input: There are few comedies like this, where almost every line and every character come close to flawless. This is soooo funny!! And it has quite a bit of satire there to. Sally Field is heading the field of truly outstanding actors and does a good, if not perfect, job with her daytime tv-diva. Sometimes her acting is just a little to broad and over the top, but 90 % of the time she is a riot! In the same league is Kevin Kline, Robert Downey Jr and Whoopy Goldberg (who unfortunately has too little to do here). Downey jr may not convince entirely as a comedian and has not the timing right all the time, but he struggles with his part which is, to be honest, the most ungrateful one. But the shining star here is Cathy Moriarty as Celeste, a true bitch if there ever was one with more than one nasty secret (you will see in the absolutely stunning finale!). Sadly Elisabeth Shue never seems to be quite comfortable in her part. I normally like Ms Shue, but here she acts as a fish out of water and sometimes seems to be in a different movie. But it is not something damaging and for the most part she is at least adequate. Otherwise, brimming with memorable lines and situations, this is a comedy to watch whenever it is on TV or wherever.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Some people say this is the best film that PRC ever released, I'm not too sure about that since I have a fond place in my heart for some of their mysteries. I will say that this is probably one of the most unique films they, or any other studio, major or minor, ever released.

The plot is simple. The ghost of a wrongly executed ferryman has returned to the swamp to kill all those who lynched him as well as all of their off spring. Into this mix comes the granddaughter of one ghosts victims, the current ferryman. She takes over the ferry business as the ghost closes in on the man she loves.

Shrouded in dense fog and set primarily on the single swamp set this is more musical poem than regular feature film.Listen to the rhythms of the dialog, especially in the early scenes, their is poetical cadence to them. Likewise there is a similar cadence to the camera work as it travels back and forth across the swamp as if crossing back and forth across the door way between life and death, innocence and guilt. The film reminds me of an opera or oratorio or musical object lesson more than a normal horror film. Its an amazing piece of film making that is probably unique in film history.

This isn't to guild the Lilly. This is a low budget horror/mystery that tells you a neat little story that will keep you entertained. Its tale of love and revenge is what matters here, not the poetical film making and it holds you attention first and foremost (the technical aspects just being window dressing.) If there is any real flaw its the cheapness of the production. The fog does create a mood but it also hides the fact that this swamp is entirely on dry land. The constant back and forth across it is okay for a while but even after 58 minutes you do wish that we could see something else.

Don't get me wrong I do like the film a great deal. Its a good little film that I some how wish was slightly less poverty stricken. Its definitely worth a look if you can come across it.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This is not the video nastie, but only because it came out in 1994 when they were presumably tired of the whole thing in Britain. It is 75% a rehash of The Boogeyman, and would have been banned for the same reason - whatever that was.

I was initially confused as I thought that Annie (Kelly Galindo) may have been a different Lacey, but she was someone trouble by psychic visions of a boogeyman similar to the one in the first film. Fans will immediately note that they are not the same person.

After seeing a murder in a bathroom, and also seeing the address as well, Annie, her psychiatrist and a para psychology student who greatly resembles the guy on the cheap romance novels and butter commercials, head to the house, and, sure enough, it's the same bathroom. 24 hours later a murder happens just as she described. Of course, we have no idea who this boobilicious woman is or why she was murdered.

Then the movie shift to a rerunning of The Boogeyman story with some extra footage that we did not see in the original. Notably, the boogeyman is shown unlike the original. Sadly, some of the good scenes were cut, but 90% of it is there. Why rerun this film? Did they find the footage in the trash? What was the purpose?

We'll never know and, despite the psychologist telling Annie she is cured, we all know the bogeyman will never die.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I've waited a long time to see DR TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON and after I watched it, I was really disappointed by it. It's not the Baroque film I expected it to be. The trailer (which I saw on a Something Weird DVD) is much better than the entire film, which is remarkably forgettable. There are almost no stand out scenes in it and the look and feel is interesting but it doesn't even come close to other Baroque styled movies out there, from Fellini or Jodorowsky. The characters are dull and there's almost nothing dramatic going on, even though we see rape, crucifixion, insanity, etc.

The main problem with DR TARR'S TORTURE DUNGEON was the fact that it was a talk-a-thon more than anything else. It was almost like watching a book. I just wanted the film to have moments of silence or mood or something, instead we see/listen to the main characters chit-chat endlessly about dull stuff.

A missed opportunity.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
negative