Problem: This review is like what?

Review:After reading the reviews, it became obvious that everyone intellectualized this work. How utterly boring. Oh how about the good ol' days and there was nothing like it. Of all the comments no one expressed any emotion to this work or any other.

I grew up just after the end of the steam age and this cinematic gem along with Dan'l Boone graced the Saturday afternoon matinees. This was an annual movie that made the rounds and filled the seats with gabbing, yapping, farting, giggling, snot monsters like myself or was-self. And it was a movie theatre filler at the time. Almost as big as the Wizard of Oz.

IMDb insists that every critique contains something about the plot. Problem is was that it was rather a template. Here goes. Randolph Scott (cowboy/hero)gathers friends and goes defeats those evil people. Hooray!

All of us kids figured out that plot before we plunked our quarter down to watch it. That was just about the plot line of every Scott, John Wayne, Roy Rogers film ever made. If you take the time to go back and review each and every movie - just don't ask for surprises.

One must remember the context of the times. There was no or little TV. None for kids. There was school. There was the great outdoors. There were toy guns. No Cyber time. And the steam age had just collapsed. But movies such as this provided the entertainment and filled the imaginations of young whippersnappers. Even the girls got into it.

This movie was the entertainment. And it is just as mindless as anything produced today. It had a purpose originally of being propaganda. But quickly came to be kids movies.

Our fathers had experienced the real thing. And it wouldn't be until Sam Peckinpah a decade later who finally lavished the red splashes of imitation blood in realistic and copious quantities. Not until his directorship did anyone die slowly, with great pain and miserably. Until Peckinpah war and gun fights were a rather bloodless affair. Thanks Sam.

To see a movie had little or no blood, the adults didn't mind. They wouldn't have tolerated it I think. No guts spraying the shattering plant life. So this movie had all of the glory and none of the gory. Gung Ho was suitable for kids then.

You will see that I assigned a four to this rating. Why would I do that? Well. It is a terrible movie. No matter how I love it. I do love this movie because it brought back one of the happier moments of my childhood. But it is not all that good of a movie in quality terms. Basically Gung Ho transitted to become a romance novel for children.

Should people watch it. Of course. I am not saying to stay away. Realistically however. The plot is simple. The characters shallow? they are shoals. You can love a bad movie.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I rented this film out having heard of the fuss about it not being put up for an Academy Award, but after watching it, it's easy to see why it didn't. Despite the beautiful photography, the film is incredibly slow moving, despite having hardly any plot.

The plot is about a young boy trying to come to terms with his parents' death in what may or may not have been an accident (the film is never clear on this), and how his grandfather used to tell him fairy stories. The fairy stories contain the only bits of interest in the plot, but they're very short, and don't really seem to have any point.

The first fairy story in particular concerns a boy trying to get a magical flower to his dying girlfriend to save her life, but the boy delays by tasting the flower first to make sure it is not poisonous which results in him being a few seconds too late to save his girlfriend - the grandfather then pronounces that the moral is that the boy was too impatient, but that doesn't make any sense because it was overcaution and slowness which resulted in his failure. Perfect metaphor for this film really.

The photography of Skye is beautiful though, but then Stardust which was released this year is another film about fairy stories filmed in Skye and beautifully photographed - and it's infinitely better than this one.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:Yeah sure it's cheesy, it's not Zombie, but it's not that bad either. It has Beatrice Ring which is a huge bonus, and it's entertaining. I had the good fortune to meet Fulci later in his career and he remained philosophical about the experience, as he was never completely satisfied with it. It is well worth a search out, especially for genre and Fulci fans. It is a film that is far too often dismissed out of hand.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:A grade-Z horror filmmaker Carl Monson was one of the most prolific directors operating within the field of the low-budget gory mayhem.His movies are full of inept gore,laughable acting,boring sub-plots and woeful dialogue.A mysterious black clad figure is savagely murdering guests staying at the family mansion.Unfortunately this film is almost bloodless.You don't actually see the murders except with shadows and a few blood splatters.The pace is lethargic and the plot is rather uninteresting.The acting is merely competent,but the lack of gore and mutilation left me disappointed.A generous 4 out of 10.Just beware:do not mistake Monson's film with Andy Milligan's equally weak "Legacy of Blood".
+++++++++
A:
negative