b_scheim

I clearly seem to be a minority here, but I have watched this show probably 5 or 6 times and I have to say that I just don't really dig it. I think that Seinfeld is one of the most brilliant shows tv has ever featured and I'd do nothing to take away from it, or David's job as its co-head. That said, I see Curb as a less-funny derivative knockoff of its predecessor, with less talented actors to boot. I never thought Jerry Seinfeld was that great but Jason Alexander et al really brought Seinfeld together and Larry David (nor his cast) ever reach the heights of these actors. This show actually bugs me because I just think it's easy and doesn't demonstrate that David's done anything new. And he annoys the hell out of me, in a way I see as non-productive (and not "part of the point"). Eh.

I just watched this movie on the The Movie Channel about an hour ago, and frankly, I must say that I am shocked to see that the 18 people who voted for it here averaged a 7.0 in their ratings of it. The plot is already explained here so I won't go into it, but I really must voice that I thought this was a truly awful movie. I understand that that may be "part of the point", the "in" joke on independent filmmaking, but what I viewed was a thoroughly - and at times, painfully - bad film. The art of satire is to mirror life while leaving an artist's touch (of opinion); however, if this is dir. Evan Oppenheimer's genuine take on indie films, he is missing something big. The basic idea for "The Auteur Theory" really isn't bad, but the script and acting are so genuinely awful that they really make it impossible for this film to convey itself as any kind of a legitimate satire. Maybe I'm just missing something, I don't know, or perhaps I don't know enough about the inner circles of independent film-making to be able to see how this film succeeds; but if that is the case, then what are we supposed to think of a film so "smart" that its audience doesn't even get it?

Or maybe, this was simply a bad film by a bad director who failed to convey his criticisms, let alone cast them as satire. If this is the case, then bam!, you hit the mark Oppenheimer.

While not being anything groundshaking, I found this movie to really be quite entertaining and suspenseful. Even as you knew exactly what would happen next, you'd still be scared to see the drill come shooting out of nowhere. I have definitely not seen many horror films so far, so there may be many better ones than this, but I thought it was definitely worth our time and good in the sense of a rollicking film that was not toooo graphic or disturbing.

7/10 (for a low-budget '80s horror flick)

This movie was so painfully and unbelievably atrocious, that well, I feel no doubt in claiming it to be the very worst movie I have ever seen. There have only been a few comments made so far on this movie (and only 18 votes), so I just want to make sure that the sentiments of the negative viewers are echoed. This movie was so appallingly offensive to nearly everyone, but (in no particular order): "rural folk", christians, jews, asians, hispanics, black people, and yes, even nudists. A group of nudists commit suicide to haunt "bible-thumpers" who come back to the former nudist colony to go to bible retreats?? I think arguing about the inanity of the plot is probably beside the point, as the title of the movie should speak for itself about what the plot may have to offer. The back of the moviebox claims the film is "filled with a lively, upbeat score that is right out of 'Little Shop of Horrors' and 'Thriller'". Uh huh. The song lyrics are admittedly comical at times, but mostly because they are so ridiculously corny and non-sensical that you're laughing more at the creators of this movie than anything else. I won't go on any further, just don't watch this movie!

point being... stay away unless you are so bored that you are contemplating a nudist suicide and/or are dead already. It's both offensive AND horrible, and i wouldn't even recommend "seeing it for yourself".