Reviews

Mighty Joe Young is a safer, more family friendly version of King Kong (which is a masterpiece and one of the best action/adventure movies of all time).

Mr. Joe Young is a more likeable and heroic character than the original King Kong. Yes, we feel sorry when Kong is shot to death at the end, but we never doubt that it was the right thing to do. He's a dangerous animal. It's just like the real-life killing of the gorilla Harambe.

From beginning to end, King Kong is killing people left and right. Joe Young on the other hand is a more gentle gorilla. The special effects are so good you almost forget it's a stop motion puppet, it's like you're watching a real gorilla get abused. It could make a grown man cry.

King Kong is a violent movie. Full of people getting killed scary dinosaurs. Kong stomps people to death. The only violence in Mighty Joe Young is against stop motion lions, and it's all pretty mild.

While there's no nudity or sex scenes in King Kong, the scene where King Kong tears off pieces of Fay Wray's dress is a bit uncomfortable. You can oftentimes smell the unmistakeable pervy pre-code stench. Mighty Joe Young has none of that.

It's like Mighty Joe Young was Merian C. Cooper "anti-King Kong" movie:

1. We have to wait a long time before Kong appears. Joe Young is there right at the beginning.

2. King Kong is a stereotypical, wild and horny gorilla who kidnaps women. Joe Young is the female characters pet.

3. The male lead in King Kong is a chauvinistic "girls drool" character. The one in Mighty Joe Young is polite and chivalrous.

4. King Kong is put in chains. Joe Young performs without chains.

5. King Kong kidnaps a human and climbs up a building with her. Joe Young climbs up a building to save a human.

6. King Kong dies. Joe Young lives.

And while it's a lighter movie than King Kong, the big action scene at the Children's Home at the end of the movie is breath-taking, and feels more real than anything I've seen in a modern CGI movie.

The only negative thing about this movie is that the girl says "Joe" a lot. It's a bit like the movie "Shane", where the main character's name is mentioned almost every minute.

Mighty Joe Young isn't as good as King Kong from 1933, but it's a better choice if your kids want to watch a movie about giant primates.

"Rambo" is the fourth movie in the series of violent action films starring Sylvester Stallone as the Vietnam Vet John Rambo. It's a more "realistic" movie than the ones from the 80s. It's less cartoonish and cheesy. Sylvester Stallone even keeps his shirt on.

Sadly, the extreme and sadistic violence drags it down. Heads explode, people are eaten by pigs, women and children are raped. And in one of the most disturbing scenes, a Burmese soldier grabs a baby out of the arms of the mother and throws him into a burning hut.

The good thing about this movie is its religious themes, and that it deals with the persecution of Christians in Burma. But it feels exploitative...the sadistic violence against those people is only there so the audience can cheer when Rambo massacres the badguys in the most gruesome ways possible. I remember some people cheered and clapped their hands when the sniper took one soldier's head off.

I'm not saying that it's always wrong to go to war or act in self defense. I'm not even against capital punishment for the most dangerous people. But killing is a serious matter. It shouldn't be fun. We shouldn't enjoy seeing people get killed...

This movie should just have been a drama movie, like Gran Torino. Imagine if people went into this movie, expecting a violent Rambo movie, and got the exact opposite instead. A thoughtful movie about war and faith. Maybe Rambo 5 will get it right?

Inside, also known by the original title "ze French should neveur make horreur films" is one of the most evil movies ever made.

I agree with the gentleman/woman who said that movies like this destroy our Western civilization. Every copy of this sick and twisted movie should be destroyed. There's nothing good about this movie at all. It's absolutely worthless. The people who made this are more talentless than Rob Zombie and Uwe Boll. They shouldn't be allowed to make movies. Not even commercials for McDonald's. They shouldn't even work AT McDonald's. They would probably put one half of a hamburger bun between two pieces of meat and call it Chicken McNuggets.

Trivia break: the French version of Big Mac is called "Grand Grenouille" and contains 100% frog meat. "French Fries" is called "Pommes Frites", which means "Fried Pomeranians". It may sound barbaric, but McDonald's assures us that they only buy from organic farmers.

How did this piece of merde get positive reviews? I think I know how, but the director would probably murder me if I told you. Don't waste your money on this garbage. Don't waste your time. If you see the DVD cover in the store, turn and look the other way. If you have the DVD, just flush it down the toilet.

Trivia break: contrary to popular belief, Hercule Poirot isn't actually French. The actor playing Poirot (Jeremy Brett) is English! In the last episode, when Poirot finally meets his mortal enemy and father Blofeld, Brett's accent is slipping!

If you want a good French movie, watch "The Three Musketeers" with Gene Kelly instead...just avoid the 1993 version, mr. Kelly prefers the one with Douglas Fairbanks. Or you could watch the fantastic "Judex" by Louis Feuillade. Anyway, zero stars.

The Dark Knight is one of the most well-made, modern movies. Christopher Nolan shows restraint when it comes to CGI, there are no unnecessary slow motion scenes, "cool" fight scenes or naked people to be found here. It's refreshing to see a movie made in the old-fashioned way. Artistically, it's great. Morally...not so much.

One of the biggest problems with The Dark Knight is Heath Ledger's Joker. Unlike "Batman Begins", there's just too much focus on the villain and his cruel and disturbing acts. Much like Jack Nicholson's version, he almost becomes the main character, the "hero" of the show. People think he's funny, and laugh when he performs his pencil trick. He's also nearly omnipotent...heck, Ledger's Joker could probably kill Superman.

When villains are portrayed in this manner, many people will start to root for them. People think that they're "cool" and start to sympathize with them. Just look at fictional serial killers like Hannibal Lecter. When more and more kids want to dress up as the Joker or Harley Quinn instead of Batman or Batgirl, you're doing something wrong (Black Panther suffers from this as well).

Filmmakers should be very careful in how they portray villains. I don't believe everyone who watches violent movies will wake up one day and find out that they want to study at Charles Manson's serial killer college...but we should keep in mind that some people are more impressionable than others. There were plenty of disturbing, Joker-inspired crimes being committed after the movie came out. Someone even mutilated themselves to look like The Joker. To say that stuff in movies (good or bad) never inspire people is a lie. A good example someone else used is "Birth of a Nation", which revived the Ku Klux Klan. Again, I'm not saying that the movie alone killed anyone, only that filmmakers should be more careful.

Not that Batman is a saint in this movie either. Lying, mass surveillance, cruelty towards prisoners etc. "I see now what I have to become to fight men like him". For Batman, the end justifies the means. The whole movie is about Batman failing to be a hero. People often ignore this just because the movie is (artistically) good.

Batman Begins was far from perfect, but still a better movie than the previous attempts by Burton and Schumacher. The Dark Knight is a step back into the nightmarish and anti-heroic world of Batman Returns, only without the mutated "pervguins" or zombie catwomen. Very sad.

It's fashionable to ridicule the old Batman serials these days. The silly costumes, outdated special effects, the racism in the first one...but at least those movies portrayed Batman and Robin as a heroes. And I really doubt that kids wanted to dress up as Dr. Daka/The Wizard when the end credits rolled!

When people talk about Highlander, they usually claim that the horrible sequels ruined everything, that the first movie was a masterpiece etc.

The simple truth is that Highlander was garbage from the beginning. If you remove the unnecessary sex, bad language and violence, It's just a bad saturday morning cartoon. Terrible sword fights, cheesy music, the big bad villain is a clown like Bebop or Rocksteady...the part where Cohner McLeaughd wins the price would fit in nicely in a He-Man episode. "I have the pooowuuhhrrrr!"

This movie is no different. Names like "General Katana", "Planet Zeist" and Captain Planet-style environmentalism. It's almost unfair to compare it to a saturday morning cartoon, because Highlander 2 makes Care Bears look like How Green Was my Valley.

The worst thing about this piece of cow dung is when General Katana (sigh) takes over the subway train and kills a lot of innocent people. They actually show a baby and its mother getting killed. After the baby-killing, the villain cracks a "funny" joke. It's sick and evil...you shouldn't be allowed to do that in movies. You don't mess with babies (or old ladies). Someone should spank the director...but he would probably enjoy it.

Terrible movie. Stay as far away from this as possible.

Why is this movie so popular? Is it the soundtrack? The memorable lines? Clancy Brown? Maybe it's because I didn't watch it as a kid (not that the movie is appropriate for children anyway).

Because this movie is pretty bad. First of all, it's extremely boring...if you're already tired when you watch it, you're going to struggle. The whole movie feels like a strange dream, so maybe it doesn't matter if you fall asleep. You can just dream the rest

The fight scenes are nothing special. Stiff, slow...I've seen better fight scenes in a day care center. And this is from the 80s. There's no excuse, especially when you watch Douglas Fairbanks or Errol Flynn in much older movies.

The sex scene is totally unnecessary. Did it add anything at all to the movie? Would Casablanca be better if we saw Bergman and Bogart naked?

Producer: "But...if they keep their clothes on, the peasants...uh, moviegoers won't understand that the main characters love each other!"

When people talk about Highlander, it seems like they're more interested in "The Kurgan" than Connor McLeod, which is never a good sign. People laugh when old ladies are murdered, or when he says bad words in a Church etc. Maybe it's because the Heylenderr himself is uninteresting. Maybe people are insane. Evil isn't supposed to be fun...

There's no real moral in the story either. It's a story about a bunch of idiots who chop each other's heads off for a New Agey price. Anyone can be the winner, no matter how rotten he is. It's almost like the impersonal "force" in Star Wars (even though those movies have redeeming qualities). It doesn't care whether you're good or evil.

I'm probably going to get my head cut off for saying this, but Queen is one of the most overrated and overexposed bands in the world (some of their songs are decent). Rock music is bad enough on its own, but when you mix it with a bad fantasy movie, the result is hilarious...and not intentionally, like in Flash Gordon.

Not recommended.

(According to IMDB's trivia section, Sean Connery recorded the opening lines in a bathroom. How fitting...)

Spawn the movie isn't as "dark" as the toilet paper it's based on. You won't find a lot of similarities with the violent (but still more childish than Superfriends) animated series. But as with those two, it's still impossible to tell who this is made for. For ten year-old kids or forty year-old men who never moved out of mom's basement?

Because some of the content in this movie is inappropriate for kids (or decent people in general). But the rest of the movie is like watching a very small child play with his deformed Batman and Joker (tm) figures while making loud fart sounds. "Hahaha! Look at my skid marks, Batman!!".

The movie costume is actually pretty faithful to the original; it looks just as stupid as the suit Toy McFairlane borrowed from Spider-Man, Venom, Prowler, Batman and Ghost Rider.

The action scenes are uninteresting and boring. Terrible CGI. Not terrible as in "Playstation 2 graphics". It's not even PS1. No, this is Super Nintendo graphics...think Donkey Kong Country. The worst part in Spawn is the hell level, where you have to kill King K. Roo...oh yeah, I almost forgot, it's a movie.

Malebolgia doesn't even move his mouth when he speaks. To be fair, they may have tried to stay true to the comic book. After all, we never see any lip movement in the funny papers.

Is the movie immoral? Yeah...it's disgusting and perverted. There's a lot of talk about hell and demons, but nothing about God (just like the terrible comic) etc. But it's still hard to really be offended by anything in it. We don't put dogs in jail for indecent exposure.

I love the TV spot for this movie, where the narrator says: "This is not your father's superhero!" Like he's warning us to stay away from the movie. They probably removed the part where he yells: "BECAUSE THIS IS PURE GARBAGE!!!!"

I've watched two or three episodes of this show, and I agree with the person who said that it looks like the people behind this are trying to give Walt Disney the middle finger. That's almost the same thing my wife said when she saw it...and our four year old looked scared or confused when it was on TV, so we turned it off.

At first, the high ratings and positive reviews for this show surprised me. Then I read more about the content (a pig who takes a dump on Goofy's head, peeing dogs) and saw some disturbing pictures (zombie Goofy), and now I know why so many people like it...people think it's hilarious when innocent stuff like Mickey Mouse is turned into something mean-spirited and twisted. Everything has to be primarily for adults these days, filled with innuendo and irony. Some adults have become playground bullies, they don't want to share Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck with "stupid babies".

This show almost makes me believe in that insane conspiracy theory which says that Disney is ruled by satanists. And it also makes me wish that the urban legend about Walt Disney and cryogenics is true...that old Walt, like King Arthur, is only asleep.

Once upon a time, there was a big, dumb movie called "Judge Dredd". The special effects were good for its time, but fans and hated it, mainly because Judge Dredd took off his magical helmet (that, and Rob Schneider. And the stupid plot. Critics hated it because it wasn't directed by Martin Scorcese). After all, they expected more than a silly Sylvester Stallone movie.

Some years passed, when suddenly, a smaller but even dumber movie called "Dredd" popped up and surprised everyone. Fans of Judge Dredd wondered and worried if little Dredd was going to remove his magical helmet. "No" said the Dredd. "I'll keep it on my stupid little head!" The fans started to dance and sing, and hold hands. They lifted up Lil' Dredd and heaved him up and down, up and down. Suddenly, they heard a blood-curdling scream! The helmet hit the ground with a bang. Silence. One of the men carefully picked up the helmet...it was empty...only the helmet. Only the helmet. Quiet. The fan started to chuckle. Then laugh. Then he roared like crazy. Everyone resumed the silly little dance, and passed the helmet from one fan to the next in a strange, ritualistic way...forever.

*closes book*

And that's the only reason why Dredd fans like this movie. Forget that this is just a standard, unoriginal, sadistic action movie that happens to have Judge Dredd in it, a movie you have seen a hundred times already. Forget about the pointless sexual content. You see, it's all about the helmet. Oh no...no! The helmet! THE HELL...MmeeeEEERrrrrrgh!!!!

Whistle and I'll Come to You is based on a story by M.R. James, the master of ghost stories. It's a pretty faithful adaptation the original story, and one of the rare cases where the movie version is as terrifying as the story it's based on.

I saw this one in my cabin on a dark October night a couple of years ago. I didn't sleep very well afterwards. The nightmare sequence disturbed me so much...it's one of those movies that ruin my sleep if I think about them late at night.

This is how horror movies should be done. No cheap jump scares, torture porn or graphic sex scenes. It's sad that the other movies based on M.R. James' stories didn't live up to this little masterpiece.

Recommended! And read the ghost stories by M.R. James too.

It's fun to see the similarities between the "proto-superhero" Judex and modern superheroes like Batman. Both are rich, have secret identities and a secret HQ, both are masters of disguise, experienced a childhood tragedy, swore a holy oath etc.

It's amazing that a movie that's over a hundred hears old manages to be more exciting than many of the newer superhero movies. There are so many likeable characters in this serial, and it's easy to care about them. It's almost like reading a novel like War and Peace or Lord of the Rings.

It's a very beautiful movie to look at. The landscape shots are nice, with towns, castles, mills and cities. It's interesting to see how things looked before they ruined everything with ugly modern architecture. The new score by Robert Israel fits the movie perfectly, with Grieg's "Solveig's Song" during sad scenes. This must be one of the most relaxing action-adventure movies ever. I recommend seeing this before you go to bed.

It's also a lot more meaningful than many of the modern superhero movies. The newer superhero movies are often filled with negative emotions like hatred and rage (Batman v Superman). Judex may at first seem like a simple tale of revenge, but is really a story about forgiveness.

Now Imagine if Batman (1989) ended with Batman forgiving the Joker...the only modern comic book movie where forgiveness is a theme is the underrated Spider-Man 3. I think more comic book movies should include things like that.

So skip nihilistic McMovies like Deadpool or Batman v Superman and watch Judex instead. It's good for your soul!

This movie is an insult to the original poem.

I have to wonder why some people make movies based on stories or characters they hate (as the director himself has admitted). I also wonder how anyone can hate Beowulf, one of the greatest stories ever told. How is that even possible?

When I first heard that they were making a movie based on Beowulf, I was so excited. I could almost picture it in my head. Misty landscapes, dark, scary forests...I looked forward to the epic battle between Beowulf and Grendel, and the heroic (and tragic) fight with the dragon.

What I got instead was a soulless CGI movie made by people who really hate Beowulf. A deconstructed version of the epic poem, full of politically correct nonsense. Beowulf isn't portrayed as a hero in this movie. Instead, he's a lying manwhore who sleeps with everything that moves. Grendel is just a poor misunderstood creature and King Hrothgar's illegitimate son. Almost every male character in this movie is stupid/evil/perverted/cruel and likes to have sex with female monsters.

What's the point? Why make movies like this? Movies where the hero is as bad as everyone else, or worse. It's immoral, mean-spirited and dangerous. It's cynical, anti-heroic, anti-Christian, anti-male and extremely boring. What a nihilistic piece of trash.

I hope someone'll make a good version of Beowulf in the near future, but I really doubt it. This should have been made much earlier, when someone like Ray Harryhausen lived. Modern filmmakers aren't interested in heroes like Beowulf, they only want to deconstruct and politicize everything.

Someone should make a movie where Robert Zemeckis life is deconstructed in the same way he deconstructed Beowulf.

The only positive thing I can say about RoboCop 2 is that its special effects are good. The rest of the movie is just sadistic trash.

It has (almost) every horrific thing imaginable. Everything from men pointing guns at babies, prostitutes stomping people in the eye with high heels, people getting cut open up while they're still alive, removal of brains, mass killing of innocent people, killing of children, foul-mouthed children, women getting their necks broken by mechanical drug addicts...it's a sick and nihilistic piece of trash, a truly evil movie, comparable to Death Wish 2, The Hills Have Eyes (remake) or Doberman.

I didn't like the first one, but at least that one had something to say.

(Zero stars)

RoboCop is a well-made movie. The special effects still look great after all these years, the music is fantastic. The idea behind it is interesting too. What if someone turned you into a cyborg against your will? It feels almost exactly like a comic book.

Unfortunately, RoboCop is also extremely violent and cruel, full of bad language and with some nudity sprinkled throughout the movie. People are shot to bits, explode in a shower of guts and gore...it's just so unnecessary.

It's too bad that lot of the more serious and tragic stuff is drowned out in all the violence and dark humor. RoboCop should have focused more on the drama and less on gory effects and vulgar language.

The idea of a man being turned into a cyborg against his will is a very disturbing one, especially in these days when transhumanists are pushing their evil and perverted ideas. The criticism of greed and unfettered capitalism is also good. In the hands of a more capable director, it could have been great.

Tarzan the Ape Man isn't as bad as the overrated porno movie "Tarzan and his Mate", but it's still trash.

The worst thing about this movie is the racism. Black people are treated as beasts. It's really hard to watch Tarzan randomly kill innocent Africans, and the movie actually says that white people are worth more than black people.

The treatment of animals is also pretty disturbing...are those real arrows and spears sticking out of the elephants? It's hard to tell. The fight scene at the end where Tarzan kills the guy in a gorilla suit is unnecessarily cruel. The way Tarzan treats Jane is also cruel, like she's a ragdoll. This version of Tarzan acts like a stereotypical caveman.

There's no real nudity in Tarzan the Ape Man, but sex is implied. The whole movie is kind of sleazy and crude. It feels like you're walking through a dirty back alley with prostitutes and drug dealers.

Fortunately, the Tarzan movies improved during the Hollywood production code (or Hays code). Tarzan became a gentleman, Jane kept her clothes on and even the portrayal of black people improved. It wasn't perfect, you couldn't show mixed marriages etc, but hateful trash like "Birth of a Nation" could never have been made during the production code.

Watch a good Tarzan movie instead, like Tarzan's Secret Treasure.

I'm not going to deny that The Blair Witch Project is one of the scariest horror movies out there. After all these years, I still have trouble walking through the woods at night because of this movie. Even during daytime, thinking about this movie in the middle of the woods makes my heart beat faster. But does that make the movie any good?

One of the positive things I can say about The Blair Witch Project is that it doesn't rely on jump scares, meaningless gore or silly characters like Freddy Krueger or Jason. It shows that it's possible to scare people without cheap tricks. There's also no unnecessary nudity, or any graphic sex scenes in it (the language is bad, though).

The worst thing about the movie is that it's meaningless. We're just watching a bunch of people get lost in the woods, where they are finally killed off by something supernatural. We're not left with any hope when the incredibly scary credits roll.

I guess the movie could serve as a terrifying warning against playing with the occult or paganism, but I can't really recommend it. There are better horror movies you could watch, like "Whistle and I'll Come to You" from 1968. Or even better; read the original story by M.R. James.

Tarzan and his Mate is basically a sleazy soft core porn movie featuring Tarzan. Trust me, the only reason why this pre-code Tarzan movie is considered a "classic" is because of the nudity.

Fortunately, the Hollywood production code (also called "The Hays Code") made the Weissmuller's Tarzan so much better. The movies focused more on storytelling than naked women and gruesome violence. The way black people were portrayed in these movies also improved. It was far from perfect, but still better than the disturbing racism seen in the first two, where blacks were treated worse than animals.

Just compare Tarzan The Ape Man, where Tarzan kills black people for fun (and the main characters actually say that white people are worth more than black people), and Tarzan's Secret Treasure, where Boy befriends the native boy Tumbo.

Another positive thing is that Jane is less sexualized in the movies made during the code. Pre-code Jane was just a pin-up girl, she's there to satisfy the male viewer's lust for naked female bodies. The "new" Jane is a more interesting, motherly character.

Tarzan himself acts a bit more like ERB's character. He's more of a gentleman than the pre-code version, who treated Jane like a ragdoll and tore of her clothes. I agree with the irish character O'Doul from Tarzan's Secret Treasure, if more people were like Tarzan, the world would be a better place.

Skip the pre-code Weissmuller movies. Watch the good ones instead.

Thor: Ragnarok makes me wonder how Batman & Robin would have been recieved if it came out today. Batman & Robin is actually far more serious than Thor: Ragnarok!

There's real drama to be found in Batman & Robin. Alfred's illness, Mr Freeze's wife...Schumacher didn't ruin Batman's speech near the end by having him trip in his own cape/get electrocuted/knock himself out with a batarang. And as campy as Batman & Robin is, at least they didn't portray Batman as a stand up comedian.

The endless jokes in Thor: Ragnarok makes it impossible to care about Asgard or Thor's friends who are killed by Hela. The threat in Batman & Robin felt more "real" than in Ragnarok. Almost every single scene is played for laughs. "Devil's anus", "orgy ship". It wouldn't surprise me if there's a deleted scene where Odin lets out a big fart before he dies. It's sad, because some of the jokes are actually pretty funny.

The awful Led Zeppelin song they used in the trailers show up twice in the movie when Thor fights a bunch of computer animated creatures. Because every single comic book movie needs "classic" rock music these days. How lazy! One can criticize Batman & Robin for a lot of things (sexual innuendo, whiny Robin, rubber butts etc), but the score by Eliot Goldenthal is absolutely heroic.

I don't mind jokes and funny situations in comic book movies. Stuff like that has been around since the beginning...but when everything is treated as a joke, the whole movie becomes pointless and depressing.

If Thor: Ragnarok is considered one of the best superhero movies ever, perhaps people will regard Batman & Robin as a misunderstood masterpiece in the near future. What's the difference between seeing Batman's rubber buttocks, and Hulk's computer generated cheeks?