IN: Review: Yet another insult and slap in the face to gay men everywhere. This lame attempt at a comedy has nothing to recommend it. Once again we have an attractive 'straight' hero who supposedly can't get any woman to be interested in him. Yeah, right! And we're also presented with the 'sympathetic, attractive' gay friend who is actually a fat, balding, ugly old man whom the lead is supposed to find attractive. Even I didn't find him appealing and I'm a fat, ugly old gay man (but thankfully not balding)! Whatever acting talent there may be here has been thrown away on a bad script, and truly awful direction. Mr. Sneedeker should be banned from filmdom, but then he's no different than the countless other hacks working in Hollyweed.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: What a surprisingly good movie this one turned out to be. This is the type of film that I've been looking for ages. Particularly important for me was the fantastic-looking Chicago, which I still keep thinking about. The back cover doesn't do this film justice, it's superb, and in my top-5 for sure.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: When I heard Patrick Swayze was finally returning to his acting career with KING SOLOMON'S MINES I was very excited. I was expecting a great Indiana Jones type action adventure. What I got was a 4 hour long (with commercials) epic that was very slow. The second and third hour could have been dropped altogether and the story would not have suffered for it. The ending was good (no spoilers here)but I was still left wanting more. Well all a guy can do is prey that Swayze does "RoadHouse 2" so he can get back into the action genre that made him famous. Until than if your a fan of King Solomon's Mines than read the book or watch the 1985 version with Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone which is also not very good but its only and hour and forty minutes of your life gone instead of 4 hours.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Pretty poor Firestarter clone that seems more like a bad TV movie than a bad feature film. How disappointing for this to come from Hooper and Dourif!

Government contractors do a human experiment with a Hydrogen bomb. The boy born to the couple from the experiment constantly runs a fever of 100 degrees, and when he's an adult, people in his life start spontaneously combusting. He tries to find out why.

The people completely on fire are well done, but when they get to the point that they are well done in another sense, they're obviously changed to dummies. When jets of fire shoot out of characters' arms, it looks silly rather than alarming the way it should. Also ridiculous is fire that evidently travels through phone lines and erupts in huge jets from the receiver's earpiece. How is that supposed to happen, exactly?

Something else that struck me as silly about the movie is when a character has visions of his late parents. We later see the exact same shots from those visions in home movies.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
negative