Reviews

I am not going to mention the worst acting since The Room, rushed editing, amateurish directing, gigantic plot holes, or the 'slippery corridor' scenes, because this could actually be fun to watch. Not to mention the main girl going full John McLane (see Die Hard) on the teenage attackers; they can fool the entire sheriff dept/police/SWAT teams, but they have nothing on her, because she was trained by her ex-military dad (see Commando)

What is inexcusable is the silly action movie treatment of the deadly-serious subject (see Elephant), and the message the movie conveys: teach your kids how to handle guns, tell them how to shoot animals, because one day they might just need that to shoot terrorists.

Avoid, or watch and weep. I'd rather see Die Hard and Elephant yet again.

A young woman defrauds her boss and attempts to get away with the money. On her way to escape, she stops at a deserted motel owned by an introvert Norman Bates (Perkins), and quite unexpectedly gets killed from the hands of Norman's mother. A young couple, with the helping hand of a private eye, follow the tracks of the missing woman down to the motel. And soon the murder unfolds the mystery behind the perpetrator's mind.

Psycho is a masterpiece of a thrilling, typically Hitch meta-genre cinema. Counting the number of references in other movies, you can easily call it a cult classic, which should be dug in the ground inside a time-capsule. The famous shower scene is just one thing why you simply must see this one, although labeling this movie as 'horror' is a bit misleading. Yet, some people consider it a proto-slasher movie, take notice everyone. And after those 45 years it is still a great watch for newbies. Recommended to all the Martians who have fallen on Earth and have no clue about the cinema.

After Batman & Robin I have not counted that I would see anything worse (or better for that matter) with Batman on the big screen. And, surprise surprise, here it is - a good Batman movie, with great Christian Bale as Bruce W., and fantastic Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon (he finally got a positive character, that nut). And it's just the top of the great names here, followed by Rudger Hauer, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine as Alfred.

The movie itself is much more comics-faithful than any previous part. It's dark and bleak, although not that sinister as Batman comics can be (especially from the post-Frank Miller era). We finally can have a good look on Gotham and how vast it is. I didn't like though the bad guys, one of which is a loser with a bag on his head, and the other a former Jedi master, who also happened to train Bruce Wayne in martial arts. Overall, a great entertainment foreseeing even better next parts.

What else could I have expected from such a movie. Reading those local variations of the title makes you laugh for starters, but when you actually sit to watch the movie, you just ask yourself, Where did I go wrong? The movie has it all - Frankenstein monster (only his heart was transported from Germany to Japan, but somehow he acquired an entire, ever-growing body), typical Toho monster stomping over a pile of carton boxes, screaming bunch of Japanese scientists struggling to pronounce 'Frankenstein', and all that stuff. At least nobody is singing. There's a couple of good campy moments, but my overall impression is that this movie is terribly BORING, simple as that. Not that I don't enjoy such flicks, but this one simply puts me to sleep every time I try to watch it all. There's a whole lot of better (or worse, for that matter) Frankenstein movies, as well as Toho movies, be it Godzilla vs. Mothra to name just one. This one is a waste of time, ridiculous and boring.

Yes yes, this movie is a fundamental classic, an epic piece, a masterstroke from Coppolla, Brando, Pacino, etc. But is it really the best movie ever? Well, that's how I interpret the fact it has been on the top of IMDb since I've looked in here for the first time. What makes it so flawless, what contributes to its eternal shining, blah blah. Maybe it's high time for a change, I'm sure a lot of cult classics have been released since The Godfather has been released. Oh well...

I don't like The Godfather. I simply don't feel this movie. Yes it's gloomy, yes it's about mafia's dirty deeds, and oh yes it's about being a part of a family. And of course it's about Kleenex in Marlon's mouth, and Pacino's hands kissed by sad Italians. However I have a feeling that this movie has spawned a countless number of mafia movies, recycling the same themes and Robert De Niro, and furthermore movies like 60 Seconds or Ronin or The Italian Job, which are merely about how cool is it to be a gangster. Which I hate, obviously.

Low budget movies, even horrors, are not bound to be failure - take the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre, take Evil Dead, take Halloween. Howver, if you still consider them bad, it just means you don't have a clue of what Manos The Hands Of Fate brings up. From start to finish, it's just one big mistake, coincidence, lucky shot which somehow made it to the screen, VHS, and to DVD, and will make it to any new format in the future. And whenever you watch it, you're gonna ask the same question: how something like that could have possibly happened? I'm not going to get into details here, as there's not enough space for this kind of elaboration. But every time I even think of this movie I immediately ask myself, Are those guys serious? Or is it just one big joke of the audience? This way or that, this movie is BAD, throughout and forever. And due to this fact, and undeniably MST3K, this movie has become some kind of a classic, and a must-see for all those who enjoy, or at least THINK they do, low-budget b-movies.

I am a big fan of bad horrors, cheap horrors, b movies, and all that bottom 100 movies, and I do not deny those are the worst stuff ever to enter the big screen, or even your home video for that matter. Some of them, e.g. the infamous Manos The Hands of Fate, are truly bad, and watching them, especially on your own without any friends and beer around, is a torture for a good cinema taste.

La Momia Azteca Contra El Roboto Humano, however, was not that bad. Well, of course it's BAD - it's silly, dated, corny, cheap, etc., there's an Aztec mummy, a tin robot, a fat masked villain, a mad scientist, Mexican mobsters, etc. the montage is poor, the lines, well, let's say the lines are not theatrical, the FX and SFX are the best what the Mexican low budget production could've offered, etc. etc. Still, the movie is FUN. it's so bad it makes you laugh cheerfully for an hour time. Sure it depends on one's sense of humor, however I'm pretty sure La Momia should teach any newcomers to this kind of cinema how to enjoy it. Please note: the movie lasts for about an hour, and I think it's just enough time of silliness one is able to easily digest.

There's also another thing - watching La Momia can give you a clue what was the whole SF/Horror genre concept back in the fifties, when you compare it to the present day Matrix era of cinema entertainment. I think it also shows how both the industry and the audience evolved, due to the fact the watches like La Momia still attract full house in the theaters for some special shows (movies like this are special alright), and very often receive a standing ovation.

Ok, as for the Polish cinema, it has to be stated once and for all: out of 10 Polish movies, 1 is a Masterpiece, the others are cheese. And I'm afraid this one is not an exception. Frankly speaking, it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen. First of all, it makes no sense - not that I have anything against nonsense or 'what-is-going-on' movies, but Girl Guide simply lacks the sense where it was supposed to be. Somehow it cannot focus, neither on the relationship of Jozef with that girl (I can't even remember the name of Ms. Gabrielska's character), nor on the criminal plot of Gary's kidnapping. It tries to balance between love and action, but eventually fails to develop neither of them properly. Additionally, there are those confusing 'jumps' from one place to another - why had Jozef, totally out of the blue, gone to his childhood home in the mountains, and why did he meet rastafarians on a jam session with local highlanders there, I will never understand. Second thing, perhaps the worst, is the acting. Pawel Kukiz is great as always - he's not a professional actor (actually he's a folk/rock singer), but at the same time he's the only one who saves the day in this movie. Renata Gabrielska, unfortunately, have no talent at all, and makes a laughing stock of herself all throughout. The fact that she has become a celebrity after this movie tells a lot about the level of the Polish audience. The rest of the cast - don't even bother, except for the blind pianist of course.

This movie was made by Juliusz Machulski, a distinguished director and TV producer, most famous for his hilarious comedies like "Seksmisja" or "Kiler". I don't know what this one was supposed to be, but it's outstandingly not amusing, not entertaining, simply not at all. It's not a good bad-movie, it's not even bad good bad-movie, it's simply BAD.