Reviews

A close comparison to this movie would be to image a Saturday Night Live sketch involving the Coneheads and a Twilight Zone send-up. But imagine the sketch going on a little too long.

The biggest weakness of "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra" is that it quickly falls into the trap of making it clear to the audience that all involved are aware of the 'unintended' humor. I don't know why movie directors bent on creating camp are afraid of being thought of as clueless. They just can't refrain from giving a 'knowing wink' to the audience.

For a better example of the bygone era of low-budget cinema schlock I suggest you view "Mark of the Astro-Zombies" (2002). That movie comes closer to capturing the feel of Edward D. Wood, Jr. than "The Lost Skeleton of Cadavra".

If you have to watch a dull 1960's nudie/topless movie I'd recommend "Orgy of the Dead" written by Ed D. Wood, Jr. anyday, anytime over this horrible flick. Both are pretty rotten, but "Nude on the Moon" doesn't have as much going for it. I lost track of how many times the opening theme song was played in this 70 minute movie. "Nude on the Moon" is nothing special.

I wasn't too sure about renting this movie. I delayed picking it up primarily because it is a foreign film. I've always felt that the critics were kinder to foreign movies for whatever reason. This is one instance where the critics gave worthy praise.

The spirit of the movie is alive with Chaplin-eque magic. Almost a combination of "The Great Dictator" and "The Kid" (Charlie Chaplin's NOT the Bruce Willis movie). The lighthearted set up during the first half of the movie is needed to further the plot in the second half of the movie. The humor is over-the-top, but thankfully, the drama isn't. The film maker could have decided to be very heavy handed and force the audience to cry. He did not. I commend him for completely braking away from traditional movie formulas.

It wasn't necessary to shove the pain and suffering of the holocaust down our throats. Many other film makers have already done that. We know it was horrible. The entire point of the movie was to show courage in an unusual way not to showcase barbarism. This whole film had a freshness about it and yet it seemed a throwback to the golden age of movies.

Probably one of the best movies in the 1990s due largely to its unique approach of frightening times.

This has remained my favorite movie ever since I can remember. I've loved the Marx Brothers since my childhood (roughly 30 years ago) and this was the first of their 13 films I saw on TV. I can understand why it was initially a bomb at the theaters in the 1930s. The humor is set at lightning fast pace. A crowd can laugh loudly right over the next few jokes.

In the next couple of Marx Brothers films the boys road tested the material so as to time the humor to audience response (plus they added sappy love story subplots). To me, this puts "A Night At The Opera" and "A Day At The Races" behind "Duck Soup".

The manditory musical numbers inserted into almost all depression-era movies (after the advent of sound) are even tolerable in "Duck Soup" because the brothers push them over-the-top. Don't expect an engaging plot. In fact, don't expect much of a plot at all. This is one of those films that you can jump into anytime (but you'll later want to see all that you missed).

This movie is best viewed on a one-on-one basis. The perfect film if you're feeling lonely and depressed (as confirmed by Woody Allen in the 1980s with "Hannah & Her Sisters"). If it were a boxing match, you'd never know what hit you.

I've got to say that I'd hoped to like this movie. And, to be honest, the acting and look of the film is top-notch. The huge weak link in the entire production is the story. And for me that's the entire movie.

After all, I bear a strong resemblance to Stephen King (Really! Pity me). I'd like to be able to be mistakenly associated with someone I could be proud of. Sadly, I do not admire King's character development. I have a problem with his "good vs. evil" running commentary. I appreciate more depth in literary figures than Stephen King is capable of delivering.

I could give several examples of flaws throughout this film. Why did no one expose Mr. Coffey's ability? Why did the evil "Wild Bill" remain quite in key scenes like the pre-execution turned awry? How could a prison official in the 1930's let a black convicted murderer enter his wife's room and watch as the killer placed his lips on that of the warden's ailing spouse?

Too bad the project wasn't handled by Touchstone Pictures. Maybe then we'd see more parallels being drawn between Mister Jingles and Mickey Mouse. Mouseville in Florida? Puts me in the mind of Goofy.

While having pure characters with contrasts as obvious as "black and white" (no play on words intended) make easy paint-by-numbers storytelling, it doesn't satify completely. Hell, I thought old Del (the Cajun convict) was friggin' innocent!!! And who except Satan-worshipping parents would name their child "Percy Wetmore"?! Christ, did they WANT kids to constantly kick the crap out of him as he grew up?! By the end, I couldn't believe a word of this story.

Stephen King needs to learn to start mixing his paints. His storytelling reeks of a child's ability to use crayons and a coloring book. He always uses solid colors and stays within the lines. Black mixed with white makes gray, Stephen! People in the real world are gray! There are no absolutes!!! Start writing for a sophisticated audience and not like a two-bit hack cranking out Depression-era movie serial westerns! The Fred Astaire movie "Top Hat" had more basis in the real world than this shell of a story.

This is Bert I. Gordon's rookie outing in the world of film making. Known to his fans as "Mr. B.I.G." not only because of his initials, but for using rear screen projections of various living creatures throughout his long movie career. Sadly, this film doesn't have his trademark style.

Partially narrated from Sonny Tuft's point-of-view, the movie's plot is very familiar and very "old hat". Sonny Tuft looks like a cross between the Skipper and his little buddy from Gilligan's Island. Rosalind Hayes is very stiff and unconvincing as an actress. Her performance reeks of being that of a Junior High School's drama club student. There is no romantic chemistry between Tufts and Hayes, although she must have spent more time in a science lab than on the school's cafeteria stage.

You get plenty of footage from a real Haitian voodoo ceremony. Too much footage. Go get yourself a snack when you hear the bongo drums and chanting. Or fashion a doll of Rosalind Hayes thus using pins in a more productive aspect than plunging them into your eyes after the first half-hour.

The biggest let down is the snake of Serpent Island. When you see Mr. B.I.G.'s name on the video box you're thinking "Man, I bet he used a cobra and made it look like it's as long as a football field!". The title monster is nothing more than your everyday, garden variety boa constrictor. And not a very big one at that. I did find myself perked up a bit once the snake started to wrap itself around Ms. Hayes' neck, though.

Unless you're a completist fan of Mr. Bert I. Gordon, you should skip this offering. There is nothing notable about this movie other than being his first foray onto the silver screen. You're better off jumping straight to his second picture "KING DINOSAUR". That was the true beginning for Mr. B.I.G.!

This film actually made me question my heterosexuality. During my early 20's I would spend hours on end with friends hanging out at topless clubs. We'd nurse our drinks and view women in G-strings for 4 to 6 hour stretches. We lived in a very dull town.

Now I never thought it would be possible to lower the male libido by viewing semi-nude women prancing around. I was wrong. DEAD WRONG! Maybe it's the fact the every female dancer in this movie only learned three steps. Maybe it's the atrocious music that plays throughout the dance numbers. I've never seen a movie last so long. The only bright spot, if you can call it that, comes from a woman wearing a leopard outfit (complete with holes cut out for her breasts and buttocks) doing the Bunny-Hop to music provided by a toy piano. But this too gets old after 3 minutes.

I think convicted sex offenders should be made to watch this movie every day of their incarceration. The movie is very painful to watch. You find yourself pleading for more dialog between the werewolf and the mummy (which is 100% pure Ed D. Wood, Jr.).

First of all, let me clear up a frequently sighted misconception: only two brief scenes were taken from the 1940's "One Million, B.C.". The scene with a wooly mammoth trying to shake off the fake fur and another bit with a Komodo dragon sticking it's tongue out for the camera. THAT'S IT! All of the iguana scenes were filmed especially for "KING DINOSAUR".

This is an unbelievable time capsule of a movie. It has all of the popular science fiction elements: Space travel, dinosaurs, and atomic bombs. Filmed during a weekend at Bronson's Canyon in Hollywood, this bit of cinematic tripe should give hope to any aspiring film maker. The fact that it was produced and actually released in theaters is an amazement.

It only has a cast of four people (the other glimpses of humans are from military stock footage). The dialogue is ridiculous. The acting is poor. The handling of animals is cruel. The entire plot doesn't have a single thread of reality in it. If you view a particular scene with the salamander you'll see a human hand holding onto the reptile's tail. If you view the scene where the iguana is first encountered, you'll see the actress get her head shoved into a rock and wince in very real pain. You'll find dozens of contrived scenes and numerous examples of impossibilities that are shrugged off by the scientific quartet.

I love this movie! This film ranks up there with the Marx Brothers "Duck Soup" as one I could view repeatedly and not get bored. There is just something about it. It's the equivalent of a ten car pile-up on the freeway. You are dumbfounded by the carnage. You want to look away, but you can't. You see so much in such a brief time.

This is a perfect example of the "So bad it's good" movie genre. You'll catch small errors in continuity and fact through repeated viewings. Completely silly from start to finish without intending to be. The final line is bloated with irony. Did the lead actor mean for the line to be interpreted sarcastically or with pride? You be the judge!

The only thing I can truly be thankful for is, perhaps, the horror genre will finally move away from the hack & slash gore which has flooded the silver screen for the past 30 years with pale imitators of the original "Night of the Living Dead". As for "The Blair Witch Project" itself, the film is two-dimensional in both character and plot. I couldn't help but to keep looking at my watch everytime a series of whiny exchanges between the three main characters kept repeating ad nauseam. Unfortunately, the public at large seldom allows themselves the opportunity to view older movies for the first time. If you would like to see far superior films to "The Blair Witch Project", I would suggest you rent the original "The Haunting" from 1963 >"Curse of the Demon" from 1957, "Five Million Years to Earth" from 1968, and "Freaks" from 1932. It's interesting to note that "Freaks" was originally panned by the critics and by the public as being depraved yet it is now regarded as a horror classic which was way ahead of its time. I would encourage you to pick up any of the above mentioned videos when you rent "The Blair Witch Project" for Halloween. If you even get the slightest chill from viewing "The Blair Witch Project" you'll break out in goosebumps while seeing any of the older and far superior videos.