Reviews

Someone said in a comment that this is "barely an adaptation" and I have to second that. Though the cast list has names of characters other than the main three, that's because there's a minute or two where the film is outside so there were a few extras who got credit.

If you like the play (seeing it or reading it, whichever) you will love this interpretation of it. I can't believe this was made in 1963-the acting is passable even by today's standards and amazing for back then.

There are a few lines that are switched around, very very few that are removed altogether, and certain parts of scenes are set outside of the attic-otherwise it stays true to the original version.

I suppose if you know nothing of the play then this could still suit you, however, it has a strange premise, and is generally a bizarre movie altogether. The focus is mostly on character development and unusual dialogue, with monologues every three minutes, one of which is easily one of the best absurdist monologues of all time (Aston's bit at the end of act 2).

Personally I would buy it just for Aston's monologue, but the movie has many other virtues, and for the standards of its day I'd feel uncomfortable giving it anything other than a 10/10

All I can say is that I'm glad to have been alive to see the worst movie ever made. The fact that this cinematic monstrosity isn't in the bottom 100 is outrageous, God, where do I start with this pile? First of all the soundtrack was unbearable, I do not want to hear bad music when I'm watching a film, just because it's perceivably heavy, angsty garbage doesn't mean it fits an action scene; I'm talking about Evanescence here. I suppose if you like Evanescence this comment is irrelevant because you're probably too stupid to discern a bad movie from a good one anyway...

Secondly the acting was atrocious at best, I feel so bad for Joey Pants for having to be a part of that shitstorm. Ben Affleck is bad, Collin Farrel is bad, nearly everyone in this movie is a humungously bad actor; And no, a bad script does not justify terrible acting because a good actor should be able to rise above the material.

Thirdly the script was full of awful lines, plot holes, and completely unexplained events... I don't need to go on. This is wholly unmemorable garbage and no, I will not see the director's cut/extended edition/whatever just because this one sucked a big one. Bad/10

Often people tell me that The Practice was cheesy and that I'm stupid for liking it-the former is true but the latter is not.

The practice was indeed cheesy but it was still quite unique as far as legal shows go. First of all, these were defense attorneys so you're given no reason to pity them, and secondly, they weren't exactly rich or well-respected, and most of the lawyers were ugly, average "losers". With this the show got a certain realistic quality, in that it didn't attempt to impress you with amazing and respectable characters, and instead it let you see what most legal firms are really like.

Still David E. Kelley, as much as he tried not to spoonfeed anything to the viewer, wrote some of the cheesiest dialogue about the struggles of defense lawyers. Intelligent viewers shouldn't fall for it, although I can see why some people wouldn't be able to see the more positive aspects of this show.

I really don't understand who this movie is aimed at. From just the absurdity of it, not to mention the ridiculously bad acting, cheesy dialogue, and the fact that the villain is a child, I'd assume this was meant to be a children's movie... but I think there may be more swear words than Pulp Fiction, not to mention constant references to drugs and general mayhem and killing-so which demographic is it trying to please? This movie is too schizophrenic, like trying to combine Country music with Heavy metal, in the end no one is going to like it because it's a bloody paradox. I would recommend this movie because it's so funny (in a bad way) except the actors are so patently unbearable that I wouldn't want to suggest otherwise.

I'm completely serious when I say that I could not watch more than 15 minutes of this. Terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiible

I saw an episode of this and there was not one funny joke. In truth I feel bad for John Larroquette because he deserved so much better. The laugh tracks come at the most inappropriate times and most of the actors are wooden when playing characters that aren't even remotely likable. I'm sorry but if I knew Harold Stone in real life I would be tempted to punch him in the face. I can't believe anyone liked this, even in the 80s.

I think this could have been leagues better if they had given Larroquette's character some better material to work with, or maybe just hired writers who knew the least bit about comedy. Also Harold Stone would have been infinitely better as a sarcastic, cynical judge, not some asinine, "playful" dumbass who never says anything clever or intelligent

This movie is actually quite good, despite people whining that it "doesn't make sense". From what I can ascertain the ridiculous continuity errors are part of the whole alternate-reality effect (I don't mean the fact that different things happen, but rather that in the first reality she doesn't know how to use a gun and in the second one she does; again this can be interpreted differently if you watch the film) My only issue is the fact that the film quality wasn't that great, but apart from that it's got an excellent premise and the film-making is very clever... sadly I don't know much German but the subtitles were enough for me to think very highly of this film, so 8/10 works for me

I assume that everyone who's seen this and rated it badly is either a) very very young b) has never seen another old movie in their life or c) both. There's absolutely no reason, when compared to films of the same era, can you rate this movie poorly, and I suspect that aside from their clear lack of any knowledge of film that all the people who thought this movie was "bad" were just disappointed at the fact that Price, Lee, and Cushing had comparatively minor roles.

Indeed, I bought this as a Christopher Lee fan and was disappointed in that respect, but the movie was still good! I'm an actor myself and I was furious that the people playing the lead roles were extremely bland, but I still found this movie amazing in terms of the absurdity of the plot and just how entertaining and engaging it is overall. A good plot can redeem bad actors, but the reverse is never true.

I don't feel I need to give a plot summary but I'll say this: don't buy this if the only reason you'd want to is to see Christopher Lee or Peter Cushing-their performances are good and their characters are interesting, but they don't have a lot of screen time. Vincent Price steals the show at the end but again, for Price fans, he doesn't have a lot of lines if that's what you're looking for.

Just, when you rate this or any movie, compare it to the standards of that time. I give this movie a 10 because it's currently my favorite movie from that era, of any genre.

I'm sure this was a better movie in its native language but when dubbed in English it's impossible to understand. Either it's very abstract or the director and all the actors are completely stoned out of their minds, the movie is like a neverending seizure with cuts every two seconds and a poorly explained story involving (from what I can discern) crazy Russian vampires and some epic struggle between light and dark...

I watched this at night with a good friend who was equally unimpressed, and we still have no idea what this movie is about. The whole time I just wanted it to end. Please never watch this, I actually consider this the worst movie ever made.

Unbearable. 1/10

Obviously by today's standards this would maybe get a 5 or a 6 for the film-making issues and the very err, theatrical acting... but for the standards of 1958 well, this movie's got it all. The main problems are that the performances feel too much like they're on a stage (and thus feel they need to overact ridiculously; with the exception of Christopher Lee and of course Peter Cushing (may he rest in peace), who were both extremely good) and that it only gets good after the first five minutes. Seriously the first bit is just bad, boring and cheesy, and John Van Eyssen never ceases to annoy.

I'd liked it if Dracula spoke a bit more; he has quite a bit of screen time but most of it involves biting people, and you don't get to hear Christopher Lee's amazing voice (who, at this moment, has probably the second coolest voice in the world next to James Earl Jones).

Overall interesting and worth the watch, though you have to be tolerant of the sub-par standards of late 1950s filming.

I totally sympathize with the Armenian plight but this isn't quite as good as I expected it to be (was hoping to be around the quality level of Schindler's List, ah well, life goes on).

The characters are highly exaggerated/stereotyped (which I suppose is justifiable, after all Crash was a good movie) I'm assuming to get the message across better. My main scruple is that David Alpay didn't have enough experience entering this film. He certainly wasn't bad, just below average.. which sadly doesn't cut it for a lead role.

Some of the lines aren't too great although Elias Koteas rises above the material (the scene where he talks about his opinion on the genocide is way too forced, really should have been revised). I also think he could have done a better job portraying Jevdet Bay-he came across as being very monstrous but it just didn't seem natural coming from him.

In any case, this movie is ridiculously overrated, but just as underrated. I understand that the Armenians want some 'moving' portrayal of the atrocities against them but this didn't exploit its full potential.