Cult Movies That Don't SUCK

Shot in Western Pennsylvania, not far from the Ohio border, the original zombie movie is still one of the best of its kind and still genuinely scary. It shows that you don't need a mega-budget and popular actors to make a monumental film that's still regularly watched and talked about five decades later.

My wife & I visited the graveyard where the thrilling opening sequence was shot; unfortunately the ambiance is now ruined by nearby electrical towers that weren't there when the movie was made.

Romero's sequel, 1978's "Dawn of the Dead" is equally a cult film, but very different in that it involves a small group of people finding sanctuary in a deserted suburban Mall after the 'zombie apocalypse' overtakes conventional civilization; unfortunately, a huge gang of marauding bikers threaten their "paradise."

Weissmuller did twelve Tarzan movies and "Tarzan and His Mate" was the sequel to his first one, 1932's "Tarzan the Ape Man." The Weissmuller films deviate from Burroughs' intelligent character and offer a more dim-witted character who speaks in monosyllables. While this is a turn-off if you're a fan of the books, like me, it's an acceptable movie interpretation of the character and it worked at the time seeing as how Weissmuller's Tarzan is by far the most popular. Besides, Weissmuller is just so likable in the role. He exudes goodness, nobility and innocence with a child-like edge. This is balanced out, of course, by his athletic jungle skills.

Although "Tarzan and His Mate" is old as dirt and shot in B&W, this is easily one of the best Tarzan flicks, filled with action, adventure and African animals. The elephants, by the way, are Asian, but they're decorated with fake African Elephant ears, which almost works. In any case, this was pre-code era Hollywood and cutie Maureen O'Sullivan surprisingly appears in her birthday suit. No kidding. Moreover, her jungle outfit was one of the most revealing costumes in screen history at the time: a halter-top and a loincloth that leave her thighs and hips exposed. No wonder men flocked to the movie in droves.

I remember seeing "Five Million Years to Earth" a handful of times growing up and I never failed to be enthralled by the creepy and thought-provoking events of the story. Viewing it recently, I was interested to see how well it would hold up in the new millennium and if it could still inspire and maintain my fascination now that I'm an adult. Well, it holds up quite well, and I still found it thought-provoking, spooky and fairly fascinating. Yes, the clothing is decidedly dated, and naturally so, but that adds to the charm. Some complain about the dated "special effects" but -- c'mon -- this was made in the mid-60s! I feel the F/X hold up quite well and don't detract from the story at all. Hey, at least they're better than the F/X of the original Star Trek TV Series. The spaceship, the Martian carcasses, the numerous floating objects and the eerie Satanic image at the end all work fine as far as I'm concerned. Besides, it's the story that counts and this is Sci-Fi of the highest order.

One highlight is the beautiful Barbara Shelley, who assists in the operation; she was 34 at the time. If there's an American remake, I'm sure her part will be played by a 22 year-old skinny blond with over-sized breasts. Shelley incidentally appeared in a few other Hammer flicks, like "Rasputin, the Mad Monk" and "Dracula, Prince of Darkness."

The climax is quite apocalyptic (***SPOILER ALERT***). I love the final shot of Quatermass and Barbara, still in shock, recovering from the events and just thankful to be alive; then the credits start rolling, accompanied by a beautiful melancholic musical piece. A potent ending to a stellar 60's Sci-fi masterpiece.

"No Such Thing" was originally called "Monster," which is the superior title. Why? Because the film's about a literal monster, played by Robert John Burke, who looks like a cross between Satan, a reptile and a grouchy dude. The monster's been alive for millennia and is virtually indestructible. He dwells in bored solitude on an island off the coast of a remote area of Iceland where he occasionally terrorizes the villagers, kills people and blows flames from his mouth. Sarah Polley plays the protagonist, Beatrice, whose husband is killed by the creature along with a team of reporters. She's assigned the mission of finding out what the "legend" is all about and, after tragic bypass, meets the monster who stirs her compassion to put him out of his misery.

Needless to say, this is an odd dramedy/fantasy that's so unique there's really "No Such Movie," which explains the mixed reviews. It successfully meshes the depth of inhuman evil with the height of genuine spirituality with generous does of comedy, drama, satire and tragedy. It comes as no surprise that it's an American Zoetrope picture, the studio founded by Francis Ford Coppola and George Lucas at the start of the 70s and known for filmmaking expertise that generally eschews 'blockbuster' syndrome. In fact, Coppola is the executive producer of "No Such Thing."

Unfortunately, 'unique' doesn't always mean great. My wife & I viewed "No Such Thing" in 2011 and were somewhat bored, even while there are undeniable entertaining elements, but I viewed it again recently and, while still finding it boring in some ways, I enjoyed it more and appreciated its eccentricities. For instance, the monster is sometimes laugh-out-loud funny and the spiritual parts are palpable. Moreover, I was able to figure out what the film's all about, at least in my humble opinion. It's this factor – the film's insightful and fascinating MEANING – that breaks the threshold of greatness and inspires me to rate it as high as I do. See my review for more details.

People love to loathe this movie and it's obvious why: The two protagonists are psychotics and it's hard for the average person to relate to them. Another negative is some unbelievable elements, like: Wouldn't someone notice Eye camping out in the bell tower of a city church? How would he have the field know-how to get away with doing the things he does when the opening act reveals him as essentially a computer nerd who rarely goes outside? Would two Federal detectives really bring the counselor of the orphanage all the way to friggin' Alaska to determine if a waitress is Joanna?

If you can handle these script flaws, however, "Eye of the Beholder" is a stylishly-made thriller with haunting aspects and a superb soundtrack/score. Even though it's hard to relate to or even like the protagonists the chase around the country maintains your interest in an entrancing manner. The movie's worth catching just for these reasons, not to mention Ashley Judd was one of the most beautiful women to walk the planet at the time (and still is) and she appears in some pretty skimpy outfits, uber-sullen though she may be in the role. Ashley's thoroughly convincing and proves her talent beyond question.

I think there's something deeper going on with the story as well: Eye goes through the same voyeuristic process in his life inside the movie that we just so happen to be watching, as voyeurs. Note how much of what Eye sees is through a camera lens and into people's private lives.

The film was based on the novel by Marc Behm wherein Eye was much older and Joanna, roughly the age his daughter would've been. This was changed for the movie where it appears Eye is romantically fascinated with Joanna, despite her murdering spree, and he feels the need to watch over her and save her, which he failed to do as a father with his daughter. In any case, Stephen Elliott wrote the screenplay and directed the film, but was beset at every turn by the studio "suits" who financed the picture. At one point during the stress of filming, Elliott had to check himself into a psychiatric hospital for succor! This is relayed in Lizzy Gardiner's excellent documentary "Killing Priscilla" (2000). Thankfully, he was able to finish the picture. The fact that everyone hates it and it bombed at the box office probably sent him back to the institution.

While the plot is lifted from 1983's "Eddie and the Cruisers," there's enough difference to set "The Perfect Age of Rock 'n' Roll" apart. Unfortunately, it's a thoroughly obscure flick, but wrongly so because it's arguably as good as more polished rock films, like 2000's "Rock Star" and 1991's "The Doors." Not to mention it's superior to 2010's "The Runaways" and 1979's "The Rose." One critic derided the movie as "a bunch of aimless, lifeless characters in a rambling story meandering across the country," which is true, because THAT is what the film is about. Besides, it's a journey worth traveling. The fact that the characters are "aimless," "lifeless" and "meandering" ties into the pitfalls intrinsic to the 'rock star' lifestyle. The very name of the band, Lost Soulz, tells you everything ya need to know. The movie's basically a warning (note the living shell of Spyder at merely 47 years of age); it's also so much more.

I was in a metal band for several years, playing all-original music (written mostly by me), and we opened for Tim Ripper Owens in the winter of '95 on one occasion. In less than a year he was a member of Judas Priest, touring the world. Of course, Ripper's story was the basis for the aforementioned "Rock Star." I'm sharing this to show that I know a little about the lifestyle and this film rings true. There are numerous gems to mine underneath the excesses of drugs, booze & sex. Take, for instance, when the driver of the RV, August West (Fonda), offensively sizes-up Rose; without skipping a beat she returns the favor and August recognizes the truth when he hears it. Rose emphasizes that she wouldn't be there if she "didn't love the music" and you know it's genuine; she's not just a "hot piece of axx," as Spyder writes her off in the interview.

Speaking of whom, Taryn Manning is effective as Rose in a challenging role, but in my opinion they needed someone curvier for the part. She's decent lookin', but her no-axx body is a far cry from a "hot piece of axx." Someone like Aimee Teegarden would've worked better, physically speaking. But I digress...

The core of the story is that Spyder and Eric are best friends, and intense rivals, who need each other to work their magic: While Eric is the king of composition, it's frontman Spyder who makes his songs soar, which we convincingly observe at a few of their gigs on their road trip. The Lost Soulz songs "Turn Me On" and the Guns N' Roses-ish "Without You" provide all the evidence we need. Of course, these songs are fake in the sense that Lost Soulz doesn't exist, but they were composed for the movie by Andrew Hollander; and Kevin Zegers (Spyder) and Jason Ritter (Eric) actually perform on them.

The only reason I don't give this movie a higher grade is because the set-up is shaky and can be confusing, possibly turning off first-time viewers rather than engaging them. If you can get past this, however, the film is full of riches on rock/metal and being a musician in general. Beyond the 'performances' of the Lost Soulz songs, there are a few highlights, like Spyder & Eric's brouhaha in the rain and the blues bar sequence (featuring cameos by legends Sugar Blue, Pinetop Perkins, Hubert Sumlin, Willie "Big Eyes" Smith and Bob Stroger). Then there's the powerful climatic scene at Spyder's ritzy mansion with Jane's Addiction's "Three Days" playing in the background, which just so happens to rank with the all-time best cinematic scenes utilizing rock songs, like the close of 1998's "Buffalo '66" with Yes' incredible "Heart of the Sunrise." Let me close by saying that Kevin Zegers was a supreme choice to play Spyder. Ritter is also quite good.

This was the inspiration for 2009's "The Perfect Age of Rock 'n' Roll" but both movies have their distinctions, as well as pros and cons. "Eddie" is about a band from the early 60s whereas "The Perfect Age" is about a Guns N' Roses-type band whose heyday was in the 80s. Each film starts out shaky as the story is set-up, but they progressively get better. Both films feature charismatic frontmen with diametrically opposed styles, but also very similar when you think about it. Each feature revealing chats amongst the characters with “Eddie” shining in the final act when it unveils Eddie’s youthful place of solitude, Palace of Depression (which is an actual place in southern New Jersey, Vineland; a building made of junk built by the eccentric George Daynor, a former Alaskan gold miner who lost his fortune in the Crash of ‘29).

Growing-up, my gang had several hidden spots where we’d meet, each with a name known only to us; I even had a personal “My Place” in the woods behind my parents’ house on a lake where I’d often go for private reflection. When I was 15 I planned to commit suicide there, but thankfully didn’t go through with it. The movie gets points for including such an existential element.

Was Eddie still alive or did he die in 1964? The ending reveals the truth and the way it’s done is superlative.

So which movie is better, “Eddie” or “The Perfect Age”? They both shoot for greatness and in some small ways attain it. Disregarding the rockin’ performances, “Eddie” is more location-bound and therefore dramatically sedentary whereas “The Perfect Age” is a road movie in disguise and therefore seemingly more eventful. In my opinion the music’s better in the latter, but then I prefer the heavier side of rock/metal over the Bruce-Springsteen-in-the-early 60s style of “Eddie” (which is good for what it is, don’t get me wrong). “Eddie” stands out for including the Palace of Depression angle and contains superb lines in the final act, but “The Perfect Age” soars in its own way.

"Last Summer" is a unique coming-of-age film featuring a fascinating study of the herd mentality: Alone, the three main characters are normal teenagers, but together their inhibitions and sense of morality diminish. Set at one of the most beautiful beach settings on the East Coast, the film hints at the possibility that Fire Island itself is an accessory in unleashing the youths' disturbing deviance.

But, mostly, this is a commentary on the dark side of hedonistic adolescence and the power of a sociopath, meaning Sandy. Her maniacal laugh, what she ultimately does to a seagull, her treatment of Rhoda, and her manipulation of the two naïve boys, testify to this. Naturally, entry into Sandy's clique is the admission of some past act of cruelty. Why? Because she subtly revels in cruelty and despises compassion.

After NATO plane goes down near a desolate Greek island, the two British pilots wander around in their underwear trying to find the dangerous nuclear cargo they unloaded. Also looking for the weapons is an Air Force team that comes to the island masquerading as hotel entrepreneurs. The pilots mistake them as a group of gay guys due to their gaudy apparel and lack of female companionship. Once word gets out that the island may be the next hotspot, vacationers start flocking to the island in droves. The tourists include a man-crazy blond (Candice Bergen) who sets her eyes on a member of the Air Force team. Meanwhile, a peasant couple find the most dangerous weapon and threaten to contaminate the environment when they insist on opening it.

The build-up is a bit too long because the story doesn't really get compelling until the final 40 minutes, but the final act is worth the wait. Besides, the film is still fairly entertaining even during the slow build-up.

Some people have complained about the dancing and clothing of the vacationers (and the Air Force Team), but the film was apparently depicting events in the near future. I'm sure 1972 seemed very futuristic in 1966 when the film was written. The strange dancing and apparel must be viewed with this in mind. Besides, these elements and the wild music are part of the film's charm the same way the dancing, apparel and music makes "Village of the Giants" so worthwhile (despite its badness).

If you have a taste for wacky late 60 or early 70s cinema, "The Day the Fish Came Out" is a must. There's really nothing else quite like it. And those final 40 minutes are great. Too bad it takes an hour and 10 minutes to get there.

This is an energetic modern Western based on the mysterious comic book character from the 70s. Mix The Wild Wild West with "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" updated to 2010, but half as long with no tedious stretches and less one-dimensional characters and you'd have a good approximation of "Jonah Hex." The title character's hideously scarred face is like the comic come to life. Josh Brolin is fine in the eponymous role and Megan Fox proves that she's the foxiest woman on the face of the planet. The excellent metalized score by Marco Beltrami and Mastodon is a huge plus.

The movie debuted a year after Nixon resignation due to the Watergate scandal and “Posse” takes advantage of the public’s loss of trust in politicians. Nightingale (Kirk Douglas) and his deputies are subtly juxtaposed with Strawthorn (Bruce Dern) and his losers. There’s no overt message, however, until the last 20 minutes. Speaking of which, the twist of the climax initially turned me off and filled me with disgust. But, after reflecting on it, I saw what the movie was trying to get across and respected it. It’s just that the way the message is conveyed is awkwardly implemented. It could’ve been done more smoothly.

Some critics mistake the film’s message as comparing a (supposedly) corrupt politician with a (supposedly) honest lawbreaker, but this is inaccurate. For one thing, “honest lawbreaker” is an oxymoron, particularly where Strawthorn (Dern) is concerned. Right out of the gate the movie plainly shows him to be a murderous thug and, while a smooth-talker, he’s never made out to be the good guy. He’s a scumbag criminal worthy of hanging, impure and simple. Nor is Nightingale (Douglas) shown to be wickedly corrupt. He’s a commanding marshal of the territory, which is a good thing; he has political aspirations and ties to the railroad, so what? Even when tempted by the blond hottie, Mrs. Ross (Beth Brickell), he charmingly turns her down on the grounds that it wouldn’t be advantageous to his political goals. Isn’t that what wisdom is — having the scruples to recognize and deny foolish, immoral or destructive desires/behaviors?

But Nightingale's deputies are a different story. The film’s called “Posse” for a reason.

So what's the movie saying? The line between respectable profession and outlawry can be very thin. People can be in an honest occupation and be corrupt; they're essentially just masquerading. It happens everywhere all the time. One critic lambasted the film for it's "tortuous confusion of good and evil." Actually, the movie just sheds light on the existence of evil in places where people naively pull the wool over the eyes not to see it. Look no further than HiLIARy.

This is an excellent American Western with Spaghetti Western elements featuring Tarantino’s typical artistic flourishes. It takes place in the West AND in the South, which is reminiscent of the underrated “Nevada Smith” (1966), one of my favorite Westerns. Waltz is magnetic as the nonchalant protagonist and he & Foxx have good chemistry. There’s a nice mix of interesting dialogues and over-the-top action.

Unfortunately, but to be expected, Tarantino goes overboard with the ‘n’ word and the blood-letting, the latter to the point of cartoonish-ness. Nevertheless, this is an original Western that is vibrant with creativity, including stunning locations, cinematography and a great amalgamated soundtrack/score, which includes cuts by Ennio Morricone, like the excellent “Hornets’ Nest,” the imaginative "The Braying Mule" and the moving “Ancora Qui.” Unlike the one-dimensional, intentionally offensive and absurdly overdone “The Hateful Eight” (2015), “Django Unchained” is an all-around great modern Western.

I thought it was going to be terrible, but it was actually quite entertaining. The action goods are all here, but five minutes into it I got the joke and was laughing with it and not at it. I don't think "Torque" will appeal to everyone, but it will get two types for sure: action gearheads who just want a solid uncomplicated action picture, and smart viewers who can appreciate clever filmmaking and the in-jokes threaded throughout.

I fall under the second bracket since I generally loathe mindless action flicks. What takes "Torque" beyond mindless physics-defying action is it's cleverly made and filled with hilarious in-jokes. Director Joseph Kahn has a history in flashy music videos and this comes across on the screen. It's pure eye-candy from beginning to end with all manner of entertaining tidbits, like the brief close-up of the turtle between the racing cars at the very beginning.

The look & vibe is pure comic book come to life. Every shot, facial expression, action scene, confrontation, word, set, pose, etc. reflects this. The bikes are mostly crotch rockets but there are all kinds. The guys are coolness personified and the girls are hotness incarnated. The cast is highlighted by Martin Henderson as the worthy protagonist and Monet Mazur as his babe. Ice Cube is great as the leader of a black gang, while Matt Schulze and Jaime Pressly play the villains. There are also a couple of FBI agents in the mix.

The cinematography is gorgeous, shot in the desolate regions of S. California.

The film takes no prisoners at a brief 84 minutes. This is good since films of this ilk shouldn't overstay their welcome.

Believe it or not, there's actually some depth to the characters and storyline; we see glimpses of courage, love, friendship, repentance, respect, sacrifice and loyalty.

But it works fine as is. It is what it is -- perhaps the ultimate cult action film ever made, pulsating with energy, creativity and excitement.

Philip Adrian Booth's "Death Tunnel" is a well-made horror flick about five college gals (in lingerie) locked in a huge abandoned sanatorium in Kentucky where 63,000 people died of the "white plague" in the early 20th century. This is supposed to be a college initiation, but things go sour when the ghosts of the plague victims show up!

As far as filmmaking technique goes, this is top-of-the-line all the way -- impressive visual style combined with top notch kinetic editing work. It's impossible to watch this movie and not be wowed by the filmmaking technique, even if you don't like the story or the sometimes confusing way it's told (mainly the first act). It blows my mind to think of the time & effort put into creating this film. Such attention to detail is rare, particularly in low-budget independent fare.

In addition to the filmmaking technique, the locations, cast and score/soundtrack are superb. The film was largely shot at Waverly Hills Sanatorium near Louisville, KY, which is a perfect location for a horror flick. The movie also features numerous ultra-gorgeous women, including the ones trying in vain to get out of the sanatorium, a couple of the ghosts and even more. It's Grade A on this front. There's also a genuine aura of creepiness & a few good scares. Plus the modern metal song "Disconnected" by 9 Volt Revolt is excellent (featured in both the story and the end credits).

A more linear approach to the storytelling would probably have made "Death Tunnel" more compelling, but after re-watching the film it dawned on me that Booth was shooting for art and originality above horror conventions, which should be respected. Besides, I was able to enter into the world of the movie and was mesmerized. What more could you ask for in an independent horror flick? The fact that "Death Tunnel" is an artistic horror film rather than a conventional slasher flick explains the mass of negative reviews, but anyone who appreciates cinematic art will value this film. You just have to be in the right mode.

With repeat viewings I found myself at the mid-point almost spellbound by the movie magic, which held me to the climax. You just have to accept that this isn't a dialogue-driven, plot-driven movie that focuses on slowly building suspense. Instead it's 90 minutes of horror and the entertaining elements thereof FROM THE GET-GO, which some people understandably can't appreciate.

If you didn't like the movie on your first viewing I encourage you to give it a re-watch sometime with these things in mind. You might like it. "Death Tunnel" successfully combines grisly locations & F/X with stunningly beautiful women and a kinetic style for an amazingly entertaining film. What's more, the ending is actually moving -- there is a light at the end of the death tunnel.

What makes "Easy Rider" great is that it's more than just a road adventure with a modern Western garnish (i.e. cowboys on motorized "horses"). The film has depth that separates it from the typical biker flicks of that era. It's really about freedom or the lack thereof. Wyatt and Billy certainly have some grasp of freedom – and they desperately pursue it – but they're ironically so shackled by their OWN carnal desires and growing addictions that the most they attain is a piece of it. Wyatt laments near the end of the film: "We blew it; we really blew it" as he realizes freedom has slipped through their fingers like water. Nicholson's character, George, has more of handle on what's going on, but he obviously has his own issues.

The hippies at the commune seem to have escaped society's shackles but to what end? There's a reason communes never really caught on in America, and the film shows why.

In an interview in the early 70s Fonda pointed out that Wyatt represented everybody who feels that freedom can be bought, that you can find freedom through other things, like riding motorcycles across the country or smoking pot. He confessed that "Easy Rider" is actually about the LACK of freedom in modern Western Civilization. Wyatt and Billy are not right, they're wrong. The only thing the writers (Fonda & Hopper) could do in the end was kill the characters. In a sense, committing self-destruction, which Fonda claimed America was doing. He said viewers often respond to the end by lamenting, "Look at those terrible rednecks, they killed those two free souls, blah, blah, blah." But "Easy Rider," he pointed out, is a Southern term for a whore's man, not a pimp, but the dude who lives with her. He's got the easy ride. And that's what he claims happened to America – liberty's become a whore, and we're all taking the easy ride.

So what's the answer? The answer's there (in the film) and it's pretty clear, but don't expect me to hand-feed it to you. Seek and you will find.

If you ignore the lame skits at the freedom school on the reservation and some slow dramatics, "Billy Jack" is a worthwhile independent period piece. The title sequence is stirring with "One Tin Soldier", covered by Coven. It's interesting that Billy Jack became so popular with the hippies since he's an ex-Green Beret, rejects the concept of total pacifism and has short hair!

The film features a fascinating debate between Billy and Jean as to which tactics are better: A peaceable attitude that only resorts to violence when necessary (i.e. limited pacifism) or absolute pacifism, which refuses to ever turn to violence in response to evil. Contrary to the complaints of the film's critics, this movie is not hypocritical in that "it preaches pacifism while occasionally showcasing violence." It's only Jean and, by extension her school, that supports total pacifism whereas Billy advocates limited pacifism, only resorting to violence when justified.

"Billy Jack" shows that total pacifism does not work. It supports the balanced position advocated by the New Testament. Some erroneously think that the New Testament supports the idea of absolute pacifism, but it doesn't. Jesus' ministry team had a treasury box with loads of money and some of his workers carried swords for protection from thieves and murderers. Not to mention that Jesus got a whip and chased all the greedy fools out of the temple -- throwing over tables, swinging the whip and yelling. This caused the legalistic religious leaders to fear him and plot murder (Mark 11:12-18). Harmless pacifists don't inspire fear and provoke murder plots. Also, Romans 13 clearly states the righteous laws of human governments are God-ordained for the purpose of punishing criminals, including the right to execute when appropriate. The majority of sane Christians realize this, but there are a few extremists who refuse to be balanced with the Scriptures on this matter and insist that conflict and especially armed conflict is never appropriate. "Billy Jack" shows that some people are so degenerate and evil that radical opposition and even execution are sometimes just reactions.

The film also delivers in the area of women with Susan Foster standing out as the stunning Cindy. There's a great scene at the end with Cindy brandishing a rifle while wearing a jean jacket and purple hose and... it's just a great look, lol.

The film also explores spiritual issues: The youth of America rejected the religious indoctrination of their culture because it largely devolved into sterile, powerless, em-bondaging legalism. Billy Jack turns to Native mysticism and draws parallels to biblical Christianity. I'm not saying I agree with every jot and tittle of his claims, but some of them are interesting and he makes some valid points.

This one's set in Las Vegas and features a young dude who gets infected with the Leprechaun's green blood and starts to morph into a (taller) leprechaun himself (John Gatins).

Although "Leprechaun 3" plays it pretty straight there's also quite a bit of camp. Regardless, it's nigh impossible to take seriously due to the cartooney leprechaun; consequently, the film is more comedy than horror. In fact, it's not horrifying at all. But it IS entertaining, and that's the name of the game.

"Leprechaun 3" is well worth watching or owning for the character of Tammy alone, played by the magnificent Lee Armstrong. It's great to have a intelligent, winsome female protagonist with actual and natural curves, rather than the usual too-thin blondes with chicken legs and fake breasts. Lee blows them all out of the water and her outfit here only accentuates her appeal. Too bad she left acting behind the same year "Leprechaun 3" was released (1995), but at least we have this film to remember her magnificence.

The follow-up, "Leprechaun 4: In Space" (1996), is almost as entertaining and also worthy of cult status.

This short documentary is only 17 minutes long, but it's a thoroughly entertaining look at the 80's metal culture as various fans are filmed & interviewed in the parking lot before a Judas Priest concert in Dallas in 1986.

Some call the film "the original torture porn" and I suppose it was pretty radical in 1968, but it never struck me as being a torture-obsessed film. It always struck as a British Western with a simple rape/murder/revenge plot: A soldier's beautiful fiancé is savagely raped and her Uncle, a Priest, tortured & murdered for supposedly being a witch. When the soldier (Ian Ogilvy) finds out he vows revenge.

Don't get me wrong, this is a good film, it's just that it always came across to me as more of a Western transplanted to 17th century England than a torture/horror film. The only death that I found truly unsettling was the one where a woman is burned to death by being lowered into a bonfire. That scene definitely has a lasting impact.

The writer/director was Michael Reeves, a promising young filmmaker. Unfortunately he died of an accidental barbiturate overdose not long after the film was released at the way-too-young age of 25. The dosage was too marginal to suggest suicide; besides, he was already busy working on another film project.

Reeves and star Vincent Price reportedly didn't get along. Reeves originally wanted Donald Pleasence for the title role but the studio forced Price on him and he had to rewrite the script accordingly. Reeves mainly objected to Price's hammy acting style and did everything he could to get Price to play it straight. He would say things like, "Please, Vincent, try to say it without rolling your eyes." At one point Price pointed out to Reeves, "I've made 87 films, what have you done?" The director responded, "Made three good ones" (LOL!!).

After seeing the film the following year Price admitted that he finally saw what Reeves was trying to do and wrote him a 10-page letter praising the film (!). After Reeve's death Price stated: "I (finally) realized what he wanted was a low-key, very laid-back, menacing performance. He did get it, but I was fighting him almost every step of the way. Had I known what he wanted I would have cooperated."

The film is only partially accurate as far as history goes, although the gist is true. Hopkins was in his mid-20s when he committed his atrocities, not almost 60 as was the case with Price. Also, Hopkins & Stearne were accompanied by female assistants. As far as Hopkins' death goes, tradition tells us that disgruntled villagers caught him and subjected him to his own "swimming test," although there's no actual evidence to support this; most historians believe he died of tuberculosis at his home shortly after his torturous escapades in 1647 (only 27 years old).

One of the film's highlights for me is Hilary Dwyer, who plays the soldier's fiancé/wife. She's just a uniquely beautiful woman all around and a pleasure to behold.

Another highlight is the maniacal ending, which drives home a good point.

"The Wild Angels" is a cult flick in the truest sense -- unique and brilliant. Yes, some of The Angel's behavior is incredibly reprehensible and, yes, the preacher in the story was right when he stated, "Woe to those who say evil is good and good is evil." Still, the picture successfully captures the utterly outcast and outlaw nature of The Angels' bike gang. They're like a small, totally lost tribe living on the periphery of American society. In a way, one can't help but pity the poor bastages.

The final 55 minutes of the film involve The Loser's death, funeral and burial (Bruce Dern). If you're psyched up to see an action film you're going to be disappointed because "The Wild Angels" boldly sneers at such film conventions. The story is essentially about death and the nature of bereavement. It potently shows how the various gang members deal with their grief: They generally deny it and attempt to lose themselves in drinking, drugs, revelry and criminal & perverse conduct. The leader (Peter Fonda) can't shake his mournful spirit of loss; he's not even sure if he loves his "old lady" anymore. When everyone else scatters because "the heat" arrives, he stays -- risking impending capture -- to bury his fallen comrade. One gets the impression he's digging his own grave because, as he told his girlfriend, he's got "no where to go."

The original title of "The Wild Angels" was much better and more fitting: "All the Fallen Angels."

Wayne receives word in a vision from none-other-than Jim Morrison to put on a concert in Aurora, Illinois, which he dubs Waynestock. If he "builds it" will they come?

The first time I saw this film I was crying I was laughing so hard. The scene that put me over the edge was when a certain classic actor appears as a gas station attendant. Memorable moments abound.

The original film is actually a let-down compared to this one. Don't get me wrong, it's a solid comedy and consistently amusing if you're in the mood for goofy humor rooted in 70s-90s rock/metal, but there are a number of flat areas. This sequel flows better and is way funnier. It helps if you're up on the rock/metal scene and cinema, otherwise you won't get half the jokes.

I gauge comedies by how funny they are (naturally), as well as how compelling, and "Wayne's World 2" delivers exceptionally on both fronts.

The story in this new version switches to America. Nicholas Cage plays a California cop searching for his ex-fiancé's daughter on a mysterious privately owned island in Washington's Puget Sound. The society is backwards, pagan and matriarchal; the men are mute and second class. As the film progresses, Cage comes to see that the inhabitants are lying to him about the girl's disappearance.

Unlike Woodward in the original '73 version, Cage is likable as the protagonist (or, at least, we can relate to him). His mounting frustration and anger over the situation are understandable. When he ultimately turns to outright violence against the women we understand what has driven him to such actions.

The British Columbian locations are good, pretty much on a par with the Scottish locations of the original in their own unique way.

Ellen Burstyn is better than Christopher Lee as the villain. We don't even meet her until an hour into the film and she comes off as a creepy religious psycho (just because she's pagan doesn't mean she's not religious). Lee was bland in the original.

Molly Parker as the school teacher and Leelee Sobieski are fetching (with Kate Beahan a distant third). Molly and Leelee are fully clothed at all times and yet somehow ooze beauty. Molly, in particular, has a very unique allure. One reviewer complained that there weren't any scenes of naked women as was frequently the case in the original, but the director didn't feel the need to go the softcore porn route. Lebute shows that true beauty is far more than numerous displays of softcore eroticism and overt nudity. If you want that rent a porn video.

The story is generally entertaining, sometimes fun and, at times, unintentionally amusing. For instance, the scene where Cage talks with the "barmaid" and the patrons has some laugh-out-loud aspects. There are other humorous moments (Cage apprehending the bicycle: "STEP AWAY FROM THE BIKE!", running around in a bear costume, the dead girl suddenly appearing in his arms on the dock, numerous hilarious lines like "OH NO, NOT THE BEES, NOT THE BEES!!", etc.). Despite this, the picture somehow maintains a serious aura. The original, by contrast, was dead-pan serious and never entertained in this manner.

The ending is horrifying (more so than the original), even though I knew it was coming. If you're in the right mood it can also be funny. The alternate ending is even better with the inclusion of overt torture scenes (although I know why they cut one of the torture scenes, the bees would've killed Cage since he was allergic to them). The Wicker Man prop is intimidating and over twice the size of the original.

In the theatrical version there's a "6 months later" coda tacked on, which is an important scene. It shows how pre-meditated the actions of the women are in the film. It also explains one of Leelee's mysterious lines earlier in the story, "When you leave, take me with you." This sequence shouldn't have been cut from the alternate ending.

This early Nicholson vehicle is worthwhile if you have a taste for out-of-the-ordinary films. Millie Perkins is fetching and Will Hutchins is a convincing youngster sidekick while Oates is a good every-man protagonist and Nicholson just oozes quiet antagonism. It's easy too see how the 'kid' would be infatuated by the cutie, despite her dubiousness, but it's even easier to understand Willet's grave suspicions. The movie is also a must for anyone who likes lost-in-the-desert flicks.

While the ending seems nonsensical, the answers are there, if you look closely and chew on the details...

***SPOILER ALERT*** (Don't read this paragraph unless you've seen the film). As the story progresses it becomes clear that the woman is hunting Oates' brother who apparently killed a child or a midget, likely the woman's child, close friend or relative. When they finally catch up to him at the very end we discover that the supposed murderer is Willet's TWIN brother who looks exactly like him, which explains his name, Coin (as in, 'the other side of the coin'). Since this is so, why didn't the woman assume Willett (Oates) was the person who killed her child since he looks exactly like the one who did, Coin? Obviously she was informed that Coin had a twin brother living near the town and she felt he would be the best person to track the culprit. In any case, the twin brothers represent the duality of human nature: Willet symbolizes the good and positive side whereas Coin embodies the more destructive aspects of our nature. As such, the Gashade brothers symbolize the two converging sides of the existential coin pertaining to the human experience which come together with catastrophic results at the climax. ***END SPOILER***

Bottom line: "The Shooting" is a worthy bare-bones independent 60's Western with occasional flashes of surrealism and brilliance, as well as a lot of humdrum mundaneness (so be prepared for some slow, dull stretches). It's less straightforward than its sister film "Ride in the Whirlwind," which was made just before this one and on the same (or nearby) locations. Some have called it the first "acid Western" but I wouldn't go that far. It has some weird touches, but not too weird.

A rich, educated, big-time rancher (John McLiam) hires an eccentric sharp-shooting assassin (Brando) to take care of a gang of rustlers, led by Nicholson, who are severely diminishing his profits.

Brando's character, the Irish sharp-shooting assassin, is a serious nutjob, an intriguing character, to say the least. He's utterly fearless, eccentric and intimidating.

"The Missouri Breaks" features numerous intriguing contradictions and points to ponder. For instance, there's a scene showing an innocent colt stuck & dying in a world of man-made horror, yet it's ultimately rescued because of the compassion of a man, a criminal no less.

One perplexing question is: Why does Brando's character insist on finishing his job (assassinating each member of the outlaw gang) even after McLiam states that he's not going to pay him anything? Brando points out that he doesn't care about money. What then are his motivations? The simple thrill of killing? Or does he believe he's a some sort of righteous agent carrying out divine justice?

The story involves a Coney Island gang that gets wrongly accused of murder and must make it back home from the Bronx, fighting enemy gangs and police all the way.

The 'feel' of the movie is part surreal, part realistic and wholly captivating! "The Warriors" is just a great flick full of memorable scenes and lines. I really love the ending where the remaining Warriors walk down the Coney Island beach while the DJ offers them a tribute song -- "Survival In the City" by Joe Walsh & The Eagles.

I also like the fact that the Warriors are a racially mixed gang -- a group of lost souls in the urban jungle, banded together perhaps for no other reason except for the obvious fact that they're from the same urban cesspool and have a need to belong.

I stated that the movie is part realistic, but only in the sense that it never becomes campy; the creators and cast properly take it all quite serious. Other than that, the flick showcases a mesmerizing fantastical New York City, that could never be mistaken for reality.

"Three for the Road" stars Charlie Sheen & Alan Ruck as an ambitious political aide and his best friend assigned to delivering a senator's rebellious daughter to a reform institution down south (Kerri Green). The 16 year-old just wants to see her mother whom she hasn't seen in eight years (Sally Kellerman). Blair Tefkin plays a southern gal who hooks up with the trio while Raymond J. Barry plays the teenager's father, a pompous senator.

This is just a fun 80's road flick that hits all the check boxes: Great cast, characters you care about, entertaining situations & antics on the road, a fitting 80's soundtrack, a satisfying conclusion and quality women. As far as that last one goes, Kerri was 19 during filming, which qualifies for a woman, and Blair's just an all-around whoa-man, not to mention Kellerman. Lastly, the movie doesn't wear out its welcome at a mere 88 minutes. For all these reasons, "Three for the Road" breaks the threshold of greatness, as far as amusing road flicks go.

The film features an interesting culture clash between two Marine drill instructors and a hippie draftee. One drill instructor, Drake (Darren McGavin), starts to see the merits of the hippie, Adrian (Jan-Michael Vincent), but the senior drill instructor refuses to budge an inch.

Adrian opens up a whole new world for Drake, one that he never considered. What turns Drake's head is that Adrian isn't some stereotypical drugged-out hippie; he's the most intelligent and fit recruit in his platoon, but how can this be since he dropped out of school and is a hippie? Through a learning attitude and meditational practices Adrian has tapped into a power source that gives him the edge over the rest of the recruits. Drake SEES it and can't deny it, especially since Adrian's techniques start working with the other recruits as well.

This shakens Drake because he had pegged all hippies as drug-addled vagabonds. But the evidence is undeniable and he can't help but develop respect for the hippie. It also rattles him because he comes to realize that Adrian, despite being only 19 years-old or so, is superior to him in some ways. In other words, the mentor could learn a thing or two from the mentee, which isn't the way it's supposed to be in boot camp. The good thing is that Drake is humble enough -- teachable enough -- to receive from Adrian whereas the senior drill instructor (Earl Holliman) is too arrogant and ape-ish to do anything but spurn him.

"Footloose" has that cinematic magic that pulls you in and gives you a good time. This is just a really entertaining movie.

I also like the depth. We understand Rev. Shaw's grief, but his legalism isn't doing his people or town any good. I also like how Shaw isn't made out to be the clichéd villain. This is a good man thinking he's doing the right thing for his town, and in many ways he is, but the legalistic spirit he cops is sapping the life out of him, his family, his congregants and his town. Does he have the wisdom to see his error and re-route?

"Undertow" is a bit reminiscent of Terrence Malick's "Days of Heaven" (1978) in that both are realistic dramas focusing on youths in rural areas and both offer a dreamy viewing experience. Each try hard to enchant with their movie magic. Unlike "Days", however, "Undertow" is rooted in the Southern Gothic genre. Of the two, I favor "Undertow".

It goes without saying that these types of arty films aren't for everyone. Those bred on modern 'blockbusters' will likely find "Undertow" dull, meandering and pointless. And, I admit, I myself wasn't all that impressed the first time I watched it. I didn't hate it; I just didn't "get" it, if you know what I mean. I'm glad I gave it a second (and third) chance, however, because "Undertow" succeeded in pulling me in under its spell, so to speak. Maybe you just have to be in the right mode for a film of this ilk.

The "dreamy" quality mentioned above is facilitated by Philip Glass's mesmerizing score. It's simple and repetitive, but greatly effective. Like the movie, it grows on you. In fact, I've gone to the closing credits a few times just to enjoy this brilliant composition.

Being a Southern Gothic drama/thriller, "Undertow" has a cool Southern ambiance. Other films that are successful in this manner come to mind: "The General's Daughter", "Ode to Billy Joe", "I Walk the Line" (with Gregory Peck, 1970), "Mississippi Burning", "Squirm", "The Man in the Moon" and "The Skeleton Key". If you have a taste for these types of films (and "Days of Heaven") you'll likely appreciate "Undertow".

The plot is reminiscent of Clint Eastwood's 1985 "Pale Rider" (which borrowed heavily from "Shane"). A lone stranger comes into town and befriends the common folks, saving them from the evil tycoon and his motley crew. The difference is that "Fire Down Below" is an Eastern rather than a Western and it takes place in modern times. Seagal may not have the supernatural overtones of Clint in "Pale Rider" but his heroics are so fantastical he comes off a bit supernatural just the same.

Seagal, of course, is a highly likable protagonist. He's ultra-confident, cool and soft-spoken at all times; and he knows how to kick some serious arse. Numerous times throughout the film he takes on multiple attackers and wins without even breaking a sweat. Unbelievable? Yes, but Seagal makes it believable. He is, after all, 6'4", dressed in cool black threads and a master of all kinds of martial arts.

Some say Seagal's a bad actor, but this isn't true. If someone is giving a bad acting performance you can tell because there's an awkward air to their delivery and you don't buy them in the role. This is not the case with Steven. Never for a second does the viewer question Seagal as the protagonist. It may be the only character Seagal can play, but he does it well.

Plus Seagal has numerous great one-liners throughout the film. For instance, late in the film he confronts his EPA colleague who has sold out to Kristofferson and says, "You're a piece of s*** and I'm ashamed of you." The line is perfect and perfectly delivered, not to mention so true-to-life. Hasn't anyone ever betrayed you, abused you or disappointed you to the point where you finally give up with the realization that they're just a shameless and shameful piece of s***?

One of the best highlights for me is the gorgeous Appalachian locations and cinematography. The picture was filmed on location in SE Kentucky -- Hazzard, Mt. Vernon and points between to be exact. I feel Appalachia is largely under-utilized in filmmaking and greatly enjoy it when films take advantage of this magnificent area of the USA.

Seagal's romantic interest is played by Marge Halgenberger, who became popular a few years after this film starring in TV's CSI. She's very believable as the local infamous woman who has a strange relationship with her brother, played by Stephen Lang.

Another highlight is the blues/country music heard throughout the picture. It turns out that Seagal wrote or co-wrote many of the songs featured and even performs one on camera. I never even knew he was a musician! There's even a country-ish Jimi Hendrix song. Plus a couple Country stars make cameos, like Marty Stuart and Travis Tritt.

"Swept Away" failed at the box office in 2002, but only because it was barely released to theaters and critics condemned it before it was even completed. It subsequently swept (away) the Razzies as the worst picture and a bandwagon effect developed with everyone jumping into the negative feeding frenzy.

Is it really THAT bad? No. Not even close. "Swept Away" starts as a fun, entertaining farce and morphs into a potent social commentary and, finally, a moving love story. The movie will make you laugh, make you angry, make you cry and ultimately move you -- no kidding. But it will only have this effect IF you refuse to listen to the drivel of the cookie-cutter critics and give it a chance.

As for Madonna, she's no Meryl Streep but she successfully makes you despise Amber in Act 1 and feel for her later on. She made me believe Amber was a real person. What more do you want?

I'm not an anti-capitalist (far from it) but the film effectively points out the flaws of this system. It also cogently reveals how money/materialism can't of itself give true happiness, love or fulfillment. Amber had everything but was the most unhappy, loathsome person you'd likely ever meet.

One reviewer referred to the film as a "wife beater's fantasy" but failed to point out that it could just as easily be called a "Man torturer's fantasy" or "Man emasculater's fantasy." Let's be evenhanded with our appraisals.

I admit the physical abuse of Amber on the island (slapping, kicking and especially the faux-rape) is disturbing and almost tempted me to tune out, but then I saw what the filmmakers were shooting for, the filmmakers being Madonna and her husband.

In our society we've been misled to believe that mental abuse is less abusive because it's not physical. This film effectively shows that mental abuse can be just as bad, if not worse.