IN: Review: Part of what was so great about the classic Looney Tunes cartoons was their irreverence and how they weren't afraid to do anything that they wanted. In this case, Marvin the Martian has an assignment to bring back an earthling. Sure enough, he comes across Bugs Bunny, who warns of a mutiny on the part of Marvin's dog. After Marvin finally traps Bugs - by means of an Acme strait jacket-ejecting bazooka! - Bugs has more stuff planned for the voyage back to Mars. What I mean is, if you thought that it was a major change in the Solar System when they stripped Pluto of its planet status, then you ain't seen nothing yet! Yes, "The Hasty Hare" goes all out. How they buy Acme products in outer space is probably beyond most people, but the point here - I mean "hare" - is to have fun. And believe me, you definitely will. After all, a little space-out never hurt anyone.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This documentary film is based on incomplete considerations of the evidence, in which Brian Flemming, perhaps purposely, fails to mention important evidence to the contrary. Perhaps his most crucial mistake is one of the earliest: His claims concerning the invalidity of Paul's testimony about Jesus Christ disregard key facts, like: **The existence of some formulated creeds within Paul's letters. These creeds suggest that most of the central claims about Jesus were already formulated into statements of faith possibly within a few years of Christ's death and resurrection. **The testimonies of the early Christians can't just be tossed out as mere fantasy. There were indeed many people claiming to be the Messiah during that period, but only ONE of them has remained: Jesus. Why? Because it would have been preposterous for anyone to have actually believed Christ was the messiah, and go on to die for those beliefs, if they knew that he had not been resurrected. **Even if the Gospels are dated more liberally, we are still talking about accounts of Jesus written within the lifetimes of other eyewitnesses that would have pointed out inaccuracies in these Gospels. And there is evidence that the Gospels were written much earlier.

What I am saying is that Flemming's documentary is an incredibly biased and self-serving piece of work that hodge podges different arguments and evidence to serve his anti-Christian view. Don't be fooled by poor investigation.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: No, this wasn't one of the ten worst films of the 1980's, but it certainly skirts the bottom 100 somewhere. This movie looks like it was put on the shelf for two or three years and then released in 1981. How else would you explain special effects pre-dating "An American Werewolf in London," disco still being considered cool, and Ronald Reagan not being the 40th President of the United States? While we're at it, let's not overlook those 1970's hairstyles in the 1950's and '60's. I've seen more of that here than in "Happy Days" & "Laverne & Shirley" combined.

The one woman who elevates this movie to the "so bad, it's good" category was the late, great Elizabeth Hartman, but just barely. Biff plays as Miss Montgomery, the mousey high school teacher who becomes a sexpot, a stereotype that's been done to death and is still being churned out by Hollywood today, but even as a "hot chick" she retains her mousey qualities. Her call for help is evidence of this. She also looks much better as Miss Wimp. "Seven bucks at the beauty parlor, shot to hell." She wasn't kidding.

This isn't to say that there aren't any good parts elsewhere, they're just few and far between, and I'm not just saying that because I like Hartman. Incidentally, "Teen Wolf" was better than this. "Teen Wolf Too" was better than this, and that wasn't even so good.

What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Whattt was with the sound? It sounded like it was all dubbed.

Otherwise, bad. Plot = bad. Accents = bad (even Dougray, and we live in Scotland), Acting = bad, Harp = bad, Sex scenes - bad/cringeworthy.

Still, we watched it until the end in disbelief. How could such a good roll call of actors perform so badly? Will they ever get a decent job again?

Bad, Bad, Bad. By the way, we gave it 3 because we at least were enticed to watch it to the end due to its bizarre plot, etc.

And to the older reviewer - I totally agree, it was like a romantic farce from the 1940s. How did it get made in 2004?

OK, OK, there were some OK bits. They had a nice house in Bristol. Dougray had a nice boat. Jennifer looked nice in a little outfit. But how come the sister got all the men?
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative