 minutes in to turn it off. As I have said before, love and war are my least favorite subject matter for films. The video was really bright, which is not bad, but this usually (and in this case) goes along with very feminine films. I'm just too male to appreciate any value which my be there. I rate it shit in accordance with my turn off policy.
A Musical romance directed by Robert Greenwald, starring Gene Kelly.
A painter reproduces album covers on a larger scale and meets a woman who was on one of the covers. He also meets an old jazz musician and they open a dance club.
Not good at all. What I want to talk about here is not lack of originality or crappy music. I'm not discussing how this won more bad awards than good ones or how terrible a film it is. I want to point out Don Bluth's animation sequence. That's why I watched it. The male and female lead actors turn into fish and birds. That may seem inconsequential until you see them and their similarity to those in The Sword and the Stone (1963). So similar, in fact, that I expected the characters to become squirrels at any moment. The posture of this bird reminds me of when Wart turned into a sparrow (image). I rate this bad because it was damn near torture to watch. Don't inflict this upon yourself or anyone you know.
A British French German American romantic comedy directed by Chris and Paul Weitz, starring Hugh Grant, Toni Collette and Rachel Weisz.
An independently wealthy man decides that single mothers are good to date and gets himself in trouble by lying about having a son. Through a friend of a friend, he meets the 12 year old son of a suicidal single mother and they become friends.
I think I like Chris Weitz as a director. I recently watched A Better Life (2011) and saw the similarities between these 2 films. His films don't jump out and grab the viewer like those of Alejandro Jodorowsky or Quentin Tarantino, but these realistic dramas about families are made well and hold my attention. They seem to have a tendency to get a little sappy at the end, but I can see past a little maple syrup when the rest is this good. Something about this one that I really liked was the heavy double narration. The man and the boy both had voice-overs spaced through the duration. I'm rating this good. If you like this or A Better Life, you should watch the other and possibly other films by Chris Weitz.
An American Disney animated romance directed by Clyde Geronimi, Wilfred Jackson and Hamilton Luske, starring Dallas McKennon.
A dog from a rich house and a stray fall in love. There are issues at the rich house because the family has a baby and then leaves on vacation while the aunt and her 2 cats tend the baby.
Not bad, but not so great either. There is not much to write about this one, so I will use this space to discuss frequent topics in Disney films. Frequently, a rich character in a film thinks they are better than anyone else, forbid anyone around them contact with "certain types of people" (A.K.A. anyone who is not them) and jump to erronious conclusions which cause disaster for those around them. This describes my parents, except "rich". My family was poor and my parents acted like this. Another set of topics is destitute poverty and vagrancy. Too often, we see heroes begin the film in this situation: The Tranp, Aladdin, Pete (of dragon fame). That's just broke and homeless beginnings, not counting anything mid-plot or only 1 of those 2 states. I don't know what the point is, but I see these things frequently enough to notice them. If anyone ever read this, I would ask for comments... I rate Lady and the Tramp o.k.
An American musical romantic comedy directed by A. Edward Sutherland, starring Robert Cummings and William Frawley.
A man has been dating 2 women and wants to marry 1, but the other won't leave him alone.
Wretched, vile and loathsome. Lots of movies were like this in the early 1940s, but this is not what I ordered. I've been watching Abbott and Costello films and this is their debut, but it's not about them. It's about some other people and they just happen to be around. The plot held my attention like a fork holds water and I hated the characters. Far beyond not caring what happens to them, I wanted bad things to happen to them. I think there was too much musical for it to be a comedy and that it was trying to be too many things. I rate this shit because I had to turn it off. I will be back soon with my complete review of Abbott and Costello's like 25 or something movies.
A British erotic musical romance directed by Michael Winterbottom.
A climatologist in Antarctica remembers a relationship with a woman and the concerts they saw. In actual fact, the have sex and watch alternative rock bands.
Vapid, boring, repetitive. The movie is just like the music. She sucks him off and then the alt rock band just plain sucks. This happens about 9 times. A few rare snippets of Antarctica are thrown in and the cinematography is amazing. I liked the close-up of this (image) ice being cut more than the rest of the film put together. In fact, I would rather have watched a few seconds of cutting ice than the whole hour and 6 minutes. I have to admit that the sex scenes were expertly filmed and the audio quality of the concerts was good, even though the content was not. I rate this bad for technical perfection on some of the worst content I've seen in a while. Don't watch it.
An American romance directed by Adrian Lyne, starring Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger.
A woman who works at an art gallery falls in love with a man wearing a long coat.
I had to turn this off, mostly because the audio was bad on the copy I got. Besides that, I don't like romance (or war) and the pacing was dreadfully slow. Mickey Rourke looked like Christian Slater when he was young. I really prefer him in Spun (2002) and Sin City (2005). If it's romance or war and I can't hear it, I'm not watching it. In accordance with my resurrected turnoff policy, I rate this shit. Do not watch!
A French romance directed by François Ozon, starring Valeria Bruni Tedeschi.
A couple meet, fall in love, get married and get divorced. It happens backwards though.
I really didn't get this. The plot was extremely unclear because there was no mention or indication that anything was happening in reverse until they get married near the end and then meet at the very end. It opens with the couple getting divorced and then goes to a sex scene. The characters were almost reverse-developed. As the movie went on, it seemed like I knew less about them. The video was decent quality, but predictable and standard. Dialogue was mostly in French and I got subtitles for that, but there were Italian sections which were not included in those subtitles. I didn't notice anything worth mentioning about music. I have to rate this bad because it was so unclear about what was happening.
An American romantic comedy directed by Peter Segal, starring Adam Sandler, Drew Barrymore, Rob Schneider, Sean Astin and Dan Aykroyd.
A veteranarian at a sea animal park falls in love with a woman whose memory is erased every night while she sleeps.
Sappy sappy sappy. The simplistic plot had all static characters. Video looked alright, but there was absolutely nothing creative or different about it. Almost like 1940s style camera placement. All of the dialogue was audible, but the soundtrack music was so mainstream and insipid it almost made me puke. I really don't like writing about movies like this. I hate it so bad that I don't even want to mock it or hurl insults. I rate this shit. DO NOT WATCH!
A Japanese anime romance by Makoto Shinkai.
Takaki Tono is in love with Akari Shinohara, but they move far away from one another for school. They meet once by train, but continue living at a distance. Takaki has 2 girlfriend (consecutively), but can not forget Akari.
Almost cool. The sparse and inconclusive plot was very realistic, as was the intention of Makoto Shinkai. The characters were a little vague. I was having trouble determining whether the boy or girl was the same or different in each episode. I liked the animation style because the settings were extremely realistic, but the characters looked "standard anime" to me. It reminded me of FLCL and some Miyazaki films. The audio was in Japanese and the version I got had hard-coded English subtitles, but that meant I spent most of the duration reading, rather than watching the animation. I rate this adequate. If you're into slower anime without monsters and spaceships, this would be a decent choice.
An American fantasy romance directed by Gary Winick, starring Mark Ruffalo, Judy Greer and Andy Serkis.
A 13 year old girl wishes to be 30 years old and magic glitter makes it so. She then realizes that she has been a horrible person between.
Sappy and crappy. The plot was alright in 1988 (Big), but did not need to be repeated so frequently. I'm referencing the film with the girl wishing on candles, but don't want to remember what it was called. The characters were mostly shallow. Jenna and Matt developed a little bit. The video was "chick flick" bright and had no unexpected camera placement, editing or anything of that nature. I could hear the dialogue and the soundtrack music was mostly 1980s pop. This brings up what I thought was the only good scene: the Thriller dance. Even though this was crappy and not worth watching, I've seen so many films which are so much worse. I rate it poor. You probably should not watch it.
A French British American romantic comedy directed by Michael Lehmann, starring Josh Hartnett and Griffin Dunne.
A man who has broken up with his girlfriend is addicted to sex. He takes a vow of celibacy for lent, but meets a woman and begins a relationship with her.
Not quite as bad as it would seem at first glance. The plot was a little bit predictable and the characters were a little bit shallow, but I've seen many films with much worse. The humor was all about sex, but it didn't get into the really crude and immature style which most American romantic comedies go for. Video was mostly good, if a little too bright and cheerful looking. There were some special effects, but nothing amazing or worth writing about. Audio was a problem because I got a bad file. It was all skippy and warbling. Besides that, there was the prerequisite inaudible whispering. There was a quote I saw while looking for an image: "sexy, fresh and wildly hip". I thought it was stale and bland above all else. I would almost suspect that this set out to be a mediocre film because it did such a good job of being so. If it wants that middle o.k. rating, here it is. Don't go out of your way to watch it.
An American romantic comedy directed by Anne Fletcher, starring James Marsden, Edward Burns and Judy Greer.
A wedding planner is a bridesmaid at all of her friends' weddings. She falls in love with a reporter who writes a newspaper article about her.
Stupid. The plot did not hold my interest, but the characters did show some depth. Acting and dialogue were what the current internet calls "cringe-worthy". I think the "Benny and the Jets" musical number was too much. Video was typically bright and saturated. Audio was not too shabby. I could hear everything and it was not overly dynamic. The best part of this was the spikes on the main character's collar at a goth wedding (image). I really don't like writing bad reviews, so I try to make them short. I rate this bad. Don't watch it.
An American romantic comedy directed by Gil Junger, starring Julia Stiles, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Larry Miller and David Krumholtz.
A popular high school girl is not allowed to date unless her unpopular sister has a date. The boys at school arrange a boyfriend for the unpopular sister and fight over the popular one.
Stupid stupid stupid. Even childrens movies are more intellectually stimulating than this teen crap. It was more about pop music than plot. It looked and sounded fine, if a bit too bright and loud. Everything else sucked. There is really no reason to go into a deep analysis on this. It should be obvious to anyone who knows anything about movies. I rate this bad because it was, but I've seen much worse.
An American romantic comedy written, directed and produced by Blake Edwards, starring Julie Andrews.
A music composer turns 40 years old and has an ideological crisis about love. He spends his vacation in Mexico before returning home.
So, this is what romantic comedy used to be like. I think we've lost a good genre in the past 41 years. In fact, we've lost many good genres, but that is outside the scope of this post. This was classy and all about characters. It looked a little gritty and there was good camera-work. The editing made sense and the audio was very level. This is the exact opposite of what gets called romantic comedy now. The current trend of the genre is so sickeningly sweet, with bright video and overly dynamic audio. The plots are idiot-proof to the point of not being mentally stimulating to those with down syndrome. The comedy was funny, instead of just a bunch of thinly veiled, crass sex jokes. The main character's novocaine antics were slapstick, but well written. Above all else, it held my attention. I rate this adequate. You might want to watch it.
An American musical romance directed by Vondie Curtis Hall, starring Mariah Carey and Terrence Howard.
A young singer's mother abandons her and she works her way to fame while struggling with relationships.
What a piece of crap. There is no reason for anyone to watch this, besides reviewing the worst movies ever. Even fans of her music would have been better off with the album instead. I'm not complaining about cinematography, audio recording or any mixing or editing. It all looked and sounded professionally handled. What was bad was the writing and acting. Terrible music did not help. 2 of the best insults cited on Wikipedia were "Leaves you wishing the Lumiére brothers had said bollocks to cinema and gone down the pub" and "she wouldn't let anyone around her mention the film in conversation and that it was known as "the G word"" It also says that Carey was left in complete creative control and improvised most of it. Cliche was another frequently used word there. I think that says it all. I rate it shit. NEVER EVER WATCH THIS!!!
An American musical romance directed by Robert Iscove.
Teenagers on spring break are trying to find love, or at least quick sex. A boy is attracted to a gairl, but her friend is intercepting text messages and preventing them from meeting.
What a pile of crap. Critics all seem to agree on this as well as Stinkers Bad Movie Awards and Golden Raspberry. Remember how I said the Russian film, Guardians (2017) seemed less forced and contrived than American superhero flicks? This is the opposite of that. It all seemed forced and contrived. Insincere. What happened was that Kelly Clarkson was contractually bound by American Idol to be in a movie and unfortunately, this is what she was offered. The plot and characters were shallow and vapid. Why is this dork vacationing with the party guys? At least it could have been explained, like he had a car and gave them a ride. Fitting that little scrap of information in would not have been difficult. The songs came out of nowhere and the characters just went back to acting afterward. It wasn't like a normal musical in which the songs are acknowleged by the plot and characters, these were ignored. I also have a problem with white people singing like they are black. I've lightened up on the racist comments since remaining in communications with my Jamaican friend (totally unexpected, hippie guy has a black Jamaican friend). He has informed me a little about racism and made me realize that I was doing some and it may be wrong to label "moulignon movies", but other people do much worse. What iriitates me is when someone acts outside of their ethnicity. White folks singing black, black folks acting Japanese, Asian folks singing black... Seriously, look in a mirror. Alright, so everything was terrible except audio and video. It looked and sounded fine like polishing a turd. I rate this shit because it should never have been made and nobody should ever watch it.
An American romance directed by John G. Avildsen, starring Molly Ringwald.
A high school girl gets pregnant and wants to marry her boyfriend, keep the baby and go to college. The parents of the girl and her boyfriend disagree about what should be done.
Forgettable. David Nusair said it was "about as compelling as an afterschool special". I did not care about the plot or characters and was waiting the whole time for something to actually happen. It looked and sounded alright, but held my attention like a razor blades wrapped in tissue paper. I wish I had not watched it, but if I've resigned myself to watching the worst films ever, I must watch them. I rate this bad for being an uninteresting line of cliches. Don't watch it.
A British Austrian Swiss Luxembourg Hungarian German romance drama directed by Simon Aeby, starring Nikolaj Coster.
During a time when the church is acting crazy, a pair of boys are split when they are young. One goes into the clergy and the other marries the executioner's daughter, becoming an executioner.
Mediocre crap. I found this while searching for Shadowless Sword (2005) and figured I would just get it anyway because it had English audio. I can see the production meeting: "This movie sucks. What can we do to get asses in seats?" "Let's make it look like Lord of the Rings!" The plot was rambling and uninteresting. The characters were shallow and the dialogue was poor. Audio was terrible too. People were either shouting or whispering. The ending was so cheesy that even if I spoiled it, nobody would care. It consisted of flashbacks and a ride into the sunset. But it all looked really modern and professional. I'm thinking there is some kind of digital setting or filter used to make films look this way (image). The era of proprietary cameras is over and digital footage is infinitely malleable. It should be easy to get the Peter Jackson look. Maybe a lighting setup? I rate this bad for being mediocre and boring. Don't watch it.
An American romantic comedy directed by Martin Brest, starring Ben Affleck, Jennifer Lopez, Christopher Walken and Al Pacino.
A mobster is assigned to abduct the retarded brother of a politician in order to extort money. A woman is also assigned to this task (without his knowledge) and the 3 of them form a bond.
Above all else, this was inconsistent. That seems to be the consensus after a quick read of what other critics thought. They said that it was too disorganized, but not as bad as more popular romantic comedies of the time. I didn't know whether to call it crime, romance or comedy and I think it was trying to be all of them, stretching too thin over the 2 hour duration. There were some funny parts that really made me laugh, but there were "wise guy" mob business scenes, sappy romance parts, a shooting, etc... Just trying to be too much. Rainman (1988) already did the bad boy/retard buddy flick and did it well. What I'm saying is that this should have selected romance or crime and eliminated the other element. Justin Bartha played "deet dee dee" pretty well for such a pretty boy/heartthrob actor. I haven't seen his other films though. Ben Affleck did a great job as the bad boy mobster and Christopher Walken fit his short scene as the cop the viewer hates because I really do hate him. A plot point which confused me was that Brian asked Larry to read to him, so he reads food and toilet paper labels. Then Larry goes into the other room and Ricki has a book, but he says nothing about it. Video looked pretty good and I could hear most of the dialogue well. I rate this adequate because it was worth watching once for the comedy scenes.
