Q: I suppose all the inside jokes is what made Munchies a cult classic. I thought it was awful, though given the ridiculous story and the nature of the characters, it probably could've been a much better (and funnier) movie. Maybe all they needed was a real budget.

Munchies, as many viewers have pointed out already, is something of a Gremlins parody. Hence, all the references to the movie. The movie begins somewhere in Peru during an archeological dig. An annoying dufus named Paul, aspiring stand up comedian who offers no sarcasm or witty jokes during the movie despite his career plans, is holed up with his dad in the caves. His dad is an unconventional kind of archeologist, searching the caves not for artificats or mummies or anything, but proof of U.F.O.'s. And that's where the Munchies come into the picture. Hidden in the crevice of a rock is an ugly little mutant that looks like a gyrating rubber doll with a Gizmo voice. They name him Arnold, stash him in a bag, and bring him home so Paul's dad can finally show proof of extra terrestrial life.

Paul, the idiot that he is, breaks his promise to his dad to watch Arnold (a wager he made with his dad, if he loses, it's off to community college to get a 'real' career). The creepy next door neighbor with the bad rug, Cecil (television veteran Harvey Korman), wonders what his neighbors are up to. So, he and his lazy son, some airhead hippie type (who looks more like they should've made his character a biker or heavy metal enthusiast) to go and snatch Arnold. Why? A get rich quick scheme of course. And of course, even Cecil's son is too dumb to look after Arnold. And after a few pokes and prods at Arnold, he multiplies into more Munchies.

This wasn't even a movie that was so bad it was good. It was just plain awful. I was hoping that the Munchies would've mutated and killed the morons that were always after them, even Paul and his girlfriend. At least it would be one way to get rid of all the bad acting in this movie that really hams up the movie. Not to mention poor special effects that look like hand puppets. And really bad writing all around--it wasn't even funny--not even that young cop who can really give you the homicidal twitch in your eye. Like I said, Munchies, if they had been given an actual budget and better actors, they might've been able to pull off a good parody. Pass. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: I was one of quite a few extras in this big bomb. I just happened to be in the right place working safety for the race scenes at A.I.R. as it was know as back then.Thank goodness my scene in in the first few minutes of the movie and I don't have to sit through the whole thing. It was more of a big party than a movie set but hey, the pay was good.Attention to detail was not a strong point for this one, but who was going to know.The funny thing was seeing the cars in the track at the really slow speed and then in the movie speeded up to the what was close to normal speed.A lot of the scenes were changed as they were filmed I suppose to shave cost and time.But every one was having such a good time who cared! OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: I remember being terrified of movie blood when I was younger, and gradually getting less so, until getting jaded enough, as I'm sure many other viewers have become, so that the barrage of gory films produced in last few years have entertained me but not scared me or made me squirm. "The Dentist" turned that around.

The setup seems simple: a mentally unstable dentist wreaks havoc on the insides of mouths, and perhaps bodies as well. A clever twist, though, is that the dentist is the film's protagonist, so instead of being some one-dimensional bad guy with no clear motivation, his development is the most extensive of any character and he is very human and believable. The viewer thus feels sympathy for him as well as his victims, and instead of hoping for justice to come to him, I found myself hoping he would somehow find a way to cover up his tracks and return to a normal life.

What really "makes" a horror movie is the violence. And "The Dentist" does it better than any other film I can think of. First off, the film has tons of tension, which is something that modern gore films tend to lack. In one scene (), the dentist is emotionally distraught and has to see a young child patient for the first time. As he reaches into the child's mouth, you hope that, for the dentist's and the child's sake, the encounter ends without injury. I won't spoil what happens. Second, when the gore does come, it hits all the worst, squirmy nerves. Once again, I won't give anything away.

Of course, being a movie that you've never heard of, it does have flaws. Most importantly, it's exclusively for horror fans. Also, as another reviewer mentioned, by taking place over a span of just a few days, we don't really get any background on the characters. And the tension drops a little bit during the very end. But really, the fact that we would even want to know background about the characters is evidence to how good it is, and the bulk of the film is solid enough that any small lapses in tension can be forgiven.

It's strange, after years of being accustomed to movie gore, to suddenly want to cover my eyes at the sight of blood. "The Dentist" made me scared and thoroughly uncomfortable, and for this it earns my full approval. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Polanski returns to the themes of solitude and madness which he explored to such tremendous effect in Repulsion and Rosemary's Baby, in The Tenant.

The atmosphere is trademark Polanski - dark, brooding, unnerving - but there is something awkward about this movie and I am not sure whether or not it is deliberate.

Sven Nykvist, who was responsible for some of Bergman's most beautiful films, doesn't quite do himself justice here. As his name was one of the things which really attracted me to this movie, I was a little disappointed in how few instances of truly impressive cinematography are in the film.

The only thing that really lets the movie down is the acting. Polanski is certainly not a bad actor, but he seems to have bitten off more than he can chew with the difficult role of Trelkovsky. Some of the supporting cast are great, notably Melvyn Douglas as the landlord and Shelley Winters as the concierge, but others are weak and miscast. It is also hard to get past the fact that all these supposed Parisians have American accents.

Quite unexpectedly, there are some fine moments of dark comedy in the film. Anyone who has seen The Fearless Vampire Killers knows that Polanski is certainly a good comedic actor. However, there are moments when it slips dangerously close to being a parody of itself. Trelkovsky's sudden (and somewhat unexplained) 'transformation' is more likely to raise giggles than eyebrows, which detracts from what should have been a powerful moment in his psycho-dramatic journey.

All in all, The Tenant is an enjoyable and intriguing experience, if a little too languorous for its own good. There's a handful of exceptionally chilling moments and a consistently uncomfortable and foreboding atmosphere but this film, while being very good, does not quite hit the mark as successfully as it could have.

Alas, at the end of the day, an 'okay' Polanski movie is still better than most other 'good' movies. Definitely worth a watch, just don't expect to be blown away. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive