Reviews

13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Fantastic Four (I) (2005)
2/10
Fun comedy for very little kids, abysmal super hero movie
30 July 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Imagine Mike Myers writing and directing a super hero movie and you get Fantastic Four. The jokes are constant in the first hour and fifteen minutes. There cannot possibly be any seriousness or drama because the movie is literally a comedy in the style of Airplane as far as joke frequency. Reed Richards and company head up into space for some sort of "cosmic genome save the world and it's great for mankind" junk that gets them into position for the cosmic storm that gives them their powers. They are in space for about five seconds (yes, almost literally) when the cosmic storm hits early. They are blasted and then are next seen back on earth in quarantine. They develop their powers soon afterwards. The Thing is trashed throughout the movie. Johnny Storm/Human Torch makes fun of him throughout but it's cute fun and they have a great little chemistry going with it. The problem is that it's constant, as is The Thing being s*****d on by a bird, breaking five or six glasses (that's not an exaggeration), etc. You see, he's a rocky guy and he'd have trouble fitting in and he'd break lots of stuff!! We get the joke right off of the bat but it continues for the entire movie so get used to it. The Thing costume is terrible as you can see the fleshy, skin like parts of the costume clearly around the neck of a guy who's supposed to be rock inside and out. The so called relationship with the blind lady that The Thing meets in a bar is about one minute in length with a wrap up at the end. Hey, that relationship could be serious so it's no go here. The only effective, moving moment is also the movie's best movie moment. The Thing's done some hero stuff on a bridge and a crowd has gathered to watch. The crowd cheers him when it's over and The Thing's wife conveniently is on the bridge and shows up in the crowd. While the crowd is cheering, she removes her wedding ring and drops it on the ground. Thus, The Thing's heart is broken while a crowd cheers him in the background. It's actually done well. There are one or two other decent movie moments and that is all. The only guy who has any life is Johnny Storm. He has way too much fun with the super hero powers and Reed Richards and Sue Storm don't have any. They hate their powers, Johnny loves his and The Thing bumbles around being made a clown of. The action is a complete ripoff, one of the biggest ripoffs in any movie I've ever seen. If you've seen the trailer, you've seen ALL of the action. The thing too is that the action was better done in the trailer then it was in this movie (for real.) The cool opera music accompanying the action in the trailer is not in the movie, plus I heard the same music in a preview before this movie so it's some kind of trailer music. For the first hour and fifteen minutes, other then the FF discovering their powers, NOTHING happens. While the FF goes about trying to make kids laugh, Victor Von Doom is S-L-O-W-L-Y changing into Doctor Doom. When he becomes Doom, he's a surprisingly good antagonist. The problem is he's in a comedy and the FF are a joke so he's in the wrong movie if he wants to make an impact. He becomes Doom completely with about ten minutes to go in the movie and there follows an incredibly short final battle which is really the only battle in the entire movie. There is some good super hero stuff here for about three minutes and it keeps this movie from getting a 1 in my rating. There is some good team stuff here from the FF, which is interesting because they have never practiced anything or trained in any capacity as a group. They just sort of show up in their cute uniforms and do stuff. They are wearing uniforms for absolutely no reason as they are not even really super heros until the final battle and are a pretty disjointed unit throughout. Only Johnny tries to make them a team and that is for popularity and marketing purposes as he loves this stuff. Reed, of course, wears his uniform indoors for most of the movie, making him look like a total chump. Jessica Alba fakes her way through it and is, of course, absolutely gorgeous. She's so pretty you don't even really care if she can act or not. You just get lost in those eyes. The script is absolutely terrible, the dialogue is empty, the performances one dimensional. Julian McMahon (if he's the next Bond, he sure looks it) is a good Doom but he's too good for this jokefest. Mike Myers would have been more fitting. The dude who plays the Torch has great potential in his role and he is good in the serious parts, all two seconds of it. The FF deserve better. To be honest, they actually deserve a MOVIE about them.
5 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Batman Begins (2005)
9/10
Batman Begins with a vengeance
24 June 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The Tim Burton Batman movies were great films (has Burton ever made a bad one?) and I really loved Batman Returns but Batman Begins is the most legitimate Batman representation to date and is the best movie of them all so far. Batman Begins is furious and full throttle but is also very respectful of the characters, something that the other movies missed pretty badly. The kicked dog of the series, Batman and Robin, in particular didn't give a darn about the characters. It was simply a Hollywood costume party. Batman Begins removes the fluff entirely, builds the Bruce Wayne character and the Batman mythology brick by brick and it is rock solid by film's end. This Batman is much more like the Burton Batman but director Nolan's Batman is also a person, the flesh and blood and mortally scarred human that fans of the character love so much. Batman is a force, unbeatable in a fight and comic book like in his justice but he's a man with thoughts and feelings too. We get that character in Batman Begins, one that's structured and deep. That development takes up the first half of the movie as Wayne studies crime and trains with Ra's Al Ghul. Ra's is not how Batman learned to fight (he wasn't even a character until over thirty years after Batman existed) so this part is a new mythology. Wayne learns the ways of a man, both physical, emotional and psychological. As a 32 year old man who is fascinated by the Batman universe, I really related and latched onto that mentally. It is truly enthralling for guys in general. Batman then becomes Batman, and that process is also created brick for brick. Christian Bale is the best Batman so far because his character is more humanized. Keaton's Batman was more of a gruff and silent mute who fights crime. This Batman feels it, thus deeply laying claim as the best Batman so far. Bale's Batman is manly, a major improvement from poor George Clooney's suicide mission in B and R. Bale is also passionate. This Batman yells, he emotes. He also kicks a lot of tail, much more like the comic Batman and something that I was very disappointed not to see in the 1989 Batman. Batman also "flies" (glides) and his hardware is updated military so it's very believable in an unbelievable sort of way. Bale is tremendous in the role. He is not the textbook image to play Bruce Wayne but he is PERFECT as the Dark Knight. To be exactly like the Batman of the comics he just needs to bulk up a few pounds and grow the beard like he had early in the movie and he's even more perfect. The transition to Batman from Bruce is also the best super hero disguise I've ever seen. I would never have said that that was Christian Bale in the Batman suit. For a guy with the same visible chin, he really does great playing "two people." The supporting characters are tremendous and make the movie seamless (I love Rutger Hauer.) Caine gives Alfred life and feeling. Morgan Freeman may be the most likable guy in film history. Cillian Murphy is a great bit of casting for the Scarecrow. He's sinister, aloof, ambivalent, and really creepy and never lets on with any feeling that would generate sympathy. He is a great screen villain. He's not given much airtime but he's terrific when he does and his fear toxins' hallucinations are brought to the screen brilliantly. You don't just see them, you feel them. Neeson is great in his role, really responding with a deeply masculine way with a really terrific edge. The dialogue is great as well although it's garbled at times. The movie also goes very, very fast. At times, I was really wishing it would slow down. On the flip side, it engages and holds onto the viewer at the same time. It never gets dull and moves FAST, much like the original Star Wars. The plot also runs together a bit (or a lot) and you get lost in the psychobabble, part of the sacrifice for a movie that is a thrill ride. I truly did not much care because I love the Batman world for it's characters and not it's schemes and this movie made me very happy in that regard. Hey, it's a fantasy, you can have "good guys" and "bad guys" (and make the bad guys real creepy.) I thought that Katie Holmes was very good as Rachel but most others don't share my opinion. What really did she do poorly? A truly great "beginning" to what is hopefully a VERY LONG and lucrative Batman progression and even better the second time.
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Unemotional, unengaging and does not deliver
28 May 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The first twenty to thirty moments of Episode III consists of very good action yet manages to be extremely boring. I will compare Return of the Jedi with Revenge of the Sith here. In Jedi, the action scenes with Jabba are thrilling. I saw the flick when I was 10 and the moment when Luke springboards off of the platform, catches the lightsaber and goes to town was one of the coolest things I've ever seen (and still is actually.) The Star Wars music was blaring after a tedious setup and I was excited off of my you-know-what. In Revenge of the Sith, the lead up to the fight with Count Dooku, the fight itself and then the other stuff leading up the crash of the disintegrating ship should have been thrilling also but there was next to no music and it just sort of happened. When the ship landed, I just said to myself "That was really, really boring." Christopher Lee is a great resource and they should have used him more. I was pulling for Hayden Christensen but it was painfully obvious early on that he was just way too boring in his role. Playing a young Jedi with few lines and some fight scenes would have better for him but he is just NOT Darth Vader. McDiarmid steals the acting show as Palpatine but his relationship with Anakin is just not evil enough, not for lack of trying on Palpatine's part. Anakin turns to enormous evil because of his wife? She then dies and he continues on being evil? Psychologically it is just lame and does not hold water at all. Lucas contradicts his own Jedi lingo in this a few times also. Obi Wan and Yoda are almost bored after the carnage that Anakin wreaks. Shouldn't they have been sad or crying or something? In the prequel, Jedi are supposed to be unemotional servants yet they keep talking about "Searching out with their feelings?" Luke was emotional in 4, 5 and 6. Shouldn't anybody have cared in Episode III? It's probable that Christensen wasn't given much of a chance to be emotional. The only chances that he gets are toward the end and they are just not enough. Natalie Portmann is also given a tremendous challenge as she has to cry in almost every scene. She gives it a shot but it just isn't enough. The moments with Vader in the suit are nothing. VADER IS THE GUY IN THE SUIT WITH THE VOICE OF JAMES EARL JONES!!! We get that Vader, the real Vader, for about fifteen seconds. The lines that Jones does have bring back the magic so Lucas responds by giving us fifteen seconds of it. That is NOT a payoff. The special effects are great but other that McDiarmid, the actors don't pay off and the script is boring and unemotional to the point of tedium. Shouldn't somebody have cared here?
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A tremendous, though flawed, romp for children
29 January 2005
I saw Harry Potter and the Sorceror's Stone last night with a friend of mine. It is the first time that I have seen a Harry Potter film. The movie is highly entertaining and enthralling. Richard Harris, as the old wizard, is the movie's Yoda and, in fact, there are many similarities between this movie and the original Star Wars trilogy. Spiritually superior kid Harry (Luke Skywalker) is sent to live with foster parents until he receives his calling to study wizardry (the force) and make his way as a powerhouse in the world (or galaxy.) The movie's weak spot is it's acting among the three main children. Harry is a super mature young person, scary for someone who's really just a kid and should be acting like one. His buddy, Weasely, is in the film as comic relief and no doubt received one acting command "Look scared." This he does often and well. The little girl (sorry don't remember her name and can't back arrow) is as cute as she can be but isn't a tremendously talented actress at this point in her young life. The backbone of the movie is it's delightful old guard. Maggie Smith, as delightful as ever, plays a witch/professor. Her presence and her voice are still absolute magic (important for a film about magic!) Robbie Coltrane is a great big teddy bear and he creeps into our hearts. John Cleese is a perfect casting move as Nearly Headless Nick, the almost headless ghost that hangs around the Hogwarts school. Alan Rickman is absolutely stone cold cool as the dark Professor Snape. He is so darn rigid that he talks almost without talking. There are tremendous little details in the movie, such as images in old paintings coming to life, that make the movie rich and absolute fun to look at. The plot is decent, although it's not very tight and there are reaches and lots of guesses (most of them correct) along the way when we think, "How could they know that?", etc. The movie is also delightfully (the last time I'll use the word delightful) English, told in a lighthearted and intellectual fashion. Fun entertainment, not for adults to watch more than once but new young viewers will (and have) eat it up.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
For kids who sniff paint or glue
12 January 2005
Jim Carrey is a funny guy. Parts of this movie are funny. Too many parts of this movie are too disgusting to be funny. If you have a brain dead child, he or she will enjoy Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls. I laughed at parts of this movie as they are actually pretty funny. The main problem is that the actors are very obscure celebrities and Carrey has the whole movie to himself. The Ace Ventura character is not funny enough to carry an entire movie without good supporting help and there is little of that here. Carrey is much funnier when he becomes subject to the plot, not when he tries to dominate it. Subtle humor is always funnier anyway but Carrey is too hyper and/or manic too frequently for my taste. That kind of action sinks Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls. The movie is light hearted and is easy watching and the overall plot really isn't that bad. The Ace Ventura character has worn out his welcome by the end of this, however, which is no doubt why there hasn't been another sequel and probably never will be unless Carrey gets desperate.
10 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
The script is better than the horrible casting and execution
3 January 2005
I have read the script for this movie and it is funnier than the movie turned out to be. The casting is horrible. I like Cary Elwes but he's a dramatic talent and not a funny man. I can see him as a serious Robin Hood in a serious movie. Here, however, he is simply not funny and his dignity never seems to break, also not good for a stupid humor movie. Amy Yasbeck also seems like a dramatic talent but, for whatever reason, she keeps getting stuck in comedy movies and comedy TV series. You can almost read her mind going, "This material is so stupid. What am I doing here?" Chris Rock would have been funnier in the role of Achoo. Dave Chappelle is considered very funny by many people but he's just dull in this. The Blazing Saddle element was attempted here but Chappelle does not have the life in him that Clevon Little had. Richard Lewis as Prince John and Roger Rees as the sheriff are the only two bits of good casting in the flick. Lewis is boring here and not nearly as nervous as the part called for, strange because he is what one thinks of to play a nervous comedian. The movie's lone bright spot is Rees as the sheriff of Rottingham. He is very funny in the part and gives it the ridiculous portrayal that a movie of this type needs. The guy who played Blinkin is a funny guy but, instead of a loving parody of blind humor, the movie comes off as being cruel. The "rap" stuff also isn't good. If you want to produce rap, go all the way and make it real, not lily "white" rap. There is also a part in the original script where Achoo launches into a gigantic anti-white tirade. This was excluded from the final film for obvious reasons. Nothing subtle here from Brooks. He simply wanted to pick a topic and mail it it. Maybe he needed the money.
1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The Simpsons (1989– )
Genius humor, brilliant creativity in a stereotypical, diverse comic world
25 December 2004
The Simpsons is really not much more than a smarter, more diverse and richer animated version of Married with Children. But as MWC is a reviled show by many, The Simpson's is much beloved. Why? Probably the characters. The characters are the show's biggest strength. Indeed, The Simpson's world is so diverse with different characters representing different parts of humanity that most people can at least relate to some part of the show (no character with a disability though. I guess that's not funny.) Burns represents the greedy robber barons of capitalism, Apu represents the foreign invasion of gasoline Marts, Wiggum represents the cops, Moe and Barny represent the bar culture, etc, etc, etc. In having so many different characters, the show never gets stale (it couldn't to last as long as it has.) If one show focuses on one character, another show focuses on another. Eventually, characters touched on in previous episodes can rotate and pop up every now and again, which become cameo delights. The real genius of the show lies in how the character's personalities, wants, desires, etc are presented with such high intelligence, width of knowledge, development and, of course, humor. Politicians are on the take (often like life), cops are incompetent (often like life), robber barons are bitter old loners out to rule the world with money and power (often like life.) The show does have it's stereotypes for the sake of stereotypes but stereotypes are also part of life. The show also shows tremendous care for details and continuity and shows as much love and respect in some directions as it shows blatant disrespect in others. The people behind The Simpson's are very liberal and the show has a definite liberal slant to it. Still, the show doesn't fail to put certain things into the proper perspective in many cases. Alcoholics exist and can be funny but alcoholism is very bad. The show takes great care to illustrate such truths in the Homer and Barney characters. Homer is a mainstream drunk, Barney is a down and out drunk but both are considered and displayed as incompetent social inferiors. Ned Flanders is an idiotic goofball but he is a cheery guy who means well and the show takes pains to illustrate that Flanders is a solid member of society, who succeeds where guys like Homer fail, because Flanders is a good guy. That he is so naive is his cross to bear and shines a better light on characters like Homer in that respect. In that way, The Simpson's universe has balance and pays homage to the superb development of the characters over the show's run. The show centers around the Simpson family itself, of course. Homer is the drunk loser. Marge is the classic enabler. Bart is the wise a** and Lisa is the kid who tries to be brilliant enough to get away from these people. In this way, the central characters are Married with Children like, except Lisa is a brain and is not promiscuous and Marge is a good wife and not a bad one. The Homer and Al Bundy characters are classic couch potatoes with bum, dead end jobs and not much growth overall in life. The Simpsons' world has lasted much longer and has been much more critically acclaimed due to the characters in that world. Their personalities are all funny and, truly, there is not one really bad and unfunny character in the show, a testament to the overall artistic evolution of those behind the scenes. At times, The Simpsons is irresponsible in a Beavis and Butthead like way (can't you see Bart on the couch with Beavis and Butthead?) and the humor crosses the line at times and is weak, pathetic, ignorant, unnecessary and cruel. I guess these things happen when you've been on the air for so long. The richness of the Simpson's world helps it overcome such problems and the tremendously educated humor, while biased and frequently one-sided, is still funny enough in problem spots and genius enough overall to make this show last, maybe forever, and much of the humor is in good spirits. The show has become part of popular culture on a level with shows like Seinfeld, All in the Family and The Cosby Show.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Beavis and Butt-Head (1993–2011)
Funny and much smarter than meets the eye
23 December 2004
I liked Beavis and Butthead when I watched it in 1993-1994. The show was much smarter than was advertised. For one thing, it realized that sex and sexuality is at the base for many more human actions than is generally realized and accepted. The format and execution may have been childish but the concepts and ideas were fairly advanced. In that way, Beavis and Butthead was a much more psychological show than a lot of the other garbage that has floated around in TV history. The fire comments, the animal abuse, etc, is the part of the show that is unfortunate. Without such things, however, there would be no Beavis and Butthead. Still, the show does not attempt to hide that these activities are sick and is a much more honest show in that respect than many others. Beavis and Butthead was a necessary show for tackling topics, no matter how stupid, that are rarely touched upon in society. In that way, it provided (GASP!) a service. The characters around Beavis and Butthead were funnier than Beavis and Butthead themselves, such as Anderson and Buzzcut. For anyone who has ever done or wanted to do anything retarded (haven't we all been there?), Beavis and Butthead is for you. Personally, I've been Beavis and Butthead level stupid at times, myself, and I really enjoyed the show.
40 out of 49 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Fun for mystery lovers but an awful movie
22 December 2004
I grew up loving Agatha Christie novels and I grew up loving this movie. The idea is great, the execution is fun in many places but the overall "mystery" in the movie is A+ terrible. Where to begin? The Perrier character is, of course, a take off of Hercule Poirot. Poirot is, of course, a Belgian character that is constantly correcting people who think that he is French. In Murder by Death, Perrier also corrects a character (Sam Diamond) who calls him, "Frenchie." Perrier than says that he's "not a Frenchie...I'm a Belgie." This is fine and funny. However, TWICE later on in the movie, Perrier says that he is French! He refers to himself when he says to "never underestimate a Frenchman's nostrils" and that a character came to "France every season", which is where Perrier was! Was anyone paying attention? The final solutions make zero sense and the "mystery" is full of more holes than can be believed. The movie is pure camp meant to ape great detectives of fiction and, in that, it succeeds. Peter Sellers, genius that he was, is great as Inspector Wang, David Niven is fun and classy as always, Maggie Smith is great, etc. The cast is tremendous. The mood and atmosphere are tremendous. The plot points are beyond ridiculous in spots. Maybe it was the idea of those involved to make the movie ridiculous and nonsensical. If that was the goal, than they succeeded. Still, the movie is fun for mystery lovers of fiction. Otherwise, it's mostly gibberish.
12 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
NOT BRAM STOKER'S Dracula!!
14 December 2004
Francis Ford Coppola robots gush about this and that is fine. This movie is NOT Bram Stoker's Dracula. The X's and O's are the same in some spots but the movie's message is just not like the book's. First off, the movie is anti-Catholic church and reaches for the pathetic plot point that Dracula became a dark vampire because of the church and that it was the church's fault. Typical Hollywood to try and attack the church and pass it off as a man's novel, a man who is long since dead and can't defend himself. Second, the ridiculous plot that has Mina being Dracula's long lost soul mate is also not in the book. That this movie can't follow a simple point that Dracula is the villain and not the hero, as the movie maintains, is pathetic. The movie is manipulative, Hollywood bilge. By the way, the scenes of beastiality (Dracula "giving it" to Lucy are also not in the book.

In the book, Dracula merely drains Lucy and is his typical "man dressed in black self." Mina and Lucy kissing are also not in the book. This movie is NOT Bram Stoker's Dracula in that the message is closer to hardcore pornography then Stoker's God loving novel. If Hollywood wants to produce this weird mess than that is fine as that is it's choice. But saying that it is Bram Stoker's Dracula when it clearly is not is nothing but cheap plagiarism. The movie is nicely filmed otherwise but Winona Ryder is awful and confused here. Gary Oldman is great but Hopkins' Van Helsing is a goof and an outsider. He is like the book in his delivery but not in his emotion.

4.5/10
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Parts of the script were cut out
18 October 2004
A friend of mine recommended this movie to me for it's weirdness quotient. I watched it with him and I couldn't agree more. However, I went over the script a while back and parts are cut out that would at least have made the movie a bit more consistent. There are more conversations that seek to explain Gordon Cole's eccentricities. There is also a scene in the script that was deleted that has Laura and Donna eating muffins fixed by Donna's mother. Laura calls Donna a muffin. This scene was omitted and the scene where Laura says that she is the muffin (after the guy says he's the "Great Went") makes no sense. Much of the cut script are the parts that make Laura's life seem at least a bit normal and a bit routine. There is also a dinner scene with Laura and her parents before the dinner where Leland makes Laura wash her hands. The script actually flowed somewhat smoothly when you read it. The movie just turned out to be a mess for whatever reason.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mitchell (1975)
He's really good in The Distinguished Gentleman
29 September 2004
Man, I ripped on Joe Don and this movie bad when I first reviewed it. It's not quite THAT bad. The problem with this is that Joe Don's character is just strange. Comedic cop? Serious cop? Batman? Joe Don's character is kind of all over the place and the movie's interpretation of him is all over the place. The movie is cop/drug dealer formula. There are some good actors in this thing (Martin Balsam, Morgan Paul.) I'm trying to find a silver lining here. Uh, I'm still trying. Man, those clothes were bad. Really awful. The movie kind of takes us right into the gutter with Mitchell doesn't it? Boy. The movie is bad. Nothing personal Joe Don. I would really like to know from the filmmakers what their intent was here. Tongue in cheek cop flick? I'm guessing that Mitchell was supposed to be a tough, unbribable cop but a bit of a goof at the same time. I guess that was supposed to make us respect and love him at the same time. Didn't work too well. Joe Don just comes off as an angry alcoholic cop. He's good (and in good shape!) in The Distinguished Gentleman. We love you Joe Don!
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
LUGOSI WAS SUPPOSED TO ACT LIKE THIS!!!!!
29 September 2004
I wrote a review once about how bad Lugosi's performance was, mechanical, etc. I read afterwards that this movie was supposed to follow the continuity of The Ghost of Frankenstein. As Ygor's brain had ended up in the monster but that he went blind, thus was what was originally scripted and shot for the film. Because Ygor was played by Lugosi and Ygor's brain was put in the monster, thus was Lugosi cast as the monster in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man. And because the monster's blood didn't mix with Ygor's and the monster went blind, that's how the monster was shot in this movie. The monster, played by Lugosi, was shot as a blind monster, thus Lugosi staggers around and acts mechanical. There was also dialogue shot of Lugosi speaking in Ygor's (his own) voice. For some reason, after the movie was shot, the filmmakers got rid of the dialogue and there was no mention that the monster was supposed to be blind. Thus, Lugosi is made to be ripped on as the buffoon. The truth is that Lugosi was left high and dry by the filmmakers who erased the explanation of his character and doomed him to misplaced reviews. For a review, I liked this movie. It's very atmospheric and the opening sequence is magnificent stuff. Ilona Massey isn't used well and the final confrontation is disappointing. This movie could have been so much more but it's still fun to watch.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed