input: William Castle is notorious among horror fans as the B-grade director of the 1950s and 60s. His gimmicks, his cost-cutting techniques and his unique vision are legendary. It comes as no surprise, then, that someone (Jeffrey Schwarz, who's made countless documentaries) would finally take the time to devote a documentary to his greatness. Such is "Spine Tingler: The William Castle Story".

I had a general understanding of who Castle was, having seen some of his films over the years. I knew nothing about her personal life, his goals and ambitions. This film really fleshed out the man and gave me a fuller appreciation for the devotion he had for the craft of film-making and his contributions to the horror genre. The movie depicts Castle as rival to Alfred Hitchcock, with Hitch being the artist who wins praise while Castle is the carnival barker who gains cult notoriety, but much less respect. He is an icon to all second-rate directors out there, which is why it's not surprising that John Waters is featured prominently in here. (Joe Dante and Stuart Gordon also have sizable roles.)

His gimmicks were what drove his fame, and the documentary takes great pains to explain them, which is crucial for those who are too young to remember. The rudimentary 3-D of "13 Ghosts" (see separate review), the buzzer in the seat for "The Tingler" (see separate review), money back guarantees for "Homicidal"... watching these films now outside the theater, we can judge them for their content (which, personally, I still enjoy) but we cannot fully appreciate what audiences once felt.

The climax of the film is when Castle goes from cult director to Hollywood producer. Having bought the rights to "Rosemary's Baby", he is put in a very special place for negotiating its film release. Hoping to direct, he is sidelined to producer in order to make way for new director Roman Polanski. While at first disappointed, this proves to be one of the best opportunities of his lifetime -- a hugely successful film, and a job he excels at. Who better to control the purse of wild artist Polanski than a penny-pinching Castle? This was to be his crowning achievement, though sadly the film is more often connected to Polanski than Castle.

The remainder of his years are played out, and we are given personal reflections by his daughter and niece. Across the board, everyone seems to have nothing but praise for the man. Somewhere along the way, he surely upset one or two people, but you would never know it from this film. And I find that find -- this is a celebration of Bill Castle's life, not "E! True Hollywood Story". Fans of the genre would do well to pick up a copy of this work.

I would personally recommend picking up the William Castle Collection, which has not only this but eight of Castle's films in it, with plenty of special features. Even this documentary comes with an audio commentary so you can hear how Schwarz was personally affected by Castle, and have Castle's daughter Terry giving a running reflection of her experiences with the different films and remakes. It's almost a whole new film.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I think this movie was supposed to be shocking. But the only way in which it is indeed shocking is how shocking badly it's been made ...and simply is. It's one-and-a-half hour of torment. Even more so for the viewer than for the characters in the movie (the five girls).

Sure the main characters get their bloody piece in a bad way, which is basically fine, since it's a horror-movie. And I (usually) like horror-movies. I've no problem with violence in these type of movies per se. However all the violence in this film serves no end whatsoever. It's no spectacle other than that it's simply grotesque. It's so lame it even gets boring, and really quick too.

The worst thing (if the above wasn't bad enough for ya) about this movie is that they've tried to copy the Blair Whitch Project, by filming with cheap hand-held-cameras. But (again, this too) serves no end whatsoever. In the "Blair Which", sure enough, there's an explanation, namely they are their with a camera looking for the blair witch. In this film, there's no other explanation than: "Hey ya'll we wanted this to LOOK LIKE the Blair Whitch!!" The sound in the movie is also something to get depressed about. The girls are screaming so hysterically that many a time you can't make out what they're saying. Also, no effort has been made to make anything any better, sound-wise or other wise.

Than finally, there's the soundtrack, which is just as bad as the rest, and varies from cheap euro-house to the worst grungy hard-rock...

My advise: Don't watch this under ANY circumstances.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Wow...

I picked this up at the local Wal-Mart after reading online that it had been released early. I've been following this online for some time, and just had to buy the film.

Wow...

I guess the thing that really struck me was the editing, or lack thereof. Time and again, characters (usually The Narrator and whoever he is with) are shown walking...and walking...and walking. I am not an editor, but I do know that you can cut between someone leaving point A to show them arriving at point B. There is no need to show almost the entire journey! Wow...

I actually ended up feeling somewhat sorry for the actors involved in this. They seem to have been given no direction as to what to do during scenes other than to look scared or look happy, depending on what action was to be added at a later date.

Wow...

Why it was decided to do almost all the effects using CG is beyond me. Even ILM still employs miniatures sometimes. One of the most distracting uses of green screen in this film is the constant rushing about of (according to the end credits) the same group of people representing the citizenry of different towns and cities, including London. At times these folk are coming and going with no regard as to the angle of the shot or the distance they are from the camera. In one shot in London, there appear to be at least two men over six feet tall walking just behind the narrator's brother (played by star Anthony Piana without his distracting mustache). Not since GETTYSBURG have I seen such a fake piece of facial hair.

Wow...

Why Timothy Hines talked up this film the way he did is beyond me. It is a turkey, plain and simple. On the plus side (at least for me) it has provided some of the most genuine laugh-out-loud bits of hilarity I have seen in quite a while.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: 'Chances Are' a big mistake to see. You could know director Emile Ardolino from 'Dirty Dancing' and 'Sister Act' and should expect something amusing from him. But I guess I have to disillusion you. He made a really, really bad movie.

According to the story Christopher McDonald dies to reburn as a baby. The baby grows up Robert Downey Jr, and Jr returns his former home town where she meets his former daughter, Mary Stuart Masterson (complicated, huh?).

They fall in love with each other. Then appears Jr former wife, Cybill Shepherd, and Jr falls in love with her too. I guess I don't even have to mention that she loves Ryan O'Neil.

In one of his first roles Robert Downey Jr's on his worst. He copies Michael J Fox.

After the 'Moonlighting' Shepherd proves that she's not suitable for acting in movies.

Anyway, there's one thing this unfunny comedy can be used: as antidote to insomnia.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative