Q: If this is your first time experiencing the wonders of cinema, if you've never seen a "Moving Picture" before, you'll think this movie is a child of the gods. BUT if you've seen a movie, a TV show, even Barney the Dinosaur, then you won't be very impressed by this film. Heck Barney the dinosaur was even more realistic than the dinos in this flick.

Now I like B movies. I just watched "The Giant Gila Monster" right before I watched this swill, and I liked that movie much better. It works as a B movie. It has lamer dialog,hokier acting, cheesier effects and an honest to gosh real Gila Monster as the monster! Carno 3 just doesn't pack much of a B movie punch. It has some gore, and that Polchek guy comes close to being funny a few times but this movie is underwhelming, almost....flaccid. It's the Little Engine That Couldn't of Dinosaur movies. I'm not saying you shouldn't watch the movie.

Some people can watch gum drying on a sidewalk and feel entertained. If you're one of those people, then give this movie a shot.
A: negative
Q: A friend once told me that an art-house independent film ran in a cinema when- upon the closing of the film - audiences were so enraged they preceded to tear up the cinema seats. Of course, my imagination ran amok, trying to conjure up the contents of such a piece of work. Well,now my imagination can be put to rest.

I am a lifelong Andrei Tarkovky fan and an ardent admirer of his work. I have come across many people who thought Tarkovsky's films are slow-moving and inert. Opinions being what they are, I found this not to be true of the late director's wonderful works, which are wrought with meaning, beautiful compositions, and complex philosophical questions. Upon hearing Aleksandr Sokurov called the heir to Tarkovsky, I was excited to experience his films.

With the exception of the open air ride through the fields (Stalker), this movie has no kinship to anything Tarkovsky has done. It does not seem to possess the slightest meaning, even on a completely mindless level. It's supposedly "gorgeously stark" cinematography is devoid of any compositional craft. There is a no balance, no proportion, and the exposure meter seems to be running low on batteries in the freezing snow. The main character is so inept and indecisive, it makes you wonder whether his father might have been alive if he made up his mind sooner.

I am also not adverse to non-plots or story lines that progress on multiple non-linear fashion. But there isn't even a non-story here. One must surely enter the viewing of this film with a shaved head if one were to exit it with nothing gained and nothing lost, as hair-pulling would be the only possible answer to a pace that could make a Tarkosky time sculpture look as if Jerry Bruckheimer had filmed a Charlie Chaplin short.

I won't rule out that this may be one of Sokurov's stinkers (Tarkovsky's Solaris), but to conclude that he is one of Tarkovsky's heir-based on this film- would be to call Paris Hilton the successor to Aristotle. C'mon guys, don't be afraid to say it. No amount of big impressive words is going to magically bring this corpse of celluloid back to life. I don't profess to fully understand Russian culture and I probably don't have Russian values, but I immediately picked up on Tarkovsky's work as something magical, a treasure and a gift to viewers.

If it didn't have Sokurov's name on it, and it aired on say, Saturday Night Live, I'm pretty sure nobody would "read" all these magnificent analysis into this wet noodle of a flick.
A: negative
Q: I would not hesitate to put this adaptation of 'Death Trap" in a top 5 list of the best stage-to-movie adaptations ever. Caine and Reeves (an underrated actor who never really got a chance to do more than soggy romances and "Superman") play off each other extremely well here. Even Dyan Cannon - who I normally don't care for - is perfectly cast in a role that exploits her annoyance value as an actress.

I'm not sure that comparisons of "Deathtrap" with "Sleuth" - another brilliant stage-to-screen adaptation featuring Michael Caine - are valid, or even fair. Yes, the two stories have a lot in common. But "Sleuth" is as much about class warfare as the battle of wits, and the house in "Sleuth" is set is at least as much a character in the movie as the two actors - the house doesn't really have an equivalent in "Deathtrap". And "Deathtrap" isn't so much a battle of wits as it is a pointed vignette about how people are no damned good (and never as smart as they think they are) and deserve everything they get. I'll just say that both movies are superb examples of the genre, and well worth your time and money. This is America, after all. You don't have to choose!

I won't give away the twists and turns of the plot, but I don't think it matters anyway. I've watched the DVD eight or nine times in a dozen years, and still enjoyed the chemistry and the timing and the mean, scary moments when things go "all pear shaped". It's all done so well that the ride becomes more important than the actual destination.

Anyone who likes black-hearted comedy and suspense in the Hitchcock style of film-making will probably enjoy "Deathtrap" immensely.
A: positive
Q: Final Score (an average of various classic cinematic qualities- acting, visuals, creativity, payoff, humor, fun, ect):

4.3 (out of 10)

Had "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" come out a few years ago it would have seemed like a bold, serious new direction in Disney animation. However, it comes just a year after the innovative and nearly genius "The Emperor's New Groove" and marks a step back in freeing Disney from it's repetative "Disney Formula". I'm a big fan of the feature length Disney animated films. Have to see them all love it or hate it. "Atlantis" is an animated throwback to "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" and similar live-action sci-fi adventures of the 50s and 60s. Problem is that this version hardly contains one original idea. It feels like a remake of something, even more so than actual Disney remakes(Tarzan, The Hunchback of Notre Dame). The characters are little more than a walking cliches of the usual suspects that typically populate these type of films (the oddball mechanic, the gung ho general, the sassy tough women). Beyond Milo Thatch (Fox) and Rourke (Garner) the supporting cast is flat-out obnoxious. The movie also suffers from it's succinct pace. Instead of fleshing it out into an epic story, Disney jams a lot in the usually brief running time brushing over opportunities to develop...suspence, characters, anything really. They thow us into this new and wonderous world and barely let us get our barings. The awkward pace sometimes makes confusing what is a relatively simple story. The animation is dark and dreary and cheap. This thing looks like a slapped together saturday morning cartoon. Let's hope they haven't forgotten that 2D traditional animation can still be wonderous. "The Iron Giant" among others proved that.

Negatives: The visuals, pace, and sheer lack of originality.

Positives: Quite possibly the coolest death scene for a Disney villain in a long time. It's the creative highlight of the movie.
A: negative