IN: Review: Cage (1989) was another one of those low budget "buddy" action flicks that were produced during the 80's thanks in large part due to the films such as 48hrs. and Lethal Weapon. This one stars Reb Brown and Lou Ferrigno as to former Vietnam Vets who happen to run a local dive bar. Reb takes care of Lou because he saved his life in 'Nam. But Lou was shot in the head and is now pretty soft. Although he's huge, Lou has the brain of a child. One day some ruffians throw their wait around in the bar and Lou and Rebb beat the tar out of them. But payback's a mother. They crash the bar leaving Lou and Reb with nothing. That is until these two thugs come into the picture (one of them's a real nice guy) who have a plan in mind.

The film's a waste of time. Maybe if they went all they way and made a hard core action flick instead of trying to tone down the gruesomeness of the situation perhaps it could have worked. Alas, it doesn't and the audience is left holding the bag. Oh well. It's too bad because you have all the elements for a great B-movie. Better luck next time, I guess.

Not recommended.

xxx
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: "House Of Evil" aka "Dance Of Death" of 1968 is the first of four infamous and odd last movies starring the great Boris Karloff and directed by Jack Hill and Juan Ibanez. Unlike "Snake People" (1971), "The Incredible Invasion" (also 1971) and "The Fear Chamber" (1972) which were all released after Karloff's death in 1969, "House Of Evil" was released in 1968, when Karloff was still alive. "House Of Evil" is regarded by many as the worst of these four movies, which are without doubt all rather crappy, but definitely have their entertainment value as the unintentional comedies they are. I personally prefer "The Fear Chamber" and "House Of Evil" over the other two, simply for the reason that the lack of the slightest logic is even more extreme, and since there is no suspense whatsoever in any of the movies, the lack of logic increases the unintentional fun factor.

The odd story (I don't know if I can really call it a 'plot') is set somewhere in Europe in the 19th century. After some girls are murdered and found with their eyes ripped out, Mathias Morteval (Karloff), an enthusiastic organ player, invites his few remaining relatives to his bizarre mansion, which is full of eerie toys. His kinfolk includes Lucy Durant (Julissa), who is engaged to one of the police inspectors investigating the murders.

I won't give away more of the story, but I can assure you that it is quite bizarre throughout the movie. There are some very funny moments, especially some things Karloff's character says. Boris Karloff was without any doubt one of the most brilliant and important icons of the Horror genre who ever lived, and he manages to award this odd movie with a tiny bit of his greatness, and although (or because) his role is (due to a poor script and and directing) in no way scary, it looks like he deliberately plays it with a sense of humor. Just like in the movie's successors "Snake People" and "The Fear Chamber", the female lead is once again played by Julissa.

Most of he supporting performances are hilariously amateurish, the cinematography is terrible and the locations and sceneries are beneath contempt. The storyline lacks the least bit of logic and the dialogue often does not make the slightest sense. It is the poor story and dialogue, however, that makes this movie so entertaining to watch. "House Of Evil" may be an extremely crappy attempt of a movie, but it is certainly as (unintentionally) funny as it is bad. Fans of Ed Wood's movies should be very amused, I personally found it hilarious. Crappy but entertaining nevertheless, and definitely worth watching since there's Boris Karloff in it and due to the fun factor. 3/10
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: 1933 seemed to be a great year for satires ("Duck Soup" for instance) and this one fits in well even though it is about the obsession with contract bridge. The tone is like a humorous piece from The New Yorker, appropriate, since the film begins with the "Goings On About Town" page of that magazine. The only thing odd is the casting. Made a few years later William Powell and Myrna Loy would have been perfect. However, after 1934, you wouldn't have had adultery handled in such a sophisticated fashion, the young and beautiful Loretta Young in some shear and slinky outfits, or a group of prostitutes listening to a bridge contest on radio. Even if you know nothing about bridge, you may still want to check out a rare example of Hollywood satire.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: If you made the mistake of seeing the movie before reading the book, please don't give up on the series. I bought my first copy of any of the books in May of this year, and already I'm almost finished with book 10. I dare say the movie is a piece of trash that doesn't do the series even a sniff of justice. While "Left Behind: the movie" only vaguely follows the story of the "Left Behind" (the book), the characters aren't even close to accurate.

A few examples: Rayford never acts on his feelings for Hattie (he is about to when he's informed of the vanishings); Buck Williams is a blonde haired, magazine writer, not a TV reporter; Chloe is at Stanford, and a lot of the book details Rayford wondering if she 'survived'; Buck and Chloe don't meet until much later, at a meeting in New York, set up by Hattie; Irene and Raymie are never 'in the book,' rather just in Rayford's flashback thoughts; the roads are so jam packed with wrecks following the rapture that Rayford and Hattie have to helicopter back to the suburbs... etc, etc, etc...

And that's just from the first movie; they're about to release the third. Please, even if you didn't like the movies, give the book series a chance.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
negative