IN: Review: In a college dorm a guy is killed by somebody with a scythe. His girlfriend Beth (Dorie Barton) discovers him and tries to commit suicide. She's institutionalized. A year later she's out, has a new boyfriend named Hank (Joseph Lawrence) and is about to spend Spring Break with Hank and four other mindless friends in a BIG, beautiful condo in Florida. Naturally the killer pops up (for no reason) and starts killing again.

Lousy slasher thriller--a textbook example of how NOT to do a low-budget horror movie. For starters, large portions of this film are ENDLESS filler of these six idiots videotaping themselves, having "fun" (more fun than the audience), getting drunk, acting stupid etc etc. Also there is NO nudity in here at all. I'm not saying a horror film needs nudity but ANYTHING to liven this up would have helped. None of the deaths are really shown (you hear them), are only a little bloody and there is no gore. There's one REAL gruesome one--but that's not till the end.

With a few exceptions the acting sucks. Dorie Barton is dreadful as the main woman and Tom Jay Jones is lousy as Oz. Chad Allen pops up as Brad and he's TERRIBLE. Lawrence is actually very good--handsome and hunky and giving this crap his all. And Jeff Conaway pops up in a small role doing a pretty good job.

Logic lapses abound--after they realize a friend has been killed two of the girls casually talk about sex; Baston's non reaction to seeing a friend getting killed is kind of funny and WHAT happens to Lawrence? His character disappears without a trace at the end! Dull, stupid, no gore, no nudity--skip this one.

Rated R for Graphic Violence and some Profanity.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Although I recently put this on my 10 worst films list, I have to say it's probably no worse than Burt Reynolds in "The Maddening" or any of the "Look Who's Talking" sequels. Still, it's pretty nauseating, even with sexy Drew Barrymore playing something of a horror-movie answer to Holly Golightly, relocating from New York City to Los Angeles but finding out she's being stalked by a murderous look-alike. Poor Sally Kellerman, a quirky actress of great acclaim in the '70s, is reduced here to a paltry supporting role, and Barrymore's leading man George Newbern is the worst type of sitcom actor, always pausing for a laugh after every line. The picture is swill, but Drew's bloody shower scene boasts showmanship, and the identity of the psycho (although right out of a "Scooby Doo" episode) is interesting. But as for the finale...get real! Who had to clean up THAT mess? * from ****
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Ritchie's first two films were snappy, stylish entertainment. Here, he raids two recent classics 'The Usual Suspects' and 'Fight Club' and still comes out empty-handed.

Despite parading itself as a con-mystery (with the sub-'Usual Suspects' twaddle "the greatest con he ever pulled was convincing you that he was you" or whatever it was...) and attempting a 'Fight-Club' twist about which characters are real and which are internal manifestations, the film struggles to maintain interest in its second half. By the last third, you know you're being lead down a blind alley, and tediously slowly at that.

Cons, chess and game theory are all great subjects, but Ritchie delves into them too superficially and too repetitively to make much use of the material.

The only thing that keeps the movie (almost) watchable is Ritchie's bold way with with a scene and Maurice-Jones's dynamic camera. If Ritchie stuck to a more satisfying plot, and succumbed to tighter editing, there's no reason why he couldn't have made another enjoyable gangster caper.

As it is, Revolver is a waste of your time. Incomprehensibility does not equal profundity. If you want to see a great film that doesn't make logical sense but makes a virtue of it (and, incidentally, which also involves an inexplicable escape from solitary confinement) watch 'Lost Highway'.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: OK. I'm biased. I live near Shrewsbury in England, where this wonderful movie was filmed. It still looks the same now. I remember them filming here quite vividly, and the fake snow on the streets for days on end. Often, when I'm walking through Shrewsbury I see a street or a house and it will remind me of this film.

George C. Scott's Scrooge is a more realistic character than many of the other screen versions. His physical appearance isn't the typical miser. Scott's is big and imposing. A man who finds those smaller than himself to be inferior.

We all know the story and the quotes. The book is one of the most cherished works in the English language. And I don't believe there are many cynics who would say that people aren't capable of change and redemption. This film version portrays all of that quite beautifully. George C. Scott may be American but he plays the part of the English miser with wonderful skill.

I love this movie. If you haven't seen this version I would strongly urge that you do. It's usually available for a very small amount of money... or are you too mean?
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
positive