Q: When you see this movie you begin to realise what a drastically under-utilised asset the late Dudley Moore was. There should be a dozen movies like this in our archive.

He was already top-notch talent before he went to Hollywood, both as a comedian and a musician. But mostly he is remembered for his pairing with Peter Cook, on television and in one or two indifferent British movies. Perhaps the best of these was 'Bedazzled'.

He always tended to be eclipsed by Cook, who's jealousy and meanness rifted their partnership and enabled Moore to realise his true potential in America. 'Arthur' is the result.

This is a truly splendid movie. Moore's clownish comedy as a drunkard is undeniable. The script is perfectly suited to his manner with lot's of hilarious, almost surreal conversational digressions. There is something so British about him that I'm actually surprised he found such an appeal to American tastes. Tommy Cooper, an anarchic comedian after the same fashion tended to draw a blank. It is Moore's almost childish vulnerability that is so endearing.

Liza Minelli and John Guilgud tend to play straight roles against him, but still have some excellent one-liners. John Guilgud in particular delivers his with a sarcastic and acerbic authority that is a treasure to watch. He invariably steals any scene in which he features and thoroughly deserved his Oscar. Correct me if I'm wrong, but he has never played any other comic role.

There is a follow-up movie called 'Arthur 2 - On The Rocks'. It never attains the same sublime levels of fun that this one reaches, but it is still rather good even so. Guilgud only gets a cameo appearance at the beginning and as a ghost. It is darker. And there is some interesting soul-searching. It will disappoint if you watch 'Arthur' first.

Hollywood seemed to loose interest in cuddly Dudley after these two outings. He eventually returned to Britain, dejected and apparently dying.

But 'Arthur' is a sample of what might have been. We can only imagine the other great movies he should have made.

Your're sadly missed, Dudley. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Note to Horror fans: The only horror here is when you realized you just wasted 95 minutes of your life on a movie that's so worthless it's insulting.

I watched this because:

The premise sounded slightly promising: It's not. It's just an excuse to use the same lame set pieces from other low-budget slasher films that weren't good either.

The promise of naked forest nymphs sounded nice even if the movie turned out to be awful: It's not. It's SO not. The amateur cinematography makes sure the "fallen angels" are about as sexy as the average homeless person.

The name Tom Savini has a long history in the horror genre: He's the king of low-budget special effects and lower-budget acting. Come to think of it, Savini should have been a reason not to watch this movie. It's not that he's bad, but he's almost always in bad movies. His only good role was in From Dusk Till Dawn, and he's been milking that at horror conventions ever since.

But let's focus on the positive: Forest of the Damned is a great example of how NOT to make a movie.

Everything else is a negative. Obviously the writer is allergic to originality. The script is terrible. That's all a given after the first 10 minutes. But the clueless pacing; the way the director treats "plot" and "characterization" as a nuisance he thinks no one cares about anyway; and the excruciatingly long and boring driving, walking, and nature sequences (no doubt added to increase the running time to make the film qualify for distribution) show a complete lack of aptitude for film and storytelling in general.

This is another good example of the number-one way you can tell if a movie is going to be bad: If it's written and directed by the same person, expect garbage. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Mt little sister and I are self-proclaimed horror movie buffs. We have seen just about EVERYTHING, especially zombie flicks. Now, we have seen a lot of good zombie movies, and a lot of bad ones. This BY FAR is the WORST movie I have ever seen in my entire life. Not only was the acting horrible, but the special effects, graphics and ever "zombie" make-up was the worst I have seen. If you can even call it make-up ( black eye shadow around the eyes) This is totally proof that you should never judge a book by it's cover. Cause the cover to the movie is the only sweet thing about. do your selves a favor and DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was so adamant about this movie I went as far as putting a sticky note on the inside of the movie before i returned it to movie saying "This movie sucks, don't waste your time, return NOW" hahahhaa I don't want anyone else to waste a good movie night on this POS movie! i don't even know how it got the ratings that it did, t should be in the negative OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: "They were always trying to get me killed," Alec Guinness once wrote of The Man In the White Suit's technicians. "They thought actors got in the way of things." He went on to describe how he'd been given a wire rope to climb down and, assured it was safe, narrowly avoided serious injury when it suddenly snapped mid-descent.

"People get in the way of things" might be a maxim tailor-made for White Suit inventor Sidney Stratton (fittingly played blank slate-fashion by Alec Guinness) in Alexander Mackendrick's definitive Ealing film of 1951. Certainly, he cares only about his work, its realisation - and sod the consequences. And similarly, with the exception of a couple of peripheral characters, there's almost nobody to root for in this chilly satire on capital and labour.

Told in flashback, the film concerns Stratton's invention of a dirt-resistant, everlasting fibre (fashioned into the white suit of the title), and subsequent attempts by the clothing industry and its unions to suppress it.

While the industry fears the bottom will drop out of the market, the shop floor stewards worry about finding themselves out of a job. Abduction and bribery attempts follow, with both money and an industry chief's daughter on offer (Daphne, the delectable, 4-packs-a-day-voiced Joan Greenwood), to the tragi-comic end.

"What's to become of my bit of washing when there's no washing to do?" bemoans Stratton's landlady near the close. A notion Stratton hadn't even considered - and has disregarded again by the movie's ambiguous coda.

A superior, if decidedly downbeat comedy, expertly performed - and pretty much answering the oft-raised question of whatever happened to the everlasting light bulb and the car that ran on water... OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive