Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Student Seduction finds Saved By The Bell Alumni Elizabeth Berkley on the other side of the desk and attracting the attention of young and hunky Corey Sevier. Speaking for myself I can truthfully say that no teachers save one ever did anything for me hormonally back when I was a student. That was a Ms. Diaz who was a music teacher in Junior High School. Even as a young gay kid, I could see what she was doing to the rest of the class. She was the only teacher I had who in any way could have been played by Elizabeth Berkley.

Corey being the hotty he is, is also used to having his own way with women whether they agree or not. The fact that he comes from rich parents reinforces that belief. He's flunking chemistry which is what Berkley teaches and to keep his GPA up she agrees to tutor, but believe no more.

So when he attempts a rape and gets no for an answer it's damaging to his ego. When Berkley goes out of channels and reports the crime to the police, the cops who are keeping in mind the cases of Pamela Smart and Mary Kay LeTourneau just don't believe here. Sevier's parents have the wherewithal to get a good publicity spin on this for their boy.

Student Seduction which is a misnomer of a title if there ever was one is trash all the way. After the beating that Berkley took for Showgirls this TV film was not an upward career move.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I was expecting this to be the same kind of schlock as the previous Modesty Blaise movie, which is why I left it unwatched for so long, but I was very pleasantly surprised.

Far from being a succession of silly gun battles and car/boat chases, it was an almost thoughtful analysis of how a pretty girl gets to become as hard as nails, with nothing being overstated or over-rationalized.

It's likely that the budgetary constraints actually helped with that: less time and effort was spent on finding ever-stupider ways for stunt men to pretend to die, and more was dedicated to making the movie worth watching. Hell, the biggest gun battle takes place off screen -- and the scene where it is heard is all the better for that background noise, that adds to the suspense -- who's winning? Who's dying?

Alexandra Staden might not be as drop-dead gorgeous as Monica Vitti, but few are, and she certainly has every ounce of class and fire that's needed to make the character work -- and the shape of her face, her hair, and her tall, slender body could have been lifted straight from the comic-strip graphics.

Nikolaj Coaster-Waldau was the perfect choice for a Blaise bad-guy, in that he made the character interesting and enjoyable to watch -- even likable (and I doubt I'd consider taking on many brutal, psychopathic murderers as drinking buddies). I can't think of a single one of Hollywood's "former waiters" who could have pulled the role off that well.

Fortunately, Blaise baddies always die, in the end (no spoilers there!) That's a really good thing, because all the girls who would have spent their time swooning over such a disgustingly handsome and interesting hunk can now pragmatically settle for us ordinary Joes.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Well, first off, if you're checking out Revolt of the Zombies as some very early Night of the Living Dead (1968)-type film, forget it. This is about "zombies" in a more psychological sense, where that term merely denotes someone who is not in control of their will, but who must instead follow the will of another. The "zombies" here, as little as they are in the film, are largely metaphors for subservience to the state or authority in general, as in wartime. It is quite a stretch to call this a horror film.

The film is set during World War I. A "French Cambodian" contingent had heard strange stories about zombification--supposedly Angkor Wat was built by utilizing zombies--and there are tales of zombie armies easily overcoming foes. Armand Louque (Dean Jagger) brings back a priest who supposedly knows the secret of zombification, but he won't talk. So Louque and an international military contingent head to Angkor Wat on an archaeological expedition designed to discover the secret of zombification and destroy the information before zombies have a chance to "wipe out the white race".

One of the odd things about Revolt of the Zombies is that it seems like maybe writer/director Victor Halperin decided to change his game plan while shooting the script. The film begins as if it will explore the zombie/military metaphor, and maybe even have adventure elements, but after about 15 minutes, it changes gears and becomes more of a love triangle story.

Halperin does stick with a subtext about will and power (and a Nietzschean "will to power"). The film is interesting on that level, but the script and the editing are very choppy. This is yet another older film for which I wouldn't be surprised if there is missing footage, especially since some scenes even fade or cut while a character is uttering dialogue.

Amidst the contrived romance story, Halperin tries to keep referring to the zombie thread, but little of the zombie material makes much sense. Louque discovers the secret of zombification, but it doesn't mean much to the viewer. The mechanics of the zombie material are vague and confusingHalperin even resorts to using superimposed footage of Bela Lugosi's googly-eyes from his 1932 film, White Zombie, but never explains what it has to do with anything. There are big gaps in the plot, including the love story. Promising, interesting characters from early reels disappear for long periods of time. One potential villain is disposed of unceremoniously before he gets to do much.

If you're a big fan of old, creaky B movies, Revolt of the Zombies may be worth watching at least once--the acting isn't all that bad, and if you've got a good imagination, you can piece together an interesting story in your mind to fill in all of the gaps. But this is the second time I've seen the film, with the first only being about five years ago, and I could barely recall anything about it--so it's not exactly memorable.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This is a pretty bad movie. The plot is sentimental mush. I suppose the production values are OK, decent photography, unobtrusive direction and all that. Mark Hamill was terrible. I've never cared much for him, and this movie validates that perception. It's no wonder that he never really had any sort of career aside from his "Star Wars" films. I'll just say "Buh-bye, Mark" as he sinks into well-deserved obscurity. On the other hand, a very young Annie Potts utterly stole the show. She showed charm, beauty, and acting chops all in one performance. I remember seeing her in "Texasville" recently and taking note of her beauty. It's interesting seeing her from ten years earlier. Anyway, unless you are interested in Miss Potts, run away from this film screaming for the hills.
+++++++++
A:
negative