Problem: This review is like what?

Review:No, I'm not joking around. If you ever, EVER, have the chance to see this movie see it. If you need chop off your arm to see it, see it. It's worth it.

Fatty Drives The Bus is unlike any film you've ever seen. It takes trash cinema and elevates it to a work of art. While it contains poor shots, idiotic characters, bad dialogue, strange acting, and cinematography that belongs on public access in Iowa, it actually succeeds in its goal as a film. It strives to be the dumbest, strangest, most inane movie you've ever seen. And boy does it ever succeed.

I will lay out the plot for those of you who worry about such things (the filmmakers obviously didn't), but really you needn't pay too much attention because the entire film's plot is presented in a very long piece of text played before the opening credits. In any event, FDTB (as its admirers call it) is the story of a bus tour through Chicago, which is led by Satan. You see, Jesus is in town, and all the passengers on the bus are supposed to die, and all their souls would have gone to hell, except with Jesus in town, a lackey in hell calls off the job, and this angers Satan because, well he doesn't like looking like a fool in front of the guy, so he decides to get the people on the bus to sign over their souls to him directly, but he's a devil, so he needs to disguise himself, otherwise, who'd go on a tour with him right, so he disguises himself as Roger and he gets on the bus, where the driver is never referred to by name, but he is kind of fat, so I guess he's Fatty. The bus (and the riders) are on a collision course with wackiness!

Examples of some lunacy: The title repeats on the screen 3 times. I don't know why. A character appears on the bus in mid-trip without explanation or introduction, and occassionally sits next to the others, and they look at her like she doesn't belong. I don't know why. Two characters fall in love and exchange longing glances, that are really the same shots repeated over and over again. I don't know why. After Satan gives a minute long monologue about transforming into human form a title card flashes "Satan is going to transform." I don't know why. One character is a woman who is very obviously a man in drag, and is referred to by other characters as "the glamorous Bridget." I don't know why.

If there was one good thing that came out of my internship at Troma last summer it was getting my own copy of Fatty Drives The Bus.
+++++++++
A: positive

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:This movie really shows its age. The print I saw was terrible due to age, but it is possible that there are better prints out there. However, this was not the major problem with the movie. The problem was that although the film was made in 1933, it was essentially a silent film with only the barest of dialog scattered (only a few sentences) in the film in the most amateur fashion. Sometimes the characters' backs were turned or they were talking with their hands over their faces--all in a pathetic attempt to obscure their lips and "cleaverly" (?) hide the fact that the film was dubbed. Well, its true that this Czech film would need to be dubbed into many languages but to do it this way was really stupid and obvious. It just looked cheap.

Overall, the film looked low budget and silly. It's really a shame though, because there was a grain of a good story--a young woman who marries an older man who is either gay and/or has no interest in women. But in the 21st century, few people would really be willing to sit through this archaic mess. EVEN with a few glimpses of the naked (and somewhat chunky) Hedy Lamarr, it isn't worth all the fuss that accompanied the film when it debuted. Even by 1933 standards, this film was a poorly made dud. About the only interesting thing about the film is to see how different Lamarr looked in 1933 compared with the glamorous image Hollywood created when she came to America--she looks like 2 completely different people.

It's such an incomplete looking and technically inferior film, I don't see how it has gotten such rave reviews. For technical problems alone, the movie can't rate a 10 or anything near it.
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I wish I could give this movie a zero, or even lower, because sadly that's what it deserves. I honestly never walk out of a movie, but this one was so dreadfully awful that I couldn't stand another minute of it. Please,please, please- for the sake of mankind- skip this movie. If you want a hot lesbian movie that you can really delve into, this isn't it.

It has unattractive, unappealing leads, choppy structure, ridiculous dialog, and it is absolutely unconvincing in every imaginable way. On an absolutely basic level, it fails to entertain. Everything about "Mango Kiss" is so stagey, it is WORSE than any student film I have seen.

As if that weren't enough, the entire movie relies on constant (and I mean CONSTANT) voice over narration. The script writer may as well have written a novel, because they insisted on TELLING everything, instead of SHOWING it. We are just supposed to assume that Lou and Sassafras are the best of friends and have a special connection, even though there is no character development to illustrate this. Also, this film continues to introduce to new characters after the first five minutes, and not in a natural way, but in a freeze-frame of the characters with their name written over the screen. There is no introduction, no development of any of the characters. We don't really get to know any of them.

This is the most amateur movie I have ever seen.

I am a gay woman, who watched this film with my roommate (another gay woman) and we both found this movie to be a depressing representation of queer cinema. I am beginning to think that lesbian and gay movies are a lot like Christian rock - it doesn't matter how atrocious it is, people will still flock to it, and champion it, no matter how poor the quality is. Please don't rent this!! Instead, let's encourage the production of QUALITY gay and lesbian movies by renting "But I'm a Cheerleader" or "Fire" or "Heavenly Creatures", instead of swallowing whatever mindless tripe they aim at the gay community (i.e. Queer as Folk).
+++++++++
A: negative

Problem: This review is like what?

Review:I simply cannot believe the number of people comparing this favourably with the first film. It moved me to leave this comment! This is just an obvious attempt to cash-in on the success of the first film. The dialogue is appalling and nothing like as authentic or compelling as the original film.

The storyline is ridiculous, the portrayal of the French police laughable and the characterisation of Doyle a mile away from the first film.

How many drug bosses do you think go down to the docks in person to see a shipment come in? The ease at which Doyle finds his guy is just pathetic. Like all the French Police were just drinking coffee until Doyle turns up from America and does some REAL police work. What a joke. Try going to a foreign city and unearthing the biggest crims in the place with a travel map and some tourist pamphlets. Pathetic.

A truly awful sequel, anyone who thinks otherwise is crazy.
+++++++++
A:
negative