hhg2

I don't think I've ever bestowed the shameful 1-star rating on any film before, but I am breaking with tradition and doing so now. Sure, there are plenty of low-budget films that should never have made it to the silver screen. Others have mentioned Plan 9 From Outer Space, among others, as truly awful creative failures. Some of these never-should-have-been-made movies reach a tipping point and their terribleness become a feature for film buffs, where they reach a so-bad-that-it-is interesting level. Sadly, The Bat does not reach this level. And, honestly, I'm not exactly sure why this piece of bat guano has pushed me to writing a review instead of simply applying the 1-star rating and be done with it.

There was something utterly lazy in the horrible screenplay. Almost all movies have inconsistencies or plot holes at some level, and we movie lovers accept them (or don't notice them) as part of the movie going experience. There is no way of knowing how much of the terrible plot and character development was lost in editing rather than in the writing, but I suspect both were in play. The main mystery, however, is how they got Vincent Price and Agnes Moorehead to take part although it surely must be the money. Having said that, I can't imagine the budget for this film being large. Watch at your own peril!

I certainly don't expect to always agree with the collective wisdom of the IMDB users, but I am often surprised when I disagree so completely with the majority. First off, I found Kings Row to be a melodrama and not a straight drama. The characters were almost uniformly one-dimensional and uninteresting.

As with most adaptations from a novel, which always have way too much detail and information to fit within a conventional movie timeframe, the movie suffers from necessary edits of the story. I did not read the novel, but I am guessing that the screenplay did not do justice to the book. I can offer one example, which doesn't give away the plot. The story follows a handful of characters from childhood through adulthood. After showing some childhood scenes, the movie jumps ahead about 10-15 years. When some of these characters meet in the street, they brought up events--minor events--as if they had just happened and would obviously be on their minds.

I only found two points of interest: Ronald Reagan's portrayal was exceptionally good and perhaps his finest acting. The cinematography of James Wong Howe. He earned an Oscar nomination and it was well deserved. I would only recommend the movie to the biggest of diehard fans.

I am a bit puzzled by this entry in the database. After several decades of use, I have never seen an entry that has been rated by several hundred people (more than 500 at the time of my viewing), yet less than a handful are available for review. Is it possible that so few people were willing to go on record or is some type of cultural proxy war taking place? I think you have to have an account to vote your rating, right? Did people have an account, vote, but were disinterested in commenting? That seems so non-IMDb.

In any event, I thought her special uneven but certainly better than her current average rating of about 2.6. I have never been much of a fan of hers, both in her early stand-up days and later in her sit-com megaglory days. I decided to view it just out of curiosity. She is obviously on a mission and thinks that taking on as many taboos will strike the audience's fancy. Perhaps so, but I think she'd be better served by refining her jokes and stories. Perhaps after 16 years being away from the stand-up stage (or so I've read), she's just rusty.