Q: ...except for Jon Heder. This guy tanked the entire movie.

The plot sounded entertaining. A 29 year old slacker son(Heder)still lives with widowed mom (Keaton)who happens to meet a new love (Daniels). Slacker son is jealous and anxious to lose his comfortable life and tries to sabotage the relationship. He also meets a girl(Faris).

I really liked the performance of Daniels and especially Faris but whoever casted Hader would be better of selling hot dogs at the beach. Heders performance is annoying, which would be a good thing since he plays an annoying guy, problem is he is to bad an actor to loose this act making this guy likable in the finale. At the end you still wish you can personally punch the guy in the face and you're upset about the end. In the future every movie with this guy will be a no go for me!
A: negative
Q: With a title "borrowed" from Werner Herzog and liberal helpings of Kubrick, Haneke and Noe it is painfully obvious that Thomas Clay considers himself a cut above the usual sort of rubbish our British cinema churns out. "Robert Carmichael" (for short) sets itself up as a realistic study of youthful alienation and at the same time seemingly a critique of the Iraq war. The problem with the realism is that the characters are so patently unrealistic and atypical - contrary to the fetid imaginings of "extreme" filmmakers most teenagers are not drug addled rapists. As a critique of the Iraq war, a film about youth violence (by a talented classical musician - subtext society has damaged this sensitive individual)is so infantile as to hardly bear thinking about. There are signs of technical ability but some reviewers have overstated this. Like Kubrick and Noe he does show that the desire to shock linked with supposed serious intent may be the worst cinematic con trick of recent film. People liked "Clockwork Orange" and "Irreversible" because they liked the rapes and the violence, but most of all they liked feeling culturally superior for liking things that most hated. So too much Kubrick and not enough Haneke (a serious and moral filmmaker) here labels this as one of the most moronic films in years. (I am not against violence in film. To do it seriously is a hard trick though - people in cinemas cheered Alex in "Clockwork Orange" showing how Kubrick's supposed intent was missed by miles. Gratuitous violence is much easier to achieve and is less offensive than the pretensions of many art-film directors.)
A: negative
Q: Oh it really really is. I've seen films that I disliked more, due to whatever reason, but never have I seen a film that just fails in every single aspect of film making. It even fails to fail at film making, in a Way the Hercules in New York could be said to do. It's not the film I like the least, but it is the very worst film I've ever seen.

The acting is the first thing that strikes you. I've never seen a worse acted film outside of pornography. In fact I've plenty of pornographic films that are acted a damn site better than this. It really is awful.

Technically, it's terrible. The camera-work is amateurish. The editing is nonsensical. I presume they couldn't afford proper sound equipment, and this meant that every scene in a car (and there's a lot of them) has them driving at about three miles per hour and every scene set outside by the same patch of woods (and there's a lot of them too) is actually dubbed from a studio, again lending more to the bad porn vibe.

The plot is nonsensical, as many have pointed out. I'll defend vampires walking in daylight by the fact that despite it being popularized by Nosferatu, this was never originally an intrinsic part of the vampire mythos.

Speaking of vampire mythos, the writer had evidently read Carmilla, or at very least seen The Vampire Lovers. I'm not sure how I feel about this, swaying from impressed that a movie this dire has at least some aspirations to a Gothic novel I'm very fond of; or annoyed by its at best sledgehammer references and at worst total desecration of source material. At very least 'the General' is an insult to Peter Cushing though.

It gets two stars however, merely because I can't bring myself to vote one star for a film that has, or at least purports to have, both vampires and zombies in it. Incidentally I watched Lifeforce (another film that tenuously has vampires and zombies in it) on the same day as this, and despite being a rather flawed film itself, really comes out a masterpiece compared to this.

So in the end, this is not a film so bad it's good, or so bad it's in any way enjoyable, even drunk. It's just a mess, and worth no-one's time watching.
A: negative
Q: Have you ever in your life, gone out for a sport's activity, tried your best, and then found yourself in an important segment of it, where for a brief moment, you were given a chance to be a hero and a champion and . . . failed? I believe many of us have had that moment in our lives. This is the premise of the movie, "The Best of Times." In this story a middle age banker, named Jack Dundee (Robin Williams) suffers from the deep melancholy of a football mistake, which happened years ago, is inspired to re-play the game . . again. In order to accomplish this he must convince the once great football quarterback, Reno Hightower (Kurt Russell) to make a comeback. For Reno, who is satisfied with his present lot in life, see's no need to change the past record, which get's better as he ages. Added to both their problem is the fact years have passed and in addition, both their marriages are floundering and in need of re-vamping. Not easy when his Father-in-law (Donald Moffat) habitually reminds him of the biggest drop. Nevertheless, Dundee is persistent and will do anything to try and correct the greatest blunder of his life. Great fun for anyone wishing to enjoy their youth again. ***
A: positive