IN: Review: Lavish production values and solid performances in this straightforward adaption of Jane Austen's satirical classic about the marriage game within and between the classes in provincial 18th Century England. Northam and Paltrow are a salutory mixture as friends who must pass through jealousies and lies to discover that they love each other. Good humor is a sustaining virtue which goes a long way towards explaining the accessability of the aged source material (which has been toned down a bit in its harsh scepticism). I liked the look of the film and how shots were set up, and I thought it didn't rely too much on successions of head shots like most other films of the 80s and 90s do. Very good results.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: When the employees of a theater find an old reel of film, they decide to show it at the midnight screening of Night of the Living Dead, assuming it's an old preview reel. Unfortunately, it's actually an old Nazi mind control experiment that turns the audience into a horde of mindless shuffling zombies.

I can't understand the hate for this movie. It is a low budget independent production with a lot of camp, but it doesn't deserve a "1.1" here on IMDb. It is just so much fun. It is obvious that the filmmakers have a reasonable knowledge and love of old horror movies, and they have created an entertaining tribute to them sprinkled with references and homages to a variety of them. It has the feel of such things as Night of the Living Dead (in many ways, very similar), Evil Dead 2 and Army of Darkness, and various others.

I liked the explanation of how the zombies, though really just hypnotized into thinking they are zombies, actually come to have the physical attributes of the living dead-unbelievable, perhaps, but I appreciate the effort by the writers to explain it. The gore effects were decent for the budget, the acting was all right, and the story was entertaining.

I liked it.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: This movie is horrible- in a 'so bad it's good' kind of way.

The storyline is rehashed from so many other films of this kind, that I'm not going to even bother describing it. It's a sword/sorcery picture, has a kid hoping to realize how important he is in this world, has a "nomadic" adventurer, an evil aide/sorcerer, a princess, a hairy creature....you get the point.

The first time I caught this movie was during a very harsh winter. I don't know why I decided to continue watching it for an extra five minutes before turning the channel, but when I caught site of Gulfax, I decided to stay and watch it until the end.

Gulfax is a white, furry creature akin to Chewbacca, but not nearly as useful or entertaining to watch. He looks like someone glued a bunch of white shag carpeting together and forced the actor to wear it. There are scenes where it looks like the actor cannot move within, or that he's almost falling over. Although he isn't in the movie that much, the few scenes are worth it! Watch as he attempts to talk smack to Bo Svenson, taking the Solo-Chewbacca comparison's to an even higher level!

I actually bought this movie just because of that character, and still have it somewhere!

Gulfax may look like sh!t, but he made this movie!!! The only reason I've never seen the sequel, or even sought it out, was because of his absence! Perhaps should there be a final film, completing the trilogy, Gulfax will make a much-anticipated return!
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Considering that this movie had a serious and quite successful launching campaign, I would have expected something to be worth the fuzz...from the opening scene on (in which the two brothers "sensually" caress each other, laying naked in a bed) it goes rapidly downwards...nothing to get the attention, not a mind-catching thing in the whole plot, baaad baad acting (a few minor exceptions, but artificiality is at its best). Incest and lesbianism are promising themes, but the script analyses none of the two in depth ( mind that a possible excuse of the makers, saying that they aimed for a subtle movie would be hilarious, unless subtle and superficial mean the same thing...). The too curious viewers will not get any interesting scene...at this point, that could have saved some of the movie...so you can imagine how bad it is. Many other things could be said...but please watch the movie yourselves...I am an egoist and I would like as many people as possible to waste about 1 1/2h of their lives...like I did :(
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative