Q: Revolt of the Zombies has no redeeming features. I'm tired of people arguing that it's not that bad, and that the effects must have packed more of a punch in 1936. I suspect this isn't true: it's not like IQ's have risen sharply in the last 7 decades. The average viewer in 1936 was probably just as bored by this rubbish as the average viewer today. Why? Just try watching the first scenes, and count the pauses between things happening, the awful choice of when to cut to close-up, the slapdash editing that seems to include an extra two seconds on every shot to pad out the running time. Pay attention to the utterly redundant dialogue: "I'm going to make some tea/go outside/read my book now." "Are you?" "Yes, I am." That sort of exchange happens several times. Normally I would love that, being a HUGE fan of bad movies, but watch the listless actors mumbling their trite and tedious lines, and all desire to laugh at the movie slowly fades away. This sort of disinterested, pot-boiling time-waster is far worse than energetic, imaginative mind-blowers like Plan Nine From Outer Space or Santa Claus Conquers The Martians. Those who claim that this is "better" than those more interesting movies have a backwards idea of entertainment. This movie is not bad in the sense that your jaw hangs open in astonishment: it's bad in the sense that your eyes slowly close in boredom. Which is far worse.
A: negative
Q: It could have been a morbidly fascinating look at the life of one of America's most notorious serial killers, but sadly it doesn't even come close. Terrible editing, direction, bad acting, you name it. This movie is literally about 10 minutes of plot stretched into 100. The only redeeming quality is Bruce Davidson as the father, but that's not nearly enough to save this stinker. A 1 out of 10.
A: negative
Q: Having seen Charley Boorman in Long Way Round with Ewan McGregor, I was very interested to see how Charley would be in his own show. I thought Charley came across as a lovely guy who is very grounded and down to earth. Its nice to see that celebrities struggle with their weight and fitness, it just show's their human too! I don't know a lot about bikes, but this show gripped me right from the start. The preparation and organising for this event seems immense. The event itself seems very dangerous and I'm fascinated to see why Charley and everyone else is doing it and how far he gets. I love the pace of the show and the fast upbeat music. I can't believe he broke his collar bone, I really hope its not the end, I cant wait to see the next episode...
A: positive
Q: I agree with all the accolades, I went through a box of tissues watching this film. It had a gritty authenticity and rang true in every way.

The question I'm about to raise represents a current sensibility regarding the treatment of animals. I had a very difficult time with the beginning slaughter of sheep and goats, and the dying deer with its pulsing neck and pooling blood as its life drained away was hideous.

This is the age of "no animals were hurt in the production of this move." Iphigenia was made in the late 70's before the advent of computer simulation. Was it possible to fake these animal deaths? Or were these animals slaughtered for art?
A: positive