IN: Review: I actually felt bad for the actors in this thing. No doubt a high school drama class could do a better job or at the very least as well a job. The actors must have thought this would be their big chance working in a film, it certainly was not. Besides the terrible acting the stories were boring and for the most part predictable. The one about the remote control didn't even make any sense. To bad cause it had the best premise in the bunch.

I'm all for supporting low budget films and giving new film makers a fair chance, but this turkey is a waste of time and an insult to the viewer. I only watched it because of some good comments posted here. They must have been planted by people with ties to the film. You may fool people into watching this, but you can't fool them into liking what they saw.

I gave it a 2 instead of a 1 because at least the boxer story tried to be heart warming. Sure it failed miserably, but it tried. I reserve 1 s for the worst of the worst.

Do yourself a favor and skip this dribble. I wish I had.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Still Crazy has been compared to the Spinal Tap since both are comedies about wash-up R&R groups. Actually, here the similarity ends because Still Crazy is much better written and acted out, whereas Spinal Tap script deteriorates from the mildly amusing first 10 min into a drivel that makes Beavis and Butthead to appear sophisticated in comparison. Still Crazy is formulaic but the likability of the characters and the unexpectedly high quality of some musical numbers for me managed to offset the a priori predictability of the movie. People who expect Spinal Tap-like attempt on satire would be disappointed by the light-hearted nature of the movie, but I'd take a successful self-ironic romp of Still Crazy over a pompous but failed shot at satire which is Spinal Tap.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I really like slasher movies,but this one is truly awful.The acting is lame,the script is bad,and the atmosphere is non-existent.The plot is as follows:a deformed gardener Charlie Puckett slaughters people in a small American town.That's right-this is the plot.Very original,eh!"The Night Brings Charlie" isn't even gory enough-if the film ain't gonna be scary,at least they should make it bloody.Avoid this cheap piece of trash at all costs.If you want to see some good slasher flicks check out "Madman","The Burning","The Prowler","Just Before Dawn" or "Humongous"- just don't waste your precious time with this worthless piece of garbage.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Antonioni was aiming for another hip masterpiece, this time on the other side of the Atlantic than "Blow up". It wasn't the success with critics and youth like the former though. Why? Maybe because it was a European's view of America filled with cliches that didn't work then and that have not aged well. (The revolutionary students at the beginning is embarrassing.)

Maybe when it was released big blockbuster movies and those aimed specifically at the youth market seemed dated. If it had been released a year before maybe hippes in deserts would have seemed fresh... It's a very interesting film tho, very beautifully shot with some brilliant and Antonionian scenes in between, like the love-making in the desert, the stillness of the desert mansion and the explosive ending... That the leads were two amateurs didn't help. They were beautiful but inexperienced. Mark Freshette is slightly better than Daria Halprin. It would have been so much better with proper actors! Maybe Michelle Phillips or a young Jessica Lange... The dialog is actually quite funny and poignant at times, tho you wouldn't know the way the lines are delivered...

A very intersting document of the late sixties definitely worth a look for the photography and the soundtrack....
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive