Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Anyone familiar with my reviews on the Internet Movie Database will know that I can be a grumpy bastard from time to time. There are a lot of films I don't like which, for some unfathomable reason, I've felt the urge to review. However, if anyone out there is curious to know the name of the worst film I've ever seen, look no further than Transylvania 6-5000. Without question, this takes the title of the all-time no. 1 awful film. I can't believe that I actually made it from the start of this clunker to the finish!

It is clearly meant to capture the flavour of Mel Brooks's Young Frankenstein, but where that film was a funny take on horror movie traditions, this one is a desperately strained and misguided attempt to wring laughs from embarrassingly weak material. Jeff Goldblum and Ed Begley Jr look ashamed to be here as a pair of journalists in modern day Transylvania (perhaps they realised early on that they were doomed in this dud). During their research, they come up against all the chief monsters from past horror favourites, such as vampires, werewolves and mummies.

Anyone who manages to brave this film right through to its end may pray that a stake be driven through their heart to relieve them from the agony of boredom. It marks a career nadir for everyone involved and proves that when comedy fails in a big way, it results in awesomely dire entertainment.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I probably give this more credit than it deserves because it's Halloween, I was just at "Knott's Scary Farm" and I was in a mood to watch a really cheesy Halloween movie.

Oh, and it only cost me one dollar.

Usually I'll ffwd through a movie like this to get to "the good stuff," but I resisted the urge here and I'm still not sure why. It was obvious from the opening shots this wasn't a "real" movie, not even a B-movie. It's more in the category of the DeCoteau "horror" movies like "The Brotherhood" that are shot on film-look video for about 50 cents (in fact, I was half afraid any minute one of his beefy college boys would stagger out rubbing himself in his underpants or something). There were no cutaway shots (too expensive to do multiple camera setups) and flat lighting but...it's hard to pinpoint. There's something refreshing about watching a director with no money pull off a half-decent movie. The fact that he's doing even a half-decent job is commendable, and this movie has it's share of merits--the acting isn't bad, the photography is pretty good (if too bright to be scary), there are some surprises, and the whole thing is sort of...different somehow.

A bunch of college kids are (for some unknown reason) stuck in the warehouse where they are decorating the annual haunted house. A creepy old man gives them a satanic book and they accidentally summon up the powers of hell. This results in the costumed people in the haunted house becoming who they are made up to be, and causing a lot of mayhem and human suffering. Along the way we are treated to an oddly complex and thoughtful lesbian relationship subplot--it's interesting that this couple seems to be the most well-rounded in the movie. Yes, there's a sex scene but it isn't salacious--or at least no more so than you'd find in any legit movie about lesbians that shows them having sex. It's rather unusual for a horror film to take the time and effort to do this without resorting to cheap exploitation.

The other thing about this that held my interest was how it was clearly trying to emulate the "stupid kids have sex and get killed" vibe of the 80's slashers. It's hard to take that on because there are so many of those films that already exist, the genre has been done to death. I'm not sure if it's good or bad that these filmmakers simply tried to make another entry in that genre, without irony, as if it was still a LIVING genre, but I appreciated the attempt.

Which is why I sat through it; sometimes you just want to watch a mindless, no-budget, "A-for-effort" horror film. There really was too much set up, not enough gore, endless plot-holes, dead-ends and cliches and the unfortunate overall feel of a movie that simply did not have enough money behind it to be the film the producers envisioned...but at the very least the haunted house scenes were pretty cool. I'd pay to go to that haunted house if it existed, and didn't mind paying a dollar to see it on DVD even if I'll never watch this again.

Oh, and **possible spoiler**, but there was great, brief business with the vampire girl in the coffin: "I used to be claustrophobic. But I've changed." Ha ha, good one.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: This is another great movie I had the good fortune to see for the first time on the big screen (thanks to Rick Baker et al). Back in the late 80's I was a relative newcomer to the genre and only really new about the big three JC, SH & YB. I wasn't sure what to expect when I payed my hard earned money to see this in a "Triple bill of Classics" at the old Scala. I need not have worried, I was left breathless by this movie. If you're a fan of Hong Kong Action / Kung Fu movies and haven't seen this movie, do so NOW!

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Kudos to the patience of Paul Muni, who spent hours and hours in the makeup room each day to look the part of Zola. Muni was the one of the biggest stars in the 1930s and I wonder how many people today -other than classic movie buffs - know anything about it. He was a giant in the business for at least a decade. He could have won the Academy Award for this performance, which would have given him two in a row, as he won it for playing Louis Pasteur the year before. My own opinion is that while he tended to overact a bit, I still think he was one of the great actors of the "Golden Age." Whatever part he played; you were riveted to the screen watching him.

Unlike the Pasteur role, I thought this story smacked of a little too much of what we've seen in the last 60 years: going overboard to make a Liberal hero. Even in 1937, Hollywood couldn't suppress its disdain for police or for the military, here making it a point to tell us how "corrupt" those organizations are. Filmmakers just love it when authority is challenged and defeated. In that regard, this film is way ahead of its day since we've seen this big-time since the 1960s.

However, it must be noted the facts support this story. It also does not in any way diminish Zola's accomplishments as a social reformer, getting rid of certain evils. Good for him! I wish they had spent more time showing that, than concentrating on one trial.