Q: In Carmen, Saura once again seeks to establish a dynamic rapport between reality and fiction, between the actual passions of the personalities in a dance company preparing the choreography for the dance portions of the opera Carmen and the scripted passions from the story of the fictional Carmen, the famous fatal mix of a free spirit (read disregard for fidelity) and her ability to drive men mad with desire. Saura used this same vehicle fiction/reality in an earlier black-and-white film, Bodes de Sangre (Blood Wedding). But, whereas the tensions between the dancers rehearsing Blood Wedding showed to advantage how they evolved into the fictional characters of the story to be performed through directing their emotions into their roles, in Carmen, the parallel between the petty, libidinal urges of the dancers of the troop during rehearsals and the spirit forging to do with the mythic Carmen never comes even close to being believable. It remains a gadget, and, for that reason, a bothersome distraction. One really needs to see Blood Wedding next to Carmen to appreciate the comparison. However, it hardly matters, the melodrama Saura tries to impose upon his Carmen, because the Flamenco dancing and guitar music of the rehearsals_ which are 95% of the film _by some of the best known Flamenco dancers and musicians, more than repays the price of entry. A flawed film, and a wonder: perfect for doing a drill in Keats's 'negative capacity', perhaps?
A: positive
Q: These were over 80 minutes of semi unexpected boredom. First, I was wondering how it is possible to produce something like that. Then, reaching 70th minute I was convincing myself that it's only a few more minutes, and I lasted to the very end which I'm kinda proud of as I consider watching this movie as a great test for human's patience and crap tolerance. Was it worth watching at all? Well, as I wrote above, if you want to test yourself, give it a try and if you're strong willed enough, you may even last to the end... The movie lacks coherence and characters seem to have no common sense at all. All happenings in the movie, you can be sure you saw somewhere before, and they seem to be put in this movie just to fill the film reel.
A: negative
Q: Wonderful cast wasted on worthless script. Ten or so adults reunite at the summer camp they attended as juveniles. Could this ever happen in a million years? It's simply a fantasy, and a boring one at that. Do they become teenagers again? Do they reenact their pranks, games, good times? They may try but ultimately the answer is: No. Is there any intrigue? Any suspense? Horror? Comedy? None of the above. How anyone can be entertained by this drivel is beyond me. I wanted to like this movie; I tried to like this movie, but my brain refused.
A: negative
Q: 1st watched 5/27/2009 - 4 out of 10 (Dir - Harold Young): The 3rd Universal mummy movie is about the same as the first two as far as the final result from the viewer's perspective. The story is similar and the results are ho-hum. This time the story's location is the U.S. as the Egyptian priest's new follower sends a mummy to our country in hopes he can revive him to kill descendants of those who opened the original tomb. This time the mummy is played by Lon Chaney(which doesn't make much of a difference because he's really not asked to do much acting for this character). The new priest becomes a morgue-keeper in the town and sends the mummy out to do his dirty deeds after feeding him the tanna leaf juice. Again, a girl gets in the way, as the priest falls for one of the descendent's fiance and wants her, yes--- to be immortal with him(haven't we heard this before?). The plan is, of course, thwarted as the townsfolk hunt down the mummy with torches(similar to the Frankenstein monster) and the burning of the creature ends the story...how do they get a sequel?? I guess you'll find out with the next one in the series ?? or not.....
A: negative