IN: Review: I don't know why the critics trashed this movie. I hardly ever agree with them anyway.

The movie could have been a little scarier - I don't usually go to Horror movies! I even had to psych myself up to see it in the daytime. I needn't have bothered! ;) (The Cinema was full of kids too, heh! ;) ... Liam was great as always. I also liked Catharine Zeta Jones (Theo) and Lili Taylor (Eleanor-Nell)

The house was very Gothic and beautiful in a spooky way. The special and sound effects were awesome. I also loved the music score, particularly the gentle tunes for Eleanor and her journey to save the children, how she grew out of her stagnant routine and life and finally gain her power, peace and freedom.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: It was 1974 and it starred Martin Sheen.

That alone says what to expect of this movie.

And it was a movie. According to the movie, Slovik had reformed, got a good woman, and didn't want to fight.

In real life, Slovik may have been a naive innocent, or he may have just wanted to manipulate the system.

Whoever Slovik was or wasn't is for history to decide, but this was a movie that dealt with dessertion at a time when a country was questioning why it was fighting, and the movie took sides.

With no regard to servicemen who were in Viet Nam either in 1974 (as Willie Nelson would say, let's tell the truth, it was about the Viet Nam war, not WWII), EoES was as propagandistic as Gung Ho was in the forties.

According to this movie, Slovik stated his position, plain and simple. He had a nervous problem. Heck, I have a clinical nervous condition, and trust me, if I had done military duty, it would have been no problem for me to either just let my nerves go and fail at my tasks and get a demotion or put on KP duty or latrine duty with no problem.

If we believe the teleflick, Slovik didn't have that option, no doubt because of his criminal history.

Whatever the viewer wants to believe is up to the viewer. I've learned that movies from this decade or that decade, in dealing with service or military duty, will pretty much take the same stance over and over.

1940s and 1950s, serve your country.

1960s and 1970s, mock your country.

This is the history.

The whole movie seemed predictably Hollywood to me. He refused to serve and only when he was being strapped up to be executed does he show emotion.

Such an emotional outburst could have easily worked to his advantage in his declaration of his nervous condition, but obviously the movie wanted to show him as a human being and only when he is about to die does he become sorrowful.

I'm not a Catholic, but I thought the recital of the hail Mary by Ned Beatty and Sheen at the end, with the Lord's prayer, was funny as it sounded like they were trying to see who could say it faster.

I don't see how this movie could be watched without realizing it was aimed at Tricky Dick Nixon and the Viet Nam war.

I hope it was all worth it for Slovik and anyone who chose to follow his example.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: At least I was able to enjoy mocking the movie which is surprising since I was barely able to sit through it. In all honesty, my guess is the cover to the DVD case cost more than the entire movie. And saying that it is the same director as The Boogeyman, when a new version of that just came out...nice touch guys, it was misleading enough to rope me in. The only thing that frustrated me more than the insufferable acting of the copycat was his haircut. Usually you only see that kind of hair on a ten year old boy and the character acted like it. The film looks like it was shot by a D+ grad student of some film school excited to use every film technique he ever learned while attending classes....sometimes, less is more buddy. Through out I would get lost by random plot twists that led nowhere or were unexplained. All this makes a bad movie but when the ending doesn't even come close to pulling it together, well, that makes it an exceptionally bad movie. Without a doubt this is the worst movie I have ever seen, and that includes my friends' french final video for senior year of high school, but hey maybe i'm a bit biased, I mean I did get to play an extra. P.S. I don't even think this deserves a star...not even a half. NONE FOR YOU!!
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Guys and Dolls is a movie itching for a remake. It was made forty-eight years ago. Its two main stars are either dead or 409 pounds. Although a remake, with big stars now, would be box-office success, it would not be able to capture the magic that went into this version. Its boundless energy can't be recaptured, nor can the pure joy you get when watching something like this: a huge, widescreen, big entertainment movie.

Marlon Brando (who last clocked in at 409 lbs. last time I heard) plays Sky Masterson, one of the biggest gamblers in New York. Frank Sinatra is Nathan Detroit, whose as-often-as-he-can-find-a-speakeasy-for-it crap game is city-wide famous. However, when the one place he has left to hold it is charging $1,000, Detroit needs the money fast. He bets Masterson $1,000 that he can't take missionary Sarah Brown (Jean Simmons) to Havana with him the next day.

Guys and Dolls is basically nothing more than unsavory types singing and dancing, which usually, as it does here, add up to fun. It's obvious to see how this was a Broadway musical: there weren't that many sets, and the scenes were long. If I was to complain about one thing, it's how uneven the songs were. At times, there were two songs in a scene; other times, thirty minutes went by without one. Guys and Dolls is never boring, just a great time.

My rating: 8/10

Not Rated.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive