input: Although the movie is clearly dated, audiences can still easily identify with the plight of hapless Buster in this timeless and very funny underdog tale. Buster fights against unkindly odds in three different ages: the Stone Age, The Roman Age, and the Moden Age, playing almost the same character with just a change of scenery to help us identify the different "ages". In this movie we see one of the earliest comedic depictions of the "caveman" stereotype, who wins his love not by romance but by brute force, as well as a funny twist on Roman gladiatorial combat, two comedic sketches that long predate such spoofs as Mel Brooks' "History of the World: Part I". The underlying theme of the movie is simple yet convincing: Although the times may have-a-changed, we still face the same struggles even in modern times that we fought in prehistoric times in order to "win the girl" (keep in mind this is the theme of 1923 America, a time when chauvinism was still en vogue). It is interesting to look at this movie over eighty years later, and consider how dramatically things have changed from this movie's "modern times" to now.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: If you can believe it, *another* group of teens return to *another* lakeside cabin three years after *another* one of those fatal 'accidents' claimed one of their number. Low and behold, a psycho wearing a patterned hockey mask (a cheap papery one at that) turns up to waste them one by one. This mechanical 'Friday the 13th' knock off gained slight notoriety as one of the first digitally-shot features, but that's where the interesting facts end and all that remains is a predictable, amateur production with sub-par performances and a recurring boom-mic intrusion. A last-second twist does little to lift the spirits, and 'Memorial Day' is something best tossed in a lake and forgotten about. One for insane slasher collectors only.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: First, nobody can understand why this movie is rated so poorly. Not only is this the first real horrific movie since a very long time for me who am pretty hard-boiled with a decades long experience of horror starting with driving through dark rides (ghost trains) as a child. Second, the main actress Cheri Christian has a face that lets you hope she will be the leading actress in major pictures of the future. Third, this woman is that tremendously beautiful that I suggest the directors retire all those Cameron Diazes, Eva Mendezes, and how ever the names of these ephemeral bulb-lights are. Mrs. Christian is not a light, but a sun.

However, "Dark remains" is also of considerable metaphysical importance. They idea that photographs shows creatures of the intermediary reign between reality and "imagination" that are not visible with one' own eyes is not new. But I have never seen in a movie before that those creatures are visible on the photographs only for certain people and only to certain times. This means that the photo is not just an iconic picture of reality (by which reality turns into a sign), but becomes an alternative form of reality which can change as the "real" reality can. Being a sign, the changing of the picture means that it influences the photographed objects, i.e. the sign behaves like an object. Now, in our usual world of perception, it is common that objects change signs. F.ex., if someone grows a bird, his photograph will show him with beard, not without, as it did before. But the opposite, the changing of objects by signs would imply that the photo with beard is first and only then the beard grows on the man. This is, very simply expressed, the case that happen with the photos taken by the main character in the prison, in this movie. This is new, and we must be thankful for everything new in horror movies which usually just repeat and reorder effects and features that are already well-known, mostly since the silent time.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I dunno sometimes...you try and try and try to be charitable towards all the B thru Z grade movies out there, but once in a while a particular movie just tests your patience until you want to slap everyone involved. "Bat People" (which I saw under the title "It Lives By Night") is just such a movie. You can't watch this without thinking that it really should have been an episode on "Night Gallery", and not one of the better ones, either.

The movie has something to do with a doctor who gets bitten by a bat and consequently starts to morph into a Were-Bat who drinks human blood. (Actually, you'd think if he was turning into a real bat, he'd be eating mosquitoes by the gallon bucket, but because this is a cheap, lurid horror movie, blood's the word.) In spite of the fact that he has grand-mal seizures at the drop of a hat, and black-out episodes almost every night, his friend and fellow physician, Dr. Mustache Aspen-Extreme, insists that he's just having an 'allergic reaction' to the rabies shots. Meanwhile, the world's most obnoxious and stereotyped county sheriff suspects the doc of being responsible for the brutal murder and exsanguination of several local girls (and one wino). Also meanwhile, the doctor's wife decides that denial IS a river in Egypt and alternately patronizes him and nags him to distraction.

It's not so much that the acting is bad - you can tell that the actors are making professional level choices, and are trying to bring some juice and life to the script, even the guy who plays the sheriff. (Okay, it IS pretty bad, but it's bad in a cliched, wooden, professional way). It's just that everything about the acting, the way the scenes are paced, the costumes, the dialog, the script and the story line in general sets your teeth on edge and makes you want to, well, slap everyone involved.

I think the movie had an outside chance at being a spooky, unsettling little cult favorite, BUT:

1)The director needed to beat Michael Pataki, an experienced character actor, with a chair until Pataki agreed to ACT, and not just channel Dennis Weaver.

2)He also needed to find a script that made a little more sense with regard to the whole "Bat Bites Human, Who Then Turns Into A Bat" scenario.

3) He also needed the actor who played the doctor to find a little more physically believable bit of stage business for his 'episodes', instead of resorting to "Man Has A Seizure" page from the Little Golden Book of Cliched Acting Mannerisms.

4) He needed to rework the whole 'wife' character, make her both more intelligent, less shrill and waaaaay more observant.

I would never voluntarily watch this film again, except with the help of Mike and the Bots. It's bad, but it isn't bad in a silly, humorous or interesting way. Still better than "Battlefield Earth" or "Waterworld", though.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
negative