IN: Review: Wow, I forgot how great this movie was until I stumbled upon it while looking through the garage. It's a kind of strange combination of a bio of Michael Jackson, a collection of musical vignettes, and a story about a super hero fighting to save some little kids. The vignettes are good (especially Speed Demon), but the best part of this movie is the super hero segment, in which Michael Jackson turns into a car, a robot, and finally a spaceship (and it's just as weird as it sounds). Joe Pesci is hilarious, and has enough cool imagery and great music to entertain throughout!

The real gem however is the incredible "Smooth Criminal" video, which makes the movie worth owning for that part alone!
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This film, though ostensibly a comedy, is deadly serious. Its subject is Imperialism (with a capital I): how Britain, foolishly, humiliatingly, tries to convince itself that it's still a great power after World War II. At home, the Empire is run by amiable dolts, benevolent Tories who are so in-bred that they can't distinguish close relatives; the Offices of Government consist of long forgotten archives (a dig at Orwellian paranoia?), inhabited by indolent rats, and ante-rooms wherein lounge bored synacures, reading popular novels.

Abroad, Britain clings to the old pomp; but pomp out of context looks threadbare and silly, especially when its embodied in bumbling twits. Carlton-Browne is an unsentimental picture of decline, with none of the lachrymose rot that marred the supposedly anti-imperialist Jewel in the Crown.

The film is also about the Cold War, bravely admitting that it's a dangerous farce, whose participants deserve mockery and contempt, not fear and respect. It's about how colonialism, characterised more by neglect than tyranny, destroys the colonies it deserts, robbing them of amenities, power, and, most importantly, self-respect, leaving them vulnerable to the machinations of dangerous cowboys.

It's the seriousness, of course, that kills it. That's not to say that weighty subjects can't be treated in comedy - The Miracle Of Morgan's Creek, Dr. Strangelove and The Life Of Brian have all proved that. Indeed, one might suggest that serious themes should only be treated by comedy - it allows for a clearer-eyed view.

The problem with Carlton-Browne is that every situation must have a significance beyond the merely comic, so that it becomes weighed down and unfunny. In the three films mentioned above, much of the comedy arises from character reaction to an extreme situation, not the extreme situation itself. Here, the script is too poor to sustain rich comic characterisations, and some of the greatest comedy talent ever assembled - Peter Sellers, Terry-Thomas, Raymond Huntley and John le Mesurier - are criminally wasted.

Terry-Thomas, sublime so often, shows that he couldn't handle lead parts, and that he needed to play sneering, arrogant bounders, not brainless toffs. The music is made to carry much of the comedy, but its heavy irony only draws attention to the lack of hilarity on screen. (To be fair, unlike the majority of British comedies of the period, which were stagy and underproduced, the Boultings often try to make their points through film itself, by montage and composition) Only Huntley manages to raise genuine laughs, and that's by essaying a character he could have played in his sleep.

None of the Boultings' farces have dated well - they're never thought through enough. Although Carlton-Browne revels in the decline of the Empire, it also seems to be anti-democratic and militaristic. I'm sure this wasn't intended, but these blunders are bound to happen if you allow worthy intentions to take precedence over comic intelligence and film form.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I saw this movie the day it came out last year. Hilarious I thought. Well, now it's on video and I saw it again. I love this movie! The things they do are sometimes dumb but that's what makes it my third favorite movie of all time. The special effects are okay, but the witty dialog will have you rolling. I'm the kind of person that'll say i'm inspired by this movie, so if you like dramas and other stuff, avoid. But for all others, enjoy! The acting is superb. Hank Azaria is hands down the best (he's neither a commie, nor a fruit) followed by Ben Stiller (uh, don't correct me. it sickens me) and then William H. Macy delivering his best performance (outshining fargo) Everybody has praised everyone from macy to garafalo, but I think Kel Mitchell was pretty good as Invisible Boy. Two problems: The most boring part of the film is the subplot of the romance between Stiller and Claire Forlani, and the Casanova parole hearing. Some scenes absolutely advance the story in no way, but they're a blast. Kinka and especially the writers tend to drag on a scene untill all it's hilarity is gone, but bam they switch and you're ready for more. I swear after seeing this, you will be tired from the explosive climax (which I think was pretty cool) The camera is pretty cool also, moving at a furious pace with the actors. Also, Tom Waits delivers an outstanding performance (he has this kinda cool bad hero coolness to him) and like someone else said, the best parts are when the characters show some humanness to them. Captain Amazing is pretty funny, (especially his speech to Casanova about his perfect plan-I was rolling) and rush is pretty cool as Casanova. One beef: the funniest comedian ever (eddie izzard) is almost wasted, but his heart is in the right place. So all in all, a wonderful movie. I give it twenty stars and hope that someday, everyone will see the brilliance in the film's best parody, the Six Million Dollar Man one. Laughing right now as I think about it. 20/10
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I love Dracula but this movie was a complete disappointment! I remember Lee from other Dracula films from when i was younger, and i thought he was great, but this movie was really bad. I don't know if it was my youth that fooled me into believing Lee was the ultimate Dracula, with style, looks, attraction and the evil underneath that. Or maybe it was just this film that disappointed me. 

But can you imagine Dracula with an snobbish English accent and the body language to go along with it? Do you like when a plot contains unrealistic choices by the characters and is boring and lacks any kind of tension..? Then this is a movie for you! 

Otherwise - don't see it! I only gave it a 2 because somehow i managed to stay awake during the whole movie.

Sorry but if you liked this movie then you must have been sleep deprived and home alone in a dark room with lots of unwatched space behind you. Maybe alone in your parents house or in a strangers home. Cause not even the characters in this flick seemed afraid, and i think that sums up the whole thing!

Or maybe you like this film because of it's place in Dracula cinema history, perhaps being fascinated by how the Dracula story has evolved from Nosferatu to what it is today. Cause as movie it isn't that appealing, it doesn't pull you in to the suggestive mystery that for me make the Vampyre myth so fascinating. 

And furthermore it has so much of that tacky 70ies feel about it. The scenery looks like cheap Theatre. And i don't say that rejecting everything made in the 70ies. Cause i can love old film as well as new.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative