input: This movie was made for people who found Gremlins too serious and Critters to hardcore. Like many of the critters/trolls/gremlins movies of the 80's this movie is bad. The sad part is that there's no punchline to that comment. It's just bad and not in a funny way.

The problem with this miniature monster movie is that it actually tries to be funny and ends up being as successful in doing that as Howie Mandell was in Walk Like A Man. What made the other 80's horror movies into classics was that they were genuinely trying to be scary, but were hilarious because they failed so miserably. Someone must have told Bettina Hirsch (yes THE Bettina Hirsch)she had a knack for comedy before she started directing this movie. Unfortunately they were wrong.

Sure seeing a weird little mutated cross between a ferret and a tumor wearing a brown trenchcoat and throwing pool balls at an outcast from the Lost Boys is amusing, but not enough to save the movie.

By far the most annoying part of the movie is the Paul character. His Paul Reiser wannabe schtick is enough to make you start fast forwarding from the time of his first scene until the ending credits only stopping once to see a scene where a munchie throws pool balls at a guy...not that I did that.

So the bottom line is run, don't walk, to your nearest Blockbuster and shake hands with the manager and thank him for not having the grapes to stock this pile of garbage on the shelves.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: "Telefilms" tend to fall under the pitfalls of a low budget and a hasty shooting schedule, which is why this film always tends to buck the trend.

George C. Scott embodies Ebenezer Scrooge perfectly, fully encompassing all of his cold tendencies, and still makes him a simpathetic character. The production value for this film was exceptional, never relying on boffo special effects or soundstage set-ups, yet relying on the depth and clarity of on-site shooting and strong backdrops. A movie that certainly stands alone.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: That's the sound of Stan and Ollie spinning in their graves.

I won't bother listing the fundamental flaws of this movie as they're so obvious they go without saying. Small things, like this being "The All New Adventures of Laurel and Hardy" despite the stars being dead for over thirty years when it was made. Little things like that.

A bad idea would be to have actors playing buffoons whom just happen to be called Laurel and Hardy. As bad as that is, it might have worked. For a really bad idea, try casting two actors to impersonate the duo. Okay, they might claim to be nephews, but the end result is the same.

Bronson Pinchot can be funny. Okay, forget his wacky foreigner "Cousin Larry" schtick in Perfect Strangers, and look at him in True Romance. Here though, he stinks. It's probably not all his fault, and, like the director and the support cast - all of who are better than the material - he was probably just desperate for money. There are those who claim Americans find it difficult to master an effective English accent. This cause is not helped here by Pinchot. What is Stan? Welsh? Iranian? Pakistani? Only in Stan's trademark yelp does he come close, though as the yelp is overdone to the point of tedium that's nothing to write home about. Gailard Sartain does slightly better as Ollie, though it's like saying what's worse - stepping in dog dirt or a kick in the knackers?

Remember the originals with their split-second timing, intuitive teamwork and innate loveability? Well that's absent altogether, replaced with two stupid old men and jokes so mistimed you could park a bus through the gaps. Whereas the originals had plots that could be summed up in a couple of panels, this one has some long-winded Mummy hokum (and what a lousy title!) that's mixed in with the boys' fraternity scenario. I can't claim to have seen every single one of Laurel and Hardy's 108 movies, but I think it's a safe bet that even their nadir was leagues ahead of this.

Maybe the major problem is that the originals were sort-of playing themselves, or at least using their own accents. It at least felt natural and unforced, as opposed to the contrived caricatures Pinchot and Sartain are given. And since when did Stan do malapropisms, and so many at that? "I was gonna give you a standing cremation"; "I would like to marinate my friend." Stop it!

Only notable moment is a reference to Bozo the Clown, the cartoon character who shared Larry Harmon's L & H comic. Harmon of course bought the name copyright (how disconcerting to see a ®️ after Laurel and Hardy) and was co-director and producer of this travesty.

Questions abound. Would Stan and Ollie do fart gags if they were alive today? Would they glass mummies with broken bottles? Have Stan being smacked in the genitals with a spear and end on a big CGI-finale? Let's hope not.

I did laugh once, but I think that was just in disbelief at how terrible it all is. Why was this film made in the first place? Who did the makers think would like it? Possibly the worst movie I've ever seen, an absolute abhorrence I grew sick of watching after just the first five minutes. About as much fun as having your head trapped in a vice while a red-hot poker and stinging nettles are forcibly inserted up your back passage.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Meek, tiny, almost insignificant. Polanski finds the invisibility of his characters and makes something enormous out of it. In front and behind the camera he creates one of the most uncomfortable masterpieces I had the pleasure to see and see and see again. It never let's me down. People, even people who know me pretty well, thought/think there was/is something wrong with me, based on my attraction, or I should say, devotion for "Le Locataire" They may be right, I don't know but there is something irresistibly enthralling within Polanski's darkness and I haven't even mentioned the humor. The mystery surrounding the apartment and the previous tenant, the mystery that takes over him and, naturally, us, me. That building populated by great old Academy Award winners: Melvyn Douglas, Shelley Winters, Jo Van Fleet, Lila Kedrova. For anyone who loves movies, this is compulsory viewing. One, two, three, many, many viewings.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
positive