Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: You know how Star Trek fans flocked to all the Star Trek movies, even the really bad ones? Why? To see their heroes in action one more time. That's the way I feel about Doc Savage. I am a major fanatic for the character, and the prospect of seeing Doc and his crew in an adventure was overwhelming. And the first 20 minutes of the film only heightened that feeling of anticipation. Then they decided to crib elements from a number of Doc adventures and throw them into this one movie, resulting in a somewhat disjointed film. There's a lot of promise in here, diluted by a number of unfortunate choices (the music, the "camp" elements, etc.) But the spirit of Doc is there, and that's what those of us familiar with Doc and his crew respond to. So, in my long-winded way, what I'm trying to say is that this is not a bad movie: it's just not as good as it should have been. And anyone who is a fan of Superman, James Bond, Indiana Jones, Buckaroo Banzai, and many other characters ought to check this movie out just to become familiar with the hero who provided inspiration for them all.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Film starts in 1840 Japan in which a man slashes his wife and her lover to death and the commits suicide. It's a very gory, bloody sequence. Then it jumps to present day...well 1982 to be precise. Ted (Edward Albert), wife Laura (Susan George) and their annoying little kid move to Japan for hubby's work. They rent a house and--surprise! surprise--it just happens to be the house where the murders took place! The three dead people are around as ghosts (the makeup is hysterically bad) and make life hell for the family.

Sounds OK--but it's really hopeless. There's a bloody opening and ending and NOTHING happens in between. There is an attack by giant crabs which is just uproarious! They look so fake--I swear I saw the strings pulling one along--and they're muttering!!!!! There's a pointless sex sequence in the first 20 minutes (probably just to show off George's body), another one about 40 minutes later (but that was necessary to the plot) and a really silly exorcism towards the end. The fight scene between Albert and Doug McClure must be seen to be believed.

As for acting--Albert was OK as the husband and McClure was pretty good as a family friend. But George--as always--is terrific in a lousy film. She gives this film a much needed lift--but can't save it. I'm giving this a 2 just for her and the gory opening and closing. That aside, this is a very boring film.

Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: There were a lot of films made by Hollywood during the war years that were designed to drum up support for our troops from the public. Seen today, some might dismiss them or just see them as propaganda--which they technically are, but of a positive sort and meant to unify the nation. This film is a pretty effective and entertaining example of the genre--having a pretty realistic script and good production values. Pat O'Brien plays pretty much the same character he played in MANY other films (you know, the tough-talking, hard-driven but "swell guy"). Randolph Scott is, as always, competent and entertaining and the rest of the extras are excellent (look for a young Robert Ryan as one of the bombardiers in training). While the story is reminiscent of several other movies about our pilots and crews, the film is well-crafted enough to make it interesting and not too far-fetched. That it, perhaps, except for the very end--where the film is a bit over-the-top but also VERY satisfying. About the only serious negative, and this is mostly for nitpickers, is that some of the stock footage is somewhat sloppily integrated in the film and "nuts" like me who are both history teachers and airplane lovers will probably notice this--all others probably won't notice.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
Wow... what would you do with $33m? Let me give you a choice; you can either a) shred it and flush it down the toilet or b)make a film based on the premise of Whoopi Goldberg as a hard nut futuristic cop partnered with a rubber dinosaur who uses terms like "I didn't butt trumpet" and blows raspberries on the basis that this is funny. That's right, you would choose the option that has more merit - flushing down the toilet.

This has to be seen to be believed. I cannot even find the words to describe how bad this film is. It doesn't even fit into the "so bad - it's good" category. I actually have it on the television as I write - and whilst watching I felt the need to come onto IMDb and register my disgust.

Considering Jurassic Park was made a couple of years before, how on earth did they think that audiences would any longer tolerate a man dressed in a rubber suit? WG should have simply walked and damn the consequences. Everyone concerned will go to hell for this criminal waste of money.

I have to stop writing - I am about to implode.