IN: Review: I picked this up in the 'Danger After Dark' box set, and watched it solely because of my interest in the performance of Hyde and Gackt. I expected a corny horror film that was a huge gore-fest and with very bad dialogue. Which is exactly what it would have been if it had been made in America. Instead I found myself intrigued by the good development of the characters, and the way that Sho (Gackt) develops through the movie as a person. The acting skills of both stars was surprisingly good, considering they aren't professional actors, and the director did a marvelous job with it all, setting it in the future minus the flying cars and holographic billboards.

On a side note, Taro Yamamoto's performance was very surprising. The only other film I've seen him in is Battle Royale, where he plays Shogo Kawada, and in this film he seems to be the exact opposite of Shogo. Toshi is bright, exuberant and hyper, serving as a sort of comic relief with his antics. Shogo was the big tough guy on the island who killed without thinking anything of it. So, watch out for his performance, if you're familiar with Battle Royale, you'll be very surprised by him.

But don't be thrown off by the summary on the back of the box, because this isn't really a vampire movie. It's just a movie with a vampire in it. That Hyde's character is a vampire is almost a background fact with what's really going on in the foreground, and you guys will love the last scene. It's a really moving picture at some points, the photography is really well done. It's definitely something to pick up the next time you're at Blockbuster.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: In Hollywood in the 1930's and 1940's, I think that every studio can make a western, except Warner bros. The few times they try, it always ridiculous (except, perhaps, for They Died with their Boots on - which is a cavalery western.) I have read that Humphrey Bogart, seing James Cagney with this big cowboy hat on his head, said that he looks like a mushroom. True! Cagney and Bogart are too urban, too XXe century to be credible in a western movie. The story here had no suprise, and it did't help. Every 10 minutes, I figure I can see Bogart and Cagney drops their little guns and put hands in a machine gun to get away from the set in a 1930's black car.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: The movie uses a cutting edge title for a lame story. Kill Kill, would have been nice. The movie incorporates taboo scenes to make the viewer move back in their chairs. The scenes are unnecessary and choppy. The movie is something a novice screen writer could have conjured. Just a waste of movie props and network money. I have to write 10 lines of text to critique this film when it is not worth 10 lines of my time, but I have to push on to let the people know to avoid the nonsense. If people are counting on you to choose a good movie for movie night, pick something else. If you have a soul don't damage it by subjecting yourself to this filth.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: It'd be easy to call Guys and Dolls great. It's got Frank Sinatra and Marlon Brando (and, contrary to Sinatra's original wishes, the casting works), it's got a really cool 1950s feel, even if it is basically transposed from stage to screen with only a little interruption. And most of the songs are often a lot of fun, and catchy, and performed with that wink and nod to the wonderful escapism inherent in the form itself. If it's not entirely as great as some others of its ilk, it shouldn't be any fault of the filmmaker Joseph L. Mankiewicz. Not all the songs entirely click, and a little of the dialog feels like it's being performed for the stage as opposed to film (it's hard to tell at times- Brando and Sinatra straddle the line so often that one has to watch carefully to tell when one plays for the camera or for the "stage", while the actress playing Adele is better for stage than screen).

The plot is one of those winners that works well for its period, even if one wonders if its influence has stretched to the likes of 1999's She's All That (well, not quite, but close). A gambler (and 14-year betrothed), played by Sinatra, wants to host a big-time game, but is told that the "heat is on", meaning the cops are on watch. So, he has only one choice to host the game, with a thousand dollar tab. The only way he can get it is through a big-time bet with fellow gambler Brando, who's put on to make a wild wooing job of a mission worker. It allows for the predictable twists in the story, in the sudden turn-on-turn-off of the charms of the character, of the idiosyncrasies of people from the streets (gangsters and dancers and the "saitn" played by Jean Simmons who falls for Brando). It is, in its basic concept, about this whole world of guys and dolls, and how to balance one or the other- obviously without getting married or too compromised.

Mankiewicz brings a lot of energy to the piece, even when keeping still with the camera on the subject, and his stars are properly reeled in. Hell, even Brando works excellently for a musical as he goes beyond being simply THE method actor and shows his chops for singing and big-star quality. The story and characters eventually wind down to what you'd hope will happen, and that's fine. All we ask for- and what we get- is entertainment in good spurts of witty, involving dialog, and a few songs and dances that bring the house down (my favorites were the number with the lady-cats at the club, Luck be a Lady, and the two numbers down in Havana, Cuba). A-
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
positive