Reviews

Not the scariest horror movie, but I thought it was pretty entertaining. As you see from other comments, this is an anthology movie with four stories happening on a particular Hallowe'en Night in small town Ohio. Unlike other anthologies, the stories are interrelated, and the entire action happens in one evening, with the basic moral, don't mess with Hallowe'en. Everybody that does, comes to a bad end.

I found all four stories pretty fun to watch. If you like gore, it's not for you. If you like edge of your seat suspense, again it's not for you.

On the other hand, it did have some pretty effective chills, and I really enjoyed it. I recommend this, I guess it didn't preview so well, so it went straight to video. I think had they released it theatrically, they would have made money on it, but they still will.

Break out the popcorn, turn out the light and put it on.

When I picked it up at the video store, I didn't have much hope that this would be watchable. In fact, I only got it because one of the leads, Ric Walker, is a relative. (OK he's my brother, and I thought I could riff on him for doing this picture) So I took it home and put it in the DVD player.

What I got was a very watchable, in fact, a pretty good horror picture. Sure, there are a few problems, some sound and continuity errors, the actors are a little theatrical, but over all I really enjoyed myself.

The less is more theory of movie-making was evident. There was no on-screen gore, and the creature was shown in shadow rather than let the audience see a cheesy thing that would probably be laughable, given the obvious budget constraints, and the focus was on suspense and the characters dealing with an unbelievable circumstance.

Rather than seeing the latest big budget gore-fest I think 'The Promise Keeper' would make a nice substitute if you want to get the "willies." Check it out!!

While this one came out around the same time as other 'Body Swap' movies, and is usually blown off by most people as an inferior product. I just want to defend this flick for a bit.

Yes, it's a bit predictable, the script isn't the best out there, and it will never be considered a great classic, but the performances of Messrs. Reinhold and Savage are completely believable. In fact, I thought Reinhold's work in this one got overlooked. I'm not complaining about Tom Hanks' job in 'Big,' but I thought that since Hanks was playing an adolescent boy in a man's body, he played it a bit young. Reinhold, on the other hand, was playing a 9 or 10 year old boy, therefore his portrayal was easier to buy into.

Fred Savage does a very good job as the thirty-something man trapped in the body of a boy. The real selling points of these portrayals is in the details. Watch as Savage gives his 'son' encouragement, or Reinhold's uncertainty in dealing with the world.

As I said, a classic? Nah, but a fun afternoon of family entertainment? You bet!

Since this is a comment and not a real review per se, I won't get into a summary of the story, or a detailed analysis of the technical aspects. I could go on and on boring all but the most rabid movie or animation fan. So, I'm not going to go there.

I will say that when watching this one the first time, I didn't believe it was two hours long before looking at my watch. The story moved so well, I didn't notice any dead spots, if indeed there were any, and I stayed engrossed the entire time.

Now I know some people don't like animation, especially not when there are super-heroes involved, but let me tell you, put aside your preconceptions for this one. Even though the entire story is rooted in the world of make-believe, the characters seem realistic, making the more fantastic elements of the story palatable.

This is easily one of the most entertaining movies I have seen in a long time. Pacing, story, characters, etc. all add up to a great movie-watching experience.

This is one of the silliest, dumbest movies I have ever seen. The plot is paper thin, the characters are drawn in broad unbelievable strokes, the gags are totally crazy. Over all, it's impossible to buy a minute of this film.

That being said, I have not laughed this hard in a while. The story, though absolutely insane, had me in stitches the entire time. Rarely was there a comedic misfire with each gag more outrageous than the last.

If you want quiet sophisticated humor, see a Woody Allen Film. For pure belly laughs, see Anchorman.

The first motion picture to win the five major categories (picture, director, actor, actress, and screenplay) deserves the accolades it gets. Even though the plot itself is a product of the times, the dramatic tension and comic sensibility remains fresh today. Sure, we know from the beginning the two attractive leads will end up together( how could it be otherwise?) but unlike romantic comedies of today, the journey to that end is believable.

Standouts: Oscar "Believe you me" Shapely; the famous hitch-hiking gag; the bit with the detectives in the cabin.

I've seen this film referred to as a "screwball comedy." I don't think this falls into that category. While there are some screwball moments, overall the situations, while unlikely, are, at least to a degree, possible, and the performances aren't manic. Each moment is played for reality. There are plenty of quiet moments to balance the action of the piece.

If you haven't seen it, you should.

Deadbeat at Dawn is an excellent example of what you can do with a little ambition and special effects makeup. In this "drive-in" style gang flick, mindless violence and cheesy gore abounds. The only thing missing was the gratuitous sex, there was a topless stripper, but that's not enough to make it a classic of the genre.

The acting was interesting, not Srassberg, but in accordance with the genre, it's what you want. Obviously Van Bebber had little money, but what little he had was pretty well spent when it came to the action sequences and the gore makeup. The action, in fact, was very entertaining. The script was little more than a means to string the action sequences together so mission accomplished!

If you like the "Video Threat" type of flick, then this one is for you.

This review is based on the restoration done by Turner Classic Movies. Laugh Clown Laugh is the Pagliacci tale done dramatically. Lon Chaney plays Tito, also known as Flik, the clown, who finds an abandoned child, takes her in and raises her as his own. When the child, Simonetta, played by Loretta Young, reaches young womanhood, Flik finds his fatherly love for the child transformed into romantic interest. Simonetta, however, is in love with a young baron who is also smitten with her. This triangle leads to the familiar story of the clown who can make others laugh while he is miserable.

Though a few key sequences are lost, the restoration fills in the gaps by narrating the sequences on the commentary track. Though the acting style is of the dated silent film variety, the story somehow seems fresh, and though only 14 years old at the time, Loretta Young looks grown up and believable as the object of desire for two men.

Lon Chaney is outstanding as Tito. He is completely convincing. In one scene, he goes to a therapist to help him with his ennui. The therapist suggests Tito sees Flik the clown, saying the clown can make anyone laugh. When it's revealed that the patient is actually the entertainer, it's heartbreaking. The ending, which I won't reveal, though opera fans everywhere already know it, make this one a `must see'

Yeah, yeah, I know. It's black and white, it's subtitled and there are no explosions. This flick, though, is a must-see for any real guy out there. Plenty of action, the battle sequences are among the best ever filmed. The interaction between the players is amazing! And Toshiro Mifune!!!

I saw this one before seeing the Magnificent Seven, and I must say this one is the real deal. I liked the remake, but the original is still the best. You know the plot, besieged villagers hire seven ronin (gunmen in the remake) to protect their village from bandits. The thing missing from the remake is the depth of the characterizations! One really cares about the fate of the samurai. Total three-dimensional work. Even the farmers aren't seen as weak, just desperate. And Toshiro Mifune!!!

In "Taking Lives" Angelina Jolie plays a profiler with quirks. We meet her character laying in the grave of a victim during the investigation, pretty quirky, huh? Ethan Hawke plays a witness to the latest murder, interrupting the killer before he could complete the grisly details of his work.

Most of the film plays it by the numbers, with several red herrings and some sexual tension between the two leads thrown in for fun. The cast is rounded out with good actors, Tcheky Karyo and Olivier Martinez as the Montreal cops conducting the investigation and Gena Rowlands as the killer's mother, who comes to the police after recognizing her son and realizing he is still alive after all these years. Really good actors, but the script doesn't give them enough to do.

The ending got some groans from the audience, but overall a decent matinee movie.

The Passion of the Christ is a difficult film to properly critique. There are several reasons for this. The film depicts the life of Christ from the betrayal in the garden of Gethsemane to the crucifixion. Since only this portion of the story is told, there is little room for character development or story beyond these events. For example, there is little for any of the followers of Jesus to do other than wail or wring their hands at the torture of their rabbi.

While the story faithfully shows the Stations of the cross, such as I remember from my parochial school days, and is well made; since the story of the Christ is more than this days events, much of his impact in the world and that of his followers is lost.

What does have impact though is the level of realistic violence shown. Christ is shown beaten, tortured and humiliated. This part of the story every Christian knows from Sunday school or catechism classes, but this time no holds are barred. This film takes violence to a new level. It is brutal and unrelenting. While most audiences, by now, are used to seeing violence on the screen, this brutality is neither cartoonish, nor glorified.

Overall, this is a good movie and I recommend it. What is shown well is the vacillation of the Romans and the desire of the Sanhedrin to get this inconvenient man out of the way. Unfortunately, the time line of the film does not allow for deeper probing of these factors, no doubt leading to the film's controversy.

If you don't have a strong stomach though, you might want to skip this one.

My friend Maria is a beautiful vivacious woman. She's almost always in a good mood, and ALWAYS tries to be. In fact, she's generally the life of the party. When it's her turn to make a choice for movie night, however, though she has never picked up a bad movie, it's almost always a dark, depressing, moody drama. Sweet Sixteen is no exception.

The story centers on a fifteen year old, Liam, who lives in Glasgow, Scotland in the weeks leading to his sixteenth birthday. Liam is a street kid whose mother is in prison and due to get out shortly. His attention is on giving her a proper homecoming. The methods he uses keep him on the wrong side of the law, and lead to the tragic climax.

Liam is doomed by his environment, upbringing and experience. The story does an excellent job of showing those influences on the young man, and while you see him make one wrong move after another, you can't help but empathize with him.

One wonders how this young man, with his ambition, motivation and loyalty to his friends and family, might have fared in an upscale suburban environment. Liam, however doesn't have those kinds of influences. His role models, instead, are a stepfather and grandfather, that in the opening scenes of the film, try to get him to smuggle drugs into prison while he visits his mother. He doesn't have a chance.

Overall, this is an excellent film. The performances are layered and earnest; the direction is deliberate. The script is first-rate.

Maria was true to form. As such, I recommend this as the first half of a double-feature. Get a comedy for the other half.

For anyone that wants to make movies, Plan 9 is a must see. Not for it's lush style, great dialogue, fabulous production design, nor for the compelling performances given by the players. It doesn't have any of that. What it does have though, is poor production design, continuity gaps you can drive a space shuttle through, and writing that's so bad, it's amazing anyone had the nerve to show it. That is what makes it a must see.

Ed Wood, Jr. was not talented, but he was determined. He did something that many extremely talented people have not done. He got it released. He wrote it, produced it and directed it. When his star, Bela Lugosi, died during filming, he still finished it. Not just this one either, he put out several films, and not one of them is any good.

So for all of you aspiring Scorseses or Spielbergs, when the world gets you down, and you just don't know how you can get it done, when you feel like you've lost it, pop in "Plan 9". I bet you'll feel better.

This is one of those bits of cinema that's been written about so much, I hesitate to give a detailed comment. Suffice it to say, it's terrific! From the amazing opening shot, to the taut ending, it's a first-class thriller. It's too bad that this is the last film Orson Welles made, but what a way to go out!

Although this film is considered by many film mavens to be the first film noir-- and a prewar one at that, most people don't know (although none of them are probably imdb users) this is actually the third film version of the Dashiell Hammett story. If you've ever seen the other two, you'll know why this is the one that's remembered.

First of all the script is great! If you've read the original novel, you'll see very few changes in the adaptation. Some chunks of dialog are lifted directly from the text, which most of us know is a rarity in film making. After all, if it ain't broke, don't fix it!

Next, the cast is superb! Humphrey Bogart, though not the first choice of the studio (that was George Raft, who had a clause in his contract that said he didn't have to work with first time directors) does such a convincing job as the hard-boiled detective, it's impossible to imagine anyone else in the role. With Mary Astor as the femme fatale, Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre as the mysterious men tied together to find the strange statuette, the story almost tells itself.

Moving on to the direction: Huston, especially for a first-timer really pulled it out for this one. I know many others have written more about this, so I'll just give up two specifics. First, even though he's not the focus of the shot, you can actually spot the exact moment Sam Spade figures out who killed his partner. No kidding, look for it. Next, when Wilmer is unconscious, the principals discuss what to do with him. When he wakes, the series of shots of them as he takes one look around the room says "Sorry pal, you've had it." No dialog, only their faces. Amazing!