IN: Review: Spoiler: Bunch of passive-aggressive people having family reunion. The script has them saying and doing things people would never do, at least anyone with a shred of decency. The hero falls for a woman he sees as his soul mate at a bookstore the day of the reunion, unaware she will show up as his brother's girlfriend at the reunion. He tries to defer to his brother's claim, but she, knowing our hero is clearly infatuated with her, teases him mercilessly by wearing sexy clothing and behaving like a stripper, rubbing all over the brother in a ruse excuse that she is showing him how to stretch. At one point, she actually disrobes and gets into a shower with him. He tries to cover his eyes. His heart is breaking. She thinks it's funny, until she suddenly decides she doesn't want the brother and leaves the reunion.

The movie really drags. The audience coughed and fidgeted its way through the long haul. The writing is unintelligent and unbelievable. We almost walked out, but kept thinking surely something would happen that would perk things up, but nooooo. All the lovely reviews must have been written by paid shills, out to dupe poor suckers like me into seeing crap like this. Comparing it to Little Miss Sunshine??? Jeez. Shame on them, the writers, the actors, the producers, and the theaters for letting anything this bad make it to the screen!
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Outstanding film of 1943 with Paul Lukas giving an Oscar calibrated performance as the head of his family bringing them back to America from Europe as the Nazi menace deepened.

The usual terrific Bette Davis maintains her reputation here and for a change was not nominated for best actress for this or any film of 1943.

Encounting treachery around them, Lukas successfully deals with the situation. He knows he must return to Europe on a clandestine mission and return he does.

Davis again pulls out all the stops with a Katharine Hepburn-like shedding of tears when they must part. Resolute, she knows that her older son, must follow him on his path to liberty.

A wonderful film highlighting American positive propaganda against a wicked foe.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: "That 'Malcom' show on FOX is really making a killing... can't we do our own version?" I speculate and paraphrase, of course, but in our hearts we all know it's true, and that the only thing NBC added to the 'Malcom' metric was sex. And, boy, did they add sex...

Thirteen-year-old Tucker gets a boner and covers it up with his skateboard. Tucker accidentally walks in on his Aunt in the shower and she accuses him of watching her and beating off. He spies on the cute girl in the next house from his bedroom window, and she knows he wants to see her topless but she teases him by smiling and closing the window. And this is all in the pilot.

Take it from a grown man- a boy's puberty is so sex-crazy and testicle-driven it is impossible to make it funny for a mainstream audience. The only times anyone has ever come close has been in movies, and you can count those on one hand. So it's no surprise that "Tucker" has the warmth and appeal of a strip-club bathroom. Did the network actually think we would like watching kids grapple with puberty? Isn't this the stuff people go to jail for? If you doubt the show's depravity consider this: 13 episodes were filmed but NBC canceled it after only 4 episodes aired; they then made the unprecedented move of "burning off" the remaining episodes by airing them AT MIDNIGHT so no children could see them. Ironic since kids were originally the target audience.

Apart from its general scuzziness Tucker features a running voice-over from the lead character to flesh out the shoddy writing. Even in 2000 it was horribly dated, with it's ska incidental music and super-sarcasm. I couldn't like any of the characters enough to laugh at the jokes and the jokes didn't exactly come a mile-a-minute... Shame on NBC for this dirty rip-off... they're better than that.

GRADE: C-
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: French director Jean Rollin isn't exactly known for great films, and this confusing mess is one of the reasons why. One of the most confusing things about this production is the title. For a director who is well known for directing erotic films about lesbian vampires; you would expect a film with the word 'nude' in the title to be a particularly bare-breasted one; but in fact, there's not a lot of nudity here at all. Instead of erotic lesbian vampires with no clothes on; we've got a cumbersome plot about a man who wants to unlock the secret to immortality, a young woman whose affliction might hold the key and a suicide cult, who don't get to do much. The film starts off promisingly with a sequence that sees a young girl carried off by a mysterious bunch of people in masks under the watchful eye of a young French man, who also happens to be the son of a man of importance. Through his investigation, he soon discovers that this woman is not just a normal lady, and as he delves deeper into the cult; he discovers that cannot be killed by bullets, drinks blood and can't go out in daylight...sounds like a clear cut case of vampirism to me.

Jean Rollin keeps the fantasy atmosphere going throughout the film, but it fails to be interesting because the plot is so badly executed. It is possible to keep up with what's going on, but only because there's so many other films that follow similar plots to this one. The director seems to know that he's messed up the plotting too, as the climax is basically an excuse to explain the film to the audience. There is a twist thrown in at the end also; but the film would have been better without it. I guess this was Jean Rollin's attempt to be a little original, but it comes off as a ham-fisted attempt at such, rather than a logical continuation of the story. The cinematography is fairly neat, with lots of the plot taking place in suitably Gothic locations. The girls on board complete what is a pretty picture, and what Rollin's film lacks in logic and consistency, it somewhat makes up for in style. In the film's defence, it was made in 1969; which somewhat explains the lack of shocks but I can't recommend this movie as it doesn't have much about it that is worth taking note of.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative