Q: I am an avid fan of Lucio Fulci, and yet I must say that "Zombi 3" (aka. "Zombie Flesh Eaters 2") of 1988, which he made with two other directors, Bruno Mattei and Claudi Fragasso, was quite a disappointment. Especially compared to its great predecessor, Fulci's very own Gore classic "Zombi 2" (aka. "Zombie Felsh Eaters"/"Zombie") of 1979, this is vastly disappointing. Sure, the low rating of 4.5 already suggests that it's not a good film, but, these low ratings usually come from people who are not into Italian Zombie flicks, and as enthusiastic fan of Italian Horror films and low-budget Exploitation cinema, I love many films that have only been rewarded with much lower ratings. Also, many of my fellow Italian Horror buffs seem to think of this film as underrated, which I sadly cannot agree with. Not that the film was a complete disaster. It has some redeeming qualities, above all Fulci's nauseating gore effects, that are always a pleasure to watch for an Italian Horror/Gore buff. The basic idea behind the film is also not bad (allthough far from original) and I liked the ruthless portrayal of the military. Sadly, that's about it. While the great predecessor "Zombi 2" was extremely gory, but beyond that also genuinely creepy, this is not creepy or scary for a minute, and the nauseating and often grotesque gore is the only true reason to watch "Zombi 3". The film is sometimes fun to watch, but only for the gore, and as an unintentional comedy. I guess that it was mainly the gore that came from Fulci, and the disappointing rest that came from Mattei and Fragasso, the first of which was involved in a bunch of nasty cult-flicks (such as D'Amato's "Porno Holocaust"), and the second of which is responsible for one of the worst movies ever made, the god-awful "Troll 2". Overall, this is definitely watchable for the gore, but, out of all Fulci films I've seen so far, this is definitely the worst, and I've seen the majority of this great filmmaker's repertoire. I am a Fulci fan, and I always will be, but this sure isn't his magic moment. It may be fun for the gore, but I recommend to watch any other Fulci film before this!
A: negative
Q: Sorry did i miss something? did i walk out early? The first ten minutes of unusual (and untrue!) stories had me thinking "This is going to be a classic" But it was all down hill from there! The acting was brilliant, for what it's worth William H Macy is fantastic and just gets better and better every film i watch him in. But it never seemed to connect. I was waiting for the big moment where all the stories inter connect and then suddenly..it rains frog?? it was if the writer said "i've gone to deep how can i pull all these stories together cleverely....Oh sod it i'll just have it raining frogs". I like clever movies, i like strange movies but this was just odd and boring. 4/10
A: negative
Q: A painfully protracted, maudlin and predictable drama, my twenty-fifth Sidney Lumet film, Garbo Talks, gets filed precipitously on the low quality end of my quest.

The film documents a harried young working man named Gilbert (Ron Silver), who is son to Estelle Rolle (Anne Bancroft), eccentric, feisty and above all, an obsessive fan of Greta Garbo. When Estelle becomes afflicted with a brain tumor, her son decides to go on an obsessive quest of his own: track down Greta Garbo, and bring her to his mother.

Anne Bancroft is in full-on, chew-the-scenery Auntie-Mame mode here, that kind of feisty ol' gal that film loves, where she mouths off to people, and stands up for her ideals, and ends up in jail all the time. She stands outside of the film as an obvious artificial construct, and every scene with her is yuk-yuk lame; every note striking false. The rest of the characters are equally as one-dimensional, but tremendously less-interesting. Ron Silver is flat as can be, and his attempted love triangle is as telegraphed as anything else in the film: He is dating affluent Lisa Rolfe (Carrie Fisher), but becomes smitten with oddball co-worker Jane Mortimer (Catherine Hicks), and I called every scene three scenes before they happen.

That's the other problem. One-dimensional characters can survive if they are posited in an intriguing and captivating story, but there's simply nothing here. The film's pace is glacial, resplendent with extraneous material that strengthens absolutely nothing, and when the film does begin to follow a linear plot, it's both plodding and uninteresting. There are plenty of guest stars, so to speak, including Harvey Fierstein as a gay New Yorker (imagine that) in yet another highly inessential scene.

Late in the film, it attempts to make a halfway-decent statement on the nature of idolatry and its role in our lives, but by that time, none of the characters exist as real people, and the film had bored me into submission, so it functions as a case of far-too-little, far-too-late. The film is my twenty-fifth Lumet-directed film, making him easily my most-viewed director, but outside of a couple egregious misses (A Stranger Among Us, anyone?), he hasn't plumbed the painfully uninteresting depths of Garbo Talks.

{Grade: 4.5/10 (C/C-) / #21 (of 24) of 1984 / #23 of 25 Lumet films}
A: negative
Q: I thought Hedy Burress (who managed to escape from the watery grave of part one) was going to be in part 2 Guess not. I just think they should of killed her off like in Friday The 13th Part 2 (you know what I mean).

This movie like Scream 3, and Urban Legend 2 followed movies within a movie.

This was PURE CRAP! The whole Movie within a Movie crap.

BAD STAY AWAY!
A: negative