Q: Tough guys, sexy women, lots of swearing, and a most unconvincing monster that rises from the depths of a polluted lake. You'd think "Monster" would be fun...but it isn't, really. It does star Tony Eisley and John Carradine, however, and in my book that makes it worth viewing at least once. In an interview with "Fangoria" in 1987, Eisley recalled that Herbert Strock had directed the bulk of the film, but somehow Kenneth Hartford--who only directed the footage featuring his children Andrea and Glenn (portraying characters named Andrea and Glenn, in a particularly inventive turn)--received full credit. Considering how awful the end result was, Strock was probably glad that he hadn't been credited! "Monster" has the look and feel of a mid-to-late-seventies TV movie, which is why I like to leave it on in the background every so often. As entertainment it falls flat on its face, but as a reminder of another age and a vanished type of film-making, it's very effective. The only thing that's missing is a car chase.
A: negative
Q: I thought this was one of the most depressing holiday movies I have ever seen--the others being THE Christmas WIFE and JACK FROST. All three movies are about death. If you LIKE being thoroughly depressed, then by all means watch this film or any of the others. In this film, the acting is good and some of the scenery (apart when people are dying) is lovely. But, I am worried that a clinically depressed person might accidentally see the film and do themselves in! Despite a "happily ever after" ending, the major portion of this film is one awful disaster following another. And, for some crazy reason, I DON'T WANT TO BE DEPRESSED when I watch a Christmas movie (I know this sounds crazy folks--after all, isn't bawling your eyes out and feeling miserable what the holidays are all about anyway?).

For a more uplifting viewing experience, try the forgotten HOUSE WITHOUT A Christmas TREE, George C. Scott's Christmas CAROL or A Christmas STORY instead--unless of course you like being miserable.
A: negative
Q: 'I don't understand. None of this makes any sense!', exclaims one exasperated character towards the end of Death Smiles at Murder. Having just sat through this thoroughly confusing mess of a movie, I know exactly how he feels. The story, by the film's director Aristide Massacessi (good old Joe D'amato using his real name for a change), is a clumsy mix of the supernatural, murder/mystery, and pretentious arty rubbish, the likes of which will probably appeal to those who admire trippy 70s garbage such as Jess Franco's more bizarre efforts, but which had me struggling to remain conscious.

Opening with a hunchback mourning the death of his beautiful sister (with whom he had been having an incestuous affair, before eventually losing her to a dashing doctor), Death Smiles at Murder soon becomes very confusing when the very same woman (played by Ewa Aulin, who stars in the equally strange 'Death Laid an Egg') is seen alive and kicking, the sole survivor of a coach accident that occurs outside the estate of Walter and Eva von Ravensbruck. After being invited to stay and recuperate in their home, where she is tended to by creepy Dr. Sturges (Klaus Kinski in a throwaway role), the comely lass begins love affairs with both Mr. and Mrs. Ravensbruck (meaning that viewers are treated to some brief but welcome scenes of nookie and lesbian lovin').

'So far, so good', I thought to myself at this point, 'we've had hunchbacks, incest, some blood and guts, and gratuitous female nudity'all ingredients of a great trashy Euro-horror; what follows, however, is a lame attempt by Massacessi to combine giallo style killings, ghostly goings on, and even elements from Edgar Allan Poe's 'The Black Cat', to tell a very silly, utterly bewildering, and ultimately extremely boring tale of revenge from beyond the grave.

This film seems to have quite few admirers here on IMDb, but given the choice, I would much rather watch one of the director's sleazier movies from later in his career; I guess incomprehensible, meandering, surreal 70s Gothic horror just ain't my thing! 2.5 out of 10 (purely for the cheesy gore and nekkidness), rounded up to 3 for IMDb.
A: negative
Q: REALLY? REALLY???? I know if you make a political war movie you will get noticed but this movie was just garbage. Horrible in every sense. Terribly inaccurate in so many ways. I have an easier time believing the president of the United States suiting up, flying a jet fighter, and shooting down aliens. It is easier to note the few things that were right. My jaw dropped when I saw some one say that this movie was the best in the last 25 years. It was overacted, seemingly pointless plot diversions, and had questionable cinematography at times.

X-box, YouTube, ACUPAT utilities did anyone check that these things did not exist in 2004? It's not like you had to do extensive research, it was only five years before this movie came out. I am an Iraq war Veteran and if you spent ONE day with an infantry platoon or an EOD squad you would realize how B.S. this movie is. To compare this to Platoon or Saving Private Ryan is ludicrous. Why don't you just throw Commando and Red Dawn in there too; I think those might be more accurate.

If for some reason you can see past the unbelievable plot, the historical and factual discrepancies, then this movie might just be OK. Nothing more. If you keep on hearing "Oscar buzz", and have to add your own pompous review, go right ahead. As for me, I am writing the director to see if I can get my 131 minutes back.
A: negative