input: Pathetic is the word. Bad acting, pathetic script, cheezy dialog and hip hop music & fashion...what the hell was up with that? The directer of this movie acts as bad as the movie he made. If someone would have taken some time and effort to rework the whole thing, it may of had a chance. Bet the studios are still trying figure out how they could screw up up so badly.

The absolute best thing about this movie was Stacey Dash...the Asian chick wasn't too bad neither. These too gals carried the whole movie. If it weren't for them I would have destroyed my copy of this movie.

If any of those who have not seen this yet and had a notion to, don't waste your time...you'll only regret it later.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Yes, this IS a horror anthology film and it was a lot of fun! That's because although the film clearly was horror, some of the stories had a light spirit--and there were even occasionally a few laughs. This isn't at all a bad thing as sometimes horror films are a bit stuffy and overly serious. Because of this and because all four of the stories were pretty good, it's one of the better movies of this style I have seen.

The unifying theme that connects each story is the house itself. Four different stories involve people who either rent the home or investigate what happened to the tenants.

The first segment starred Denholm Elliott as a horror writer who has writer's block. So, for a change of scenery, they rent this house. Almost immediately Elliott's block vanishes and he works steadily on a tale about a serial killer. Amazingly, soon after his block vanishes he begins to actually see his fictional character! Again and again, the psychotic killer appears and then disappears--making it seem as if he is losing his mind. This might just be the best of the stories, as the nice twist ending makes the story come alive.

The second, while not bad at all, is probably the weakest. Peter Cushing plays a bachelor who is pining for a girl friend who died some time ago (though the picture of her looked amazingly contemporary). When he enters a chamber of horrors wax museum in town, he sees a wax figure that reminds him of his lost lady and he is both fascinated and scared by this. Later, a friend (Joss Ackland) visits and he, too, sees the figure and is entranced by it. This all leads to an ending that, frankly, was a bit of a letdown.

Christopher Lee then stars as an incredibly harsh and stern father to a pathetic little girl. During most of this segment, Lee seemed like an idiot, but in the end you can understand his demeanor. Though slow, this one ended very well.

The fourth segment was the silliest and was meant to parody the genre. Jon Pertwee (the third "Doctor" from the DR. WHO television series) is a very temperamental actor known for his portrayals of Dracula. However, nothing is right about the film according to him and in a fit of pique, he stomps off the set to find better props for this vampire film. It's actually pretty interesting that he played this role, as it seemed like a natural for Christopher Lee who played Dracula or other vampires a bazillion times (give or take a few). I enjoyed Pertwee's line when he basically said that Lee's and other recent incarnations of Dracula were all crap compared to Bela Lugosi's! Perhaps this is why Lee didn't take this part! Despite some very silly moments, it was very entertaining and fun--possibly as good or better than the first segment.

Considering that the film started and ended so well, had excellent acting and writing, it's hard not to like this film.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I just watched this movie for the second time, and enjoyed it as much as the first time. It is a very emotional and beautiful movie, with good acting and great family values. Inspiring and touching!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Having seen men Behind the Sun I guess I hoped for an evolution in style & technique to match the larger scale of this movie. I was also quite interested to see someone make a hard-hitting fact-based fictionalised account of what happened during this most notorious of Japanese atrocities, but this is not it. This plays like a bottom-to-mid tier European Nazi exploitation movie from the 70s - e.g. SS Experiment Camp etc (perhaps more like Deported Women of the Special Section actually). Granted it has a greater scope and more people running around, but it resorts to the same cheap and cheerless device of lots of hapless non-actors limply falling over to the sound of ridiculously fake gunshots, spiced up with the occasional poorly executed 'shock' sequence. The admittedly horrible documentary footage is roughly spliced in between scenes so hackneyed that even these real images are robbed of much of their power. Watch channel 4's 'The Holocaust' (aired recently (still running?), as of 1 No 2006) for a genuinely disturbing documentary on the evils of war (featuring excellent in-context use of actual footage). This is the type of treatment the horror of Nanjing deserves, not this hackneyed exploitation garbage (a better executed exploitation movie minus the disrespectful use of stock footage would have been fine, but again this is not even a very good exploitation movie). Rating: 3 (5 as exploitation, 1 as a treatment of the subject).

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative