IN: Review: John Carpenter's career is over if this sad excuse for a movie is any indication. His excuse is that he only produced it. Jon Bon Jovi looks like a girl. In fact, Bon Jovi and the two Vampire girls, Natasha Wagner and Arly Jover probably all fit in the same clothes. In short, it was hard to tell which one was cuter in an anorexic ramp-model sort of way. Bon Jovi has the most charisma. At least he looks happy when he is smiling. The two Vampire Girls on the other hand are all cramps and complaints. At one point they are about to give each other a wet kiss, but stop. Amazing how each Vampire movie has some set of morays for the respective vampires. At one point, Arly Jover is providing fellatio to a very dumb Vampire Hunter and then she sucks his blood while doing the sex act. It would have been an erotic moment except that it was filmed like a total goof, and the male actor looked mildly amused as he watched Arly Jover move her head to mimic something that was very obviously not happening. As far as gore is concerned, a few heads are ripped off, and the blood spurts profusely. These scenes have so little suspense or build-up that when they happen it is almost funny, and there is no "horror" pay-off from the scene. All you get as a member of the audience is a feeling of "Wow, that sure was a lot of red paint splattering on the walls. I wonder who has to clean it up." Throughout the movie, these Vampire Hunters who are obviously trying to kill Arly Jover (the top vampire in the world??) keep reaching out to her. At one point, Bon Jovi goes into the abandoned Church and after he just shot her with an arrow (and has done so on other occasions), he says "I am not trying to hurt you. I just want to talk to you. I want to get to know you." HUH?? Of course, the dumb vampire Arly jumps out to say hello and Bon Jovi sticks her again with another impaling device. "Why Can't We Be Friends" the 1970s hit song by WAR should have been the theme song for this movie. Aside from all of the other silly moments, there is a transfusion sequence when Natasha Wagner has all her Vampire blood removed, and the town people all line up to donate blood for her transfusion. I guess Blood Type is not important? Anyhow, all her Vampire blood is removed. Bon Jovi then decides that if that blood is transfused into him, he can beat Arly by becoming a vampire also. Of course, as the vampire blood is transfused into him, none of his healthy blood is removed. So apparently Bon Jovi is walking around with twice as much blood as any human can have in his body. And just like the first VAMPIRES, this one also has the vampires-bursting-into-flames special effect.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: i'm gonna give it to ya straight...this movie is amazing. foreign gay films are so fast surpassing American gay films in production quality acting and story. while so many American indie gay films are grainy, bad sound, amateur acting, trite story lines, and a surprising lack of any nudity or erotica, top-quality foreign gay films have been popping up like this one from France. the cinematography is beautiful, thought out, meaningful. the story is adult and complex (but not difficult for anyone to follow), the acting is intense and professional. both leads are fantastic, as well as the entire cast. the boys are more than just good-looking and there's plenty of full frontal nudity. you follow the entire year of these boys, from their meeting to the end. all the little nuances of a relationship's, the details of falling in, and out, of love are there beautifully performed. it left me wanting more. check it out!
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: One of Frances Farmer's earliest movies; at 22, she is absolutely beautiful. Bing Crosby is in great voice, but the songs are not his best. Martha Raye and Bob Burns are interesting, but their comedy, probably great in its time, is really corny today. Roy Rogers also appears- in a singing role. In my view only worth watching if you are a Frances Farmer fan, and possibly a Bing Crosby fan.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: La Chute de la Maison Usher, or The Fall of the House of Usher as it's know amongst English audiences, starts with Allan (Charles Lamy) heading for the Castle of his good friend Sir Roderick Usher (Jean Debucourt) who sent him a letter saying that his wife Madeleine is ill. Once there Allan finds Madeleine very sick & her husband Roderick determined & almost obsessed to paint her portrait. As Roderick paints Madeleine becomes weaker & weaker almost as if the picture is draining the life out of her, Allan tries to help his friend but tragedy soon strikes...

This French production was co-written, produced & directed by Jean Epstein & was the second of two filmed The Fall of the House of Usher adaptations during 1928, honestly I don't know the original novel was published in 1839, I mean you wait 89 years for a filmed adaptation & two come along at the same time! Anyway, I feel that I have a bit of a problem here as I have read plenty of positive comments about La Chute de la Maison Usher & maybe I'm not the right sort of person to write a comment on it but I have to say that it simply didn't do anything for me. I didn't like it, obviously the first thing to say is that this is a silent film & therefore it relies on imagery but even so I thought the story was weak, I thought as a whole the film was boring & dull even though it only lasts for about an hour & it really didn't do anything for me at all. La Chute de la Maison Usher was made almost 80 years ago & that is literally a lifetime, the world, cinema & tastes have moved on a lot since then & I found no enjoyment in this film. I feel this film has dated badly & probably wasn't that good to start with anyway. I never felt for any of the character's, I never cared about anything that was happening & I found it all rather tedious to sit through, I'm sorry if I've offended any silent film fans out there but that's the way I felt.

Director Epstein does an OK job, a lot of people ramble on about the imagery in La Chute de la Maison Usher & I will freely admit it definitely has it's moments but I thought they were few & far between. Shots of people's mouths moving & not actually hearing what they say just seemed weird to me, I didn't like the music & the version I saw kept the original French language insert cards which were narrated by guy with the most awful sounding thick French accent which was also off putting. Based on the story by Edgar Allen Poe I doubt this has much resemblance to it apart from one or two basic elements, stick with the fantastic Roger Corman House of Usher starring Vincent Price.

Technically the film was OK considering when it was made. You simply cannot tell about the acting as no one ever speaks although the film is full of unnatural exaggerated movements to try & suggest emotions or reflect what's happening which works to an extent but after a while just looks a bit daft.

La Chute de la Maison Usher will appeal to those who crave a bygone era, who live in caves or who are stuck in the past, for me I like my films to have a story, not to bore me & to have sound & I'm sorry if that last statement makes me sound like an uneducated idiot but that's how I feel. The world has moved on since 1928 & for the better.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative