newfunk-2

What really impressed me about the story is how art reflected life. The odds were against a SIXTH Rocky film succeeding, much as many characters in the film are dismissive of Balboa's bid for one more fight. Stallone has always been smarter than the characters he plays, and it shows in his witty and poignant script for this movie. Like the character he was born to play, Stallone gives it his all in several key dramatic scenes. There's also quite a bit of humor (much of it self-deprecating). Only the most cynical moviegoers won't be cheering for the Big Guy by the time this one's over.

No one expects to see another Rocky movie after this one. It's a fine send-off for a classic character.

For my generation (I'm 38), Christopher Reeve IS Superman. So I'm delighted that the makers of Superman Returns have treated the memory of the Reeve films (well, the first two, anyway) with such respect. If you haven't seen Superman (1978) or Superman II (1981) in awhile, I'd recommended refreshing your memory. For Superman Returns works quite well as a sequel to those films.

It's also refreshing that the character isn't made dark (though he is just a tad brooding, but it makes sense within the context of the story), as has been the norm with modern superhero films. The biggest complaint I hear about Superman these days is that he is a character without flaws. That's ridiculous. He has to lead a double life, he's an alien among us, and has huge responsibilities. His conflict about returning to his adopted home after 5 years is at the emotional heart of the story, and rightfully carries more weight than the admittedly well-staged action sequences. His airborne chat with Lois about how he hears the world crying out for a savior every day is quite poignant, and rings true in this age of terrorism and bloodshed.

If Singer's 2 1/2 hour epic is lacking in any area, it's humor. There are a some chuckles, but they're few and far between. A couple of the really inspired bits, however, address the age-old Clark-is-Superman suspicion that the supporting players have. Also, the pacing could be better. Like I said above, I love the dramatic content of the story. But there are long stretches with little action that are sure to strain some people's patience.

All in all, it's a welcome return of an iconic American legend, made by people with obvious affection for the material.

I saw this film on a double-bill with ASSIGNMENT OUTER SPACE as part of Sinister Cinema's "Drive In Double Feature" package. Viewed in that context, it's not a bad movie at all. There's tons of space/rocket/miniature footage, horrible dialogue, a beefy hero, and cheesy monster, and space babes. In other words, everything one would expect from a movie of this type. Nuke some popcorn, grab a cold one, and have a good time (and maybe a laugh or ten).

Conquest of Space is certainly worth a look for anyone examining the more realistic (at least at the time) cinematic examinations of space exploration. The space "wheel" scenes might be viewed as primitive precursors to the station in 2001. The acting and script are typical of the era--the comic relief in particular is grating at times. But the effects are well-done, especially shots of approaching rockets viewed from space, and meteoric fragments which bombard a hapless spaceman. A minor effort next to Pal's other films of the period, but not a bad way to spend an hour and a half.

Having long been a serious Hammer fan, this film somehow escaped me for years. I recently viewed it for the first time, and was very impressed. Christopher Lee rarely had such a delicious part, as the pompous and sleazy Paul Allen. Director Terence Fisher and composer Monty Norman are in top form as well. Of course, the story itself is familiar but thoroughly engaging.

One thing troubles me, the tape I saw had a few obvious dialog cuts. If you've never seen The Two Faces of Dr. Jeckyll, AND you like the horror cinema of this period, I strongly urge you to see this one.

I was fortunate enough to see a full-length 16mm print of this relatively obscure Hammer film at a convention in 1997. While it pales alongside the studio's acknowledged classics (Horror of Dracula, Curse of Frankenstein, etc.), it is one of their better 70s offerings. Especially compared to the lackluster Dracula pictures of that period, Vampire Circus is fairly original.

Having recently undertaken the enjoyable task of watching all of Universal's "Classic Monster" series, I can say with renewed enthusiasm that THE WOLF MAN is one of the best. As a screen monster, he's always been pushed to the back in favor of Drac & Frank, and this is unfortunate. In Lon Chaney's Larry Talbot, we have a most human and believable character (though his "gee whiz" mannerisms perhaps have not dated so well). His continual disbelief at the superstitions surrounding him echoes the audience's similiar feelings. Only the abrupt climax detracts from an otherwise excellent horror film.

Hammer's infamous "lesbian vampire" tale was a departure for the respected English studio. It was their first film with nudity (which is, I believe, largely responsible for its appeal), and was quite graphic for its time. However, this reviewer found that, despite its aesthetic appeals (not the least of which are Ingrid Pitt and Madeline Smith as the title characters), the film is frightfully slow-moving. One wonders what the magnificent Terence Fisher, Hammer's most prolific and gifted director, could have made from this story. Two equally explicit sequels followed: LUST FOR A VAMPIRE and TWINS OF EVIL.