catradhtem
जन॰ 2001 को शामिल हुए
नई प्रोफ़ाइल में आपका स्वागत है
हमारे अपडेट अभी भी डेवलप हो रहे हैं. हालांकि प्रोफ़ाइलका पिछला संस्करण अब उपलब्ध नहीं है, हम सक्रिय रूप से सुधारों पर काम कर रहे हैं, और कुछ अनुपलब्ध सुविधाएं जल्द ही वापस आ जाएंगी! उनकी वापसी के लिए हमारे साथ बने रहें। इस बीच, रेटिंग विश्लेषण अभी भी हमारे iOS और Android ऐप्स पर उपलब्ध है, जो प्रोफ़ाइल पेज पर पाया जाता है. वर्ष और शैली के अनुसार अपने रेटिंग वितरण (ओं) को देखने के लिए, कृपया हमारा नया हेल्प गाइड देखें.
बैज9
बैज कमाने का तरीका जानने के लिए, यहां बैज सहायता पेज जाएं.
रेटिंग2.5 हज़ार
catradhtemकी रेटिंग
समीक्षाएं11
catradhtemकी रेटिंग
When you watch Cynthia Rothrock films, you're supposed to know going in that you're not going to see "Citizen Kane" (or even "Citizens on Patrol," for that matter), but this one....ugh, I don't know. Is "mind-numbingly awful" too vague?
"Undefeatable" tries to blend the two direct-to-video genres of "Martial Artist Exacts Revenge on Those Who Killed Their Relative/Buddy" and "Tough Girl Beats Up Everyone," between the two of which Cynthia has made approximately 120 movies. But I do believe that this could be the worst of either genre.
The movie exists in that great alternate universe in which EVERYONE knows martial arts....cops, waitresses, shrinks, gym regulars, random guys in parking lots, beekeepers, etc. Despite the unintentional humor in being able to smell a fight scene coming from a mile away, this movie is completely without any merit. Moronic, contrived plot, LOUSY, wooden acting, uninteresting characters, a villain about as intimidating as a garbageman, bad direction, slapped in music, and...worst of all for this kind of movie...boring, ill-conceived fights.
Stay far away from this turkey. It's about as exciting as C-SPAN.
"Undefeatable" tries to blend the two direct-to-video genres of "Martial Artist Exacts Revenge on Those Who Killed Their Relative/Buddy" and "Tough Girl Beats Up Everyone," between the two of which Cynthia has made approximately 120 movies. But I do believe that this could be the worst of either genre.
The movie exists in that great alternate universe in which EVERYONE knows martial arts....cops, waitresses, shrinks, gym regulars, random guys in parking lots, beekeepers, etc. Despite the unintentional humor in being able to smell a fight scene coming from a mile away, this movie is completely without any merit. Moronic, contrived plot, LOUSY, wooden acting, uninteresting characters, a villain about as intimidating as a garbageman, bad direction, slapped in music, and...worst of all for this kind of movie...boring, ill-conceived fights.
Stay far away from this turkey. It's about as exciting as C-SPAN.
I really wanted to like this film. I love horror, and I especially love horror satire and parody. And I can usually cut writers of parodies a lot of slack when something isn't outrageously funny. I write parody humor, so I know how hard it can be to hit your mark. But nonetheless, this was pretty bad.
Of course, the urge to compare it to Scary Movie is very hard to resist. It simply boils down to the fact that the Wayans were trying to add some wit to Scary Movie in addition to making fun of horror movies. The makers of Shriek..., on the other hand, thought that simply visually copying a scene from a horror movie is inherently funny on its own, with no need to write actual gags to go along with it.
And of course, all of the overused cliches in parody humor are present...being a lesbian is supposed to be funny, being a virgin is supposed to be funny, drug use is supposed to be funny, being overweight is supposed to be funny, etc. But again, they are simply presented, and not used to incite humor. Asking a Wiccan-esque girl if she was a lesbian *may* have been funny on its own, say, a decade ago when every high school didn't have its own Wiccan chapter, but now it takes a little more insight to make that stereotype funny.
Even the one more-recent cliche, being a big-busted woman actually having implants is supposed to funny, is rolled out almost as an unfunny non-sequitur. The exact same joke is done as an actual punchline in Scary Movie. But as I said, I'm trying to avoid comparison.
You can just tell the writers and director didn't really know how to handle this style of comedy. They obviously are trying to emulate the movies of the Zuckers (you know you're in trouble when a character in a parody mentions a funnier parody), but at the same time they didn't understand what made them hilarious. It's perhaps the cinematic equivalent to listening to a Beatles cover band. You can tell they know the music and have a real love for what they're doing, but there's no magic behind it.
The writers even try to explain what they feel is the parody "formula" by having the lead girl list the "rules" to survive a parody. The rules she gives seem more fitting for a Problem Child sequel or a fourth-season episode of Ren and Stimpy. As far as I know, Airplane! didn't have Hanna-Barbera sound effects or misleading sex shots.
The movie seems to have overlooked the only real rule to survive a parody: Make it Funny!
Of course, the urge to compare it to Scary Movie is very hard to resist. It simply boils down to the fact that the Wayans were trying to add some wit to Scary Movie in addition to making fun of horror movies. The makers of Shriek..., on the other hand, thought that simply visually copying a scene from a horror movie is inherently funny on its own, with no need to write actual gags to go along with it.
And of course, all of the overused cliches in parody humor are present...being a lesbian is supposed to be funny, being a virgin is supposed to be funny, drug use is supposed to be funny, being overweight is supposed to be funny, etc. But again, they are simply presented, and not used to incite humor. Asking a Wiccan-esque girl if she was a lesbian *may* have been funny on its own, say, a decade ago when every high school didn't have its own Wiccan chapter, but now it takes a little more insight to make that stereotype funny.
Even the one more-recent cliche, being a big-busted woman actually having implants is supposed to funny, is rolled out almost as an unfunny non-sequitur. The exact same joke is done as an actual punchline in Scary Movie. But as I said, I'm trying to avoid comparison.
You can just tell the writers and director didn't really know how to handle this style of comedy. They obviously are trying to emulate the movies of the Zuckers (you know you're in trouble when a character in a parody mentions a funnier parody), but at the same time they didn't understand what made them hilarious. It's perhaps the cinematic equivalent to listening to a Beatles cover band. You can tell they know the music and have a real love for what they're doing, but there's no magic behind it.
The writers even try to explain what they feel is the parody "formula" by having the lead girl list the "rules" to survive a parody. The rules she gives seem more fitting for a Problem Child sequel or a fourth-season episode of Ren and Stimpy. As far as I know, Airplane! didn't have Hanna-Barbera sound effects or misleading sex shots.
The movie seems to have overlooked the only real rule to survive a parody: Make it Funny!
What's particularly interesting about "Any Bonds Today?" is that it's the first Bugs Bunny musical. When one considers all of the big Bugs song numbers in cartoons like "Hillbilly Hare," "What's Up, Doc?", "The Rabbit of Seville," and of course "What's Opera, Doc?", it's funny to hear this early, scratchy Bugs kind of drawl his way through the title song in this trailer.
This clip sometimes pops up in documentaries about Hollywood's involvement with World War II, and it's definitely a neat little piece of miscellania to check out.
This clip sometimes pops up in documentaries about Hollywood's involvement with World War II, and it's definitely a neat little piece of miscellania to check out.