IN: Review: According to this board, I guess either you love it or hate it. Usually how it goes with all movies. There is no need to get testy with others though. All we are doing here is giving opinions. I rented this movie last night and I want to come and throw my opinion in the mix. I was surprised by how many people are thrashing it though. There's a difference between a movie fan and a horror movie fan. I'm a horror movie fan. Most plain ole' movie fans don't like horror movies. So many low budget cam corder looking movies are coming out these days. It's hard to keep up. And what makes it tough to stay into these movies is how bad they are. I wanted to come and write a review about "Hood of the Living Dead" because it's pretty damn good compared to the rest of the junk out there. It's nothing special but it's those horror film makers that try to be too serious that end up making a horrible horror film. I really liked this one. You telling me there is no effort in this one? And one more thing, I bet all of you have all of these huge DVD collections that you are so proud of, nothing but Major Motion Pictures right? Nothing wrong with that, but you have to know how to appreciate low-budget independent. I knew what I was getting when I watched this movie. I'm not going to be upset because I thought it was going to be some 100 million dollar movie. Some of you might need to stick with watching the Matrix over and over again and stop trying to compare everything to the Matrix. And if most of you are under 24, that explains everything. Good movie folks, check it out.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This is an excellent, fast paced thriller by Wes Craven (Nightmare on Elm Street), who for 85 minutes leaves aside the supernatural and presents us with something even more terrifying - the evil of human beings. We are far more likely to encounter the benign evil of Jackson Rippner than Freddy Kruger, and Cillian Murphy (Batman Begins) does an excellent job of presenting a sociable, friendly, even charismatic killer. The performances by Murphy and by Rachel McAdams (Claire, from The Wedding Crashers)are brilliant. Most of the film takes place on a very intimate level, between two people, their eyes, their faces. It is action on a small scale, not the broad sweep of the canvas, and it is no less compelling for these limitations. The cinematography is nothing special, though of course one can do only so much with a camera in the confines of a passenger jet, but the dialog is excellent, the story taut. There are no distractions, no subplots confuse the issue which is at its heart a battle between the main characters. By keeping his focus and avoiding distractions, Wes Craven is able to take what is a very minimal plot and turning it into an exciting, fast-paced action thriller.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Maggie Smith and Peter Ustinov as a very unlikely couple in a very not likable film at all.

The film shows promise for Ustinov is released from prison for embezzling. He convinces Robert Morley to go away so that he can assume his identity and begin hacking away at computers at a very fancy firm run by Karl Malden and Bob Newhart, another unusual duo for films.

Morley sounds just as he did in 1938's "Marie Antoinette." Perhaps, he needed to return to that genre.

This film is ridiculous at best. Hard to believe that the following year, Maggie Smith totally changed her ways and gave a shattering Oscar performance in "The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie."

Ms. Smith is made out here to be an apparent dumb-red head, but by film's end, she is the brains of the outfit. Too bad the writing didn't go the way with her.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: 1928 is in many ways a "lost year" in motion pictures. Just as some of the finest films of the silent era were being made in every genre, sound was coming in and - while reaping great profits at the box office - was setting the art of film-making back about five years as the film industry struggled with the new technology.

"Show People" is one of the great silent era comedies. The film shows that William Haines had comic skills beyond his usual formula of the obnoxious overconfident guy who turns everyone against him, learns his lesson, and then redeems himself by winning the football game, the polo game, etc. This movie is also exhibit A for illustrating that Marion Davies was no Susan Alexander Kane. She had excellent comic instincts and timing. This film starts out as the Beverly Hillbillies-like adventure of Peggy Pepper (Marion Davies) and her father, General Marmaduke Oldfish Pepper, fresh from the old South. General Pepper has decided that he will let some lucky movie studio executive hire his daughter as an actress. While at the studio commissary, the Peppers run into Billy Boone (William Haines), a slapstick comedian. He gets Peggy an acting job. She's unhappy when she finds out it is slapstick, but she perseveres. Eventually she is discovered by a large studio and she and Billy part ways as she begins to take on dramatic roles. Soon the new-found fame goes to her head, and she is about to lose her public and gain a royal title when she decides to marry her new leading man, whom she doesn't really love, unless fate somehow intervenes.

One of the things MGM frequently does in its late silent-era films and in its early sound-era films is feature shots of how film-making was done at MGM circa 1930. This film is one of those, as we get Charlie Chaplin trying to get Peggy's autograph, an abundance of cameos of MGM players during that era including director King Vidor himself, and even a cameo of Marion Davies as Peggy seeing Marion Davies as Marion Davies arriving at work on the lot. Peggy grimaces and mentions that she doesn't care for her. Truly a delight from start to finish, this is a silent that is definitely worth your while. This is one of the films that I also recommend you use to introduce people to the art of silent cinema as it is very accessible.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive