input: En route to a small town that lays way off the beaten track (but which looks suspiciously close to a freeway), a female reporter runs into a strange hitch-hiker who agrees to help direct her to her destination. The strange man then recounts a pair of gruesome tales connected to the area: in the first story, an adulterous couple plot to kill the woman's husband, but eventually suffer a far worse fate themselves when they are attacked by a zombie; and in the second story, a group of campers have their vacation cut short when an undead outlaw takes umbrage at having his grave peed on.

The Zombie Chronicles is an attempt by writer Garrett Clancy and director Brad Sykes at making a zombie themed anthologya nice idea, but with only two stories, it falls woefully short. And that's not the only way in which this low budget gore flick fails to deliver: the acting is lousy (with Joe Haggerty, as the tale-telling Ebenezer Jackson, giving one of the strangest performances I have ever seen); the locations are uninspired; the script is dreary; there's a sex scene with zero nudity; and the ending.... well, that beggars belief.

To be fair, some of Sykes' creative camera-work is effective (although the gimmicky technique employed as characters run through the woods is a tad overused) and Joe Castro's cheapo gore is enthusiastic: an ear is bitten off, eyeballs are plucked out, a face is removed, brains are squished, and there is a messy decapitation. These positives just about make the film bearable, but be warned, The Zombie Chronicles ain't a stroll in the park, even for seasoned viewers of z-grade trash.

I give The Zombie Chronicles 2/10, but generously raise my rating to 3 since I didn't get to view the film with the benefit of 3D (although I have a sneaking suspicion that an extra dimension wouldn't have made that much of a difference).

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I guess I am coming late to the party. I just saw this 1995 version of Bye Bye Birdy on Sky TV. I didn't know it existed and was fully prepared to see the 1963 film version when I turned it on.

I played Albert a long time ago and I am thinking of putting on an amateur production of the show because I remembered it as being so much fun to do. I was not impressed with this newer version. It just wasn't enough fun. It was not colorful. It lacked the exuberance of youth. The lighting was bad. No one seemed to mention this fact. This is not a moody musical, it is bright and up beat. The lighting decision was a poor creative choice.

Bye Bye Birdy is a farce, a comedy of errors. I got no sense of that in this version. The lighting was awful and it dulled the overall performances. The dance numbers seemed anemic as well. We do have music videos these day. At least the dance numbers should have measured up to some of the best of those, or how about some of the best of Broadway. The choreographer was asleep at the wheel it seemed.

Although all the actors were supremely talented, there were some really bad casting choices. Vanessa Williams is not Latin, and with so many talented Latin performers out there, wouldn't it have been more correct to cast one of them in the role of Rosie. Vanessa is African American, lovely and talented, but bad casting. Jason Alexander's effort was astounding, he always does intelligent work, but he just wasn't Albert. He was miscast and I think that is obvious to most people who see this version.

The medium of film is not the medium of stage. There needs to be translation from one medium to another. The exuberance and the flash of stage musical must be TRANSLATED to film. There is no merit being faithful to a stage script when it is being filmed. The spirit, the essence of the production must be brought forth. To me the 1963 film production of Bye Bye Birdy was bright and lively, while the 1995 production was as gloomy as the lighting and as lackluster as the dance numbers. It turned out to be an unfortunate waste of effort by many really talented people.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This is without doubt Rajnikanth's worst movies ever. The first part is held in place with solid comedy from Goundamani but it progressively gets worse and worse and completely illogical. Our hero also takes a dig at Saints with the same name (Baba) through a corny and utterly lame one-liner. The first half has Rajni uttering his usual array of oneliners and style and in the second half, becomes a quasi saint after a beggar takes him through a interdimensional portal to the Himalayas where Babaji (not the famous Saints he took a dig at earlier) gives him special powers for no apparent reason (other than karma). This is really starting to get interesting now isn't it?

The rest of the movie is about him wasting his magic boons and powers and fighting off politicians and related black magic. The usual predictable crap with hilarious implementation. Oh and the black magic never worked on our hero because he just happened to have a Param Vir...er....Shakti Chakra with him. The bad guys and the usual politician villains are cliched, overworked and in the end, completely insignificant to the plot which itself doesn't go anywhere.

But despite all the flaws, it was fun to kill time with and yell Baba related one-liners during public events. Its also fun to watch others curse about this movie. AR Rehman is said to have composed the tracks for his movie through the cell phone. Thats how important he considered it.

Rajni is very popular in Japan and he has included two characters (one of them is called Keiko...why not Samsung?) of Japanese origin in this movie just for the sake of it. But the way they are portrayed, dressed and treated is absolutely pathetic. The Japanese may stop watching Rajni movies after seeing that. This movie was probably promotional material for Rajni entering politics but the results of the movie itself would have killed off any of his political dreams.

Fun if you turn your brain off though.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Sly Stallone is hardly the finest actor in the world but compared to his brother, Frank...well, roll out those awards now! Mullet haired, muppet Frank seems to think that every part he plays, calls for him doing the role as an American/Italian Wise-guy refugee from the 'Godfather.' Please, somebody make him an acting offer 'he can refuse!' This film just stinks the place out, even by the terrible overacting in this, Frank still steals the acting dishonours. All the people compensate for their lack of talent by shouting their lines and throwing their arms about, gesticulating wildly in a style that went out of fashion back with silent films.

The plot, what there, is, makes no sense as a meteor lands and turns all the women into sex-crazed nymphets but as this is 15 certificate film, that just means they strip to their underwear and make moaning sounds like dogs on heat. What happens in the end, I'm not quite sure as I was losing the will to live long before the film finished.

Avoid this like the plague and watch 'Deep Impact' for a reasonable film about a meteor about to hit the earth.

N.B. Point of order: when one of the female leads strips down to her underwear, she has her knickers/panties under her suspenders/garter belt, it's knickers over the suspenders to allow women to go to the toilet with less fuss. A trivial point, perhaps, but shows how dumb this film is when they can't even get this right!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative