Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I bought this DVD for $1 at Walmart. After seeing it, I might just return to the store and try to get my money back! The only reason I gave the movie a 2 and not a 1 is that the story has a few novel story elements, though it really never rises to the level of being interesting. This film has all the earmarks of being a made for the drive-in theaters market--ultra-low budget, amateurish acting and a liberal dose of sex (for an early 60s film). In fact, I wonder if perhaps the only reason the film was made was to make a fast buck AND because someone knew some strippers they could use as extras. The film is about a wacko doctor who wants to transplant his girlfriend's severed head onto the body of an unsuspecting donor. Most of the potential donors are skanky strippers or a model--whose only real purpose in the film is to titillate as they remove most of their clothes. However, they keep too much on to make the movie even worth watching for the naughty bits and the film isn't quite awful enough to merit watching by bad film buffs.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Kudos to director and cast for such a realistic film. The grittiness, lack of glamor and desperation drew me into the film and kept me there. I was truly impressed by how dates and information were relayed within the film; ie newspapers, letters, etc. It kept the film moving at such a fast pace I didn't feel the urge to fast forward once. Personally, I thought all the principles did a tremendous job...it was great to see Bosworth and Kudrow in such difficult roles. It made me want to cry at times. Val Kilmer didn't surprise me...his performances of this nature usually leave me in awe. Overall, this is a brilliant film not to be missed!

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
First let me state that I do not believe in god (if you want to use the word atheist, fine, but I don't like that word since it describes what I'm not, not what I am) but I hated this "documentary." The production values were damn near non existent, the premise extremely shaky and whole thing seemed to be an exercise in Brian Flemming's insecurities.

The production values were terrible and Brian Flemming is clearly an amateurish director at best. The narration sounded like he just narrated over the film all in one shot, and he didn't practice at all. There were way to many umms and pauses when he should have been talking in the movie. animation was also pretty damn bad.

The whole idea that Jesus is a mythical character is not taken seriously by historians and biblical scholars. As I stated before, I do not believe in God, and I don't think that whether or not Jesus was a real man says nothing about the existence of God. My personal view, Jesus probably was a real man but he lived in a time where there were many massiah's (look up apollonius of tiana) and that the stories of his life and preaching were blown out of proportion the farther you got from his death. According to the Wikipedia article on the historicity of Jesus (and there's a good citation for this so it's garbage) "virtually all scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[1]" I was left wondering at the end of the documentary if this was more about the director's insecurities than anything else. I was left wondering if he was trying to convince himself more than anyone else. The most telling example of this is the final interview he was with the religious school principal. He's not even coy about it. The way he bombards the teacher is unfair and while I agree with the director partially, that teaching kids about hell fire is a bad thing, the way that Flemming confronted the principal was just awkward to watch. Flemming had a chance to perhaps get a good discussion going, if he was more tactile with his interview. Instead he comes off aggressive with "isn't it bad to teach kids this stuff." The guy cuts the interview short and I mean, what did he expect, the principal to say "oh yes, I see it is, I have seen the light, this will now be a secular school?" It seems that Flemming is getting revenge for what he feels was a wrong done to him in childhood. This isn't about the documentary, this is about Flemming's insecurities, and has nothing to do with the supposed topic of the documentary. Flemming shows what he's really doing here, and that is the real downfall of this so-called documentary.