Q: The only reason I even gave it a 1 out of 10 is because the option to give it zero out of 10 was not allowed. This was the biggest waste of time I've ever endured. For roughly 75 minutes, you are subjected to the WORST acting (and I don't mean that in a good way either, like as in KILLER NERD which had great horrible acting) and a plot that is not only ridiculous but also has absolutely NOTHING to do with a massacre. The reason I even rented this piece of crap was because it has massacre in the title. That said, there was only one killing in the entire movie and it was pretty lame at that. You spend more time watching the kids bickering and doing yard work than anything. Speaking of the kids, the little boy actor is probably the most irritating child actor since bob from house by the cemetery. Did I mention it was shot on video as well? If you want to throw away money and over an hour of your life, then by all means watch it. But if you savor your hard earned dollars and time, then stray as far away as possible.
A: negative
Q: Last year we were treated to two movies about Truman Capote writing the book from which this film was made - Capote and Infamous.

I cannot imagine a movie like this being made in 1967. A stark, powerful and chillingly brutal drama; elevated to the status of a film classic by the masterful direction of Richard Brooks (Elmer Gantry, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, The professional, Blackboard Jungle).

It is interesting that Robert Blake, who starred in this film, has had so many problems of late that may be related to his portrayal of a killer in this film.

This is a film that stays with you after viewing.
A: positive
Q: Why are the previews so blah for a movie that is so awesome!! Everyone should know what an excellent movie this is. It is engaging and funny from moment one, original, and well-acted. I wish the movie was doing itself as good press as it deserves!

For anyone that loved The Princess Bride, Labyrinth, and other truly funny and original fantasy adventure, this is one of the great ones. Robert DeNiro is hysterical. Relative newcomer Charlie Cox is an incredible leading man. Claire Danes is fantastic as always. Michelle Pfiefer is making quite a splash with her recent returns to the screen. There are also a lot of wonderful moments from minor characters...even down to facial expressions.
A: positive
Q: I waited almost 25 years to see this movie, thinking it might be an underrated work, from a period animation was no longer of the quality it had once been. It starred one of the best film villains of all time, was based on a beloved series of children's books, and was a Disney Studios production. What could possibly be wrong with it? As it turns outs, almost everything.

Well, not everything. Vincent Price as Rattigan and Henry Mancini's swanky score are the movie's two saving graces. Price is wickedly enjoyable, and Mancini more professional than the material deserves. They bring class to a project that otherwise belongs in obscurity.

Meanwhile the rest of the movie, while filled with inappropriately adult situations, still suffers from a completely dull script, blandly generic voice work, terrible songs, and lazy animation that wouldn't have been out of place on any of Disney's mid-1980s Saturday morning TV shows.

This was a complete disappointment to me. It's amazing that this movie was nearly contemporary with The Secret of NIMH. Costing a fraction of this, an independent studio produced something with more creativity in its trailer than GMD has in its endless running time.

The extra star that keeps this from being "awful" goes to Price and Mancini.
A: negative