IN: Review: It's not the most well made slasher movies of all time, but for what it is, it's pretty amusing. The plot is lame but the kills are not too bad. I have to be honest, if you don't follow the bands that are featured in this film, you wont find this film as funny as those who do. I knew someone who saw this film and was really disappointed because of the poor quality of the film but you have to understand that it was made in the spare time of being on tour, in between playing to moshing kids and drinkin' with friends backstage...it's not made to be taken seriously. It's ubber cheese at it's punk best and with over 100 kills,most of which are ultra gory, it's a fun movie to have friends over to watch, drink and be merry!
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This movie makes me want to throw up every time I see it. If you take the first movie, and reverse the plot (ariel wants to leave the sea, her daughter wants to go to the sea), take the same characters and give them new animals and new names, and then throw in crappy animation and the biggest suck factor, possible, you get the little mermaid 2. Its basically a copy of the first movie with a reversed plot. I'll take you through the horror of it step by step. These are the people from the 1st movie: First of all, Prince Eric is still prince eric, with about 3 lines in the whole movie. Ariel is uptight, annoying, and is not the carefree, headstrong spirit we saw in the 1st. In fact, she is the exact opposite. Sebastian is still sebastian only less cute, less convincing as being stressed out, and the jokes just aren't funny anymore. Flounder has about 2 lines. He now has kids and he talks with a dumb nasal voice. Scuttle is still dumb scuttle only not funny. King Triton's character is probably the best, he still retains the intimidation and love for his daughter, Melody. Ariel and Prince Eric appear not to give a hoot about their daughter.

Like i said, all they did was use the characters from the first movie and copy them. This is what they did: Ursula- The new evil villain is Morgana, Ursula's sister who feels like she always lived in Ursula's shadow. I wouldn't be scared of her if she showed up at my doorway with a knife. She can't do anything right and she's a failure as a villain. She has the same voice ursula did. Sebastian & Flounder - Have been replaced by probably the most stupid sidekicks, Tip & Dash, a walrus and a penguin. They try to be hero's but always fail when trying. the plot is so predictable. They become heroes at the end. Yawn. Flatson& Jetsom- Now replaced by a shark who was turned about 10x smaller by triton. Hes really bad too. Morgana and the shark (sharkbait, I think was his name) have no chemistry, good or bad. Ariel-Ah, Ariel. Our lovely mermaid was replaced by her un-lovely daughter, melody. Melody cannot sing, her voice is about 2 octaves higher than it should be, and you want to punch her in the face because shes so fake sugary sweet. She wants to go to the sea, she is clumsy and the kids make fun of her, she has to go find herself. yawn.

Not only is the movie boring and unoriginal its so simplistic when you watch this movie you will gasp at how bad it is. Certain parts of the movie make you want to call Disney up and demand why such a horrible movie was made as a sequel to such a wonderful original.

Basically, comparing the little mermaid 2 to the little mermaid is like comparing and Ed Wood movie to Casablanca. Don't ever watch this, not even when your bored.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Warning: mild spoilers.

The story of Joseph Smith stands out as an amazing - even moving - episode in American history and World Religious history. This movie portrays events in the life of Joseph Smith, whom Mormons revere as the prophet of the restoration of the true Church of Jesus Christ on the earth. I've so far seen the movie twice in its first month of public showing.

Joseph Smith is shown first to be the youngest of a trio of brothers (Alvin, Hyrum & Joseph) who, at a very young age, needed an operation. The operation, done without our modern conveniences, was bloody and difficult. The scene helped to show the cohesiveness of the Smith family and the bonds between the brothers and between Joseph and his parents.

Joseph's religious confusion and subsequent praying which lead to what Mormons call the First Vision was interestingly portrayed. The face of Jesus is never shown, but you see the unmistakable nail marks in His hands. The rejection by religious leaders and many in his small New York community is sweetened at least slightly by Joseph's marriage to Emma.

This movie does not clearly map out the events of Mormon Church history, but merely jumps from scene to scene. This is not a critique - simply a note about the style.

The practice of tarring and feathering is shown, and it is especially dramatic and moving when Joseph delivers a sermon about the Savior's love with a scarred face from having recently been attacked.

The movie masterfully portrays simultaneously the joy and growth of Mormonism as an infant church, while at the same time the ever-deepening opposition that spread into the heights of local governments.

The film shows many scenes from Joseph's life, including a few beautiful moments portraying his relationship to Emma. An attempt is made to show the depth and complexity of Joseph's life, including his fierce love for his wife, his endless love for children, his wit, his courage in the face of filthy and dangerous opposition, his religious sentiments, and his compassion.

As Joseph and Hyrum ride to Carthage, never to return home alive, most of the characters from throughout the movie, whose lives had been touched by Joseph, are shown along the way, helping to reinforce what was already seen but setting up the final scene to be more powerful.

At the end, the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum is portrayed, and moviegoers are left to ponder the events they just witnessed.

When I first watched the movie I assumed it was made by the Church to introduce Joseph Smith to non-members. I no longer think that is the case, although I hope the movie can do just that. As an insider, I find that the film is a celebration of Joseph and excellently reinforces the good things we already know about him. I am curious to see how outsiders will view the film - whether they will simply see it as propagandic, an epic story of an American religious man, or something else.

The film is beautifully shot, family friendly, moving and, hopefully, something good for everyone. That the events portrayed actually happened in these United States of America is interesting to ponder in light of the many aspects of our culture - including freedom of religious expression and respect (generally) for the law - we moderns take for granted.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: In watching this early DeMille work, it was once again reinforced to me that early DeMille is far superior to late DeMille. His attention to use of light within scenes is remarkable. His pacing is very good, enabling much to be told in the space of an hour or so. It is a pity that he wasn't as intuitive about the style of his later sound films as he seemed to be in his silent films.

This was the first film in which I had seen Cleo Ridgely. She was remarkable, quite restrained and yet conveyed a broad spectrum of emotions.

The ending is wonderful.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive