Problem: positive
=++++=
Answer: The first installment of this notorious horror series presents a woman being kidnapped by a gang of black-clad men who torture her for several days before finally killing her.She is beaten savagely,spun around in the chair endlessly,has her finger nails pulled,animal guts are thrown at her,hot boiling water is poured on her and finally her eyeball is punctured with a needle(really sick and nasty scene).The makers of this unforgettable torture show tried to make it as real as possible and for me this one is the closest thing to a snuff film you can get without committing murder on tape.Of course some of the special effects are rather poor but the idea of making a snuff is pretty gruesome.I have seen also "Flowers of Flesh and Blood" which is more gory and sadistic,but less disturbing.Anyway,this one is a must-see for horror fans!

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer: I noticed "Fire" was on cable the other night and I began watching it because I couldn't recall anything specific about it other than I remember it being a horrible film when I saw it back in '85. Twenty years later the film is still awful. Besides the synthesizer, the saxophone was the most abused instrument in pop music during the 1980s, as is evident in the title song. Hearing that song again made me want to jab a screwdriver in my ears to end the sonic misery inflicted upon them. And to compound this musical assault Rob Lowe's character played saxophone, and there was one scene where he played a solo that went on and on like he was Charlie Parker, only his shrill tone and playing were more reminiscent of a monkey playing a kazoo. All the characters were intensely unappealing, although I must say they did a great job of casting equally unappealing actors to portray them. Actually I thought Mare Winningham was appealing, and I initially felt sorry for her character because she wore funny underwear, but then near the end of the movie she decides to have sex with Rob Lowe's character who would probably be voted most likely to transfer a variety of sexual diseases if such thing were voted upon.

Problem: negative
=++++=
Answer:
It's been close to ten years since I've seen either of the last two sequels to "Phantasm" - surely due to my still vivid remembrance of them not being very good. That being acknowledged to this day, I'm still a huge fan of the first two installments so I thought I'd go back and re-experience the 'final chapters'. Part three is definitely the worst of the series since it obviously takes itself less seriously and throws in a bunch of confusing stuff that doesn't make much sense... Again, kicking off right where the previous movie left us, Reggie saves Mike from the Tall Man who vows to come back for him later, but things aren't safe for long when they come across Jody who is inexplicably able to the take the form of a sphere. Apparently his soul is held prisoner by the Tall Man so Mike is then dragged into the sinister double-pronged Netherworld and Reg has to find him... Along the way, he meets up with a ten year-old kid and a nun-chuck wielding black chick named Rocky who assist him throughout his journey.

There's really nothing memorable about "Phantasm III" other than how stupid and forcefully "humorous" it tries to be. Only one positive aspect that didn't even help the movie and that was the return of A. Michael Baldwin and Bill Thornbury who reprise their roles for the first time since the original 1978 classic. The problem is, they pretty much make cameo appearances... Reggie Banister is of course back in his starring role, but his bumbling, love-sick attitude makes his presence far too annoying to like. Angus Scrimm also just didn't seem entirely "into" his role. He talks too much here and is nowhere near as menacing and creepy in contrast with the "quirkiness" that the movie seemed to carelessly resort to. Most people's opinion on this flick seem pretty impassive and tend to think "it's still entertaining". Maybe I'm just too much of a nit picker but I just couldn't get into this one. I remember disliking it when I was a kid and after re-watching it - I can safely say - nothing has changed. Don Coscarelli rocked the scene with his original low-budget, nightmarish, legendary film "Phantasm", which I still rank as my top favorite horror flick and his respectable sequel kept things moving and darkly surreal and GORY, but "Lord of the Dead" (stupid title) just looked too rushed and slapped together to me... The inclusion of the two new characters, Tim and Rocky (the only thing missing was Scrappy Doo!!), was a strong indication of Coscarelli running out of ideas and seeing how far he could ride the franchise...

So, it's a "Phantasm" movie with very little gore, nudity, and quadruple-barrel shot guns. Need I say more?