Rob Zombie’s comic book non-horror take on “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”
RELEASED IN 2003 (but shot in 2000) and written/directed by Rob Zombie, "House of 1000 Corpses” is a horror/black comedy about two young couples who inadvertently visit a house of demented serial killers in backwoods Texas.
A critic summed the movie up as “a ridiculous horror comedy, but with extremely annoying villains.” It was inspired by (or rips off) “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (1974) and combines it with the cartoonish horror comedy of “Evil Dead II” (1987) while throwing in a little “The Funhouse” (1981).
The entire first act, including the amusing prologue that introduces Captain Spaulding (Sid Haig), is very entertaining, but the over-the-top approach starts to get dull by the middle of the picture with the overdone events at the demented Firefly abode. The last act gets so cartoonish that I thought maybe the main protagonist (Erin Daniels) was experiencing a nightmare. The fantastical elements strip away any vestige of horror that was hardly there in the first two acts, which were too zany to take as serious horror. As such, I can’t see anyone older than 7 finding this movie “disturbing.” Still, the film pulsates with colorful pizazz and characters, not to mention a quality score/soundtrack.
Sheri Moon Zombie is effective in her role as Baby Firefly. I liked her voice and didn’t mind her laugh (which many criticize), but she’s a little too thin for my tastes. Daniels works pretty well as the main protagonist. But, considering Zombie’s resources (e.g. the five captive cheerleaders), the flick sorta drops the ball in the female department.
The film sat on the shelf so long because Universal feared a NC-17 rating. Lions Gate eventually picked it up, but it was cut & edited in an attempt to achieve an R-rating. The original version was 16 minutes longer.
THE MOVIE RUNS 1 hour, 29 minutes and was shot in Southern Cal (Chicken Ranch Backlot, Universal Studios; Palmdale; Santa Clarita; and Saugus).
GRADE: B-/C+

More like Hot piece of shit.

> You just got coopered!
I don't mind whatever the others thought of the movie, but I enjoyed it, I got entertained well. It was not the low ratings or the bad reviews, I believed in the director, mainly because of her previous film 'The Guilt Trip' that I heartily loved. In fact, it was a short movie and I surprised how nice it was.
It was the same old story, an honest cop is framed into a shootout disaster during the witness protection program. She must bring all the strength and courage to fight back to clear her name. So the story is actually a road trip and all the actions are in the form of humour.
It was a good one for me, at least it should be a decent one as a collection of the everyone's thought, but leaning too much on the bad side that it won't deserve. Its very very sad a cute little movie like this and 'Tammy' are thrashed badly. Don't expect it to be the year's best, just watch it for the entertainment, or the time pass which might bring a better result.
The dialogues were fun, some scenes were good and I felt some were overused. The last year (2014) was one of the best years for Reese Witherspoon. Both the film of hers 'The Good Lie' and 'Wild' are the career's best ones. With this she's back to the commercial films. It might not be a great as those, but satisfies at least for the first time view.
6½/10

This is my all time favorite movie.

Not as fun as I expected it to be.
'Nacho Libre' does do some things well, Jack Black is good and the wrestling scenes are mostly nicely done. However, I didn't really dig the rest of it - whether it be the laughter lacking humour, or the uninteresting story with the orphanage. It is at least a relatively short flick, but it isn't one I'd be in a rush to rewatch.

“Minari” is an absolutely beautiful gem of a movie that is delightful on all levels. The highly personal film, written and directed by Lee Isaac Chung, tells the story of a struggling Korean-American family searching for a better life when they move to rural Arkansas from California. Jacob (Steven Yeun) dreams of starting his own farm and selling Korean vegetables to serve the growing immigrant population, while his wife Monica (Yeri Han) quietly internalizes her anxiety. Their two kids (Alan S. Kim, Noel Cho) adapt a bit more quickly, but things are turned upside down when their firecracker of a grandma (Yuh-jung Youn) arrives.
Set in the 1980s, the film depicts a fresh look at the immigrant experience in America, capturing what it must be like to face unfamiliar surroundings while clinging to the promise of a happy future. Jacob has a desire and drive that’s enviable, even if he’s draining the family’s savings with his pie-in-the-sky dreams.
It’s rare that almost all of the best performances of the year are concentrated in one movie, but here we are. The cast is pitch-perfect, from Will Patton‘s supporting role as a religious Korean War veteran to Han’s understated turn as a disappointed wife who is embarrassed to be living in a mobile home in the middle of nowhere. The performances are excellent all around, but Kim and Youn steal the film. All of the actors achieve something to be proud of here. I instantly felt a powerful connection with every character, each of them a person I would gladly root for until the end. I contend that if you aren’t all-in and crossing your fingers for this likeable family’s success, there’s something deeply rotten in your soul.
The narrative explores the highest of the highs and the lowest of the lows with a charming, admirable authenticity and eye-opening insight. The story’s appeal is universal with a hopeful sentiment, even when tragedy strikes.
“Minari” may not escape a few chestnut platitudes (like even when you come close to losing everything, a new day will dawn and things will be brighter because you still have each other), but this comforting underdog story about immigrants with a dream is wrapped in an absolutely beautiful film that’s delightful on all levels.
By: Louisa Moore / SCREEN ZEALOTS

'Minari' is an emotionally beautiful film. For me personally, the only downfall are very small parts of its narrative. Some things are brought up but never really touched on again, which didn't bug me in the moment but after the film, I asked myself what happened with those threads. It's such a small issue, but that doesn't stop me from saying that the film is a breathtaking delight.
Soon-ja sang it best: “Minari, minari... wonderful, wonderful.“
- Chris dos Santos
Read Chris' full article...
https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/article/review-minari-equal-parts-heartwarming-and-heartbreaking

Superb drama about the final stage of the life of a middle-high class couple in France when one of them gets disabled due to a stroke.
Bothe actors perform exceptionally.

This be bad.
'The 15:17 to Paris' portrays the an event from 2015. The decision by director Clint Eastwood to cast the real life people as themselves was, in my opinion, a poor call. I obviously have nothing against the guys, quite the opposite of course, but they simply cannot act. It's kinda painful watching them, I gotta be honest.
I will say I didn't actually know that was the case before viewing, but I cottoned on fairly quickly whilst watching - especially as Eastwood did similar casting for 'Jersey Boys' four years prior. In terms of actual acting talent, Jenna Fischer and Judy Greer feature minorly.
It isn't just the cast issues, though. The way the plot is set up didn't interest me, the scenes actually onboard the train are solid but that practically only makes up a quarter of the 94 minute run time - the rest is filler, as we see the main trio's lives up until the main event. That would've been fine if the acting was better, but that evidently wasn't the case.
Respect to all involved, but as a film this falls very short.

"An instinctual act of remarkable heroism is afforded the least remarkable effort of director Clint Eastwood’s long career.."
Read the full review here: http://screen-space.squarespace.com/reviews/2018/2/8/the-1517-to-paris.html

**An excellent film that deserves to be revisited and brought back from oblivion.**
For me, as a historian, this film couldn't be more interesting. It's not your average war movie, with soldiers running and shooting, and heroism spilling over from bloody deaths. It is much sharper and deeper because it talks about a topic that is treated with excessive ease when talking about the American Civil War: racism. And it's a shame that it's another relatively forgotten film these days.
Really, if we think about it and are faithful to the mentality of the time, it cannot be said that the Civil War was a war against racism, because it was everywhere and in the Northern states, which were mostly against slavery, there was a strong racism that revealed itself in other ways. If in the South African-Americans were only good for slave labor, in the North they had to stay between the factory and the unhealthy suburbs. The difference was quite subtle. What existed in the North was a firmer awareness that slavery was something that should not continue to exist, a vision of things that the South did not accept because it did not suit them, they were heavily agricultural states and their wealth depended on the export of cotton.
The film tackles the subject by showing us how a black regiment was virtually segregated within the unionist army, and the pressure maneuvers its commander had to do to get his men to go fight with the other soldiers. Robert Shaw's gestures were decisive in convincing the Union to really believe in the ability of black soldiers and to recruit more people, giving the Union an additional asset that helped win the war.
Directed by Edward Zwick, it is an excellent film that respects and honors the past. Even so, there are certain flaws in the historical reconstruction: there are some characters who were younger than in the film, there is an amputation that is much more cruel than it would have been in real life (anesthetics were already being used), it is not correct to say that the 54th of Massachusetts was the first regiment of blacks (there were two already formed, by Kansas) and it is also incorrect to show some of these blacks as former slaves, since this regiment was entirely formed by blacks born in freedom. Even if he makes these and other mistakes, we have to recognize that the production made a great effort to recreate the past with a certain level of accuracy.
The film won three Oscars, in the categories of Best Cinematography, Best Supporting Actor and Best Sound. I think they were fair rewards. The cinematography couldn't be better, and makes wonderful use of the impressive work in terms of the sets, the choice of filming locations, the selection of props, the design of costumes. The editing is also very good, and the soundtrack, while not remarkable, has a certain epic sense and does an impeccable accompaniment to what appears on the screen. And if Denzel Washington deserved, for his effort and commitment, the golden statuette, many others could consider themselves worthy winners because the cast of this film is full of artists and professionals of caliber. Morgan Freeman, then living a particularly happy moment in his career, gives us a powerful job and Matthew Broderick does, in this film, the best work of his career to date.

And there wouldn't be nothing but rebs dyin if they'd let the fifty-fourth in it.
Based around the actual letters sent by Colonel Robert Gould Shaw to his parents, this Civil War picture tells the story of the Massachusetts 54th Regiment, the first black regiment to fight under the American flag. Led by their white leader (Shaw), they must overcome bigotry, in fighting and the war itself, and this just to feel like men of honour.
The most striking thing about Glory is that it is never over sentimental. With the subject to hand it would have been easy for the makers to over egg the pudding and rely solely on a racialist stance purely for impact. What we do get is actually a candidate for one of the most politically correct war films to have ever been made. It's harsh and at times heart tugging, that in fact is certainly true, but the narrative never veers from the core essence of men wanting to be just that - men!
Director Edward Zwick has many critics in the industry, but here his attention to detail should be roundly applauded. He perfectly captures the period whilst molding a tightly plotted piece of work. Zwick also needs a pat on the back for hiring cinematographer Freddie Francis (Academy Award Winner), who weaves his magic to bring the brutality of the surroundings vividly to life. While James Horner provides a wonderful swirling emotive score (fans of his work on Braveheart should definitely check out this earlier composition). Though the film is essentially a multi ensemble piece, there are tremendous performances from the principal actors. Matthew Broderick (Shaw), Denzel Washington (Academy Award Winner Best Supporting Actor) (Trip), Morgan Freeman (John Rawlins) and Andre Braugher (Searles).
We follow this regiment from their initial formation, here they are ill equipped and never taken seriously, it appears that this group of men are not even worthy of being canon fodder. But through sheer determination - and led by the empathetically driven Shaw, the 54th Regiment prove themselves to be a worthy fighting force. This ultimately leads to their place in American history with the culmination of events at South Carolina's Fort Wagner (a stunning emotive finale that booms out of the screen).
Heroic and tragic is the tale of Glory, but the chief point of enlightenment through historical facts, and the message of heroics having no colour, makes Glory a truly inspiring movie that demands to be seen and totally respected. 10/10

Good watch, could watch again, and can recommend. (At least for Halloween comedies.)
This is definitely a Adam Sandler/Happy Madison Halloween story, through and through. Lots of dirt humor throughout, and way too many pee jokes.
While it tries to put a wholesome "life lesson" twist on it, but as the whole movie is satirical, it doesn't come off sincere at all. Almost like it's promoting abuse as funny.
The humor is questionable at points, but the majority of the movie is really enjoyable with a pretty well written script and some really great moments throughout the movie.
As it moves into a mystery movie it relies less on the investigation and traditional "drip feeding" of information on discovery and more of a battle against almost everyone in the town basically wanting Hubie dead. It is weirdly dark in that regard.
You'll probably have a good time, but will most likely come out the other side with a, "Well, that was weird.".

Good. Nothing more than that, but nothing less either.
'The Finest Hours' is a little bit too on the nose in parts, I felt like some of the cast were overacting here and there - especially Casey Affleck (Ray), not that he is bad though. Chris Pine is enjoyable in the lead role. Pacing is iffy, but the effects are excellent - from the ships to the water scenes, impressive! The (true) story, meanwhile, is as hearty as you'd expect.
Worth watching.

First and foremost this film reminds me of Hacksaw Ridge, second and no less important it's just as good as the afore mentioned film in the sense that the main character is just as law-bound as the religious lad in Hacksaw going about his day saving people's lives in the middle of a hurricane, ergo in The Finest Hour's case while on sea - with a life-guard boat, just as feature-some as the soldier saving soldiers in the middle of a war without shooting a f#cking gun!
And, supposedly, this happened in real life! #OhLordy that was a good watch.

> A very much acceptable film that inspired by a real event except long pauses and too much ineffective sentiment.
A disaster drama-thriller based on the true account of the 1952. So much better film than I anticipated. But there are a few things I did not like; like the frequent pauses in the narration where nothing really happens other that space given for the emotional background score to pull the viewers in. In a result, it did not work, definitely not for me. Yeah, in the many important scenes, it froze like it happens in the chess games before anybody move their pawn.
In the crucial part of the narration, when the boat was overcrowded, there was an unnecessary pause which annoyed me. It was surely a remarkable segment of the story, but sentimentally failed to appeal or maybe you can call it a too much of the sentiment. Honestly, I liked the story, but the film exceeded its runtime to slow down the portrayal of the event which is surely a drawback than any kind of benefit.
I loved the performances, everybody was good and so the CGI, which was not a top notch yet acceptable. Especially as it takes place in the dark time, they had the advantage to depict the atmosphere as much as close to how it would have looked 65 years ago and as well to avoid the errors.
I never saw its trailer or the teaser, but I knew about this project and after seeing its posters I though it would be about the offshore oil rig. When I saw the film, I realised I was wrong and surprise do such thing happen in real.
The film was also did not let my interest fall. Thanks to the director who always try different genre yet he's not a mega budget filmmaker. A good film, but like I said should have been even better. Especially should have out classed in the sentimental segments. I don't know how good was the digital 3D version of it, but still this regular version is worth to give it a shot.
7½/10

Well I can't call it different. I've never actually seen a movie with a plot like this, but it did feel exactly like a low budget cheap drive in comedy/sci-fi show and...kudos.
The best part about this is that, at no point in time, does it take itself seriously. It knows exactly what kind of movie it is and delivers the goods without any pretense, without any attempt to be a better film.
It seems like everyone involved knew the score and did their parts to sell the movie for what it is, and not what they think it could be.
So, what you have is a comedy that is ferociously entertaining. It's a stupid plot with a cheesy script and equally inane characters and it pulls it off brilliantly.
The end result is, when you sit down to watch it, you're going to laugh and be entertained and the time is going to fly by.
But, you are going to hate it if you walk in expecting 2001, an enormous budget, or a deeply profound political lecture...but then, if you walk in expecting any of those things why are you watching a movie about Nazis on the moon?

This is a difficult movie to rate, at least for me. It certainly had its funny, even hilarious, moments but at the same time it was incredibly stupid and silly at times.
The idea of the Nazi’s having fled to the moon and built a secret moon-base there was a rather original I think. On could of course wonder why, if they had that technological advantage already 1945, everything is still looking like 1945 now, why they did not have computers, even why they lost the war in the first place? But let us not get picky now…it is a comedy movie after all.
There are quite a few funny moments. Most of them involving their stupor when seeing a black American astronaut and their subsequent dealing with him. Unfortunately there are also quite a few incredibly stupid and silly moments. Their depiction of the American present, her PR-people and most things revolving around here was not really very funny, just stupid. I do not mind a movie that makes fun of the American president but in this movie it was not very intelligently done, just silly. Also, using a Sarah Palin look-alike was just cheap not to mention that such a joke is lost only a few years later when no one has a clue who Sarah Palin was.
The special effects where quite cool, at least when considering that it was “only” a comedy movie after all and even more so considering the movies minimal budget. The Nazi’s steampunk-like contraptions where rather fun to watch.
In all I would say that the movie managed to place itself in the enjoyable range, barely, but I cannot bring myself to give it a more than fairly average rating.

Marion Cotillard is super in this depiction of the life of French chanteuse Édith Piaf - from her upbringing in a brothel through the stages of her life that moulded this flawed but inspirational, and rather sad, woman into the truly international superstar that she became. Her performance is captivating; capturing the mannerisms and characteristics in a gritty, sympathetic and authentic fashion; leaving us in no doubt as to the thin emotional tightrope Piaf walked between sanity and, eventually, a drug-induced stupor and of the risks that involved not just for her, but those loyal (and not so much) around her. It is long, and at times Olivier Dahan takes a rather brutal approach to the chronology that can take a bit of getting used to; but the supporting performances - especially from Pacsal Gregory (Barrier) and Jean-Pierre Martins (Cerdan) add a richness as important as the imagery. These, as well as a thoroughly plausible script contribute really well to the overall mix and assist with an overall creative storyline that was always going to be pretty bumpy at the best of times. The film is, ultimately, about a singer - and the vast majority of the songs make no bones about using the original - and exquisitely performed vocals. I've seen many biopics - but few as good as this.

With all confidence, the story of the movie is undoubtedly wonderful, and it was exciting and passionate to follow it until the end, but I did not find the dramatic and emotional sense of the mother. I did not find that she really lost her son, but the feelings were mixed. The feelings and sense of losing the son could have been put in the right way better than this.
There was no strong flashback showing the mother's life from her son. It was very useless. There are many hilarious moments and a banter link that extended to the end of the movie, which spoiled the drama of the story. I feel that the true feelings of the mother and her son, who was lost and never saw his real mother, should have been respected.
Judi Dench was the reason I watched the movie. Her performance was wonderful in mixing her different emotions and feelings, sometimes she laughs, sometimes she cries, and sometimes she forgives. She really made a true story.

Bonnie Parker (Faye Dunaway) just happens to look out of her window one morning and spots a rather unsavoury looking fella (Warren Beatty) eyeing up her mother's car. Quick as a flash she is dressed and they are in this car never to look back. Realising that they are broke, they decide that robbing provincial shops and garages is actually a lucrative dawdle. It's at a garage, indeed, that they recruit CW Moss (Michael J Pollard) before hooking up with his brother Buck (Gene Hackman) and his wife Blanche (Estelle Parsons) before escalating their crime spree to banks and, of course, resulting in a fatality that cannot fail to galvanise the authorities. Soon they are most wanted with just about every cop in the state on their trail. Fortunately, these are not the best aimers - and their legend begins to grow. They are fêted wherever they go - a poverty stricken population seeing much to admire in their "entrepreneurial" spirit. It's history, so we know what happens - but that isn't really too important. Arthur Penn has put together a strong cast - especially Parsons who is great as the hysterical wife caught up in it all and Dub Taylor as the duplicitous "Moss Snr". The attention to detail is impressive - it looks great, the motor cars really didn't look like they could pull the skin off a custard. Beatty and Dunaway simply ooze chemistry and as the story progresses I challenge anyone not to be on their side... It's as entertaining and enjoyable to watch on screen as it is to read about the machinations of many in getting the thing made in the first place.

Good afternoon, we are the Barrow gang.
Bonnie & Clyde stands today as one of the most important films of the 60s, it's impact on culture alone marks it out as a piece of work to note, but as gangster films go this one is something of a landmark. Quite how writers Newman & Benton managed to craft a story of two deadbeat outlaws into cinematic heroes is up for any individual viewers scrutiny, but they bloody well do it because we all want to be in the Barrow gang, because we get lost in this romanticised outlawish tale unfolding in front of our eyes.
The film is a fusion of incredible violence and jaunty slapstick, and smartly pauses for delicate moments to let us into the psyche of the main protagonists, we know they have hangups, and with that we know they are fallible human beings, and this sets us up a treat for the incredible jaw dropping finale, and the impact of this finale hits as hard now as it did back with the audience's of 1967.
The cast are incredible, Warren Beatty gives a truly brilliant performance as Clyde, he looks good and suave tooting those guns, but it's in the tender troubled scenes where he excels supreme. Faye Dunaway as Bonnie is the perfect foil for Beatty's layers, she nails every beat of this gangsters troubled moll. Gene Hackman, Michael J Pollard, and Estelle Parsons put the cherry on the icing to give depth and range to the rest of the Barrow gang, and these fine actors are clothed in gorgeous cinematography courtesy of Burnett Guffrey. To round out the plaudits I finish with love for director Arthur Penn because it's his vision that gives us something of a nostalgic movie that plays up and down with its subjects with cheeky aplomb, in fact it's just like the banjo music that features so prominently throughout this wonderful film.
Nominated for 9 Oscars it won just the two, the entire actors who played the Barrow gang were nominated, and truth be told they all would have been worthy winners, as it is they gave out just the one to the least strongest performance from Estelle Parsons, go figure. It's legacy both in culture and box office lives on and for me Bonnie & Clyde is not only one of the best films of the 60s, it's also one of the best in history. 10/10

Clearly Alec Baldwin was too exhausted after his submarine adventure in 1990, so Harrison Ford picked up the mantle of "Jack Ryan" - now a former CIA operative who is on the UK on holiday with his family. Hardly have the titles ended before he is embroiled in an IRA attempt to kidnap "Lord Holmes" (James Fox), a distant cousin of the Queen Mother. Intervening, he kills one of the attackers who happens to be the younger brother of the surviving attacker "Sean" (they kept it simple for Mr Bean). Of course he is sprung from police custody via some dinghies near Tower Bridge and next thing "Ryan" and family are the new targets of this vengeful terrorist cell. What now ensues is a really dry thriller that plods along with little to make it stand out. There is an irony that the IRA man is played by an Englishman, but neither Richard Harris nor Samuel L. Jackson really make much impression on this politically simplistic revenge vehicle for a star who is far from his best. The perilous scenarios rather lurch from frying pan to fire, but never with much jeopardy - before an ending at sea that at least gave the pyrotechnics folks something to do. It's not Tom Clancy's best book, and is really only a passable watch on screen.

Good guys are real good, and the bad guys are real bad.
Patriot Games is a more than serviceable thriller, perhaps a bit out of date when viewing it now, but still a very effective good against evil piece.
The source material is so dense and intricate it was always going to be hard to condense that into a 2 hour movie, but I feel the makers manage to keep it fleshy whilst making the respective characters interesting and watchable.
The acting on show is more than adequate, Harrison Ford is great in the role of Jack Ryan, he manages to portray him as a sensitive family man who can step up to the plate when things get ugly, and Anne Archer is solid enough as the wife and mother caught up in the web of nastiness unfolding.
The baddies are led by the brooding Sean Bean who is a little under written, whilst Richard Harris is sadly underused. However, the action set pieces make their mark and thankfully we get a riveting final reel that cements the entertainment deal for time spent with the pic.
It is formulaic to a degree, but that is OK if the combined efforts of all involved are spot on, and thankfully here they are. 7/10

I was fortunate enough to see this on stage and this version holds up quite well, by comparison. Sure, some of the dialogue scenes are cheesy, almost Disney-esque, but the quality of the music is consistently high with Andrew Lloyd Webber and Charles Hart's wonderful music and lyrics delivered well by Gerard Butler, Emmy Rossum and Patrick Wilson - who is surprisingly engaging as "Raoul". It hasn't the impact nor menace of either the 1923 or 1943 iterations, the colour and glamour of the costumes and sets see to that; but that doesn't impact too negatively on the story of a young opera singer "Christine" who becomes the obsession of the murderous "Phantom" who lives in the sewers beneath the Opéra Populaire in Paris. Luckily, she has the dashing, chivalrous "Vicomte de Chagny" to keep her from her scarred pursuer. Minnie Driver is great as the ultimate diva "Carlotta", and Simon Callow and Ciarán Hinds as the sort of "Stadler and Waldorf" of theatre management create some light comical breathing space now and again from the continuous pace of this sumptuous drama. Miranda Richardson doesn't quite cut it as "Madama Giry", nor Jennifer Ellison as "Meg" - but all in all, Joel Schumacher has created a feast for the eyes that does some justice to Gaston Leroux' original story, and even more to the magnificent musical theatre adaptation from 1986 with rousing performances of "Think of Me"; "Music of the Night" and the eponymous title track made famous by Michael Crawford and Sarah Brightman to entertain us.

**SENSATIONAL**
Great cast, fantastic music, beautiful storyline. Can't help but watch it over and over. The music just stays with you and haunts you for days after.
The Phantom just draws you in... this movie has everything going for it. It's a drama, comedy and romantic, and a great looking cast. The stage production was fabulous, it's so much better watching it on the big screen.
The phantom being the villain, you just feel for him and his love for Christine. Not to mention that fact that he's so hot. That's something I wasn't expecting. I couldn't keep my eyes off him.
The movie is stunning, the music absolutely superb. The cast WOW especially Gerard...what a hunk.
I must say I bought the DVD, which had extras of the original phantom with the original stage cast. The movie I think is so much better. Gerard is superb, his emotional state was so believable. As were the rest of the cast. I still cry at the final scene.
Definitely a movie to watch and don't forget the tissue.
A wonderful love story. Andrew Lloyd Webber is a genius and I've fallen in love with Gerard.
(This was my only IMDB review and I pinched it back)

Yes, it is that bad.
You may start with low expectations, very low even, but even then, you'll be disappointed.
I'll not go into details, not wasting more time on this turd. Even if you're into trashy movies - avoid this one.

Who are these children, what are their relationships with one another and why did they go from frightened civilians to dedicated (and trained) guerrilla soldiers over the course of one montage with no development character or otherwise? Genuinely though, _Red Dawn (2012)_ is a lot better than I was expecting, and I can honestly say I think I like the role of the adult US soldiers in this one more than I did in the original. Still a bit of a 'why bother?' though. Maybe a TV series for the next reboot?
_Final rating:★★½ - Had a lot that appealed to me, didn’t quite work as a whole._

Until very recently, I had never actually made it all the way through this Cecil B. De Mille marathon. It is a glorious piece of cinema but no amount of beautiful colour and costumes can detract from what is really rather a staid, over-egged production. Sir Cedric Hardwicke helps open the proceedings as Seti, but once he has gone the film loses much of it's class and just becomes a vehicle for Charlton Heston and Yul Brynner to play Moses and Ramses as this overly scripted tale of frail brotherly love becomes enmity and ultimately open hostility. Edward G. Robinson and Vincent Price present us with a bit of menace; the special effects are cleverly applied - giving the plagues an extra bit of potency and Elmer Bernstein provides a strong score but basically this is just one long story more of biblical, than, epic proportions.

As good today as in 1956
This film consists of an all star cast and is an amazing movie. The special effects are incredible especially for 1956. The acting is clearly amazing in this account of Moses and the Ten Commandments. 9-10