Q: Even if one didn't realize that Sellers was in poor health at the time of filming and passed away before the film's release, THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU would be painful viewing. It is supposedly a lampoon of Sax Rohmer's famous Oriental villain but it lacks any focus. The potential for satirical commentary on the anti-Oriental overtones of Rohmer's concept are ignored. Indeed, the movie employs racist insults. There are hardly any actual jokes or gags, just mostly actors behaving idiotically and spouting dreary lines. It is especially distressing to see Sid Caesar forced to spout curses and racial slurs for attempted laughs. Most of the other actors embarrass themselves as well.

And then there's Peter Sellers. He plays the dual roles of the sinister Fu Manchu, who is trying to concoct a formula to regain his youth and his stalwart British foe Nayland Smith. Sellers isn't one hundred per cent bad; he conveys a quirky warmth as Smith when he discusses his fetishistic attachment to his lawn mower and he's oddly moving as Manchu when he expresses his love for English music hall entertainment. But most of the time, he plays both roles with a weary grimness, thus further sabotaging any comical possibilities. Sellers' routines where he revitalizes his fading strength with electric shocks are particularly excruciating; he seems too convincingly agonized to be funny.

A few genuinely witty lines, an apt slapstick bit by Burt Kwouk (Cato in the PINK PANTHER films) as one of Manchu's minions, and Helen Mirren's amusing musical numbers cannot salvage this mess. If anyone wants to understand why Peter Sellers is considered a comedic genius, they won't learn anything from THE FIENDISH PLOT OF DR. FU MANCHU.
A: negative
Q: :Spoilers:

I was very disappointed in Love's Abiding Joy. I had been waiting a really long time to see it and I finally got the chance when it re-aired Thursday night on Hallmark. I love the first three "Love" movies but this one was nothing like I thought it was going to be. The whole movie was sad and depressing, there were way to many goofs, and the editing was very poor - to many scenes out of context. I also think the death of baby Kathy happened way to soon and Clarks appearance in the movie just didn't seem to fit. It seemed like none of the actors really wanted to be there - they were all lacking emotion. There seemed to be no interaction between Missie and Willie at all.

I think the script writers should have went more by the book. It seems like every movie that's been made so far just slips further and further away from Janette Oke's writings. I mean in the movie they never mentioned a thing about the mine and the two boys or Clark getting hurt because of it. And I think Missie and Willies reactions to Kathy's death could have been shown and heard rather than just heard.

Out of the four movies that have been made so far I'd have to say that Love's Abiding Joy is my least favorite. I hope with the next four movies that more of the book is followed and if Clarks character is in them I hope he's got a bigger part and I hope his part isn't so bland. I also hope there is more of Scottie and Cookie and maybe even Marty but who knows what the script writers will have in store next.
A: negative
Q: The Good Earth is perhaps the most boring film I've seen in my life. The plot is slow and lacking. The acting is borderline comical. While I love Paul Muni, I can now say i have seen a film that does not do his true ability justice. The only saving grace I found with this film is it's production value. The use of hundreds of extras throughout the film creates a very believable and interesting environment. Also, the beautiful effects used to create the illusion of millions of wasps sells easily and was revolutionary at the time. Other than the production value I can say little else that is good or entertaining about this film.
A: negative
Q: I think a round of applause is in order for whoever pieced together the trailer for Rogue Pictures' latest release, 'The Return'. I myself, along with everyone else have been duped into believing it is in fact a horror film. On the contrary though, its actually a supernatural thriller. Too bad it is not the least bit thrilling.

'The Return' stars Sarah Michelle Gellar as Joanna Mills, a young woman who has had personal problems since the age of eleven. It was at that age that she began having haunting visions depicting the murder of a woman whom she has never met. While in Texas on a business trip, she is led by these visions to the murdered woman's hometown, La Salle. There she comes face to face with another person who has frequently appeared in her visions. A man by the name of Terry Stahl, who is played by Peter O'Brien. Joanna is now on a desperate search for answers. A search that could in the end result in her very own murder.

I really don't know where to begin here folks. Which should I mention first? The atrocious acting, hideous directing, or the terribly bland story? No matter which one I choose my point behind each is the same: they simply suck. Adam Sussman's screenplay is downright moronic. Its not interesting. Its not compelling. Its just plain unpleasant. I kept waiting for something to jumpstart the "film" (I've placed quotations around film because I don't believe 'The Return' deserves to be called an actual film due to it's foulness.) and at least give it some slight chance of hope, but nothing ever happened. I was left out in an unbearable cold to freeze. Not even stellar performances from the actors themselves could have saved this disaster. Of course they probably knew this having read the script then agreeing to do the "film". I assume this is why the acting was so awful. At least that's what I'm choosing to believe. I really hope the cast doesn't pride themselves on their performances. They need immediate medical attention if they do.

Now the directing was unmistakably bad, but I can't quite crucify Asif Kapadia entirely. (Well I could, but I won't since I'm such a nice guy.) I look at 'The Return' as a test for Kapadia because for all of you that don't know, this is his first full-length feature "film". He's just getting his foot in the door and still learning. Next time around, well if there is a next time, hopefully he will have improved vastly. The only thing he was able to accomplish here was almost completely duplicating the visual style of Marcus Nispel's 2003 re-make of 'The Texas Chainsaw Massacre'. Now that's nice the "film" was given that, but unfortunately he still won't be receiving any kudos from me for that. Copying someone else's work isn't something I consider to be praise worthy. (Even if it is from a film I very much enjoyed.)

I think Jim Sonzero's American re-make of 'Pulse' will now have to fork over the title of Worst Film of the Year to 'The Return'. It beyond question is deserving of the title in almost every imaginable way. Now I don't doubt this will make a small, and I mean very small, profit. No matter what though, it won't surpass or even parallel the fluke success of Gellar's previous acting effort, 'The Grudge'. On that note, there's one last thing I'd like to add. I can honestly say I had never been embarrassed to have been seen leaving a theater auditorium until seeing 'The Return'. That is something I never wish to experience again, along with the "film" itself.
A: negative