Q: Sleepwalkers are creatures who drain the life force completely out of humans to survive...but they can only use virgins (it's not explained why). Charles Brady (Brian Krause) is one such who needs to feed his mother Mary (Alice Krige). He goes after likable Tanya (Madchen Amick). Will she escape?

On one hand this is a GREAT horror film. Fast-paced, plenty of blood and gore and a nice, twisted sense of humor. There are plenty of in joke references for horror buffs (Castle Rock is mentioned once). Also Krause is excellent (who would have thought he could act after "Return to the Blue Lagoon") as is Kirge and Amick. But I find this film annoying.

It was written for the screen by Stephen King and it's maddeningly vague. The sleepwalkers are never fully explained. Where are they from? Why are they called that? Why does the son have to feed the mother? Why do cats hate them and can kill them? What are their powers after all (at one point Krause makes a car disappear AND change color and style!)? Why do they need to feed off peoples' life force? Why does it have to be only virgins? Why is the son having sex with his mom? None of these are explained leaving the story confusing. It's really too bad because, those questions aside, this is an excellent horror film. Excellent makeup and special effects too.

Fast, gory and lots of fun. If only the script were better. Also a fairly explicit sex scene between Krause and Krige was edited (you can tell) to get an R rating. I can only give this a 7. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I recently bought this movie and I do not regret having it at all as a matter of fact I am very please have this movie to add to my collection. Matt Manfredi and Phil Hay, movie directors, took less than one month to film and spent about 1 million EUR to produce this great movie. This proves that not only big productions make great movies.

The title of this movie fits in perfectly. In computer language BUG means program error which causes reactions in computer function. Our reactions can cause these negative side effects, but also great moments of beauty. The vertiginous happenings in this movie start with the death of a BUG. A man witnesses the "crime" on the other side of the road...From there onwards everything gets complicated...

I point out John Carrol Lynch ("Fargo"), Wallece, the man who cannot make everything right at all. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: This was a weird movie. It started out pretty good. A solid sound track behind flash images of gore and mayhem as our psychopath did his thing.

Next comes his "down fall" Here i could tell I was in for a real cheesy "B" movie. Poor acting , I mean how hard is it to hold a gun and act like a cop? These guys could not. After the death scene of our psychopath we get the opening credit and the movie starts...

From this point on it is bad acting big boobs, the occasional bucket of blood and poorly done death scenes.

That said I gave the movie a four because in spite of its flaws it did maintain a sort of creepiness that I just could not quite shake off.

I do not recommend this movie but I have to admit I have seem worse. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: 'The United States of Kiss My Ass'

House of Games is the directional debut from playwright David Mamet and it is an effective and at times surprising psychological thriller. It stars Lindsay Crouse as best-selling psychiatrist, Margaret Ford, who decides to confront the gambler who has driven one of her patients to contemplate suicide. In doing so she leaves the safety and comfort of her somewhat ordinary life behind and travels 'downtown' to visit the lowlife place, House of Games.

The gambler Mike (played excellently by Joe Mantegna) turns out to be somewhat sharp and shifty. He offers Crouse's character a deal, if she is willing to sit with him at a game, a big money game in the backroom, he'll cancel the patients debts. The card game ensues and soon the psychiatrist and the gambler are seen to be in a familiar line of work (gaining the trust of others) and a fascinating relationship begins. What makes House of Games interesting and an essential view for any film fan is the constant guessing of who is in control, is it the psychiatrist or the con-man or is it the well-known man of great bluffs David Mamet.

In House of Games the direction is dull and most of the times flat and uninspiring, however in every David Mamet film it is the story which is central to the whole proceedings, not the direction. In House of Games this shines through in part thanks to the superb performances from the two leads (showy and distracting) but mainly as is the case with much of Mamet's work, it is the dialogue, which grips you and slowly draws you into the film. No one in the House of Games says what they mean and conversations become battlegrounds and war of words. Everyone bluffs and double bluffs, which is reminiscent of a poker games natural order. This is a running theme throughout the film and is used to great effect at the right moments to create vast amounts of tension. House of Games can also be viewed as a 'class-war' division movie. With Lindsay Crouse we have the middle-class, well-to-do educated psychiatrist and Joe Mantegna is the complete opposite, the working class of America earning a living by 'honest' crime.

The film seduces the viewer much like Crouse is seduced by Mantegna and the end result is ultimately a very satisfying piece of American cinema. And the final of the film is definitely something for all to see and watch out for, it's stunning.

An extremely enjoyable film experience that is worth repeated viewings. 9/10 OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive