Q: I'm not a John Cleese completist (although I thought "Fawlty Towers was brilliant), but I am a fan, and when I saw this sitting, neglected, on a shelf at my local Blockbuster, I decided to give it a try. What I got was a wonderful surprise, and one of the funniest 50 minute viewing experiences I've ever had. The writing is typical English "goon show" schtick. In fact, as an audio skit, this wouldn't be out of place on a "Firesign Theater" album. But the execution and timing is spot on and this elevates "Strange Case" into the kind of jaw-dropping performance that can create lifelong British comedy fanatics.

The Brits have a gift for combining broadly satirical lampoons with closely observed "tics" of character and timing, and the creators use both to good effect here. Cleese's portrayal of "Holmes" seems to owe much to the Arkin's and Seller's "Inspector Clouseau"; however Cleese has such a knack for physical comedy that he more than holds his own. But the unexpected treat here is Arthur Lowe, who plays "Watson" as an genial but invincibly uncomprehending imbecile with such superb timing and delivery that he becomes the best aspect of the film. I'd never heard of Lowe before this (his background seems to be vaudeville and musical theater), but he justifies his entire career with this performance as far as I'm concerned.

Some people might not care for "Strange Case...", especially if British whimsy isn't their "cuppa tea". But I am extremely glad I got to see this before it vanished from sight.
A: positive
Q: They're showing this on some off-network. It's well crap. While it is not as bad as the B-movies they show on the Sci-fi network on Saturdays but still a fairly large pile of crap. The acting is passable. The plot and writing are fairly sub-standard and the pacing is entirely too slow. Every minute of the movie feels like the part of the movie where they're wrapping things up before the credits - not the peak of the movie, the denouement. Also, large portions of the cast look way to old for the age range they're playing. The whole thing is predictable, boring and not worthy of being watched. Save your time. It's not even worth the time it takes to watch it for free.
A: negative
Q: This movie has received a lot of bad press from people who don't understand what it was meant to be. One must understand that this movie was never meant to be taken seriously. It's camp, along the same lines as "Army of Darkness." AoD was silly, but funny and bad in a good way. "House of the Dead" fails to be "good bad.".

There are qualities inherent in good campy movies, most important of those being believable fantasy. One needs to believe what's happening in a movie to see the humor when a situation goes incredibly wrong. Without boundaries, the movie becomes absurd. HotD lacks any believability.

Worse still, HotD brings nothing new to the genre, and repeats the same plot twists and character reactions that many horror movies inevitably start to exhibit. For example, all too often, horror movies fall into the trap where the main characters find love amongst the gore and destruction. I don't know about you, but when I'm being chased by zombies, I wanna make out with a hot chick. Believe it? No? Then, you probably won't believe it when the characters start sucking each other's faces in this movie.

Beyond the obvious issues that plague this movie like so many other horror movies, Uwe Boll elected to add scenes from the video game of zombies being shot, randomly whenever a character shoots a zombie in the movie. Not only is there no clear rationale for this artistic choice, but it distracts one from an already unbelievable plot. Further, there are frequent and numerous examples of bad acting, and seemingly no attempts by the director to guide the actors' reactions to events... leaving the movie with no redeeming qualities. Avoid...
A: negative
Q: A 14 year old girl develops her first serious crush on the 17 year old boy that lives near by, while simultaneously trying to overcome her feelings of inadequacy in comparison to her older sister. That is the simple premise of this beautiful, poetic coming of age film from Director Robert Mulligan. Mulligan is famous for previously directing Summer of '42 in 1971 and To Kill A Mockingbird in 1962, two giants of the coming of age genre. Here he directs newcomers in the principal roles: Reese Witherspoon, in her film debut, as the 14 year old girl; Emily Warfield, as the older sister; Jason London, as Court, the 17 year old boy. Reese Witherspoon is astonishingly good in her film debut, displaying every emotion that a 14 year old girl feels in experiencing young love and hurt, never striking a false note. Warfield and London are both equally good as well. The film accurately depicts each adolescent's thoughts or feelings in regard to love with heartfelt sensitivity, never crossing over into maudlin excess even once. Kudos to the autobiographical screenplay from Jenny Wingfield; this is one of the very few films about young love that is honest and consistent in tone without being emotionally dishonest or sensationalist. The music is wonderfully simple, accentuating the tone and mood from scene to scene, but never becoming intrusive. The beautiful cinematography is by famed horror director Freddie Francis, who was in his 70's when this was shot. Tess Harper and Sam Waterston play the girls' parents with dead aim accuracy for 1957, caring, strict, and emotionally simple. Gail Strickland is good also as the boy's mother. There are feelings to sort out, lessons to learn, and truths to face in this sweet-natured film that packs an emotional wallop. To date, this is Robert Mulligan's last film. This is one of the very best films of 1991. **** of 4 stars.
A: positive