Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:I saw this ages ago when I was younger and could never remember the title, until one day I was scrolling through John Candy's film credits on IMDb and noticed an entry named "Once Upon a Crime...". Something rang a bell and I clicked on it, and after reading the plot summary it brought back a lot of memories.

I've found it has aged pretty well despite the fact that it is not by any means a "great" comedy. It is, however, rather enjoyable and is a good riff on a Hitchcock formula of mistaken identity and worldwide thrills.

The movie has a large cast of characters, amongst them an American couple who find a woman's dog while vacationing in Europe and decide to return it to her for a reward - only to find her dead body upon arrival. From there the plot gets crazier and sillier and they go on the run after the police think they are the killers.

Kind of a mix between "It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World" and a lighter Hitchcock feature, this was directed by Eugene Levy and he managed to get some of his good friends - such as John Candy - to star in it. The movie is mostly engaging due to its cast, and the ending has a funny little twist that isn't totally unpredictable but also is kind of unexpected.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:Johnny Dangerously falls completely in the hit or miss category with it's overblown gags and complete lack of a comprehensive script or story that makes ANY sense. But that's the point, right?

The cast is likable; Michael Keaton an excellent comic performer before he took himself too seriously as the years passed. Griffin Dunne, Peter Boyle, Joe Piscopo, Marilu Henner and Danny DeVito all perform with enthusiasm and at least get a lot of laughs from me. But the complete scene stealer here is Richard Dimitri (sneaking the word "Iceholes" into movie history) as a mobster who fares best at murdering the English language.

I associate many childhood memories with this film, as I watched it quite often so maybe I'm prone to enjoy it more than many others. Johnny Dangerously is at least a completely innocent gangster film spoof that even relays some well meaning messages about the dangers of smoking (and sex).

I like it but it's hard to recommend.

7 out of 10.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:I've given up trying to figure out what version of this I'm watching. The copyright at the end indicates 1983. And though this is not the important bit of my objection to this film, I will say that watching a film obviously made in the Aquarian Age (including long haired hippie chicks and odious station wagons) but with a 1980s synth soundtrack is unsettling. Extremely unsettling.

My main objection here is HOW DARE THE FILMMAKERS BURY CUTE-AS-A-BUTTON PAMELA FRANKLIN ALIVE. HOW DARE THEY.

Seriously she's all like adorable and stuff but in the two movies I've seen her in - this crapfest and the otherwise excellent Legend of Hell House - they kill her off.

I would like to put the film industry on notice. Pamela Franklin has apparently retired from the business but if she ever decides to do another film and some blasted cur of a director attempts to kill her off I SHALL ASK HIM TO STEP OUTSIDE.

NO ONE BEATS UP ON PAMELA FRANKLIN AND GETS AWAY WITH IT. I AM QUITE CROSS. THE FURY HAS BEEN UNLEASHED.

For B-movie fans seeking out a crapfest, you could do much worse than this. On the plus side, this is not a film which involves Satanism in a peripheral and circumspect way - this movie is a hardcore satanic film.

Wall-to-wall satanic ceremonies, baphomets, hallucinations, a ludicrous rat attack - what else could you ask for.

This excellent stuff is quite nearly ruined by the baffling grafted-on 1980s synth soundtrack, which is about as mismatched to a film as it is possible to be. The soundtrack reminded me of something you'd hear on The Equalizer. It's really bad.

Also, they made Pamela Franklin squash her charming English accent, which was also quite rude, if not a cruel atrocity (against the viewer) such as you might find covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I say that we have a right to hear Pamela Franklin speak in her own voice. Who's with me? I could forgive everything else about this film if they didn't abuse Pamela Franklin. And so I throw the gauntlet down, sirs -- ANYONE WHO MESSES WITH PAMELA FRANKLIN MESSES WITH ME.

EVEN IN A FICTIONAL CONTEXT.

GOOD DAY, SIRS.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

Review:The film begins with Vincent Price about to begin his performance as a magician. However, mid-way through the very successful show, the police come and shut him down. It seems that his old boss had cheated him out of the tricks Price had created--even those he made on his own time at home. As a result, Price justifiably kills the evil man. The problem is that while the viewer understood why Price killed and most probably thought this was a GOOD thing, because Price was a bit mad, he just couldn't stop at one (sort of like eating Lay's Potato Chips).

The film was full of very creative and spectacular magic tricks (including a huge circular saw and a crematorium for the shows), great plot twists as well as exciting action. One thing you can't say about this film is that it is dull. While it's also far from subtle, it is fun throughout, though and well worth a look.

Had I never seen Vincent Price's version of HOUSE OF WAX, I probably would have liked THE MAD MAGICIAN a lot more and scored it an 8 or 9. That's because while THE MAD MAGICIAN is a wonderful film, it's highly reminiscent of the film that preceded it (HOUSE OF WAX). The bottom line is that since HOUSE OF WAX was so successful, the formula was re-hashed in the follow-up film. Both were made in 3-D, both have a plot where Price has every justification to kill but he can't stop once he's committed the first and both are great fun to watch. The biggest differences, and there are few, are that HOUSE OF WAX was in color and was more of a horror film and THE MAD MAGICIAN was definitely more of a mystery.

My advice is to see this film AND HOUSE OF WAX (the Price version only). They are both terrific 1950s horror films.
+++++++++
A:
positive