Reviews

When it comes to Euro-horror, Jean Rollin is one of the most notable names around. And while many of his works are an interesting blend of the erotic and horrific, "The Living Dead Girl" is a mixed bag of missed opportunities.

When an accident caused by some toxic waste dumping grave-robbers causes a young woman to be restored to life, she is reunited with her long-time childhood friend. But when it become apparent that the blood of others is needed to sustain her life, the young woman's undead state isn't the only horror that will be unleashed!

From the start, the film will leave you puzzled about what you are seeing. Not much is made clear in exactly how the "Living Dead Girl" (played by Françoise Blanchard) reanimates. And the flashbacks to her childhood with her friend are equally perplexing, in that it isn't clear what it all means. The pace of the first half of the film is quite slow, with much time spent watching Blanchard meander around her old homestead and through grassy fields. Her childhood friend (played by Marina Pierro), just seems to instinctively know her friend is returned from the dead. It's all rather haphazard storytelling and pacing to get them back together. Once they are together things begin to come into focus, but not entirely. Pierro's character, not only seems to not have much shock at seeing her friend alive, but when she realizes her friend needs the blood of the living to survive and become more human, she seems to have few qualms in rounding up victims for the slaughter.

Then, there's the the subplot with an actress turned photographer and her American boyfriend (played by Carina Barone and Mike Marshall) which seems to go nowhere. They try to set up that Barone's character will expose the fact that Blanchard's character is alive again, but that never happens as no one, including her boyfriend, believes her. And when they end up as just more victims, it makes their entire existence seem like just pointless filler for the film.

Being a Jean Rollin film, though, there's plenty of nudity for the flesh fiends, including a few scenes of full frontal from some of the ladies. Also, gore hounds will get some nice grisly killings, where the blood will flow. There were some interesting concepts at play here, with the blood pact the women made with each other as kids, as well as the role reversal of the two woman. As Blanchard's character becomes more human, she is horrified at what she's become, while Pierro's character, who was at first bewildered at seeing her friend back from the grave, easily slips into becoming a monstrous fiend willing to kill anyone to keep her alive. But these concepts aren't explored nearly as well and deeply as they could have been. It just feels like a lot of wasted potential, brought down by bad directorial choices and a script that wasn't up to the task it was given.

In the end "The Living Dead Girl" has some fascinating elements, in giving a bit of a twist on the classic tropes of vampires and zombies. But it lack the follow through to really make it resonate and have the impact it could have. I'd love to see these concepts handled by folks who were up to the challenge in presenting them a poignant and effectual way. But as it stand, this film is merely a shadow of what it could have been, lacking in that spark of life the title character herself was supposedly lacking. It's a "living dead" example of an intriguing horror film!

This film is often touted as one of the progenitors of the slasher sub-genre of horror films, as well as the magnum opus of writer/director Tobe Hooper. While I certainly can't dispute either of those things, those points also do not mean that this film is everything it is hyped up to be. Nor does it seem worthy of the many sequels that would follow in it's wake.

I found many spots in the film, especially within the first half, that simply drag on way too long. Scenes where nothing really happens. By the time we reach the first kill of the film, you are already about 40 minutes into the film (which has a total run time of about 90 minutes). This glacial pacing in the early part of the film, while perhaps trying to build a mood, simply inspired boredom for me.

Also, while this film is steeped in much controversy, including being banned in other countries for it's "graphic content," and being known as one of the earliest slasher films, it is extremely light on blood and gore. Many later films of this sub-genre would be much more noted for their bloodiness and "graphic content." What Hooper looks to strive for is creating horror through a macabre atmosphere, as the eerie score and odd camera angles and settings would seem to bear out. But these are only effective to a point and some of the strange camera shots quickly become repetitive and owe more to directorial excesses, than to any attempts at psychological horror.

Since none of the actors create any characters you really come to care about, nor does the script often give you any clarity on just what is happening and why, the film hampers itself in making you truly care about anything that happens to these people. And when you are trying to scare someone, if you don't make them feel for either the characters or the situation, that is extremely hard, if not impossible, to do. The only scene that was even remotely scary was the chase scene, at just over halfway through the film. The terror of that scene (which was quite long) is visceral, but it alone cannot make up for so much wasted time earlier in the film, nor for the over-use of specialized camera shots, which make the film seem to drag on way too often.

Is "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" a macabre film? Yes. Is it a bizarre film? Certainly. Is it even a little bit creepy in some spots? Sure enough. But it is not one of the scariest films ever made, as it often gets billed as. It may be one of the original slashers of cinema history, but later films would do a much better job of defining that sub-genre, which this film may have helped to originate. If you are a fan of this franchise, or a die-hard slasher fanatic, then this is a film you probably should see, if only for the historical significance alone. Everyone else can give it a pass, as there are much better slasher films, which are truly much scarier than this one could ever hope to be. In short, "don't believe the hype!"

"Motel Hell" is quite a difficult film to gauge. It is referred to as a horror-comedy, but that description isn't very accurate, as it is more weird than funny and more macabre than scary.

The story revolves around a couple of hoteliers (played by Rory Calhoun and Nancy Parsons), who have a side business selling fine smoked meats. But what makes the meats so good is the terrifying secret ingredient of human flesh.

I have to say, going into this film, I wasn't quite sure what to expect. With cannibalism being a factor in the film, you might be expecting a lot of gruesome scenes. Yet, surprisingly, there is very little in the way of graphic gore to be found. The story is also a bit odd, in that there are some scenes that seem to drag on, yet give you little in the way of a pay-off. Also, most of the acting is fairly poor. Whether this is due to the lack of skills of the actors, or a case of a script that gives them little to work with, I can't really say. The side drama about the love triangle involving Terry (played by Nina Axelrod) and the brother of the cannibal farmer, who is also the town's Sheriff (played by Paul Linke), is little more than a strained (and sometimes dull) attempt to set up the final conflict between the brothers. Although, the film can boast of being an early work for actor John Ratzenberger (who would go onto heights of television fame on the series "Cheers"). Unfortunately, he gets very little to do in the film (including not a single piece of dialog) being nothing more than a victim to be killed. Director Kevin Connor never really seems to bring the story to life, until towards the very end. And if you haven't found yourself engaged long before that point, it probably won't much matter to you. The cinematography is fine, but it feels like it would play better on an old drive-in screen, than on your television, which is probably only fitting, as the film was obviously geared for such a venue.

The only things that save this film from the scrap pile, are the last 20 minutes of the film and the solid performance of Rory Calhoun as the cannibalistic farmer. He manages to make you believe both his down-home country manners and his twisted psychotic reasoning in killing people for food. His performance stands high above anyone else in the film. And the final battle at the film's end also brings a spark of life to what, up until this point, has been a very strange and slow-moving tale. When Calhoun's character comes out wearing a pig's head and wielding a chainsaw, it is truly a sight to behold.

As I said at the start, "Motel Hell" is a hard film to figure out. It's not really good and looks extremely dated today, but neither is it total crap and completely uninteresting. Die-hard horror buffs might want to check this one out, but I highly doubt many others would have much interest in this cult film. It really is an enigma in the world of horror cinema.

As the second installment of the "Rambo" saga, this film definitely ups-the-ante in terms of action and body count. "Rambo: First Blood Part II" takes Rambo back to the jungles of Vietnam, where most of the mental traumas that dog him began. His mission is to search for missing POWs, instead he falls right back into a war that, for him, has never really ended.

As I said, the action in this film goes way beyond anything we saw in the first one (but with James Cameron as one of the screenplay writers, that's not exactly a surprise). Less content to let the personal and political dramas propel the action, this film is pretty much the reverse, with the action being cause to create those plot developments. In many way, this film seems to forget the humanity shown in the original and opts to let the excitement of the moment wash over you, like the backwash of an F-16 fighter jet, as the explosive battle sequences blast you against the back wall. Although, while extremely over the top in almost every stunt and fight, to the point ungodly suspension of disbelief is pretty much the order of the day, it is a beautifully choreographed bloodbath to behold. It basically, for good or ill, set the stage for what the 80's action epic would be expected to achieve for the rest of the decade.

While not exactly a deeply emotive character in the first film, Sly gets even less moments here. There is no understanding to what Rambo is feeling being back in the place that has tortured him so. There is almost no attempt to play on those feelings at all, save an all-too-brief scene on a boat, between Rambo and the young Vietnamese woman (played by Julia Nickson) who is helping him in the mission, but that's as far as they go to give you any idea on what Rambo is thinking and feeling, being back in 'Nam after all this time. I would have liked to get into Rambo's thoughts more, as the traumas he'd suffered there could have added even more depth to an emotionally complex character. But that simply isn't what this film was about.

Richard Crenna reprises his role, as Rambo's C.O., but he gets very little to do in this film. Whereas in the first he was a key to understanding Rambo and used to contrast the political themes that were presented, here he is merely a very small cog, used mainly to set up the plot to get Rambo back into action. He does have one very intense scene, where he argues with the slimy Washington bureaucrat (played by Charles Napier), which brought back a momentary flair from the first film, but it is over quickly, as the need to get back to the jungle slaughter is the paramount concern here.

"Rambo: First Blood Part II" was less the ending of an iconic character's saga (not the least of which is due to the fact two more sequels were made) and more the start of replacing character-driven action, with action-driven drama. It created a new standard for what action films could be (and in many cases, would be) from that point on. It set up a game of constant oneupmanship with the other action stars of the day, as they all attempted to outdo what this film began. In some ways, this film is almost a whole new entity, completely separate from the original film in every thing but the characters names, yet it is also strangely completely bound to it. As a sequel to a film that had some very deep philosophical and political themes, this film fails to recapture almost any of that same spirit, but in terms of spinning the action film genre into an ever growing and testosterone-fueled behemoth, determined to make the impossible seem probable, as well as solidifying Rambo's status as an 80's icon for all-time, the film succeeds on a level no other film could ever hope to manage. This is truly the film that epitomizes the phrase, "check your brain at the door and enjoy!" Which I am more than able to do.

A lot of people would likely classify this film as an "action movie." While there is certainly some great action sequences to be found here, it is really so much more than that. "First Blood" is something more than the typical shoot 'em up action epic, as it has the undertones of some very definite political themes and societal messages that most mere "action movies" never do.

Aside from Rocky Balboa, John J. Rambo is without question the most iconic character in Sylvester Stallone's long career. And of the two, he is certainly the more emotionally complex. A man of deep loyalties and convictions, he is also easily able to shun aside the moralities of the supposed civilized world and, when provoked, become little more than a killing machine. It is this duality of a man who simply wants a quiet place for himself in the world, yet who is capable of committing some of the most outrageous acts of violence ever seen, that is what make the character so compelling.

But it isn't simply Sly's performance as Rambo that gives the film such resonance. Equally adding the this potent dramatic brew are veteran actors Brian Dennehy and Richard Crenna. While Sly spends most of the film running through forests and slogging through tunnels, the interaction between Dennehy and Crenna's characters brilliantly encapsulate the clash of political views at the story's core.

As noted the action scenes are very well done here. They almost make you believe that Rambo could single-handedly take down an entire town. They never go too far, or become too outlandish, with things. They keep it feeling just realistic enough to add the much needed tension for the inevitable showdown at the film's end. Adding to this is the stellar musical score by Jerry Goldsmith, which is just the perfect compliment to the story unfolding. It never distracts you from what's occurring on screen and, in fact, enhances the emotions of the situations even more. Just what any good score should do.

What more can be said about this film, that hasn't already been said a thousand times before? The film would create a cultural icon that would embody the decade of the 80's, as well as inspire sequel films for over 20 years. But while those sequels would easily up the ante in terms of non-stop action, they would never attain the same level of emotional drama that this film does. "First Blood" was a film that asked a lot of hard questions about a war, and it's aftermath, that had no easy answers. And that, above all else, is what makes it more than merely "another 80's action movie." It makes it a classic!

As a bit of a horror film buff, I'm always looking to check out some of the older b-movie horrors of the past, both to learn more about what makes for a good scare, as well as to get interesting insights into exactly how and why those things have changed over the decades. And I can safely say that "Eaten Alive" provided none of that for me.

This is the third film from Director Tobe Hooper (known mainly for his cult classic "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre"). Once again, the film revolves around a mentally disturbed person, living within the southern part of the United States. This time around, the story is about a deranged inn keeper who, for reasons never explained, keeps killing the guests who come to his motel and feeding them to the large crocodile in the swamp next to it.

Those who are familiar with Hooper's style, will see a lot of similarities between this film and his most famous work, "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre", which was the film he made directly preceding this one. It is filled with the kind of strange and oddball cinematography, with weird neon lighting and close-up focusing shots on weird images throughout. But unlike the previous work, it doesn't really gel here. What once might have been directorial excess, is simply pointless and unintelligible nonsense. It is obvious he's trying to set an eerie and creepy atmosphere, but it is just so poorly crafted and lacking in any sense of commonality, that what is meant to feel bizarre and surreal, feels completely unbelievable instead. The script for this must have been about one page long, as that is how bad the plot and storytelling here is.

The acting is, also, very much below par, even by low budget horror film standards. It is shown that the inn keeper (played by Neville Brand) is out-of-his-mind, but we never come to understand why or what it is the guests do that sets him off. This lack of context makes it almost impossible to be scared by his crazy (re)actions and leaves you more inclined to scratch your head in puzzlement, than to feel any sense of dread or menace. None of the other characters really gets enough development for you to care about them, save that of Buck (played by a then unknown Robert Englund). His performance is the only one to have any real resonance at all and even that isn't very much.

Perhaps Hooper thought he could capture lightning in a bottle for a second time, like he did with "The Texas Chain Saw Massacre" a couple years earlier (even going so far as to bring back Marilyn Burns to play the part of a victim once more). But as this film shows, it isn't something you can force or easily recreate. As a result, "Eaten Alive" never really comes to life or finds it's own voice (a point only belabored, by the fact this film has been renamed many different times). It just stagnates and meanders, providing no real thrills, scares, or even the macabre tone of TCM. If you are a Hooper completist, you might derive some kind of enjoyment or interest from this outing. Otherwise, you are best just to skip on this uninteresting and plot less bomb. The reason this film is highly overlooked, isn't because it was ahead of it's time. It is because efforts this poor are better off being forgotten.

This film very much plays up that noir-ish quality one would find in some old-school detective novels. It's hard-boiled and ham-fisted all the way. It could even be considered a little bit fun, but it has some problems.

Rebecca De Mornay is easily the best performance of the group here (and the only worthwhile one). She's got the acting chops to play things cold and hard, yet still has the looks to bring in the sexual component needed. While being played by both ends, courtesy of Dana Delany and Kiefer Sutherland, we also get a look into her character's past, that shows her to be just as much damaged goods as anyone else involved in this duplicitous love triangle and murder scheme.

Unfortunately, while De Mornay shines in her role, the same cannot be said for the others. Delany's attempts to play up being a criminally-minded femme are completely undone every time she smirks. You never believe anything she's telling you, which makes you wonder why anyone else would. Meanwhile, Kiefer Sutherland's character is simply bland a boring. There is no real chemistry in their performances, unless it is supplied by De Mornay's character. It is a clear cut case of highly-talented actors, wasting said talent on material that is beneath their skills.

The film is well shot and has some very nice settings, but the last 10-15 minutes of the film ruins much of the tension built-up before, as what happens in them is more hackneyed and telegraphed, than in a Mickey Spillane pulp fiction story. Also, the film is rated "R," but there didn't seem to be much in the movie that seemed to require such a rating. Remove a few f-bombs, and trim the one main love-making scene by a few seconds, and it is PG-13 material all the way.

In the end, it is only Rebecca De Mornay who gives this film any real interest or life, as she pretty much carries anything of value within it single-handed. Everything else is just dime store novel reject material, which explains why it went straight to DVD. Still, it is watchable, even if in a trashy way. This is no great mystery or caper flick, but something to pass the time and quickly be forgotten shortly thereafter.

This film is the epitome of 80's cheesiness. You've got fast cars, hot chicks, a revenge-fueled plot and Clint Howard (with one of the funniest hairdos ever). Yet, the film has a certain charm that makes you kind of enjoy the spectacle of it all.

Charlie Sheen plays the lead hero, bent on getting back at the gang who murdered him. That's pretty much as far as the script goes, as far as advancing any kind of plot. This of course, leaves many unanswered questions, as a result. Why is Sheen's character given this second chance for revenge? Why race each gang member separately, when he could kill them all at once? Where are all the adults (save the sheriff, played by Randy Quaid)? Why are the police so inept at stopping things, when they know who the street-racing punks are? It seems providing such answers was never a big priority, as most of the film is spent with cars racing (and blowing up), or Sheen's character reconnecting with his old girlfriend. It is obvious that this film is trying to appeal to the 16-20 year old crowd (and adults who still think like them).

Sherilyn Fenn, who plays said girlfriend, provides the prerequisite nudity and damsel in distress required for the story, while Nick Cassavetes is equally adequate as the slimy and somewhat unstable gang leader. Most of the performances are very stiff and wooden, with little in the way of any realistic dialog or emotion. Very typical of an 80's schlock affair, such as this.

The two areas the film does excel in, however, are the car races and the soundtrack. The cinematography of the cars battling for the dominance of speed are very well done. It is about the only part of the film that will inspire any thrills, which shouldn't be surprising, as some of the crew were killed during the making of some of those scenes. Then, of course, the soundtrack is simply rocking, with some of the biggest metal bands and artists providing that trashy 80's sound. The races and music help the film to keep the pace moving fast, which is probably for the best, as it helps make it more enjoyable and keeps you from focusing on the lack of plot and acting ability.

In the final analysis, "The Wraith" is simply a blend of the average revenge-fantasy and the superficial coolness of youth. Think "Death Race 2000" meets "Death Wish," only with an 80's vibe. It's actually pretty harmless fun, if you allow yourself to simply give in to the sheer inanity of the premise and don't expect everything to make sense. It's a decent way to kill some time, with the empty kind of thrills the 80's usually provided.

Created long before they dropped the world of "South Park" on the universe, this is the first work by the satirical geniuses, Matt Stone and Trey Parker. Steeped in the traditions of using toilet humor and musicals, which they have come to make famous, they tackle the true story of one of the most harrowing and gruesome events in American history.

While the subject matter would seem ill-advised for comedic trope, they manage to make it funny with the many outlandish and ludicrous situations and songs to keep this parody palatable. The song "Let's Build A Snowman" is one that will quickly get stuck into your brain and you'll be singing along with, before you know it.

The opening scene is quite bloody and macabre, which will serve to remind you that this event was no bag of laughs for those who were involved, but the lowbrow and slapstick nature of the humor will keep you laughing throughout the proceedings. Like watching a chef hone their skills, you will get a very good look at the style of humor Parker and Stone would make a staple of their career. It's obvious this film is very near and dear to them, as the opening song, "It's a Shpdoinkle Day," is still played at the end of every episode of "South Park." This is a bit more lower budget than some of their later films, like "Orgazmo" and "BASEketball," but the true talent of these twisted minds still shines through. The overall transfer of the DVD is pretty good, which is a bit surprising coming from Troma, and is one of the best films from the company's catalog.

If you are a fan of Parker and Stone's other works, then you'll need to have this film in your collection (if you don't already). But even if you only like comedy that isn't "politically correct," then I fully believe you'll enjoy this film and all the ridiculous, off-beat and completely irreverent antics found within. Have a Shpdoinkle day!

In the world of vigilante films, the Exterminator series can certainly hold its own against many others. But while having a fairly violent panache about it, "Exterminator 2" lacks some of the bits of grit and depth the original had.

In this sequel, Robert Ginty reprises his role as the ex-vet turned crime-killing vigilante. But when the Exterminator kills the brother of a revolutionary-minded gang leader, he'll find his private war on crime will become a lot more personal and costly!

Unlike the first film, this one is much more uneven in the delivery of the story. Some of the character relationships and connections are never properly developed. As a result, it lacks some of the raw emotion of the first film. Also, I missed having the point of view of the cop out to stop him. It was a dynamic that really helped to drive the drama and tension in the original. But here, no such dynamic exists. Writer/Director Mark Buntzman tries to fill such voids with the love story between the Exterminator and an exotic dancer with bigger dreams (played by Deborah Geffner), even to the point of putting in a less than necessary sex scene, perhaps to help punch up the exploitative and sleaze factors, but it just doesn't make the grade. Whereas the first film had more grit and complexity to it, this one never even gets close to anything like that. It's all a much more straight-forward affair, that doesn't try to go beyond being a b-grade action film.

That isn't to say there is nothing of enjoyment here. The film does have an ample amount of violence, as you would expect in a vigilante story. The opening scene in the liquor store and the Exterminator's "untimely" arrival is among the most visceral moments in the film and hearkens back a little to the original. Veteran character actor, Frankie Faison, fits in nicely as Ginty's "Man Friday." And Mario Van Peebles does all he can with the one-dimensional villain known simply as "X." The final cat-and-mouse battle between him and the Exterminator was very well done. The film does a decent job on the action stuff, which makes up a little, but not all, of the lacking in other areas the film has.

In a lot of ways, "Exterminator 2" falls into the pitfall many sequels do: They don't really give enough flavor to it, to make doing it feel like a worthwhile effort. It is just a pale and flame-scorched reflection of the original and it shows. It's not horrible, by any means, but it feels a little bland and formulaic. It lacks the depth and hardiness of the original. Genre fans will probably get some mild enjoyment from this outing. Otherwise, you are better off to stick with the first one. It is easily the better of the two!

The ancient lore of a man turning into a beast, is a superstition nearly as old as man himself. But rather than the usual supernatural route such stories typically have, "The Werewolf" takes a different path, based in science, to fit the era of the Atomic Age it was created in.

After an unsuspecting salesman has a car accident, two scientists take him back to their lab and inject him with a serum they have been creating to fight off radiation from nuclear fallout. Unfortunately, the serum has the effect of turning him into a murderous werewolf. And now the man is trapped and a target for death, between a town that is fearful of him and the scientists looking to cover-up their horrific deed.

I liked the twist on the classic take of lycanthropy they did here, giving it a more modern and realistic feel. The backdrop of fear of nuclear annihilation as the catalyst for his predicament, certainly fit he mood and times of America in the 1950's. Steven Ritch was good as the hapless man who has been made into a monster. His anxiety and fear at what he's become came across as genuine. Don Megowan's turn as the town's sheriff, out to stop the monster but somewhat conflicted on just how to do it, was also a nice touch. I liked how he straddled the line between protecting the town and having compassion for the plight of the man made a monster. The moral quandaries he faces, between his duty to the badge and his sympathy for a man in an extraordinary circumstance, brought a nice dimension to the story. Most of the other performances range from adequate to unmemorable, which isn't surprising for 50's horror fare.

There were a few things that bugged me, however. First off, the scenes of the werewolf running through the woods, and the people out searching for him in them, seemed to drag at times. Like they were trying to pad out the film's length. At 79 minutes, there was easily a good 10 minutes that could have been trimmed and nothing of value would have been lost. Then you have the fact we never got to see the car accident and the scientists actually experiment on the man. Not even a flashback sequence. The extra time spent with the running in the woods scenes could have easily been used for such an important scene in the film. I also didn't care for the wife and son of the monster (played by Eleanore Tanin and Kim Charney, respectively). They really didn't add anything of value to the story and weren't even used in the final act of the film. Lastly, the ending of the film came off as rather abrupt and lacking in any kind of dynamic punch. It just sort of ends, right after the monster is shot. A very unsatisfying conclusion, to what had been a rather interesting and somewhat entertaining film.

In the end, "The Werewolf" certainly broken some ground and took some chances with the classic trope of a man becoming a raving beast, adding a more modern take to a well wore bit of folklore. But some missed opportunities and poor filming choices, hinder it from becoming a truly all-time classic film. Still, for the interesting and unexpected direction it takes with something we all know so very well, that being the origins of lycanthropy, it still might be worth a watch for horror buffs and those who love the classic '"creature feature."

In the world of violent action films, the "Death Wish" saga has a special place, because unlike many other films of its genre, there is no deep moral or philosophical subtext. It's all about one thing: pure revenge! That's what makes this installment such a disappointment, as that is all but forgotten to make another "anti-drug" message.

Charles Bronson returns as everyone's favorite vigilante, Paul Kersey. When his current girlfriend's daughter dies from a cocaine overdose, a wealthy philanthropist enlists Kersey's "special talents" to take out a couple of L.A. drug kingpins. But all is not as it seems and Kersey soon finds himself the target for death!

The story here, for the most part, has some good elements to it. The tragedy that gives way to a partnership to take down some drug lords, seems solid enough. But it just doesn't feel a good fit for the character of Paul Kersey. His being fed info on his targets by the mysterious "Mr. White" (played by veteran character actor John P. Ryan), seems more fit to a government agent or law enforcement official, than to a street vigilante. His bag has always been personal revenge. Once Kersey kills the guy who sold his girlfriend's daughter the drugs, the story should have been over for him. But it wasn't.

As things move along, more little trip ups bring you out of the story. Like Soon-Tek Oh, as one of the detectives out to catch the "vigilante," suddenly revealed to be a corrupt cop working for one of the drug lords. It pretty much comes from out of the blue and takes you out of the story. The sub-plot with the girlfriend (played by Kay Lenz), who's a reporter doing a story on the drug problem, goes nowhere and is only filler until she end up as the "damsel in distress" for Kersey to have to rescue near the films end. The whole third act is just a complete mess. Once Kersey learns that "Mr. White" isn't who he thinks he is, there'd be no reason for him to kill Kersey. He had no idea who he really was. He could have just taken over the drug trade, as he planned, and left Kersey alone. All the plots he does to try to kill him just make no sense. And the ending, with the final comeuppance, is telegraphed so hard, you'd think it was written by Western Union.

That's not to say there's nothing any good here. The opening sequence to the film certainly has that feel of past efforts and rings true to Kersey's character, as well as being a nice bit of foreshadowing to a similar situation near the films end. The action sequences in the oil field battle were superbly done. And you have a couple of bit roles from a young Danny Trejo and Tim Russ early in their careers. But none of that overrides the silliness of this whole plot. Director J. Lee Thompson and writer Gail Morgan Hickman, who worked with Bronson on the much better film "Murphy's Law," really just dropped the ball on this one, by not seeming to understand the motivations and character of Paul Kersey. He's not about "making the world a better place," he's about cold and calculated revenge. Nothing more, nothing less.

In the final analysis, "Death Wish 4: The Crackdown" is an example of what happens when you try to force a square peg through a round hole. This could have been an entertaining story, if it was of some original character. But trying to make Paul Kersey fit this mold simply doesn't work. The film isn't terrible, but it is easily the weakest of the "Death Wish" franchise. Unless you're simply a die-hard of seeing Bronson kill scumbags, you can probably give this one a pass.

Sometimes a film comes along, that will truly stick with you long after you've seen it. It will gnaw at your mind and make you look at life and people in a very different way, which you never did before. "The Boys Next Door" is just such a film for me.

Director Penelope Spheeris is probably most well-known for her work on perennial comedic fare, such as "Wayne's World" and "Black Sheep," but long before that she was a very edgy and somewhat visionary filmmaker. Some of her earliest works have a very deep social commentary to them, of which this film is one of her best (and most overlooked). This tale of two high school outcasts, who go to the big city and raise some murderous hell, almost has a modern ring to it. In the wake of real life events, like the massacres at Columbine and Virginia Tech, this film seems less the low-rent crime drama it probably was seen as when it first debuted and more like a prophecy of things to come.

It is absolutely chilling in how it shows the casual use of violence by two supposed teenagers. Their lack of conscience and concern for anything or anyone, save themselves, feels like a mirror being held up to our so-called modern world. What really stuck out for me, though, was the moments of seemingly uncontainable rage expressed by the character of Roy (incredibly performed by Maxwell Caulfield). One scene that truly made my blood run cold, was after his first act of violence on a gas-station attendant, when he and his friend Bo (played by a very young Charlie Sheen, in one of his earliest leading roles) are talking about it in their hotel room, and Roy expresses that the beating wasn't good enough. That he should have killed him. The look of satisfaction on his face as he expresses these thoughts, brought out a dark symmetry to the character, which would dominate everything he does afterwards. It actually comes off like a blueprint to the mindset of such thrill-killers that we see in our real world today. I really enjoyed how the film almost plays like a docudrama in some instances, like this one.

While some of the language and settings might be a bit dated, the emotion and societal insights into the mind of teenage rage are as powerful now as they ever were back in 1985 (when the film debuted). At the time, this film had a bit of controversy about it, due to the amounts of violence shown on screen, but I think that today, in our much more politically-correct minded world-view, it is the thoughts behind the violence which should be more disturbing. It is a film that has truly become MORE relevant as time has gone by, not less. If there is anything lacking in the film, it would be not enough information given on the characters life at home. We see the torment they have with not fitting in with their peers at school, as well as their fears of living out the rest of their lives at dead-end jobs, but there is little info on the role played by the family in helping these boys to be filled with such murderous contempt. There is one scene with Roy's father being shown as a neglectful parent, more interested in getting his next beer than the welfare of his son, but I felt this brief glimpse should have been expand on more. Still, even lacking in this one area, the film is still a very potent brew to behold.

Make no mistake, this is not a "feel good" or party film. It is a shocking, and sometimes twisted, look into how society can mold a teenager into a raging killer and how easily that rage can be let loose on an unprepared society. And the fact these two characters are attractive looking, as well, only deepens the scary similarities of our current times. Despite that, however, it is certainly a very worthwhile film and is deserving of much more attention. If you are looking for a film that isn't just out to entertain you, but also make you think, this is one movie you need to seek out! But be warned... prepare to be unnerved by much of what you will see. I doubt many will walk away from this film totally unaffected, nor should they.

I had high hopes, like many, going into this film. As a fan of the franchise, I was looking forward to that "blown out of my seat" experience the other films of this saga have given me. Besides which, this is the film we've all been waiting for since the beginning, right? The future war! The resistance vs. Skynet! It couldn't possibly be bad, could it? Oh, you couldn't be more wrong!

This film lacked anything in the way of atmosphere or suspense. The mood of the film was extremely flat from almost the start and never really came to life. On top of that, I feel too much time was spent on the machines and not enough on John Connor and the humans (whom you'd think we should be rooting for). Sam Worthington's character, of the man made into a machine, never gained any sympathy or interest from me. The fact they gave away the "secret" to his character in the trailers, certainly didn't help that, either. His character's actions are schizophrenic, at best, half the time making little sense, if any, and almost never ring true. A major flaw, to be sure, with how much time he gets on screen.

Then you have Christian Bale, who plays John Connor as a "Batman-lite" affair. He uses the same kind of voice here, that he did in "The Dark Knight" and it just doesn't work. He portrays none of the charisma and leadership that we know the character is supposed to have. All the emotions we've felt for him in the past are all stripped away here, as he comes off like a whiny and self-absorbed jerk. Hardly one you'd want being the savior of the human race. None of the other resistance members get enough screen time to make any kind of impression on you, so you never develop any bond in what might happen to them. I don't know if the cast just didn't care about the film, or if the script just gave them nothing to work with, but there is no fire in any of the performances.

And even if the script doesn't let the actors down, it has more than a few problems itself. They never really explain why Sam Worthington's character is the one chosen by Skynet. The story never gives you any feelings of dread or panic, despite tons of action on the screen. And while those action sequences are well shot and choreographed, they lack any real excitement. It never gets your pulse pounding. Plus there are tons of little things in the film, like Connor's wife being pregnant, which get no explanation or even a passing mention. I mean, what's the point in doing that, if it doesn't mean anything? And why is Skynet herding people into camps (ala the Nazis)? Shouldn't it simply be destroying all human life, to protect itself and win the war? It is another plot point that makes no sense, nor is given any reasoning for, in a script filled with them.

Worst of all, and the one major flaw that ruins the whole film for me, is how, after Skynet has captured Kyle Reese (played by Anton Yelchin, in one of the few decent performances in the film), it doesn't kill him immediately, but uses him as bait to lure John Connor into a rescue mission. This kind of thinking, in terms of revenge and greed, is an emotional human failing Skynet should not have. It is a machine. It should know the simple equation: "Kill Kyle Reese, John Connor is no more!" The only reason for it, is to provide the big end battle, where Connor faces the Terminator 101-model (with CGI used to show Arnold in his prime). It's all just a waste and doesn't deliver any thrills.

Many folks blasted "T3" for some of the inconsistencies it had, but compared to this mess of a film, it was sheer cinematic brilliance! "Terminator Salvation" could truly be considered a franchise killer, on par with the fiasco that "Batman and Robin" was for the Batman one. Old school fans of this saga will not find this enjoyable, and any attempts to bring in new fans will be dashed at the overly-complicated back-story used to get them up to speed on this film. In short, this is a film that will appeal to few people, be they fans of these films or not. It is a complete waste of time, money and talent. And that is the purest definition of the term "whipped up movie," which this effort most assuredly is, that I can think of!

From the late 70's through the early 80's, it was the golden era of the slasher horror film. During this period, many played on the old standby of a killer in the woods theme ("The Prowler", "Don't Go In The Woods", "The Burning" and, of course, "Friday the 13th"). By 1982, this had become "old hat." Yet, late in the game, here comes "Madman"! The basic plot is what you would expect: Some camp counselors wind up as the targets of a legendary kill-crazy farmer, appropriately named, Madman Marz. It is a completely predictable and by-the-numbers slasher formula.

The acting is, as is usually the case in most low-budget slashers, almost non-existent. Save for the character of Betsy (played by Gaylen Ross, under the name "Alexis Dubin," as I guess she didn't want it to be known she was in a cheesy slasher flick), none of the characters gets developed enough to the point you know or care about any of them. The killer isn't really developed any, either, as he is portrayed as the typical "super-human" maniac, showing incredible physical strength and speed, beyond any mere mortal. It's said he murdered his family, but you never really learn why, as the script is more interested in setting up hokey hot-tub scenes, in an effort to provide the prerequisite nudity in such films. Everything just plods along in a very predictable manner.

So, what you are left with is the special effects and atmosphere to provide you any real entertainment. Fortunately, it actually does. One of the things I really liked about the setting, is how well they played up how easy it is to get lost in the woods at night. The sameness of the surroundings actually helped convey a sense of tension in not knowing exactly where you are. And since this is a time before the advent of cell phones, it comes off somewhat realistically. Of course, some of that is undone by a soundtrack which, at times, sounds like someone who got their hands on a Kasio keyboard and suddenly thought they were John Carpenter.

As for the killings themselves, it's a mixed bag that ranges from the extremely gruesome to the extremely phony! Although, some of the kills are pretty inventive, like the one where the girl is beheaded by the hood of the car she is trying to get working. I also like that they tried to keep the killer more to the shadows for most of the film. Something that might have been more out of necessity, than to illicit a sense of mystery, as when you get a good look at the killer the cheapness of the effects shows how much they lacked a budget here.

In the end, the film is merely a typical example of the schlocky early 80's slasher formula. It could be entertaining for those who are fans of the genre, or those who love to mock it. Otherwise, you can probably pass on it. It's simply another unoriginal slasher film, that looks extremely cheap and has not aged very well. Might make for a good Halloween party film, though, as it comes off as the technological equivalent of telling a ghost story around a campfire.

Made in the time when the drive-ins ruled entertainment, during the golden age of sexploitation smut, "The Agony of Love" is a real standout among many of its competitors of the era, not the least of which is due to that luscious 60's silicone siren, Pat Barrington.

The basics of the plot are pretty much typical of what you can expect to get from a film of this kind and from this period. But while lacking in anything resembling originality, it still manages to give you the goods. Pat Barrington plays a neglected housewife, who hooks on the side, not for the money or the thrills, but to feel loved and desired. While the subject matter might have been consider almost taboo in the 60's, by today's standards it's not really all that shocking. Still, this is certainly no film meant for children.

Pat's obvious physical "talents" are one of the things that separates her from many women in this genre. More than ample, she has probably some of the the nicest body curves of the times. Unlike her physical form, though, her acting abilities are negligible, at best, since her emoting and delivery of dialog is very flat. Yet, in this film, which is one of the few times she ever got a starring role, that seems to work to her (and the film's) benefit. Her monotoned vocal range, when she speaks, as well as the vacant look behind her eyes, is very befitting to the "damaged goods" kind of character she is playing here. Whether more by accident than design, or the director simply playing to her weaknesses and making them a strength, this is most likely the best performance of her career, bar none.

This is William Rotsler's first time out as both writer and director of a film, as well as the first of several times he'd work with Pat Barrington over the course of the decade, but it is easily his best work. The use of some nice camera shots, puts this a step up from other like films of the era. And one scene, where Pat's character discusses a dream with a psychiatrist, is shot with an almost psychedelic flair. It was very much in keeping with the "trippy" 60's vibe, but gave this film something a little extra against its compatriots. Also, the twist ending is one you might not see coming. Rotsler does drag a bit on some of the sexual scenes (which showcase several kinds of fetishes), even though Pat's form is very nice to look at, which feels more like a directorial excess than anything else, but over all it is certainly one of the best shot sexploitation films I've ever seen (and I've watch quite a few).

This would be the last starring role of Pat's career (in which she only had two or three in total). And when the 60's came to a close, she disappeared from the world of film and never returned. Still, she certainly made her mark as one of the most voluptuous vixen of the decade and shown that even a drive-in "skin-flick" could actually be entertaining, for more than just the obvious reasons. It is actually difficult to rate films of this kind, as the standards of them are usually extremely low, but this one has a little something special to it, beyond what you might come to expect of this brand of film. If you are a fan of this film genre, you'd do well to check it out.

First off, I have to say that I am a comic book reader and a superhero fan. I really like how the characters from some of my favorite comics, have been able to explode off the pages and on to the silver screen. Most times, I usually get a bit of a thrill seeing these characters brought to life. Then, however, there are times like when I watched "The Spirit" and wish they never would have left those four-color magazines.

Everything about this film is just wrong. The acting, the directing, the script, even the casting. It is flawed on almost every possible level a film can be. Gabriel Macht's performance in the title role is flat and completely uninspired. You can tell he was just phoning it in. Scarlett Johansson is totally wasted in her role, which was so superfluous, that she'd have been better off just not showing up on the set. Sam Jackson plays Sam Jackson, even though they call him "the Octopus." It's the same character he's been playing ever since "Pulp Fiction," and it's no longer entertaining (especially in a script this poor). Eva Mendes brings a little bit of sizzle and sexual intensity to things, but she's spends very little time on screen and simply cannot save this heaping pile of garbage.

The script is utter nonsense. I can't even really tell you what the story here is. Something about Sam Jackson out to get the blood of a Greek hero, so he can become immortal, or something. Even by the standards of a comic book script, this thing lacks anything to remotely make it understandable. The action is very cartoony, in that bad kind of way. The dramatic moments (or what passes for them) are so overwrought with clichés and ham-fisted in the delivery, that it seems more like a comedic farce. And while I have enjoyed much of Frank Miller's comic work over the years, he simply is abysmal as a film director. Where is the direction in this movie? Where is the talent we know he possesses? Directors are supposed to help their cast pull forth great performances from within them. There is none of that here. It seems everyone was just there to collect their check, the director included.

The visual styling is nice and noir-ish. It is the one area the film produced anything of value. But after having seen it in "Sin City," "300" and other films of late, it's not really special anymore and can't prop up the fact that everything else about this movie stinks on ice. So, it's attempts to distract you from a lack of plot, strong performances and any real thrills, ultimately fails, like everything else in this turkey.

"The Spirit" is the kind of travesty that sets back comic related films 40 years. It is an amateurish production all the way through. It isn't faithful to the source material, nor is it entertaining in its own right. It doesn't even have the benefit of being "so bad it is good" in that cheesy way. Comic fans won't like this. Non-comic fans won't like this. It is truly a film without a valid audience. Everyone involved in this steaming pile of manure should be ashamed of themselves. Do yourself a big favor and avoid this trash and see a GOOD comic book related movie, like "Iron Man" or "The Dark Knight," because the screams of the city are all coming from those who have watched this egregiously insulting piece of celluloid! It is easily one of the worst comic-related films of all-time.

Right off the bat, you have to know going in, that "Kingdom of the Spiders" is hardly a tour-de-force effort of film-making. It's a low-budget suspense horror film, filled with 70's cheese-tasticness. That said, however, the film does manage to entertain.

William Shatner, the perennial "cool guy" every nerd-boy wishes they could be, plays Dr. Robert "Rack" Hansen, a vet who's town is soon overrun by the eight-legged fury of millions of tarantulas. It seems the destruction of their usual food supply, by the careless use of pesticides, has caused them to look into a new source of sustenance... humans!

The overall acting in the film is passable, if unremarkable. Even the usually flamboyant stylings of "The Shat" are subdued here. There's the attempt to play up some human drama, through a love triangle between Rack, the beautiful entomologist (played by Tiffany Bolling) and the widow of Rack's dead brother (played by Marcy Lafferty). You get a couple of glimpses of Shatner's typical sexual charisma from it, but little else as far as the story goes. In fact, the whole pacing of the story is quite slow for the first 45-55 minutes of the film. This is surely to help set up the film's final act, when the spiders go on their rampage, but it isn't as effective as they probably were intending.

Really, the story and drama hinges on the spider attacks. Building slowly on the creepy feeling invoked by the spiders, watching them move from killing livestock to humans, it does create a sense of eerie tension. It plays to a fear many of us have of creepy-crawly insects and their ability to overwhelm us with sheer numbers. Director John "Bud" Cardos does effectively make the spiders into not only a credible threat, but a menacing one, as well. The scene of the townsfolk running in chaotic panic when the spiders begin attacking in force, will surely make most anyone's skin crawl. And the downbeat ending of the film is, without question, one of the best parts of the film. No typical Hollywood "happy ending" here, which only helps the movie to retain it's cult status. The film's attempt at a morality tale, by showing that mankind needs to show more respect towards nature, is both heavy-handed and poorly contrived, but that's only to be expected in a b-grade piece of 70's horror.

"Kingdom of the Spiders" is a fine piece of 70's kitsch-cinema, which doesn't try to make itself out as much more than that. And while it may pale in comparison to other movies about man facing "nature's revenge" (like "The Birds" or "Jaws", just to name a couple), it certainly is worthy of it's place of cult horror status. Just make sure to keep a can of bug spray close by, as you watch it.

This Indonesian cult film takes the over-the-top action, that is a staple of American action films of the 80's, adds in a dose of mysticism, lifts several key scenes from it's title namesake and blends it all up into a schlocky treat for the viewer. This isn't high art, nor does it pretend to be. It is a blatant riff on one of the most classic action films of the decade and never apologizes once for it.

Some of the scene are direct copies of James Cameron's classic original, such as the attack on the police headquarters, the removal of the eye, even the first kill being done to obtain clothing for her naked form. You will get a deja vu feeling more than once, while watching this film. The added angle of a mystical plot device, rather than a technological one, as well as making the lead antagonist female, made for some interesting changes in this film, which the original "Terminator" could never have had.

Still, despite copious amounts of violence, some very nice nudes scenes with our sexy lead, and some slightly interesting special effects, the film is far from what you would call "good." Some of the dubbed in voices are very poorly done. Plus, speaking as a guy, the way she kills men while mating with them is... well... let's just say it's probably every guy's worst nightmare and leave it at that. Plus, they never really gave much explanation on why the Queen of the South Seas revenge against the great-granddaughter of her betraying lover will give her what she wants. I guess giving emphasis to the plot had to take a back seat to the action and nudity. Not an uncommon thing in films of this nature.

Barbara Anne Constable, who plays the lead role of the anthropologist turned unstoppable tool of destruction, is really the linchpin of the film. None of the other actors turn in anything beyond competent performances, at best, but Barbara's deadpan expressions throughout the film, even as she uses sex to kill her victims, is just as fun to watch as that of Arnold Schwarzenegger in the original "Terminator" film.

If you are looking for a seriously dramatic story, with stunning personal performances, well, you'll be sadly disappointed. But if it is wild bouts of action and violence, coupled with a sexual-themed tale of revenge you desire, this film gives you all you could ever want. It is easily one of the best selections from the Mondo Macabro catalog and would be a great party film. It's a watchable movie and entertaining in that "so bad it's good" way. Just don't give a lot of thought to what you are watching. You definitely need to check your brain at the door for this one.

"Jennifer's Body" is the kind of film that should remind us all that it takes a lot more to be clever, hip and interesting, then merely spouting a few modern slang terms and a sexy pout. They try to play up a campy teen angst kind of thing here, but it never rings true. It's more like pseudo-angst, thought up by a focus group of Hollywood suits, that tries to play to what they think teenagers would find "cool," only to fail miserably in the attempt.

The premise of this tale, is about how a teenage babe (played by Megan Fox) is sacrificed to Satan, by a loser indie band in the hopes they may be granted fame and fortune, only for her to become a flesh eating demon, because she wasn't a virgin when she was sacrificed. No, really, that is the basic plot outline here.

The film tries to come off as an edgier mix of "Mean Girls" and "Scream," but ends up as merely a putrid pile of trash, that is way too self-absorbed and into itself, and comes across as thinking it is way more clever and hip than it actually is. Most teenage horror-comedies are an extremely superficial affair, but this one is shallow at BEING shallow. There's nothing here beneath the surface at all. No insights, no meaning, no message. Heck, there's no real laughs or scares, either (unless you count the row of 18 year-old guys up in front of me, who giggled at the make out scene with Fox and Seyfried). Like some vapid teen pretty girl, the film never looks out of it's own self-induced tunnel vision, thinking itself way too smart and cool, and the film loses any chance to be relevant or entertaining. It's not just style over substance, but a self-deluded and half-formed idea of style over substance. Why have a coherent story and plot? Look, Megan Fox is swimming naked in a lake! Isn't that just so awesome?!

It seems little thought was put into the script, direction, or anything else. It is merely a vehicle for Megan Fox to look ultra-sexy (in that way she usually does). No one ever bothers to go beyond this, as everyone else is just some stereotype or cipher character, used for the demands of Fox's character, who looks like she has a totally vacant expression throughout the whole movie (the very same one you'll probably have, after you watch this crap). The only thing it goes to show, is that Fox is truly a horrible actress and is certainly not up to the task of headlining a film. It takes a lot more than a few cute slang terms being thrown around, and some pathetic attempt at controversy (with a little girl-on-girl make out moment), to make a worthwhile story. Honestly, the thing feels like it was written by a couple of 13 year-old boys, who got a look at their father's Playboy collection for the first time, and thought this would be a great idea for a film. It is just a blatant attempt to appeal to the "teeny-bopper" crowd, who love films like "Twlight" and the like, and has absolutely no regards to the intelligence of the target audience (or any other audience, in general).

This is, without a doubt, the worst movie I've seen all year. If this doesn't register on many a film critics and film fans "worst of" lists for 2009, I fear for the mental sanity of the industry. "Jennifer's Body" is honest as a title for this travesty of celluloid, though, as the only thing the film ever concerns itself with is how "hawt" the title character looks. Unless you are a hormone-raging teenage boy, with Megan Fox as your ultimate fantasy plaything, avoid this dreck at all costs! Heck, even if you are one, you should avoid it, as even hormone-raging teenage boys deserve to be marketed to better than this.

Without a doubt, this is probably the strangest and most bizarre sexploitation film I've ever seen. And given the amount of them that I've watched, that's truly saying something.

The plot revolves around a swingers party, where the guests act out sexually perverse scenarios for a man called "Uncle" to obtain gifts from a mysterious "toy box." But when a couple of the guests suspect all is not as it seems, including the identity of "Uncle," we go from a very commonplace sexploitation piece and veer off into an insanely wild and absurd story involving aliens and humans sold as drugs.

This film isn't so much shocking, as it is it off-the-wall kooky. For the first 45 minutes, I had little idea what I was watching. It isn't until the end of the second act that the pieces of this oddball story start to fall into place. The film does live up to it's perverse billing, though, as you see plenty of weird sexual antics, not the least of which is faux necrophilia, faux cannibalism, and the first (and only, I believe) display of a woman molested by a bed. Yes, you heard right, she is sexually pleasured by an actual bed. The murders, such as they happen, are mostly off-screen implied than shown. And when you get the big revelation of who "Uncle" really is, as well as what this party is really all about, well, it'll make about as much sense as anything else you've seen up to that point.

The cast is a virtual who's who of 60's and 70's exploitation films, with the curvaceous sex bombs, Marsha Jordan and Uschi Digard, among the most notable of them. All the actors don't really do much acting, as the film is much more centered on the sexual displays, as most films of this kind are. The scenes are well shot and a few of them are actually quite erotic. As is typical of such fare, the guys are the average, hairy males you would find walking the streets in the 70's, while the women as all have bodaciously banging bods and curves. No one ever said that sexploitation films were bastions of gender equality.

Writer/director Ronald Victor Garica was obviously out to make this a very different kind of exploitation film. In that he certainly succeeded, as there is no other film I've seen that is anything like this. Of course, being unique doesn't make this an excellent effort. During most of the first act, much of the voice dubbing is off, which can be distracting. To cover for this, Garcia falls back on Doris Wishman's classic trick, of have the actor that's supposed to be speaking facing away from the camera, thereby circumventing the need for proper dubbing. The music sounds exactly like what you'd hear on old episodes of the classic "Star Trek" series and some of the special effects are, well, just not that special. Garcia's attempt to blend horror, sci-fi, and sexploitation into a cohesive form doesn't really play out, but it does make for some strange and intriguing scenes, which will probably hold your attention, until you get to the revelations behind what you've seen.

"The Toy Box" is unlike anything you could ever hope to see, then or today. While I can't quite call it "good," the quirky and outlandish nature of the film does have a very strange entertainment value to it. Within the world of sexploitation films (and, more broadly, of film in general), this one defies easy categorization and stands alone in its erratic and eccentric tone. Fans of the genre should check it out at least once, just for the experience of the sheer spectacle of it all. But don't expect it to make any kind of lasting impact on you, except to, perhaps, have you never look at your bed the same way again.

By the time of this film's release, Mel Brooks had already established himself as the master of the genre spoof film. But "Spaceballs" is, if not his finest hour, one of the top three efforts in his long list of satirizing comedies. And geek culture would never be the same.

Basically parodying the original Star Wars saga, but mixing in elements of other sci-fi mainstays, like "Star Trek," "Alien" and others, Brooks employs his twisted skills to skewer one of the most beloved and well-known franchises in movie history and does so masterfully. There are plenty of sight-gags and word play moments, as is expected in a Mel Brooks comedy. I especially liked all the "Spaceballs" merchandise that constantly shows up in the film. From bed sheets to toilet paper, it's one of several running gags that I never get tired of.

It features some early work by Bill Pullman and Daphne Zuniga, who would both move on to bigger things in the future. Here, they have a perfect chemistry, as the snobby-but-yielding Princess and the rugged-but-tender hero. I like that, even before they fall for each other, they already argue like an old married couple.

The main stars here, though, are (the late) John Candy and Rick Moranis, both of whom are staples in the world of the 80's comedy film. John Candy has some nice scenes and gets some yuks going, but it is Rick Moranis, as the evil-but-inept Lord Dark Helmet, who basically steals the show. Most of the funniest moment and lines belong to him. From playing with his "Spaceballs" dolls, to having his men (literally) combing the desert for our heroes, he proves that, even in a total farce, evil is always the more interesting and fun to watch.

Many others have tried to imitate Brooks style of comedic humor, most notably Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, but try as others might, they simply cannot compete with the master. Because the one thing that Mel Brooks comedy spoofs do, that others do not, is know when to "not go there." His humor is tactless, without ever being tasteless. "Spaceballs" remains one of Brooks best works and is certainly my personal favorite. If you love sci-fi, or if you hate it, you'll find plenty to enjoy in this film!

You always get a potential mixed bag when comics are adapted to the silver screen. Not everything done in a comic can translate to the screen and vice versa. And creative liberties are almost always used in excess, when compared to the actual source material. Fortunately, such is not the case for "Whiteout." The story revolves around a female US Marshall named Carrie Stetko (very well played by actress Kate Beckinsale), as she is forced to investigate a murder on an Antarctic base, just days before the long six month winter, and a powerful whiteout storm, is about to hit.

This dramatic "whodunit" mystery starts off on a slow burn, but yet it never feels like it is dragging. As the body count rises, the puzzle sucks you in, not just about the murders and why they are happening, but about Carrie's own past that has brought her to this desolate wilderness. Tom Skerritt is good as the comforting doctor, while Gabriel Macht is passable as the slick Government agent. But the film almost totally rests on Kate Beckinsale's role. She makes it believable, not only through her no-nonsense attitude on the job, but through the more vulnerable parts, as the painful secret she's been running from is revealed. In some ways she's as cold and dead inside, as the environment surrounding her is outside. You develop a real empathy for her character and it sucks you right into what is happening around her. Beckinsale literally carries the main emotional thrust of the film single-handed, but she does so quite well.

The cinematography is also extremely strong. The sweeping landscape shots easily convey the beauty and vast emptiness of the region. The dangers of those who would seek to dwell in such a place feels quite real. There are a few times, though, where the atmosphere of a terrain so hostile to human life isn't necessarily portrayed accurately, but they don't really detract that much from the film, as if you are already invested in Carrie and the mystery, you probably won't even notice them. Also, one of the red herrings on who is behind the killings is hammered on a little too often, which makes you know that person can't be the one, but that is a small quibble in an otherwise nice and taut mystery.

Having read the graphic novel the film is based upon, I already knew who is ultimately behind the murders, but it was still a real treat to watch it unfold. For those who haven't read it, I think this film will give you the kind of intelligent thriller fans of this genre of film enjoy. Don't listen to all the haters and give this film a shot. It's actually much better than many are giving it credit for.

This film is given lots of bad press, as the worst sequel of this franchise, mostly because it doesn't connect itself to the saga of Michael Myers. But while that might be an unfair bias against the film, it is hardly without many flaws of it's own, that hinder it from being a great scary film.

The biggest problem within the film, is lack of giving proper amounts of information to make something convincing. When the doctor (played solidly by Tom Atkins) shows signs that he has feelings for Ellie (played by Stacey Nelkin) and sleeps with her, it seems to come out of nowhere. There is no build up to it, nothing to indicate that they would feel that way for each other, as they've only just met over the course of a day. Later, when the doctor frees Ellie from captivity and they race to stop the broadcasts, Ellie is revealed to be one of the robots of the evil Silver Shamrock company. But how long has that been the case? Was she one all along? Why didn't she deactivate, when they blew up the factory, like the other ones did? There are just so many things like this, that it takes you out of the moment and you lose a lot of the tension the film should be generating.

That isn't to say the film has nothing good about it. The performances by Tom Atkins and Dan O'Herlihy (as the villain of the piece) are very engaging, especially when they are on-screen together. O'Herlihy brilliantly captures that sense of quiet evil with his performance, as he's all smiles and charm one minute, then the heart of darkness the next. Atkins is great as the reluctant hero, who is clearly in over his head. Also, the musical score is top notch (not surprising, as it comes from John Carpenter). It is very eerie and constantly give you the feeling of dread. Even the jingle to the Silver Shamrock television ad can give you the spooks.

Still, despite all that, the film ultimately suffers from some very poor script writing and lack of proper explanations. It takes what could have been one of the all-time classic scare films and turns it into a mediocre effort, that should have been thought-out more.

This isn't really a bad movie, but the flaws within it keep it from being truly good. I applaud the makers for trying something different. And while the film should not be snubbed for that, it has plenty of it's own issues that lessen the appeal of it. As loathe as I am of remakes, I actually think this film could benefit from such, provided the script writing was up to par. As it stands, the film is merely watchable. Perhaps something to watch late at night, when you can't sleep. Sadly, it could have been so much more.

"Swamp Thing" isn't what one might call a standard horror picture. It tries to play it a bit lighter than what you would expect, given the mechanics of the story. What you end up with is a fun and campy film, that sometimes lessens it's darker edge by trying too hard for a bit of humor.

Based from the comic series from DC Comics, the tale is about a scientist, Dr. Alec Holland (played by Ray Wise), who is transformed into a marsh-layered creature of immense power, after his experiment to create a way to make a more abundant food supply, causes him to run afoul of a man bent to use it for his own ends... a man named Arcane (played by Louis Jourdan).

I've noted before I am a big time comic reader, so I'm quite well versed with the history of the title character. Wes Craven, who both wrote and directed this film, takes quite a few liberties with the characters and their source material, but still manages to keep it true enough, so that they are easy to relate to and familiar. I liked Ray Wise's approach to the character, as he brought a great deal of altruistic idealism to him, which rang true to the character from the comics. Also well cast is Louis Jourdan as Arcane, as he gave him just the right amount of arrogant egotism and flamboyant self-aggrandizement, like the typical madman who thinks they know how to rule the world would have. Of course, Adrienne Barbeau is the real standout here, not just for the obvious physical attributes (which were obviously one of the reasons she was cast in the role of Holland's/Swamp Thing's love interest), but she manages to elevate herself from being more than just the usual damsel in distress, as watching her fight off attackers and shoot a gun, shows she's no weak-willed school girl. But it was her ability to make you believe that the chemistry she shared with Holland, was strong enough for her to accept him after his change into the Swamp Thing (which was played wonderfully by Dick Durock), that really cinched her performance with me. And let's face it, she don't look bad in soaking wet clothes, either. In fact, almost all of the cast do very good jobs with material that, at times, comes off a bit overly cheesy.

If there were any negatives to the film, I'd have to say that it was in the pacing and dialog. Granted, this isn't Shakespeare, but the script sometimes seems to just strive too hard to stay closer to humor than horror. It results in some scenes losing some of the dramatic punch they might have had, if they would have allowed things to go just a touch darker. The pacing of the film is quite quick, though a bit too quick, in some cases. We never really got to see Holland actually transform into Swamp Thing, nor did we get much time spent on him trying to adjust to his new situation. I would have liked to see more of a struggle for him in dealing with what he had become and his loss of his physical humanity, as he just seems to accept it too quickly. The special effects aren't very special here, although the Swamp Thing outfit does pretty closely resemble the character in the comics, so long as you don't focus on the close-ups, when the rubbery look is very obvious. Of course, this is just a limitation of the times and can't really be counted as detriment to the film.

"Swamp Thing" is like a film that bridges the gap between the old 50's-60's horror films, with their poor special effects and unintentional cheesiness, and the more modern horror films that were to come. It does feel a bit like a throwback in a lot of ways, but the film has got a lot of heart and I think its charm ultimately won me over. It's not a very scary horror film, but it is an enjoyably fun film, nonetheless.