Q: As a collector of movie memorabilia, I had to buy the movie poster for this film which, now that I've finally seen it, has to be the best thing about it. There's nothing more attractive to hang on your wall than a 27x41 inch image of the melting man. However, there's nothing more awful to put in your VCR than an hour and a half long image of the melting man. At first I thought this movie was pure garbage but then I realized that it did have some qualities which made me laugh. The character of Dr. Ted Nelson has to be the most wishy-washy persona ever brought to the big screen. His dialogue is so trite it's unbelievable! ("It's incredible! He seems to be getting stronger as he melts!)

And could somebody tell me please how the heck they know exactly how much time Steve has left before he melts completely and exactly what their plan is to "help" him? If this movie was meant to scare its audience, I think it missed its calling. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: The name (Frau) of the main character is the German word for "Woman". I don't know if that was intentional or not, but if sure got some giggles from the German audience at the Fantasy Film Festival last year, when it was shown.

But those were the only giggles the movie got. Not that it was aiming for giggles, it's a horrible movie for heaven's sake! A horrible movie in more than one meaning. It's a shame that a premise like that was wasted with horrible even unbearable moments for the viewer (definetely not for the faint of Heart!!)! And it wasn't even necessary to show all the things that are shown. I'm not even going into a moral obligation (because movies don't really have that kind of task or function) discussion of what is shown here, but this is a new low on the whole "torture movement" that has grown in the last few years! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Imagine turning out the lights in your remote farmhouse on a cold night, and then going to bed. There's no need to lock the doors. The only sound is the wind whistling through the trees. Sometime after midnight a car with lights off inches up the driveway. Moments later an intruder beams a flashlight into your darkened living room.

What makes this image so scary is the setting: a remote farmhouse ... at night. Based on Truman Capote's best-selling book, and with B&W lighting comparable to the best 1940's noir films, "In Cold Blood" presents a terrifying story, especially in that first Act, as the plot takes place largely at night and on rain drenched country roads. It's the stuff of nightmares. But this is no dream. The events really happened, in 1959.

Two con men with heads full of delusions kill an entire Kansas family, looking for a stash of cash that doesn't exist. Director Richard Brooks used the actual locations where the real-life events occurred, even the farmhouse ... and its interior! It makes for a memorable, and haunting, film.

Both of the lead actors closely resemble the two real-life killers. Robert Blake is more than convincing as Perry Smith, short and stocky with a bum leg, who dreams of finding Cortez' buried treasure. Scott Wilson is almost as good as Dick Hickock, the smooth-talking con artist with an all-American smile.

After their killing spree, the duo head to Mexico. Things go awry there, so they come back to the U.S., stealing cars, hitchhiking, and generally being miserable as they roam from place to place. But it's a fool's life, and the two outlaws soon regret their actions. The film's final twenty minutes are mesmerizing, as the rain falls, the rope tightens, and all we hear is the pounding of a beating heart.

Even with its somewhat mundane middle Act, "In Cold Blood" stages in riveting detail a real-life story that still hypnotizes, nearly half a century later. It's that setting that does it. Do you suppose people in rural Kansas still leave their doors unlocked ... at night? OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: this is my first review on IMDb, i didn't really want to write one but since there are only 2 for this great movie right now, i feel compelled to add my perspective...and no, i'm not associated to the movie makers in any way (yeah yeah how often did you here that before ;-) ) FYI i'm in my late 20s

1st of all i have to admit i really like animated movies, because what you see is only limited by the imagination of the creators and they were pretty imaginative on this one. Not so much in terms of story but in achieving a very unique and imo fresh visual style. The characters look good but far from real and it works well for the movie, after all it's a fairytale-like world. But the backgrounds and the world in general is filled with awesome visuals that my jaw dropped several times while watching this. The blue, bunny-like mini-dragon steels the show and has easily some of the funniest moments of the movie, he is already an instant classic, much as Scrat from Ice Age. The story is not too surprising (a bunch of anti-heroes have to go out and slay the biggest dragon you can imagine) but who cares if the movie looks and sounds THAT good ;-) 1 thing i have to point out, imo the movie is not suited for VERY young children because it has some darker scenes in it and maybe frightening for kids under 6-8 i would say, these are only very few scenes but worth mentioning imo. Anyway i had a great time watching this and can't wait for it to hit the stores in high def to watch it over and over again just for the sheer beauty of it.

8,5 for me OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive