input: Being a big fan of Corman's horror movies I expected from his western a bit more than I got. Well, I was entertained all right. I had almost as many laughs as watching Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles.

See the spectacle of mobile tire tracks on the prairie of the old west. You can kill time by counting them if there happens to be an otherwise boring scene going on. And the horses seem to have gears in them too, considered the fast-forward chases. See also the swinging bar room queens of the traditional wild west saloon doing a number that reminds of a certain fashionable dance from 1920's, here decades before the style was invented. Hope the saloon around them won't crumple.

In the middle of all this mayhem the main actors do a decent job. Ireland, Garland and Hayes are all truly fine. A special praise for them for doing the best they could with the material that seems mostly having been lifted from 'Johnny Guitar', but doesn't quite impress the same way. But there is really nothing wrong with a laughable western like this. Just like a really bad old horror movie, it might fail one way but succeeds to give joy anyway. That is one of the reasons Corman's work appeals to me and that is why I dare to recommend you to experience this movie if you get the chance.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: **SPOILERS**

This is one BAD movie. Seriously. Acting in absolutely horrible, the FX are dreadfull and the plot is down right awful. But hey, its so bad that its fun watching! The script is SO bad that its enjoyable! You just have to cringe and laugh at lines such as "I guess thats what you call CROCTEASING." as the women flash their breasts at the crocodile. I mean COME ON thats funny cause its so bad! It has such horrible jokes that they're funny! But after a while it just becomes to much as the movie turns into crap. I really started to fall asleep. Trust me though, the plastic croc foot stamping on the leaves and the constant swishes of a crock tail well keep you laughing for a long time. Though I have to say it had one cool part when the croc ripped that dude in half and he just hung there for a while figuring out what to do. Heh heh mindless movie, which HAS to be nominated for the MST3K line!!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: When this film was originally released it was promoted with the notably unimaginative tagline "Dirty Harry is at it again". Whatever this pitch lacks in originality is more than compensated for by it's complete and total accuracy. "Sudden Impact" retains all the aspects that made the previous three Dirty Harry movies so successful- tight pacing, a compelling plot, strong supporting characters, endless gunplay, and bone-dry humor. Some of these elements are not only retained but amplified- this is easily the darkest, bloodiest, and most overtly right-wing installment of the franchise.

The plot is somewhat intriguing: after killing a ridiculous number of hoodlums, Inspector Callahan is sent on a forced "vacation" by his superiors to the sleepy coastal town of San Paolo. He is tasked to investigate the background of a recent homicide victim who was shot in the genitals before being put out of his (no doubt considerable) misery by a second shot to the head. Early on in the film, the audience is made aware of the identity of the killer- an artist named Jennifer Spencer (Sondra Locke) who is hunting down the thugs who gang-raped her and her sister at a fun fair some ten years earlier. This incident is shown in a very disturbing flashback, snippets of which recur before each new murder. As more bodies start to appear with the same M.O, it becomes clear to Harry that both the local police chief and his new love interest (guess who?) know more than they are telling. To make matters even more complicated, the one-time rapists realize who is hunting them and start to hit back hard.

"Sudden Impact" offers relentless action from beginning to end. Clint Eastwood directed this film himself and expertly handles a series of set pieces that culminate in an exhilarating climax. Sondra Locke's performance effectively conveys the blend of ruthlessness and fragility that define her character. That having been said, it is fair to wonder if another actress (who was not Eastwood's off-screen companion at the time) could have brought more charisma and dramatic weight to the role- Theresa Russell and Cybill Shepherd jump to mind as possible candidates. Members of the supporting cast that punch significantly above their weight include Albert Popwell as Harry's partner Horace, Paul Drake as the psychopathic Mick, and the truly scene-stealing Audrie J. Neenan who portrays the vicious Ray Parkins.

However the film has some notable problems- some of the subplots (the animosity between Harry and a gang of twentysomething hoodlums, a Mob vendetta against him) take up too much screen time and don't really have any bearing to the larger story. Their only real use is to raise the body-count to absurd levels. In the first half of the film it sometimes appears that Dirty Harry shoots people more often than he has to use the restroom. However the film moves into top gear as it progresses and the triangulated cat-and-mouse game between Callahan, Spencer, and her former tormentors assumes prominence. This second hour makes it clear that a more stripped-down and slightly refocused screenplay would have given "Sudden Impact" the potential to be a first-class, neo noir-style thriller that could have taken the series to new levels but still have contained more than enough .44 magnum heroics to satisfy the Harry loyalists. Instead we get the film that Eastwood and Warner Bros. clearly wanted to make- a superbly executed but prototypical Eighties action flick that mostly declines to particularly challenge the intelligence of it's intended audience.

This was by far the biggest grossing of the series at the box-office and it is not hard to see why. Though not the film that it could have been, this is still big, trigger-happy fun. Even after repeated viewings, it's going to make your day.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I remember the original series vividly mostly due to it's unique blend of wry humor and macabre subject matter. Kolchak was hard-bitten newsman from the Ben Hecht school of big-city reporting, and his gritty determination and wise-ass demeanor made even the most mundane episode eminently watchable. My personal fave was "The Spanish Moss Murders" due to it's totally original storyline. A poor,troubled Cajun youth from Louisiana bayou country, takes part in a sleep research experiment, for the purpose of dream analysis. Something goes inexplicably wrong, and he literally dreams to life a swamp creature inhabiting the dark folk tales of his youth. This malevolent manifestation seeks out all persons who have wronged the dreamer in his conscious state, and brutally suffocates them to death. Kolchak investigates and uncovers this horrible truth, much to the chagrin of police captain Joe "Mad Dog" Siska(wonderfully essayed by a grumpy Keenan Wynn)and the head sleep researcher played by Second City improv founder, Severn Darden, to droll, understated perfection. The wickedly funny, harrowing finale takes place in the Chicago sewer system, and is a series highlight. Kolchak never got any better. Timeless.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive