Q: Worst show I've ever seen. The story is about a group of teenagers who, for some inexplicable reason, have super powers, and when they use some special device, they morph into strange, poorly designed suits. The acting when they're not in the retarded-looking suits is decent. Definitely not good, but not the worst acting I've ever seen. However, when wearing their suits, the actors' acting goes from bad to worse; much, much worse. The hyper-animated idiots have a myriad of unnecessary motions they do. Even when they talk they look like they're having seizures. The villains are stupider than the Rangers. Every episode, some weak, idiotic villain comes up with some plan to destroy the Rangers. He/she then sends a force of hyper-animated aliens to attack the Rangers. The Rangers then initialize their 10-hour transforming animation, then they annihilate the aliens. Then, the poorly designed villain, which can either be an armored villain that actually looks and acts evil, to a humanoid ladybug-like creature with trumpets attached to its back that shows obvious signs of mental retardation. The Power Rangers fight the villain off, then the villain turns into Godzilla, whether it be by a rain cloud or a nuclear missile (yes, they fire nukes at the creatures and the creatures turn into giants). The Power Rangers spend 5 minutes acting hyper-animated and summon their Zords which are obviously toys that the producers of the show used special effects on to make them look real. The Power Rangers win, the villain gets mad, they all teach a "valuable" lesson, and the show ends. That's it. Twenty-five minutes of brain-washing, fake kung fu fighting. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: The final installment in the action thriller franchise is just that probably the hardest hitting of the three films. It goes further to play the anti-Bond theme. Bourne doesn't like what he is doing and wants to know about his blurry past. Everything about this film hits it on the nail from the cinematography to choreography/stunt work to the script to acting.

The film starts out in a flurry as Bourne is running from the Moscow police. The story seems to pick up right where the first film left off. Or does it? The time is a little muddled here, but we get the fact that Bourne is remembering things. A sudden flashback while trying to clean himself up nearly gets him caught, but he makes it and doesn't kill anyone. They aren't his target. From there we get more of the intrigue of his past with a new player, Noah Vosen, who seems to know everything about Bourne and will protect it at all costs. Pamela Landy is back as well as Nicky Parsons who seems to have a past with Bourne as well.

The cinematography is in your face following tight on practically everything. The car chase is even more intense if that seems possible than the ones from the first two. And the veteran cast chasing Bourne is superb with a nice part by Albert Finney. It also has slight political overtones in relationship to rendition and other government policies, but that is minor and integrated very well within the plot. All in all this is the best of the trilogy conclusions this year, if not the best action trilogy ever. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: One of the biggest hits of 1926, Brown of Harvard is a exciting comedy/drama featuring regatta and football scenes that gave William Haines the role he needed to become a major star. It's patented Haines all the way: brash smart aleck who takes nothing serious until he is rejected by everyone wises up and becomes a man/hero and wins the girl. No one worked this formula like Haines. A terrific comic actor (Little Annie Rooney with Mary Pickford, Show People with Marion Davies), Haines could swing from comedy to tragedy with a change in facial expression. He is a total joy in this film as he was in Tell It to the Marines (with Lon Chaney) and West Point (with Joan Crawford), where he repeats the formula. Mary Brian is good as the girl, Jack Pickford is very good as the sickly roommate, Ralph Bushman is the rival. Edward Connelly, Mary Alden, David Torrence, Guinn Williams, and Grady Sutton co-star. This film is noted now for its homoerotic relationship between Haines and Pickford and for being John Wayne's film debut as a Yale football player (but I never spotted him). Haines was a top-five box office star starting with this picture through 1932. It's a shame he has been largely forgotten and that most of his films appear to be lost. He was one of the most appealing and talented actors of his time. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: While this film certainly does possess the stench of a bad film, it's surprisingly watchable on several levels. First, for old movie fans, it's interesting to see the leading role played by Dean Jagger (no relation to Mick). While Jagger later went on to a very respectable role as a supporting actor (even garnering the Oscar in this category for 12 O'CLOCK HIGH), here his performance is truly unique since he actually has a full head of hair (I never saw him this way before) and because he was by far the worst actor in the film. This film just goes to show that if an actor cannot act in his earlier films doesn't mean he can't eventually learn to be a great actor. Another good example of this phenomenon is Paul Newman, whose first movie (THE SILVER CHALICE) is considered one of the worst films of the 1950s.

A second reason to watch the film is the shear cheesiness of it all. The writing is bad, the acting is bad and the special effects are bad. For example, when Jagger and an unnamed Cambodian are wading through the water, it's obvious they are really just walking in place and the background is poorly projected behind them. Plus, once they leave the water, their costumes are 100% dry!!! Horrid continuity and mindlessly bad dialog abounds throughout the film--so much so that it's hard to imagine why they didn't ask Bela Lugosi or George Zucco to star in the film--since both of them starred in many grade-z horror films. In many ways, this would be a perfect example for a film class on how NOT to make a film.

So, while giving it a 3 is probably a bit over-generous, it's fun to laugh at and short so it's worth a look for bad film fans. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative