Q: Dahmer, a young confused man. Dahmer, a confusing movie. Granted, I had a few beers while watching the movie, but that doesn't explain why I got so bored by this flick.

Its flashbacks are nothing but confusing and annoying, and there's no real storyline with a beginning and an end, the only thing that made sense in the movie was the explaining text in the beginning and at the very end of the movie. The inbetween stuff, which would be the movie, is just boring images and a waste of time.

We never see actual murders, everything is just a bunch of insinuations. Sometimes you even just get a feeling that Dahmer's dreaming the entire thing, but you know he isn't, since it's

based on a true story and this actually happened, at least most of it. But what happened? It's not easy to tell.

I do not encourage people to waste time on this movie. I

didn't like it one bit and I felt cheated when it suddenly ended.

*/***** OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: This is the second British Rank film to adapt the stories of Sommerset Maugham to film. All but one story from 'Quartet' does not travel well into the contempory era; and the actors speech is decidedly "clipped", as only British pre-1950's actors delivery can be. In anycase 'Trio' seems tighter and more filmic than the first film adaptation.

One of the problems these two films can't overcome is that their source material was written 25-30 years prior to the films. Consequently, by the 1950's Maughm's (pre-war) popularist "small morality" storyteling seemed rather quaint, if not downright coy. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Although it really isn't such a terribly movie (especially considering it was made directly for TV-distribution), it'll be very difficult to point out one aspect in "Bloodsuckers" that is actually original or refreshing. Vampires in space isn't exactly a new formula, and even after so many movies dealing with these monsters in this particular setting, still no one seems to realize it's an incredibly stupid premise that can't possibly result in a halfway decent horror movie. "Bloodsuckers" even goes one step further and shamelessly imitates every imaginable motion picture that either revolves on vampires and intergalactic warfare. The plot and characters are mainly stolen directly from John Carpenter's "Ghosts of Mars" and James Cameron's "Aliens", as a crew of futuristic vampire hunters are crusading through space and regularly holding to eliminate a mutated species that peculiarly named themselves after notorious horror icons, like the Voorhees and the Leatherfaces. The good guys are a bunch of pathetic stereotypes, constantly dealing with cliched issues and endlessly arguing about dreadfully unimportant matters. Captain Damian is the unpopular rookie, who'll really have to prove his leadership capabilities now after being more or less responsible for the death of the previous (and far more loved) Captain Churchill. The other annoying characters include a typical cowboy-style and trigger happy macho pilot, a tough female warrior with more balls than any of the males on board (she's of Asian descent, like the girl in "Aliens" was Latino) and the army's most valuable secret weapon: a Blade-girl! Quintana is a beautiful and deadly vampire who chose the side of humans. She can spot enemies when they're still light-years away and she can also do wickedly sexy things with someone's wet dreams. They eventually all learn to work as a team when forced to face the ultimate vampire-meanie: Michael Ironside (in yet another downgrading role). "Bloodsuckers" is an irredeemably stupid film, but it manages to entertain as long as it features gory killings, infantile dialogs and OTT make-up effects. It only gets intolerably boring when the frustrated soldiers blame the captain for the umpteenth time and bla bla bla. This film is a non-stop series of lame cliches and uncreative ideas, but at least it's watchable. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: The film is bad. There is no other way to say it. The story is weak and outdated, especially for this country. I don't think most people know what a "walker" is or will really care. I felt as if I was watching a movie from the 70's. The subject was just not believable for the year 2007, even being set in DC. I think this rang true for everyone else who watched it too as the applause were low and quick at the end. Most didn't stay for the Q&A either.

I don't think Schrader really thought the film out ahead of time. Many of the scenes seemed to be cut short as if they were never finished or he just didn't know how to finish them. He jumped from one scene to the next and you had to try and figure out or guess what was going on. I really didn't get Woody's (Carter) private life or boyfriend either. What were all the "artistic" male bondage and torture pictures (from Iraq prisons) about? What was he thinking? I think it was his very poor attempt at trying to create this dark private subculture life for Woody's character (Car). It didn't work. It didn't even seem to make sense really.

The only good thing about this film was Woody Harrelson. He played his character (Car) flawlessly. You really did get a great sense of what a "walker" may have been like (say twenty years ago). He was great and most likely will never get recognized for it.

As for Lauren, Lily and Kristin... Boring.

Don't see it! It is painful! Unless you are a true Harrelson fan. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative