Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This is said to be a personal film for Peter Bogdonavitch. He based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters, who are detectives. These detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. Sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective, doesn't it? This entire movie was written by Peter, and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. You're supposed to write what you know, and he did that, indeed. And leaves the audience bored and confused, and jealous, for that matter. This is a curio for people who want to see Dorothy Stratten, who was murdered right after filming. But Patti Hanson, who would, in real life, marry Keith Richards, was also a model, like Stratten, but is a lot better and has a more ample part. In fact, Stratten's part seemed forced; added. She doesn't have a lot to do with the story, which is pretty convoluted to begin with. All in all, every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with, unless you're millionaire from Manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. For the rest of us, it's an irritating snore fest. That's what happens when you're out of touch. You entertain your few friends with inside jokes, and bore all the rest.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This review may contain some spoilers.

The remake of the classic 1974 car chase movie Gone in 60 Seconds begins well. Actually it is well acted and the plot moves quite well. But even a big Hollywood budget doesn't change the fact that the original plot was more believable. For those who don't know, the original plot had the thieves working as insurance inspectors. Who would suspect them. But even with a change to nearly every aspect of H.B. Halicki's original, the remake is a very good movie, until we get to the final chase scene, the part of the 74 version that made it great. The one in this version is watered down, only 10 minutes, and it culminates in a monster special effect that takes all believability out of the chase. Where the original chase was very believable, the star was a stunt driver who did all his own stunt, the remake falls flat in the last 15 minutes. My advice, if you want to watch a classic car chase film, fine the original in the bargain bin at your local rental joint and stay clear of the new remake.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: "The House That Dripped Blood" is one of the better anthology films of the time period.

**SPOILERS**

Tracking down a missing film star, Inspector Holloway, (John Bennett) finds that the last reported sighting was in a large mansion in the countryside. During the course of looking through the house, he is told four different stories about past residents of the house.

The Good Story(s): Method for Murder-Moving into the mysterious manor to get some peace and quiet while Charles pens his latest masterwork, Horror novelist Charles Hillyer, (Denholm Elliott) and his wife Alice, (Joanna Dunham) are thrilled with the story, which centers around a serial strangler named Dominic. After a series of strange accidents and experiences in the house, Charles begins to believe that the creation my have come to life and is haunting him and his wife. Probably one of the better entries in the film, it's easily the creepiest. The atmosphere here is what sets it apart. The scenes with the fictional character are genuinely creepy, the mystery surrounding him is really effective and there's always a classic creep-out moment. The classic moment is the kill in the psychiatrist's office, which is an all-time high for creepiness. The build-up to it, with the creaking sounds, quick flashes of a mysterious being, and the thunder and lightning in the back ground work well for this one's favor.

Sweets for the Sweet-Moving into a new house, widower John Reid, (Christopher Lee) hires former school teacher Ann Norton, (Nyree Dawn Porter) for his young daughter Jane, (Chloe Franks) while he's away on business. Ann gradually begins to unravel a dark secret from Jane's past, which John vehemently denies. When she learns the true nature of what has happened, it's far more shocking that what she could've thought possible. With the creepiest outright plot and the biggest twist of the stories, this is a quite pleasant entry. The mystery of the family is wonderfully played out, with small amounts of clues piled up here and there, and the final revelation is downright nerve-wracking. That part alone is the main reason why this one works, and Lee doesn't harm it either.

The Bad Story(s): Waxwork-Tortured by memories of his lost love, Phillip Grayson, (Peter Cushing) and his friend Neville Rogers, (Joss Ackland) both become infatuated with a statue of a woman in a Wax Museum, as the statue takes over their lives, they discover a shocking secret about the museum that haunts the both of them. There's a clever premise here, and it does provide an excuse to spend time in a wax museum, which are always creepy. This is no exception, and it looks eerie, which is helped by the florescent lighting on display on the sculptures. A dream sequence provides a great moment of suspense, but what ultimately kills this one is the slow pace. It takes a long time for events to unfold out, and most of the time is spent on exposition. It also builds up to a shock ending that can be seen coming from a mile away. Those really lower this one a bit. Had the twist been changed, it would've scored higher, the rest is acceptable.

The Cloak-Veteran horror film actor Paul Henderson, (Jon Pertwee) upset at the lack of realism on the set of his new film, goes off and buys a new vampire cloak from a specialty store. The cloak soon turns him into a vampire, going crazy on the set with co-star Carla, (Ingrid Pitt) and other vampiric acts at home. Unconvinced the cloak is the cause, he does everything he can to prove it's just in his imagination. This has a pretty decent premise, and there is plenty of opportunity for some decent scares, but what sinks it is several factors. First, it's just too goofy for it's own good. The plot twist at the end is a perfect example, which is so overdone that it's not really a shock at all, and just comes across as just plain silly. There's so few scenes of scares or attempted scares that it's just a bore to sit through. It's the weakest one in the film.

The Final Verdict: A quite decent omnibus film, there's a few small problems scattered through each of the stories that renders this a less than perfect but still highly watchable film. Highly recommended for those into the similar films at the time or who enjoy British horror films.

Today's Rating-PG-13: Violence
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
What can i say about this movie? I have seen it quite a few times since the first time when i was around 6. I have seen the english version and it is done very well. It is a great movie for all ages, but it is directed more for children. I love the childlike humor and appreciate it. If you have not seen it, you should try to rent a copy, you will not be disappointed!