input: I can not quite understand why any of the "reviewers" gave this documentary "0" other than for political reasons. No, the film did not investigate both "sides" of the story, but then surely one film in favour of Chavez against the tides of propaganda against him should be seen as an attempt to balance out the narrative overall (especially given A. the history of CIA involvement in Latin America in fermenting civil unrest - google National Security Archive and B. the coverage in that country and elsewhere of the clearly faked scenes of Chavez supporters shooting non-existent opponents). What is most amazing about this film is the fact that the film makers stayed in the presidential palace all of the way though the coup - surely a first in documentary making - images of a coup from both sides!!!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Hunters chase what they think is a man through the forest, though the audience sees he is a werewolf. The hunters never seem to realize this, because after they shoot him, he looks normal when they decapitate him.

A doctor transplants the werewolf's eyes into a man who lost his own in a laboratory experiment. The man, Rich, gets to have sex with his nurse (Stephanie Beaton) before he even gets his bandages removed.

After he leaves the hospital, he finds his wife has been cheating on him too. When a smoke machine sends clouds past an amateur painting of a moon (with a fake tree branch on the foreground), he turns into a werewolf! His torso grows larger, splitting his shirt, and he grows a giant werewolf mask on his head that has red lights in the eyes. His pants stay intact. The mouth chews unconvincingly, though some sort of robotics (or hidden hands) in the eyebrows give him a baleful look at times.

Despite the poor werewolf costume, there is a fair amount of blood and gore, and those are fairly well done. There's even a pretty good decapitation later in the movie. However, when a man falls from a height, a rather bad dummy does the job.

Rich has a friend named Siodmak who is some sort of occult expert, and he also accidentally stumbles across a small man with crutches named Androse who is also such an expert. They try to help him a little.

Rich kills people who have done him wrong. A policewoman investigates the murders and tries to hit on Beaton, who doesn't much care for lesbian scenes so nothing comes of it.

Quite cheap, but between the nudity and blood and gore, and a not-terrible story combining (sort of) The Most Dangerous Game with The Hands of Orlac and The Wolf Man, it's somewhat entertaining. Available on its own, or in the box set Scream Queens Vol. 1.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I watched this movie on the grounds that Amber Benson rocks and Nick Stahl is generally pretty cool - I figured that any film featuring two actors I like and respect couldn't be all bad. And in that sense, I was right - considering the cringe-making dialogue they were given, both of them perform reasonably well. Not well enough to stop the movie from sucking, you understand, but well enough that I was able to make it through the 75-odd minutes of movie (and that's the main sign of an awful film: when, at 40 minutes through, you're already praying for it to be over).

It's hard to know where to start with the problems in "Taboo". The dialogue, as mentioned, is appalling; wooden and completely unnatural. January Jones' acting is unbelievably bad, and since she's the character we spend most of our time following around the house, this is an unforgivable flaw. The plot manages to be so convoluted that it makes no sense while simultaneously being so cliched as to be completely predictable (literally, not one of the major 'twists' in this film would surprise anyone but a toddler). A few interesting shots aside, the director tries far too hard with far too little success, awkward tracking shots and jittery camera-work distracting from what little element of story there is.

Three of this movie's stars are awarded for the fact that it contains Amber Benson, and the last is tossed in on the grounds that one of the jokes made me snigger a little bit. I wouldn't recommend this movie to anyone, ever, under any circumstances. Avoid at all costs.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Lee hosted the 100 Years of Horror for Ted Newsom and was talking about filmic werewolves. He said something to the effect that his only brush with lycanthropy was The Howling II, then he quipped, "The less said about that the better." Indeed he was right as this film may very well be the worst in his entire catalog of screen performances. The first Howling by Joe Dante was a groundbreaking werewolf film with its incredible special effects and its campy sense of style and subject matter. It was a film to be taken seriously. Like other good original films, filmmakers for some strange reason thought that even more campy sequels were needed rather than what worked the first time(See CHUD then CHUD II to illustrate this point). This film is miles and miles away from the first on every front. There is absolutely nothing scary about it. It looks cheap and is pitch black through most of the major scenes. Lee is the only actor in the film worth mentioning(okay, I'll cede Ferdy Mayne too). Lee looks embarrassed as he says inane dialog and does ridiculous things(check out that ending with him and Stirba). Lee looks incredibly tired and knows what dreck this is which is a tad more insightful than the two leads who leave America to go to Romania. The story isn't really worth examining here, and you can bet there is very little story worth mentioning when you have to have Stephen Parsons and his band Babel play through much of the film in the beginning and the ending with that dreadful noise. Sybil Danning is here and, yes, she disrobes once and then we get that scene showed again and again and again - one reviewer said 17 times(I counted ten - but might have been so bored out of my mind by that point). I gave the film three stars, but it really deserves a zero - the three I gave it are 1 for Lee and two for Ms. Danning's contributions. Yuck!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative