Htom_Sirveaux

I don't know how they surpassed it as a worse movie, but somehow, they managed.

"Shark Night" is, without a doubt, the worst shark movie I've ever seen, and I've seen plenty of bad ones. "Shark Night" is worse than "Shark Attack 3: Megalodon." It makes "Megashark vs. Giant Octopus" look like high art. To quote Steve Martin in "Planes, Trains, and Automobiles," it's not even amusing accidentally.

The "surprises" were all just one big barrel of "duh" from start to finish. They were cliché even for clichés. Let's see: two guys speeding through a shark-infested lake on a jet ski... hmm, wonder wonder if they're going to make it. A boat gets rocked with someone sitting on the side; no sir, never saw that coming. A caged woman tries to seduce her captor - whoa, that was completely out of left field!

One of the things that had me laughing out loud the most had to be the "acting." Between Sara Paxton's robotic mouthing of her lines and Dustin Milligan's late reactions, I can't decide who was worse. I mean yeah, nobody goes to horror films besides something along the lines of "Alien" or "Silence of the Lambs" to see excellent performances, but honestly, these two made Chuck Norris look like a thespian. The only real talent in this movie probably belonged to Joel David Moore and Joshua Leonard, both of whom should have handed the script back after one glance at it.

Another of the things that had me laughing out loud was the dialogue. For example, Nick passes out, and the sheriff says he "thinks" he fainted. That wasn't obvious enough? Did the sheriff also "think" that Sara was wearing a bikini? Did he "think" they were at a lake house?

But the absolute worst part of this movie had to be the fact that it was rated PG-13. Let's think about this for a minute; it's a horror film, for starters. Furthermore, it's a horror film about sharks, which means there's going to be plenty of carnage. Well, let's just say that there SHOULD have been plenty of carnage. The level of violence in this movie made a pimple look like a bite from a brown recluse spider. Why are so many directors trying to "appeal to younger audiences" by toning down everything? It's a HORROR FILM! Horror films are supposed to appeal to adults! Why don't you just have Disney make an animated "Saw" movie, for God's sake? They didn't even have the decency to release it unrated on DVD!

Oh, and speaking of PG-13, you know how it says "for brief nudity" among other things? Just a warning to all the guys out there who thought that may be some kind of compensation for this chum bucket of a movie; it isn't, though you ladies may find it to be mild compensation.

You'd think David R. Ellis and company would know better after giving us a decent first sequel to "Final Destination," but no... and, sadly, "Shark Night 3D" was his last film. Even "Snakes on a Plane" had its moments of entertainment, at least compared to this. But "Shark Night" seriously has to be the most one-dimensional three-dimensional film ever released. It's almost as if they had a shark type the script.

And speaking of sharks, here's one final little tidbit of trivia I'd like to repeat for the millionth time in as many shark movies: SHARKS DON'T HAVE VOCAL CORDS. That's right; they can't roar, they can't growl, they pretty much can't do anything with their mouths but bite. And biting is the one thing that "Shark Night" does best.

At the time "Religulous" was released, it was about time someone had made a documentary on the dangers of the abuse of religion, and leave it to Bill Maher to pull it off. "Religulous" is a hysterical yet informative exposé on what happens when people take religion too far and begin to ignore rationality. In spite of the documentary's comical nature, the results are truly terrifying.

Through his journey, Bill interviews (and oftentimes insults) a number of different people, including but not limited to Catholics, ex-Mormons, Hasidic Jews, Muslims, Scientologists, "cured" homosexuals, the director of a "Creationist Museum" in Kentucky (if I ever move to Kentucky, my taxes better never pay for that), and a man who believes himself to be Jesus Christ. Among the most rational people he talks to during his journey are two Catholic priests, one of whom asserts that Catholicism can no longer take a completely literal translation of the Bible due to current scientific evidence, another who asserts that Catholicism has changed greatly over the years, but still has a way to go.

Through it all, it was frightening to learn that almost more people in the United States deny evolution than in almost any other country in the world. For a nation that's come so far, there's still plenty who choose to remain in the Dark Ages. It's also frightening to learn how many people there out there who believe that homosexuality is a "choice" and "can be cured." Bill goes on to point out just how many horrible things are spoken of (under God's direction, no less) in both the Bible and other sacred scriptures; for example, Lot, a "good and righteous man" (2 Peter 2:8), offered his virgin daughters to a crowd of rapists (Genesis 19:8). Furthermore, he goes on to explain how the beliefs of Christianity are not unique ideas; Krishna, an avatar of the Hindu faith which predates Christianity by three thousand years, shares several similarities with Jesus, and Horus, the Egyptian god of the sky, is essentially the progenitor of all these Christlike attributes. While I already knew things such as this, it was nice to see them finally being told to a much wider audience. One thing that surprised me, though, was that Bill neglected to point out how so many things used in Christian tradition today actually originally come from ancient European paganism.

"Religulous" is not without its faults. Bill apparently takes the stance that there is no God and that all religion is bad, or at least that's how he comes off, whether intentional or not. About ninety-five percent of the world believes in a benevolent Creator or Higher Power in one form or another, and while I admit that the other five percent may be right, I'd hate to think that they are. Even Bill admits at least once to praying during his younger years and having his prayers answered in one way or another. I think the problem he's running into is that he's viewing God the way so many closed-minded people do, as a wrathful "god" who claims to love all creation while throwing people for minor things into a lake of fire. Had he studied near-death experiences, he would have learned that nothing could be further from the truth for most people who have come to the brink of death; I doubt it would have made him believe in God, but it would probably have shown him that not everyone views God as punishing or vengeful.

The second problem is in viewing that all religion or spirituality is bad. True, there has been more violence and injustice done in the name of particular religions than of any other cause throughout history. Still, this doesn't make everyone who subscribes to a particular religion or spirituality irrational and/or bloodthirsty. I've met Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, and various other people from all walks of life who are truly wonderful and loving people; I've also met those who are the polar opposite. The problem is not so much religion itself; abuse of religion is the problem. Religion can be used for good in bringing people together based on a common belief and granting them solace in times of turmoil. The problem we run into is when any religion spreads hatred or paranoia or claims God and salvation only for themselves. Obviously, not all religions fall into that category.

In spite of this, "Religulous" is very entertaining and informative, and in spite of its flaws, Bill does maintain that his gospel is "I don't know." And when it comes down to it, that's truly the gospel of humanity; we can have a good idea of what happens to us when we die, but nobody truly has all the answers, and anybody who believes they do are deluding themselves and others. Contrary to what some may think, this film will not shatter your faith, whatever that faith may be. Only you can do that. If you feel your faith to be weaker after viewing it, then obviously you were already having doubts, and there's nothing wrong some healthy skepticism. The overriding moral here is to question what you believe. Don't just blindly accept it.

On a final note, to those who claim to "speak in tongues," no, you don't. That isn't God talking through you; it's you babbling in gibberish, and you sound like an idiot. So do yourselves and everyone else a favor and shut up.

Once in a while, a comedy comes along that is so funny and so ridiculous at the same time that it's automatically destined for cult status. In 1983, "Strange Brew" was that comedy.

Spinning off from Canada's comedy variety show "SCTV," "Strange Brew" follows the escapades of Bob and Doug McKenzie (Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas) following a failed venture at making a hysterically intentionally cheesy movie. In their unending quest for beer that follows, they eventually get a job at a brewery, where they drink beer, woo the young new owner, drink more beer, discover a plot for world domination orchestrated by Max von Sydow (yes, THAT Max von Sydow), and drink more beer. What follows is a cornucopia of hilarity that can only be explained if you watch it.

Decades after its release, "Strange Brew" continues to induce guffaws in young and old people alike. It's the perfect screwball comedy to watch with a bunch of friends. So's all you hosers grab yourselves a beer and doughnut and enjoy the movie, eh!

As a man who likes to think for himself, I don't trust any news agency in its entirety; I do trust some more than others, but there isn't one I trust entirely. Among them, the Faux... sorry, Fox News Network is one I trust the least, and they have totalitarian-minded narcissists like Bill O'Reilly to thank for that.

One thing that Billy Boy likes to pride himself on is being a "crusader for the First Amendment." And what are some of the things he does to show his "support" of it? He rapid-fires questions at his guests (primarily people he disagrees with) without giving them a chance to answer with numerous interruptions. He continually tells his guests to shut up. He cuts the microphones of those he is losing arguments with. He calls it "dangerous" when people post things about him on the Internet that are "completely untrue." But this is the best part: Bill once threatened anyone who called in who he didn't like to receive a visit from Fox security. This is his idea of what freedom of speech is supposed to be? Oh, wait a minute... he's defending HIS freedom of speech, but not that of anyone who disagrees with him. What's that they were saying about "no-spin zone"?

Sorry Bill, but it's easy to disagree with someone who supports politicians who flush our nation down the toilet (though nowadays, that pretty much pertains to all of them on either side of the spectrum), makes ludicrous and unfounded claims against people one doesn't like (yet thinks it's "dangerous" for people on the Internet to say "completely untrue" things about him), comes up with idiocy such as a "war on Christmas," and calls anyone who disagrees with his nonsense "unpatriotic." Speaking of which, I seem to recall a term for ludicrous, unfounded claims... ah yes, it's called LYING. All the while, he calls his opponents "ideologues" as if it were some kind of insult. The guy's living proof that not everyone who gets into Harvard is intelligent.

I'm sure Bill's buddies won't care for this review, calling it very opinionated if trying to put it politely. Well, your buddy Bill is extremely opinionated as well, so deal with it. You can't have it both ways, something your precious Billy Goat doesn't seem to understand. If you're a rational, thinking person - and by that I mean whether you're conservative, liberal, or moderate, as unlike Bill, I'm intelligent enough to know that most people are far more complex than any particular political ideology - you can use "The O'Reilly Factor" for one of two reasons: you need a good laugh or you feel the need to get angry at someone. Either way, you won't be disappointed. In the meantime, if you haven't already, be sure to seek out the video of Bill in his younger days as he throws a hissy fit for his ineptness at reading a teleprompter... it's really quite entertaining.

"Jason X" is silly, campy, ludicrous... and loads of fun. I think the problem here with most negative reviews is that they're taking it too damn seriously. Do yourself a favor and take it with a grain of salt; that's obviously what the filmmakers did. It's a slasher film set in space; what did you expect, "Citizen Kane"? Granted, the whole slasher-in-space thing has been done before with "Hellraiser: Bloodlines" and "Leprechaun 4: In Space," but neither of them were this much fun.

First off, we're shown Jason (Kane Hodder) inside a government research lab, never explaining how he escaped from Hell after the ninth film. This is actually explained in "Freddy vs. Jason," which was still stuck in development hell at the time, but if you need any explanation, here's one as good as any other: yes, Jason was pulled into Hell, but they were afraid he'd take over, so they threw him back.

Anyway, in an attempt to move the world's most infamous undead mass murderer to another facility, oops... he escapes, killing David Cronenberg and about seven other people in the process. Project head Rowan (Lexa Doig from TV's "Andromeda") manages to freeze him cryogenically, but at the cost of her own non-cryogenic status as well. Fast-forward about four hundred years, and the Earth has become uninhabitable. Human colonists from another planet light-years away descend upon the ruined Earth on a "field trip," and guess who they find? Though Rowan is fortunate enough to finally be resuscitated by them, unfortunately, so is Jason, and he goes back to doing what he does best on board the ship after awakening to the sound of - you guessed it - horny young people doing the dirty. Their only hope is Rowan, android Kay-Em 14 (Lisa Ryder, also of "Andromeda"), and a very bad-ass Sergeant Brodski (Peter Mensah of "Avatar," "300," and "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles").

Is "Jason X" a great movie? Of course not. But that doesn't mean that it's never entertaining. Horror film fans don't go to movies like this to see Oscar-winning performances; they go to see a huge masked guy with a machete who knows how to wield it. Furthermore, in spite of the movie's flaws (of which there are admittedly many), at least this entry in the "Friday the 13th" series takes us out of the whole Camp Crystal Lake setting for once. If this isn't your kind of movie, don't watch it. If it is, grab a few friends and drinks and riff away.

And it pains me to say that, considering that Kane Hodder is my favorite Jason, and he didn't show up until the horrifically below-par "Part VII." But as far as "Friday the 13th" films go, "Part VI" takes the cake as the best.

The first thing they did right was bringing back Jason, and by that I mean the REAL Jason, not some copycat killer like in the fifth film. Adding in Thom Matthews of "Return of the Living Dead" fame as Tommy Jarvis was also a nice touch. Determined to destroy Jason Voorhees' (C. J. Graham) "mortal" remains to ensure that he never comes back (yeah, right), Tommy and his friend inadvertently wind up actually facilitating the exact opposite of what they intended when a stray lightning bolt strikes the iron prong Tommy impales Jason's body with in a fit of rage, resurrecting the mad slasher for another showdown with promiscuous and/or intoxicated young people.

What follows is the best-scripted film in the series up until Jason's future showdown with Freddy Krueger, as he returns to what he does best, procuring himself a machete and inflicting his brutal revenge on just about everyone he meets. The nice thing about this movie is that while it's an old formula that kept getting recycled, the victims in this movie weren't nearly as obnoxious as they were in both previous and following films (the same can be said of "Part VIII"). Furthermore, the film manages to poke fun at itself to the audience's amusement while at the same time being faithful to its series. The "final" showdown between Jason and Tommy is quite entertaining as well.

It's hard to bring originality to a film series that is beating a dead horse - and even harder for a slasher film series, which are notorious for beating a dead horse in the first place - but "Friday the 13th Part VI: Jason Lives" succeeds. If you're a slasher fan, don't miss it; you probably won't be disappointed.

With the popularity of the Jenkins and LaHaye series, it was only a matter of time before they made a film series based on it. And "Left Behind" is just as narrow-minded as the series is.

And what does "Left Behind" teach us? It teaches us that "a loving god" (or Jenkins' LaHaye's interpretation of God) selects only a handful of people who profess allegiance to one specific denomination of one specific religion to join him in paradise. Not only that, but at a specific point in time, he magically whisks them all away no matter what they're doing, also causing a number of accidents which undoubtedly whisk all of the "unsaved" people killed in said accidents straight to Hell. Warms the heart to a boil, doesn't it? Oh, but we're not finished yet. There's this guy named Nicolae Carpathia who begins his own rise to power against said "god." We're not supposed to know that he's the Antichrist yet, but come on... they may well have tattooed "666" on his forehead. The only thing that can stop him? Kirk "Crocoduck" Cameron.

But the worst is yet to come. Not only is "Left Behind" a dark orgy of religious fanaticism, but it's outright plagiarism. Yes, that's right... it's plagiarism, and I'm not referring to the Bible. "Left Behind" plagiarizes Stephen King's "The Langoliers" so blatantly at the beginning that I'm surprised nobody else ever caught this. People disappearing suddenly on a plane, leaving behind clothes, belongings, surgical implants, etc.? You can't tell me that Jenkins and LaHaye just coincidentally thought of the very same thing. King should have sued them. So much for originality, huh guys?

My critique is not against Christianity, nor against any religion in general. What it is against is a movie which uses fear and on screen violence to frighten people into converting to an extremely narrow-minded point of view, and isn't even done well in the first place. If you're someone who believes that every single word of the Bible - a book that has been translated and mistranslated throughout centuries and is filled with countless contradictions - to somehow still be 110% accurate, then this is probably the movie for you. If, on the other hand, you want an entertaining storyline about the rise of the Antichrist (and one that doesn't paint God as a genocidal monster), watch the "Omen" series instead. Don't give Jenkins or LaHaye the credit and money they don't deserve.

Following the craze revived by "The Blair Witch Project" (it had been done before with movies like "Cannibal Holocaust" and "The Last Broadcast"), "Apollo 18" presents itself as footage of NASA's "last" voyage to the moon in the 1970s, showing us the "real" reason why we never went back. Through said footage, we follow the exploits of three American astronauts - two on the lunar surface and one in orbit above the moon - as they discover that the moon is hiding a terribly dark secret. Apparently, there's something already there which has nothing to do with either the Americans or the Russians, and it doesn't want us there... or maybe it does, but for unpleasant reasons. This is not a spoiler, by the way; the trailer reveals as much.

The pros of this movie include, first and foremost, that it's a rather unique idea for a story. Ever since man has first walked on the moon, there really has been no speculation of whether or not the moon supported life (and no, I still believe it doesn't), and ever since Apollo 17, there has been speculation on why we never returned (though it likely has more to do with time, money, and risk than anything else). Another pro is the film's realistic look; the lunar landscape appears realistic, and the special effects are convincing as well. As for the scares, they're plentiful without being overly so.

"Apollo 18" is not without its flaws, though. One thing that had me scratching my head is the high amount of gravity which was shown inside the lunar landing vessel. Contrary to popular belief, there IS gravity on the moon as well as between any two forms of mass, though it's not nearly as strong as what we would find on Earth. You can see the astronauts jumping at large distances while walking on the lunar surface, but not inside the lander. Secondly, I kind of wish they had developed the lunarian creatures a little more. The filmmakers use creative camera work to keep several things hidden, which does help add to the suspense, but I still think it would have helped things more to show the lunarians a little more. In spite of these flaws, the film kept my interest.

I see a lot of people hating this movie. While they have every right to, I'm kind of lost as to a reason why. No, "Apollo 18" isn't a great film, but it's not terrible, either. Just take it for what it is.

This film is a lie. It's one big outright lie from start to finish. I'd like to start off as saying that I am NOT anti-Christian; I have nothing against Christ and believe in Him myself. What I am against is any religion, Christianity or otherwise, using fear and lies to try to frighten people into believing what they believe, and "Escape From Hell" is a prime example of just that.

First of all, it's absolutely appalling how misinformed the makers of this film are regarding the concept of near-death experiences. Anyone who has any understanding of near-death experiences knows that experiencers Christian and non-Christian alike have had wonderful, heavenly experiences involving a Being of Light and tangible Love unlike anything they've ever felt. While there are also hellish near-death experiences, they typically occur to people who are filled with either hatred or fear; the majority of hellish near-death experiences in the United States alone come from people with a fire-and-brimstone Christian background. Why? Because our thoughts become manifest in the spiritual realm. Those who are dominated by love created heavenly experiences; those who are dominated by hatred or fear create hellish experiences.

The second appalling thing about this movie is that the filmmakers apparently don't know all that much about what Jesus taught about spirits, considering that He said that a tree is known by its fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit (Matthew 12:33). The fruit He refers to is that of the Holy Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:22-23). This test was applied to spirits to test whether they were godly or demonic (Matthew 12:35). The problem with the mentality of people like these filmmakers that is that anything that doesn't fit their extremely narrow-minded views is automatically labeled "Satanic." They really ought to be more careful about that, considering another warning given by the One they profess to worship with regards to crediting works of God to Satan (Matthew 12:31-32). I'm sure said filmmakers would undoubtedly come back with with the argument that Satan masquerades as an angel of light (2 Corinthians 11:14), but all that reminds us is that demonic forces can be deceptive, and this passage does nothing to nullify the aforementioned test Jesus has given to us. If a spirit or other paranormal being bears love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control, then you have nothing to fear. If it doesn't, run like hell.

If you really want to learn about near-death experiences, then start reading up on them. Don't limit yourself to the near-death experiences of people from any one religion; God is far too big of a Concept to be confined to any one religion, and so is the afterlife. As for tripe such as "Escape From Hell," the filmmakers have forgotten how one of the Ten Commandments instructs them to not lie, something they would do well to remember if they truly believe themselves to be so pious.

"House of the Dead" is a great game. It may have ripped off "Resident Evil," but by that logic, you can say "Resident Evil" ripped off George A. Romero, and so on. So when I initially heard that they were making a movie based on one of my favorite first-person shooter games, I was excited. But then I read over and over again how horrible it was, and decided to wait until it was on cable rather than blow money on it in the theater. When I finally saw it, I realized that there were no words to describe how horrible it was. Since it's based on a video game, I never expected an Oscar winner, but for God's sake - I've seen some bad movies based on video games, but this one is even worse than "Double Dragon," and believe me, that's pretty bad. You almost have to TRY to make a movie this bad.

Uwe Boll, you are not a director. I know you narcissistically think of yourself as "the best in the business," but sooner or later, reality has to step in. In the meantime, here's a few hints to help with that reality check:

1. Using the Sega logo at the rave didn't make any sense. Honestly, what band is going to have Sega as a sponsor? The New Kids On The Block reunion tour?

2. Placing young rave-goers in a sudden horrific predicament won't automatically make them highly-trained counter-terrorism operatives.

3. The game is called "House of the Dead," not "Shack of the Dead." The house in the game is an enormous mansion, not some dilapidated pile of crap in the middle of no where.

4. Having Clint Howard repeat his dialog in a weird voice was just annoying as all Hell, not creepy or funny, whichever you were going for. Just let Clint Howard be Clint Howard.

5. I got the "U-boat" and "Captain Kirk" jokes concerning Jürgen Prochnow. They sucked. The only way anything in this movie was funny was unintentionally.

6. If people want to see scenes from the game, they'll pay fifty cents to play it, not six dollars to see them as cut scenes in a movie.

7. The zombies didn't run in the game. Why should they in the movie? Face it, Boll - you're no Zack Snyder.

8. Making zombies the leading authorities on tree-grabbing doesn't do much to make them terrifying.

9. Chances are that ancient Spanish explorers would be speaking Spanish to each other, not English. Ever hear of subtitles?

10. The mere mention of the genius of George A. Romero in this cinematic waste is almost unforgivable.

As for my fellow movie-goers - especially compulsive lovers of zombie films such as myself - if you have absolutely nothing else to do, you might want to check out "House of the Dead" for a few laughs. Nothing else. And for the love of God, if you have to see it, see it on cable; don't rent it. I've seen plenty of excellent zombie films as well as plenty of excessively cheesy ones, and I'll tell you right now, S. William Hinzman's "Flesheater" was better than this one. At least that one didn't try to be something it wasn't - a cheesy zombie film. A comatose barnacle could make something better than this. The very fact that Uwe Boll didn't direct "House of the Dead 2: Dead Aim" implies that there may actually be hope for it.

"The 700 Club" has to be the single most bigoted television program in the history of television itself. To make matters worse, it's been on the air since 1966, implying that thousands if not millions of people are buying into its hate and lies. Headed by Pat Robertson, the unscrupulous, megalomaniacal founder and leader of the Christian Coalition, "The 700 Club" takes us from misinformation to misunderstanding, broadcasting "news" as they like to think of it and trying to convince its audience that all of the world's problems are to blame on homosexuals, Wiccans, New Age spiritualists, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, non-Fundamentalist Christians, Democrats, single mothers, foreigners, feminists, evolutionists, environmentalists, NASA scientists, and anyone else who doesn't share their fanatical religious views. It's actually the best fake news since "The Daily Show" or the "Weekend Update" segment of "Saturday Night Live," or since "Fox News," for that matter. Of course, Pat's always the one who makes each of the decisions, saying whatever comes to mind and not giving a damn who it offends or hurts. In the meantime, he continues his part in the struggle to transform the United States into a militarized police state by having the Religious Wrong stick their noses in everything they can and asking for one donation after another - no less than a measly $100 to become a member, by the way - to fund Pat's African diamond mines and buy oil from companies reprimanded by the government in the past for their abuse of the environment. No, never mind that Pat was good friends with the genocidal dictators of Zaire and Zimbabwe in order to help him acquire such wealth; it's all for the greater glory of God, don't you know? Funny thing, too, but I can't seem to recall any instance during which Jesus actually advocated the acquisition of wealth.

And of course, the hosts of "The 700 Club" are always willing to read letters "written by viewers" as they like to put it, coincidentally each typed in the same format and all on the same color of paper by "viewers" supposedly healed of various afflictions by the said hosts (they claim to have "words of knowledge" come to them) but who NEVER APPEAR on the program to say what happened to them. Honestly, how can anyone take a show seriously when they're using a poor applause recording? It should make people wonder why there's no studio audience. Speaking of which, did any of the loyal viewers of this show wonder why Pat went to a surgeon for his colon cancer instead of putting trust in the faith of his fellow snake oil salesmen?

The sad thing that Pat's cronies and viewers don't realize or just don't even want to realize are the horrible things he's done and said. This is a guy who agreed with Jerry Falwell that the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States were the result of God punishing us for our acceptance of homosexuality and feminism. Ironic, considering that Pat has twice publicly referred to the implementation of a nuclear weapon in the State Department; I have little doubt it was his wealth that kept him from getting arrested for such statements. His rants against homosexuals, single mothers, and any number of sexual practices he considers "sinful" are interesting, considering he was known to frequent a number of brothels during the Korean War. As the Bible says, be fruitful and multiply, so congratulations, Pat - thanks to you, there's probably a number of children born to single Korean mothers. Then, of course, there was the time he called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, a man who led his nation successfully in the conquering of a dictatorship. Oh, yes, and let's not soon forget the time this "crusader for human life" supported forced abortions in China. Very "Christian" of him, wouldn't you say?

And just in case Pat has forgotten, I haven't forgotten his little speech that evangelical Christians today are "being treated exactly as the Jews were in Nazi Germany." Honestly, to compare his "plight" to the horrors of the Holocaust is almost unforgivable. Speaking of which, need I mention about how he blatantly lied that homosexuality ran rampant among the Nazi party in a pathetic attempt to discredit homosexuals? Of course, history shows us that the Nazis acted toward homosexuals the same way they acted toward Jews. Pat Robertson is one of the biggest liars in history. If he was Pinocchio, his nose would encircle the Earth.

Unfortunately, more and more people continue to believe him every day. This is your wake-up call, people; "The 700 Club" is one of the most if not the single most vile program in television history. It's evil masquerading as good; it's a wolf-in-sheep's-clothing. It's bigoted filth that tries to look clean, pretty, and loving. It's living proof that hateful, dangerous religious views aren't confined to certain groups in the Middle East. Even those who are not of the Christian faith know that it goes against everything Jesus taught, and if Jesus was to appear to this "club," He wouldn't be emulating them. Instead, He'd be chastising them as He did the Pharisees of His time and overturning the money bins of their telethons as He did in front of the synagogue in His time. All I can say is thank God that Pat had no chance of becoming President; if he did, he'd be the harbinger of Armageddon - and not on the side of the good guys.

I can't believe this movie was made. How could George A. Romero sell the rights to something this bad? "Day of the Dead 2: Contagium" is meant to be a prequel of sorts to Romero's immortal zombie classic, "Day of the Dead." But when you watch this film, you'll realize that there is NO comparison between it and Romero's original masterpiece of horror. The original "Day of the Dead" was a great film for horror film aficionados, made by a great writer-director. But find a paraplegic three-toed sloth with a very busy schedule and give him a camera for couple of hours and he'd come up with a better movie than this one.

"Day of the Dead 2: Contagium" is just one big mistake from start to finish, starting with its title. Exactly what is a "contagium," James and Ana? Might that be anything similar to a contagion? Is that what you meant? Hell, if you can afford to purchase the rights to Romero's films, then you can certainly invest in a dictionary.

It's second mistake is attempting to place an explanation on the cause of the dead rising and feeding on the flesh of the living in Romero's "Living Dead" series. It tries to pay homage to the original "Night of the Living Dead" by taking place in 1968 at the beginning, showing a mental hospital in Pennsylvania (complete with native "Pennsylvanian" palm trees) where a captured Russian pilot has accidentally unleashed a terrible virus from one of a series of vials he was carrying. We later learn that this pilot had crashed "out west in the desert." Where, the "western Pennsylvanian desert"? From there on, the carnage begins, and the military moves in to contain the situation. Here, we see the beginning of the atrocious makeup effects; instead of using exploding squibs to create the illusion of zombies getting shot in the head, they just start throwing stage blood onto the heads of certain zombies.

While survivors jog (yes, jog) for their lives, one soldier secures a vial filled with the virus inside a thermos and just walks right out of the facility; he doesn't try to sneak out past the military, he just WALKS RIGHT PAST THEM. Once he's gunned down by the military later on outside the facility, the thermos remains undiscovered amidst the foliage it falls in. It might have helped those soldiers if they actually FIRED ROUNDS at the zombies instead of just pointing the guns and tilting them as a gunshot sound is heard.

Some thirty odd years later, the thermos is discovered by some patients from another mental hospital, and the movie gets even worse. From there on out, we're treated to countless insulting stereotypes regarding the rest of the patients in the facility until the primary characters symbolically opens Pandora's box. Those infected by the atrocious digital effects which escape the thermos begin exhibiting a series of bizarre symptoms, including collectively feeling the same thing as the rest of the infected, the presence of dried Elmer's Glue on their skin, and vomiting chocolate syrup. The virus gradually effects others in various ways, including the transformation of one of the orderlies into an inexplicable zombie-vampire-meatloaf hybrid and, even more inexplicably, the first virgin conception since the Blessed Mother in one of the asylum's patients. All the while, the zombies who begin to stalk the facility take on personalities far removed from those of the classic Romero series, including the abilities of speech and rapid, coordinated movement. Also be sure to ask yourself how the Oliver Platt look-alike gets into the asylum to talk to one of the doctors when the place is under quarantine.

Of course, the idea in this film is that the zombie plague in Romero's films originated in this mental hospital and snowballed out of there to the rest of the world. In the meantime, those of us with a shred of dignity realize just how flawed this film is when compared with Romero's films. Number one, we're not supposed to know why the dead are rising and eating the living. Number two, in Romero's films, the recently deceased were rising all over the world at the same time; it wasn't a localized event that kept spreading out across the planet. Number three, a blood-borne plague spreading across North and South America would have virtually no way of reaching the rest of the world overseas unless carried by an infected traveler.

All in all, this movie is a complete insult to the masterpieces of horror made by George A. Romero. The sad thing is that the filmmakers who worked on this film actually believe that it's an homage to his works. It's perfectly evident in the way they speak about it in their commentaries, when they call this film "Day of the Dead" instead of actually calling it by its full name, almost as if to try to put it on the same level as the original "Day of the Dead." I can't emphasize enough how horrible this movie is, though I'll admit that it's great for laughs. If anything, this film may succeed where others have failed by living up to its name and actually making Richard Liberty and Ralph Marerro turn in their graves.

But you know what the biggest insult was with all of this? It wasn't the movie they made, nor was it even the fact they tried to put the Romero stamp on it with the title. When "Land of the Dead" was nearing its theatrical release, George A. Romero wanted scenes from the original "Day" in the trailer, together with scenes from "Night of the Living Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead." What does Taurus "Entertainment" do? They threaten to sue him because they had bought the rights to "Day," even though it's still his movie. Now that's low, even for these guys.

And the theatrical masterpiece that is "The Man Who Knew Too Much" is actually living proof that Alfred Hitchcock WAS a seasoned professional at the time he made the film. I'm certainly not putting down the 1955 remake with James Stewart and Doris Day, which is a masterpiece in its own right (it having been directed by Hitchcock as well), but there's several things missing in the remake which make the original far superior to it, such as:

* The very presence of the genius of Peter Lorre, save alone the fact that he did not yet have a good grasp on English at the time and delivered his lines phonetically.

* The presence of Bob Lawrence's friend Clive, portrayed by Hugh Wakefield.

* The fight scene with the traitorous dentist.

* The frantic chair fight in the church.

* The exceptional marksmanship of the hostage's mother.

* The astonishing shoot-out at the end of the film which puts the original "Assault on Precinct 13" to shame.

The story begins with a father, mother, and daughter bearing witness to a murder. Soon afterward, those responsible abduct the young daughter, threatening the parents that they will never see her again if they reveal any secrets that the victim told them just before he died. As the events unfold, the mother and father and a family friend take it upon themselves to rescue their daughter, becoming entangled in an assassination plot orchestrated (quite literally) by the abductors.

If you're a big fan of Alfred Hitchcock - and a big fan of the 1955 version of "The Man Who Knew Too Much" - then you don't want to miss out on the original 1934 version, which was not only an early testament to Hitchcock's directing abilities, but in my opinion, is a superior film in its own right. After all, isn't the original always the best version anyway?

I'd like to start off as saying that I, like so many horror film buffs, enjoy the cheap laughs to be acquired from B-grade trash. The film "Campfire Stories," however, isn't even amusing accidentally. I'd love to know how badly Jamie-Lynn DiScala, David Johansen, and the Misfits needed money to partake in this utter waste of celluloid.

I knew this one was going to be trouble when I saw a talking skull engulfed in flames at the beginning. From there on in, we have two annoying young men who can't tell a joke correctly get lost in the woods with a beautiful "Sopranos" girl, where they come across Ranger Bill, Buster Poindexter's evil alter-ego. He proceeds to bore them to death with three generic horror tales with relentlessly inane twists at the end of each.

The first tale is of a nameless lunatic who escapes the Corbin Bernsen Institute of Dentistry, reestablishes himself as a Catholic high school janitor, and takes out four of the young men they randomly pulled off the street to play the most annoying bullies I've ever seen. The second tale involves three career criminals who rob a Native American spiritualist, smoke his peace pipe (which was obviously filled with whatever the filmmakers were smoking), and are tormented by legions of computer animations created by first-year graphic arts majors from a community college. The third tale involves a homicidal maniac whose identity you'll probably figure out long before it's "revealed."

After sitting through these three sessions of ungodly torment, we're finally punished with a "surprise ending" which tries to tie everything together but fails miserably along with everything preceding it. "Campfire Stories" has no scares, no humor, and over all, no redeeming value whatsoever. If you want a real scare, light up a campfire and tell your own stories; they'll be a hundred times scarier than this melted marshmallow.