IN: Review: Madison is not too bad-if you like simplistic, non-offensive, "family-friendly" fare and, more importantly, if you know absolutely nothing about unlimited hydroplane racing. If, like me, you grew up with the sport and your heroes had names like Musson, Muncey, Cantrell, Slovak, etc., prepare to be disappointed.

Professional film critics have commented at length on the formulaic nature of the film and its penchant for utilizing every hackneyed sports cliche in the book. I needn't repeat what they've said. What I felt was sadly missing was any sense of the real excitement of unlimited hydro racing in the "glory years" (which many would argue were already past in 1971).

Yes, it was wonderful to see the old classic boats roaring down the course six abreast, though it was clear that the restored versions (hats off to the volunteers at the Hydroplane and Race Boat Museum) were being nursed through the scenes at reduced speed. But where was the sound? Much of the thrill of the old hydros was the mind-numbing roar of six Allison or Rolls-Merlin aircraft engines, wound up to RPM's never imagined by their designers, hitting the starting line right in front of you. You didn't hear it, you FELT it. Real hydro buffs know exactly what I'm talking about. There's none of that in Madison. Instead, every racing scene is buried under what is supposed to be a "heroic" musical score.

And then there are the close-up shots of the drivers, riding smoothly and comfortably in the cockpits as if they were relaxing in the latest luxury limousines, in some cases taking time to smile evilly as they contemplate how best to thwart the poor home-town hero. Or, in one particularly ridiculous shot, taking time to spot Jake Lloyd giving a "Rocky" salute from a bridge pier. In reality, some unlimited drivers wore flak vests to minimize the beating they took as the boats slammed across the rock-hard water at speeds above 150 mph.

As one reviewer so aptly put it, "The sport deserves better than this."

Finally, since another user brought up anachronisms, I'll add one: the establishing shot of Seattle shows the Kingdome and Safeco Field. Neither existed in 1971
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I remember that the trailer for Legend of Zu was quite impressive and being a fan of A Man Called Hero (my all time favourite), Storm Riders I decided that I must watch this one too. I know that there is way to much critcism on Ekin Cheng's acting ability everywhere but he is my favourite Hong Kong moviestar so far (way better than Nicolas Tse nevertheless)and he is one of the factors that I enjoyed this movie. Without a doubt this film is a work of art from the beginning to the end. I even thought that only the actors were real and everything else was computer generated by the end of this film. They must have put a lot of work into this one and they deserve good credit for that. The storyline of the movie was a fairytale between good and evil with a love story thrown in (I guess Ekin Cheng pulls the girls easily).The story is not very intellectual and deep but that is not what you expect when watcing an action movie. I wished there were more martial arts action with fists and fist instead of battles with magical abilities, but well that's life and it never goes the way you want it to. And why did they sound like supersonic planes in the battle through the sky in the end ? That's way too funny. Legend of Zu cannot be A Man Called Hero in my eyes but it flows like a videogame and that is not a bad thing at all. If a company decides to publish games on this movie I will not get suprised as it carries all the videogames elements. Good work. Please make more fantasy movies like this
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This film should have been fun. A young Lea Thompson, a young Joaquin Phoenix... and Terry O'Quinn. In space. But it dragged on, had unlovable characters and had no target audience.

Some kids go to a space camp and are accidentally launched into space by a robot friend of theirs (named, appropriately, Jinx). The space scenes are then long, repetitive (the same accident happens twice) and either cheesy or frightening depending on your point of view. Adults will be bored and cheesed out, kids might be scared as the way this was filmed really leaves an eerie sense about it.

There is a budding romance, but unlike the shuttle -- this never takes off. Why it is included in the first place is unclear, except maybe to add extra tension between the characters - but it failed if that was the idea.

A young Lea Thompson should be quirky and attractive, right? I mean, "Back to the Future" is great. But no, she was irritating and average-looking. Not someone you'd want to date, have as a friend or even consider as a role model. Joaquin Phoenix? He's really lucky he ever appeared in movies again this performance. Maybe he can act like Mikey in the Life Cereal commercials, but he doesn't seem to know how to be a normal boy. He doesn't fit in on screen and I don't think we can identify with him at home. I actually would have been happier if he had never returned to Earth.

I don't recommend this film to anyone.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: VAMPYRES

Aspect ratio: 1.85:1

Sound format: Mono

A motorist (Murray Brown) is lured to an isolated country house inhabited by two beautiful young women (Marianne Morris and Anulka) and becomes enmeshed in their free-spirited sexual lifestyle, but his hosts turn out to be vampires with a frenzied lust for human blood...

Taking its cue from the lesbian vampire cycle initiated by maverick director Jean Rollin in France, and consolidated by the success of Hammer's "Carmilla" series in the UK, Jose Ramon Larraz' daring shocker VAMPYRES pushed the concept of Adult Horror much further than British censors were prepared to tolerate in 1974, and his film was cut by almost three minutes on its original British release. It isn't difficult to see why! Using its Gothic theme as the pretext for as much nudity, sex and bloodshed as the film's short running time will allow, Larraz (who wrote the screenplay under the pseudonym 'D. Daubeney') uses these commercial elements as mere backdrop to a languid meditation on life, death and the impulses - sexual and otherwise - which affirm the human condition.

Shot on location at a picturesque country house during the Autumn of 1973, Harry Waxman's haunting cinematography conjures an atmosphere of grim foreboding, in which the desolate countryside - bleak and beautiful in equal measure - seems to foreshadow a whirlwind of impending horror (Larraz pulled a similar trick earlier the same year with SYMPTOMS, a low-key thriller which erupts into a frenzy of violence during the final reel). However, despite its pretensions, VAMPYRES' wafer-thin plot and rough-hewn production values will divide audiences from the outset, and while the two female protagonists are as charismatic and appealing as could be wished, the male lead (Brown, past his prime at the time of filming) is woefully miscast in a role that should have gone to some beautiful twentysomething stud. A must-see item for cult movie fans, an amusing curio for everyone else, VAMPYRES is an acquired taste. Watch out for silent era superstar Bessie Love in a brief cameo at the end of the movie.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative