Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Frankie Dio (Lee VanCleef) is a high-ranking mobster who turns himself in to the police or illegal gambling (for reasons that seem unclear to me). Tony (Tony Lo Bianco) is a low-level thug who frequents a pool hall and spends his free time envying Frankie. By being in the right place at the right time, Tony gets arrested with Frankie and is sent to jail... where they form a bond that may not quite be friendship, but it will do for now.

This film came to me under the title of "Frank and Tony", which is disappointing because I see an alternate name is "Mean Frank and Crazy Tony", which would have helped sell the film more effectively. I presume that's an homage to "Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry" but what do I know? I watched it shortly after another Italian crime film, "Violent Professionals", and I must say the two complement each other very well.

Italians have always lagged behind Americans in their budgets and production values, which is a real shame with this film. It is considered a "grindhouse" film, which unfairly demotes it to a b-movie (or worse). With a cleaner sound and picture, this could have been a Hollywood hit, I suspect. I found the story very interesting, the characters (and actors) better than average and unlike "Violent Professionals" the plot is fairly clear -- not too many secondary characters.

If you like Mafia movies or crime films you should give this one a try. A film about the mob that's actually from Italy (how much more authentic do you want?) is as much as you can ask. Sure, it's not "The Godfather", but it's not supposed to be. This isn't a drama, it's a light comedy, heavy action buddy film... like "Die Hard With a Vengeance" from the point of view of the bad guys. Well, okay, not really.

If nothing else, this film made me want to check out other films from the director and the principle cast. Films besides "Escape From New York" (where VanCleef plays "Hauk") and the usual cult movies. What's more fun than discovering a lost classic?
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I have seen it. It's not "good" but interesting in an understated way. The boys in it are quite naturalistic but................the graphic/gratuitous final gang rape scene is repugnant and -oh yes- the arbitrary insertion of second world war footage is offensive in the way it attempts to compare real horror with this misogynistic contrivance. Real atrocity is real- this film is just atrocious. However, the film has a look which can draw you in. But it seems to me that is the "Emperor's New Clothes", but in fact in reverse. The film looks good, but the direction, story, content and final feeling you take away from this film is vacuous. If a feeling can be vacuous-this is it.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This was a typical grade B movie in 1940s Hollywood and yet it succeeded way beyond its expectations. Why? It has a wonderful plot and backed up by Nina Foch, George MacReady and Dame May Witty, as a female villain, of all people.

When a young lady answers an advertisement for a secretary, she certainly gets more than she bargained for. The only talents her employers are seeking are those which will lead to her demise. Seems that Witty and MacReady want to pass her off as their daughter-in-law and wife, respectively. MacReady killed his real wife and wants to do Foch in as well so that a body can be claimed.

The film deals with how Foch tries to get town people to believe her and how she is thwarted in practically everything she does. Why don't people believe her?
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Here's how you do it: Believe in God and repent for your sins. Then things should turn around within the next day or so.

Until the last fifteen minutes, this movie just plays as a bad recap of a drunk's crappy life. His mom dies. His stepmom's a b_tch. His dad dies. He drinks. He gets married. He has kids. He drinks some more. His wife gets mad. He disappoints his kids. The wife threatens to leave. He calls up a reverend late night b/c he wants to kill himself. Then after the recap happens, that's when we get the "Left Behind"-like subtle message.

"He needed a paycheck". This is the phrase I had to repeat over and over once credits started to roll so I wouldn't lose my respect for Madsen.

Madsen drops to his knees and begs Christ's forgiveness. Once he does, he walks outside and actually says that he sees the world in a different way. He tells his wife that he's found God and that's good enough for her. Flip scene four months and the wife is tired of going to church. End the movie as Madsen walks by the bar and gives a soliloquy about how happy he is with Christ and without alcohol. Final moment? He gives a little dismissive wave to the bar (i.e. sin house) and give a gay, Miami-Vice, after-school special congratulatory jump in the air as the camera freeze-frames. See why I had to repeat the phrase? "He needed a paycheck".

Man this movie is bad. The B-Grade 80's production values don't help much. The script could have easily been a "Touched By An Angel" episode. It could have been knocked out in 30 minutes plus commercials. The acting is wooden and never believable. Even Madsen, of whom I'm a big fan and is the sole reason I sat through this, makes it clear that this is his first acting job and he doesn't know his a$$ from his elbow yet on camera. 45 minutes into it I started to get discouraged. This thing was like homework. I just wanted to put it away and say that alright, I saw half of it. That's good enough. But no. If I sat through Cheerleader Ninjas, I could sit throughout this.

The only reason I'm not giving this thing a 1 is for two points: 1) I love Madsen. I know it's not fair. But it's great seeing the opening title "Introducing Michael Madsen". Sue me. 2) Some of the Dialogue is so bad that it's classic. I'll stick some quotes at the end of this so you can enjoy them too.

That's about it. To wrap it up ,this thing is a piece of crap that should stay flushed with the rest of the turds. But hey! Look! Michael Madsen! (See also TILT, EXECUTIVE TARGET, MY BOSS'S DAUGHTER, etc). Now I've gotta rewatch Reservoir Dogs and watch Madsen torture a cop to get my respect back for him. See ya, Kids.

"This stuff's gonna make me go blind, but I'm gonna drink it anyway" - Madsen's first taste of cheap alcohol

"I don't understand! Everything seems so beautiful!" - Madsen walking outside after confessing to God

"I'm going downtown later and pick up a bible and I'm gonna get a haircut too" - Madsen after converting at the dinner table, because Satan lives in your hair
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
I had numerous problems with this film.

It contains some basic factual information concerning quantum mechanics, which is fine. Although quantum physics has been around for over 50 years, the film presents this information in a grandiose way that seems to be saying: "Aren't you just blown away by this!" Well, not really. These aren't earth shattering revelations anymore. At any rate, I was already familiar with quantum theory, and the fact that particles have to be described by wave equations, etc. is not new.

The main problem I have with this movie, however, is the way these people use quantum theory as a way of providing a scientific basis for mysticism and spiritualism. I don't have any serious problem with mysticism and spiritualism, but quantum mechanics doesn't really have anything to do with these things, and it should be kept separate. The people they interviewed for this movie start with the ideas of quantum theory and then make the leap to say that simply by thinking about something you can alter the matter around you, hence we should think positively so as to have a positive impact on the world and make our lives better. The reasoning is completely ridiculous, and the conclusions do not logically follow from quantum theory. For every so called "expert" that they interviewed for this film, there are scores of theoretically physicists who would completely disagree. They would point out, quite rightly, that the unpredictability of the subatomic world does not lend support to mystical notions about our spiritual connectedness.

It disturbs me that people are going to see this film and completely eat it up because it leaves them with a nice positive feeling. The main thrust of the film is based on a total misinterpretation of quantum theory, and it is as bad in its reasoning as any attempt to justify organized religion with similar pseudo-scientific arguments.

Avoid this film.

Oh yeah. At one point, one of the "experts" says that since throughout history most of the assumptions people have made about the world turned out to be false, therefore the assumptions we currently hold about the world are also likely to be false. Huh? That totally does not follow. And even if it did, I don't see how that helps his argument. I mean, if his ideas ever became common assumptions then I guess we would have to assume that they are false too, based on his own reasoning.