Problem: This review is like what?

Review:this is best showing of what i think jesus really was like. most movies show jesus as being effeminate, lobotomized, or tortured. this jesus laughed, played, and was serious when it was necessary. this is the kind of jesus people could be attracted to, not the usually hollywood version.

the movie took some liberties, attempting to "fill in the blanks." but the fillers didn't seem impossible, or even improbable. one thing i might argue, was that it never really explained what the romans had against jesus (movie portrayed that the romans were the main driver of jesus' death, not that the jewish authorities were against the idea).

it seemed that the movie was researched well. one example was the offhand comment to a teenage boy who was called "mark." it is believed that mark (or john mark) was the boy referred to at the garden of gethsemane whose cloak was pulled off and ran away naked (mark 14:51). i get the feeling that they tried to make the movie as accurate (even in spirit) was much as possible.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:SPOILER ALERT In this generic and forgettable action movie, Lorenzo Lamas does his usual tough guy/pretty boy act, and his future real life ex Kathleen Kinmont is ass kicking hot chick Alexa. OJ Simpson is a detective, coasting by on his since vanished genial public persona. Translation: cable TV filler. There isn't enough skin to qualify this as a Guilty Pleasure.

The script has some gaping holes. Best/Worst Moment: In one jarring scene, OJ's partner expresses his aversion to the morgue. OJ responds that some of the bodies are pretty hot, or words to that effect. This vague necrophilia reference is offensive enough; but in light of the murders committed shortly after this movie was released, it is truly appalling, and therefore entertaining in an unintentional, horrible way. I was so startled that I laughed until champagne came out of my nose. Now THAT'S a Guilty Pleasure. BC
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This is an "anthology" horror film. It's made up of 4 short stories taken from the fiction of Robert Bloch (who wrote for Weird Tales and was personal friends with H.P. Lovecraft, but is most famous for the original story "Psycho"). The quality of the stories is very uneven and I didn't think very much about the film was creepy or horrific at all. It would have been better to do it as a comedy like "Comedy of Terrors." Only the last of the 4 stories was really done in a humorous way, and it's probably the best of them (the one with Ingrid Pitt). I've seen a few of these Amicus anthology films and the only one that was really worth my time was Freddie Francis' "Tales from the Crypt." The anthology style works well for the producers, because it means that they can hire a bunch of "big name" actors, employ them for only one week of shooting or so, and then bring in the next big name. So you essentially pay for 6 weeks of movie star salary but get 5 or 6 different names on the marquee. But that's very unfortunate for the audience, because the audience would like to see some scenes with Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Ingrid Pitt actually acting together. Instead they're stuck in these vignettes by themselves. So let's take them one at a time, briefly.

The first story has Denholm Elliot, who does a really admirable job of trying to bring some dignity to his silly role as a writer terrorized by his own character. Unfortunately the actor who plays Dominic, the source of the horror, Tom Adams, just looks silly which ruins any possible horror. There's some hilarious stuff if you want to laugh at it though, like the scene where Dominic kills Elliot's psychiatrist. It's the patented scene where the killer creeps up behind the victim but nobody is watching, so the whole audience is supposed to shout out "LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!" The second story is the one with Peter Cushing. God I love that man so much. Too bad so many of his films, like this one, pretty much stink. In the story he's supposed to be pining away for a long-lost love, and he sees her likeness in a wax museum. It's a completely predictable story that goes nowhere.

Then you have the bit with Christopher Lee, where he plays the father of a little kid who turns out to be a witch. Again this bit could have been fun if it had been played for laughs. But instead we're supposed to be horrified when Lee slaps the child and surprised when she turns out to be evil. The actress, Chloe Franks, was pretty good in that type of "Bad Seed" role though.

The last story is kind of amusing... Ingrid Pitt plays an actress and Jon Pertwee plays an actor who accidentally buys a vampire cape that turns him into a real vampire. That's about all the story has to offer. I was surprised at how bad Ingrid Pitt's English is, I guess she must have been dubbed in some of the other films I've seen her in.

Not a very memorable film or one that I would recommend to anyone but horror completists.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:And I thought The Beach was bad, with the difference that this movie has one of the greatest actors of our time, Nicolas Cage. Don't blame him for the awful script, if any one can make any sense of what the hell was the point of that movie, give your self a pat on the back. Its a cross between The Village and a crappier script. Its starts off kinda catching your eye, and then as it goes further into the plot, it just makes no sense, and don't get me started about the ending!!!! What was that? The only thing that makes this movie exist is Nicolas Cage usual great humor, and his ability to be funny in the weirdest situations. If you go to a blockbuster and this is the only movie to watch, save yourself five bucks and just go back home and turn put some thing on fire and when some ones asks you why, just say the stupidest thing that comes into your mind, and there you go!
+++++++++
A:
negative