Q: This Is Pretty Funny. "Saturday The 12th", a?... Great Work... I Laughed Every Minute of the movie... This Is Like "Scary Movie" for the 1980's. great STUDENT BODIES-styled gags...

Too Bad This Isn't On Video... But You Can Still Watch It on FLIX...
A: negative
Q: I question its importance to Queer Cinema as it seems to be more about having a homosexual encounter via violent behavior than making any clear statements regarding homosexuality and violence.

Three tales are tangled together in a rather sloppy manner. I found myself trying to untangle the messy narrative in the first 15 minutes, that alone didn't sit well with me. Weak plot points were endlessly repeated as though we might not have gotten it the first 10 times.

There was a feeling of padded dialog throughout the film. More like a 45 minute Boy's Brief short rather than a fleshed out full-length film. It had a certain erotic flair, male nudity and sex appeal but overall the sum did not equal its parts.

The 1st part: Boxer/Stalker storyline was the strongest and yet it too felt like it had been pulled thin. Bob has been following Tim for four years and only now is he confronting him? I felt as though their cat-mouse game was not developed enough to merit its conclusion. We needed more information about them and less Parking Lot/Locker scenes with Tim relentlessly saying "What do you want?"

The 2nd part: Danny wants his buddy, Tony, to beat him up while he jacks-off. Tony doesn't seem to mind, but he doesn't even appear interested in exploring the implications of his homo erotic hobby -- not even after they do it in the nude. This tale lacks the all-important transition from "I'm a straight boy smacking my guy friend around for fun" to "I think I might be gay and hitting him because I'd like to spread his ass and do him S/M style." A very important thing to leave out.

Clearly these stories each could have conveyed their points in half the time. The 3rd part with the man and woman slapping each other around adds to that thought. Furthermore, it was unnecessary and added nothing to the film. Yes, the actors did a fine job under the circumstances and the four male leads were very sexy. The make-up (bruises and cuts) however was on par with a grammar school talent show.

There wasn't enough meat to this story to have any impact on the gay politic. The film made no statement, squandered time, and is not engaging or worthy enough for thoughtful investment. Its fatal flaw is its amateurish approach, that makes it ultimately impossible to take seriously.
A: negative
Q: I first saw this movie when I was about 10 years old. Unfortunately I could not watch it to the end because it was aired late at night. Now I bought it on DVD because I can remember that I liked it.

This is really not an ordinary horror movie. It has some horror elements but I rather categorize it as fantasy. I liked it but I hoped for a bit more horror and scary scenes. Especially the scene when Anna's dad comes into the paperhouse trying to kill her is a bit short.

Now to the plot. This movie is about a young girl named Anna who gets ill. While she is ill and has to lie in her bed because of her high fewer she turns on to finishing her drawing about a house - the paperhouse. When she fells a sleep, which often strangely happens just immediately, she finds herself near the house on a big green field. She realizes that the house is exactly like the one she has drawn and that every new detail also appears in her dreams. One day she draws a boy into the house to have somebody to talk to. As she forgets to draw his legs (because he is sitting behind a window) the boy cannot walk. Later she is being told by the doctor, that a boy also has this strange disease and she realizes that with the boy she has drawn, she also got that boy into her disturbing dreams. She also notices that it gets harder and harder for her to wake up from her dreams. As she misses her father who is ofter abroad she draws her father into the house. She makes a mistake and her father is looking very angry on the painting. She tries to rubber him out but realizes that she cannot change anything already drawn. And next time she falls asleep the horror begins. Her father is mad and blind (because she draw s*** on his head to mark him as 'invalid') and tries to get into the paperhouse and kill Anna and his friend. Her dreams became a horrendous nightmare. They manage to escape and to kill her father and Anna can finally wake up. Than Anna finds her self in the hospital where her parents are sitting beside her bed. The doctors thought that she fell into a coma or so. They tell Anna that the other boy died and that they want to travel to the ocean to get over those tragical happenings. Anna draws a watchtower and notices that the same watchtower can be found near the hotel they traveled to. She runs to the watchtower and meets the boy (I am just not mentioning his name because I cannot remember it and do not want to go back to the previous html page) and can say good bye to him and forget those terrible dreams forever.

There were a few thing I did not understand in the movie. First of all it was the ending which I absolutely dislike. I think it is too long while the main part of the movie becomes a bit too short. How does the boy fly a helicopter and speak to Anna as he is supposed to be dead? Why did you have to put such a stupid radio on the wall? I hated that scene it was so dumb to me. It almost ruined the main horror scene.

Things I liked were the scene with the photograph of Anna's dad which was the first real scary and horror scene. I liked the boy. The actor was awesome. He was even better than Anna. I also liked how Anna tries to get her father out of the painting while she is asleep and how she is looking for it in the garbage.

Overall a good movie. I give it a 8 out of 10.
A: positive
Q: I'm not alone in admiring the first Superman movie, a film that Richard Donner executed masterfully. I am also not alone in scorning Richard Lester's Superman 2... which brings us to the Richard Donner cut of the same movie, sadly it is still an absolute abomination.

Superman's world is one where suspension of disbelief is required in strong doses, but Superman 2 stretches things too far. It doesn't matter who directed Superman 2 because the script insults the intelligence of a first grader. In a sense there is no plot because the characters have zero motivation to act the way they do, unlike the original superman. With or without his powers, Superman's strength (or lack thereof) is handled in the least believable manner. There is too much to criticize, so I will not bother. I condemn this movie... perhaps the slapstick in the Lester version is more appropriate to the moronic script this movie is based on. Super-Duper bad.
A: negative