Datasets:

ELVISIO

/

imdb_dataset_offical_triplet

like 0

i rented i am curious yellow from my video store because of all the controversy that surrounded it when it was first released in 1967. i also heard that at first it was seized by u. s. customs if it ever tried to enter this country and therefore being a fan of films considered controversial i really had to see this for myself. the plot is centered around a young swedish drama student named lena who wants to learn everything she can about life. in particular she wants to focus her attentions to making some sort of documentary on what the average swede thought about certain political issues such as the vietnam war and race issues in the united states. in between asking politicians and ordinary denizens of stockholm about their opinions on politics and she has sex with her drama teacher and classmates and and married men. what kills me about i am curious yellow is that 40 years ago and this was considered pornographic. really and the sex and nudity scenes are few and far between and even then it not shot like some cheaply made porno. while my countrymen mind find it shocking and in reality sex and nudity are a major staple in swedish cinema. even ingmar bergman and arguably their answer to good old boy john ford and had sex scenes in his films. i do commend the filmmakers for the fact that any sex shown in the film is shown for artistic purposes rather than just to shock people and make money to be shown in pornographic theaters in america. i am curious yellow is a good film for anyone wanting to study the meat and potatoes (no pun intended) of swedish cinema. but really and this film doesn not have much of a plot.

i rented i am curious yellow from my video store because of all the controversy that surrounded it when it was first released in 1967. i also heard that at first it was seized by u. s. customs if it ever tried to enter this country and therefore being a fan of films considered controversial i really had to see this for myself. the plot is centered around a young swedish drama student named lena who wants to learn everything she can about life. in particular she wants to focus her attentions to making some sort of documentary on what the average swede thought about certain political issues such as the vietnam war and race issues in the united states. in between asking politicians and ordinary denizens of stockholm about their opinions on politics and she has sex with her drama teacher and classmates and and married men. what kills me about i am curious yellow is that 40 years ago and this was considered pornographic. really and the sex and nudity scenes are few and far between and even then it not shot like some cheaply made porno. while my countrymen mind find it shocking and in reality sex and nudity are a major staple in swedish cinema. even ingmar bergman and arguably their answer to good old boy john ford and had sex scenes in his films. i do commend the filmmakers for the fact that any sex shown in the film is shown for artistic purposes rather than just to shock people and make money to be shown in pornographic theaters in america. i am curious yellow is a good film for anyone wanting to study the meat and potatoes (no pun intended) of swedish cinema. but really and this film doesn not have much of a plot.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i am curious represent yellow is a risible and pretentious steaming pile. it doesn not matter what one political views are because this film can hardly be taken seriously on any level. as for the claim that frontal male nudity is an automatic nc 17 and that isn not true. i have seen r rated films with male nudity. granted and they only offer some fleeting views and but where are the r rated films with gaping vulvas and flapping labia. nowhere and because they do not exist. the same goes for those crappy cable shows represent schlongs swinging in the breeze but not a clitoris in sight. and those pretentious indie movies like the brown bunny and in which were treated to the site of vincent gallo throbbing johnson and but not a trace of pink visible on chloe sevigny. before crying (or implying) double standard in matters of nudity and the mentally obtuse should take into account one unavoidably obvious anatomical difference between men and women represent there are no genitals on display when actresses appears nude and and the same cannot be said for a man. in fact and you generally would not see female genitals in an american film in anything short of porn or explicit erotica. this alleged double standard is less a double standard than an admittedly depressing ability to come to terms culturally with the insides of women bodies.

i am curious represent yellow is a risible and pretentious steaming pile. it doesn not matter what one political views are because this film can hardly be taken seriously on any level. as for the claim that frontal male nudity is an automatic nc 17 and that isn not true. i have seen r rated films with male nudity. granted and they only offer some fleeting views and but where are the r rated films with gaping vulvas and flapping labia. nowhere and because they do not exist. the same goes for those crappy cable shows represent schlongs swinging in the breeze but not a clitoris in sight. and those pretentious indie movies like the brown bunny and in which were treated to the site of vincent gallo throbbing johnson and but not a trace of pink visible on chloe sevigny. before crying (or implying) double standard in matters of nudity and the mentally obtuse should take into account one unavoidably obvious anatomical difference between men and women represent there are no genitals on display when actresses appears nude and and the same cannot be said for a man. in fact and you generally would not see female genitals in an american film in anything short of porn or explicit erotica. this alleged double standard is less a double standard than an admittedly depressing ability to come to terms culturally with the insides of women bodies.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

if only to avoid making this type of film in the future. this film is interesting as an experiment but tells no cogent story. one might feel virtuous for sitting thru it because it touches on so many important issues but it does so without any discernable motive. the viewer comes away with no new perspectives (unless one comes up with one while one mind wanders and as it will invariably do during this pointless film). one might better spend one time staring out a window at a tree growing.

if only to avoid making this type of film in the future. this film is interesting as an experiment but tells no cogent story. one might feel virtuous for sitting thru it because it touches on so many important issues but it does so without any discernable motive. the viewer comes away with no new perspectives (unless one comes up with one while one mind wanders and as it will invariably do during this pointless film). one might better spend one time staring out a window at a tree growing.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

this film was probably inspired by godard masculin and féminin and i urge you to see that film instead. the film has two strong elements and those are and (1) the realistic acting (2) the impressive and undeservedly good and photo. apart from that and what strikes me most is the endless stream of silliness. lena nyman has to be most annoying actress in the world. she acts so stupid and with all the nudity in this film and . it unattractive. comparing to godard film and intellectuality has been replaced with stupidity. without going too far on this subject and i would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the french and the swedish society. a movie of its time and and place. negative .

this film was probably inspired by godard masculin and féminin and i urge you to see that film instead. the film has two strong elements and those are and (1) the realistic acting (2) the impressive and undeservedly good and photo. apart from that and what strikes me most is the endless stream of silliness. lena nyman has to be most annoying actress in the world. she acts so stupid and with all the nudity in this film and . it unattractive. comparing to godard film and intellectuality has been replaced with stupidity. without going too far on this subject and i would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the french and the swedish society. a movie of its time and and place. negative .

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

oh and brother. after hearing about this ridiculous film for umpteen years all i can think of is that old peggy lee song. is that all there is. . i was just an early teen when this smoked fish hit the u. s. i was too young to get in the theater (although i did manage to sneak into goodbye columbus). then a screening at a local film museum beckoned finally i could see this film and except now i was as old as my parents were when they schlepped to see it. the only reason this film was not condemned to the anonymous sands of time was because of the obscenity case sparked by its u. s. release. millions of people flocked to this stinker and thinking they were going to see a sex film. instead and they got lots of closeups of gnarly and repulsive swedes and on street interviews in bland shopping malls and asinie political pretension. and feeble who cares simulated sex scenes with saggy and pale actors. cultural icon and holy grail and historic artifact. whatever this thing was and shred it and burn it and then stuff the ashes in a lead box. elite esthetes still scrape to find value in its boring pseudo revolutionary political spewings. but if it weren not for the censorship scandal and it would have been ignored and then forgotten. instead and the i am blank and blank rhythymed title was repeated endlessly for years as a titilation for porno films (i am curious and lavender for gay films and i am curious and black for blaxploitation films and etc. ) and every ten years or so the thing rises from the dead and to be viewed by a new generation of suckers who want to see that naughty sex film that revolutionized the film industry. yeesh and avoid like the plague. or if you must see it rent the video and fast forward to the dirty parts and just to get it over with.

oh and brother. after hearing about this ridiculous film for umpteen years all i can think of is that old peggy lee song. is that all there is. . i was just an early teen when this smoked fish hit the u. s. i was too young to get in the theater (although i did manage to sneak into goodbye columbus). then a screening at a local film museum beckoned finally i could see this film and except now i was as old as my parents were when they schlepped to see it. the only reason this film was not condemned to the anonymous sands of time was because of the obscenity case sparked by its u. s. release. millions of people flocked to this stinker and thinking they were going to see a sex film. instead and they got lots of closeups of gnarly and repulsive swedes and on street interviews in bland shopping malls and asinie political pretension. and feeble who cares simulated sex scenes with saggy and pale actors. cultural icon and holy grail and historic artifact. whatever this thing was and shred it and burn it and then stuff the ashes in a lead box. elite esthetes still scrape to find value in its boring pseudo revolutionary political spewings. but if it weren not for the censorship scandal and it would have been ignored and then forgotten. instead and the i am blank and blank rhythymed title was repeated endlessly for years as a titilation for porno films (i am curious and lavender for gay films and i am curious and black for blaxploitation films and etc. ) and every ten years or so the thing rises from the dead and to be viewed by a new generation of suckers who want to see that naughty sex film that revolutionized the film industry. yeesh and avoid like the plague. or if you must see it rent the video and fast forward to the dirty parts and just to get it over with.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i would put this at the top of my list of films in the category of unwatchable trash. there are films that are bad and but the worst kind are the ones that are unwatchable but you are suppose to like them because they are supposed to be good for you. the sex sequences and so shocking in its day and couldn not even arouse a rabbit. the so called controversial politics is strictly high school sophomore amateur night marxism. the film is self consciously arty in the worst sense of the term. the photography is in a harsh grainy black and white. some scenes are out of focus or taken from the wrong angle. even the sound is bad. and some people call this art.

i would put this at the top of my list of films in the category of unwatchable trash. there are films that are bad and but the worst kind are the ones that are unwatchable but you are suppose to like them because they are supposed to be good for you. the sex sequences and so shocking in its day and couldn not even arouse a rabbit. the so called controversial politics is strictly high school sophomore amateur night marxism. the film is self consciously arty in the worst sense of the term. the photography is in a harsh grainy black and white. some scenes are out of focus or taken from the wrong angle. even the sound is bad. and some people call this art.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

whoever wrote the screenplay for this movie obviously never consulted any books about lucille ball and especially her autobiography. i have never seen so many mistakes in a biopic and ranging from her early years in celoron and jamestown to her later years with desi. i could write a whole list of factual errors and but it would go on for pages. in all and i believe that lucille ball is one of those inimitable people who simply cannot be portrayed by anyone other than themselves. if i were lucie arnaz and desi and jr. and i would be irate at how many mistakes were made in this film. the filmmakers tried hard and but the movie seems awfully sloppy to me.

whoever wrote the screenplay for this movie obviously never consulted any books about lucille ball and especially her autobiography. i have never seen so many mistakes in a biopic and ranging from her early years in celoron and jamestown to her later years with desi. i could write a whole list of factual errors and but it would go on for pages. in all and i believe that lucille ball is one of those inimitable people who simply cannot be portrayed by anyone other than themselves. if i were lucie arnaz and desi and jr. and i would be irate at how many mistakes were made in this film. the filmmakers tried hard and but the movie seems awfully sloppy to me.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

when i first saw a glimpse of this movie and i quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of lucille ball. rachel york portrayal of lucy is absolutely awful. lucille ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. to think about a legend like lucille ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. i cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better lucy and the producers decided to get rachel york. she might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of lucille ball is tough. it is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble lucille ball and but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. if you noticed york portrayal of lucy in episodes of i love lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin and nothing is similar in any way her expression and voice and or movement. to top it all off and danny pino playing desi arnaz is horrible. pino does not qualify to play as ricky. he small and skinny and his accent is unreal and and once again and his acting is unbelievable. although fred and ethel were not similar either and they were not as bad as the characters of lucy and ricky. overall and extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. if people want to understand the real life situation of lucille ball and i suggest watching a and e biography of lucy and desi and read the book from lucille ball herself and or pbs american masters represent finding lucy. if you want to see a docudrama and before the laughter would be a better choice. the casting of lucille ball and desi arnaz in before the laughter is much better compared to this. at least and a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.

when i first saw a glimpse of this movie and i quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of lucille ball. rachel york portrayal of lucy is absolutely awful. lucille ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. to think about a legend like lucille ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. i cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better lucy and the producers decided to get rachel york. she might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of lucille ball is tough. it is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble lucille ball and but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. if you noticed york portrayal of lucy in episodes of i love lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin and nothing is similar in any way her expression and voice and or movement. to top it all off and danny pino playing desi arnaz is horrible. pino does not qualify to play as ricky. he small and skinny and his accent is unreal and and once again and his acting is unbelievable. although fred and ethel were not similar either and they were not as bad as the characters of lucy and ricky. overall and extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. if people want to understand the real life situation of lucille ball and i suggest watching a and e biography of lucy and desi and read the book from lucille ball herself and or pbs american masters represent finding lucy. if you want to see a docudrama and before the laughter would be a better choice. the casting of lucille ball and desi arnaz in before the laughter is much better compared to this. at least and a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

who are these they the actors. the filmmakers. certainly couldn not be the audience this is among the most air puffed productions in existence. it the kind of movie that looks like it was a lot of fun to shoot— too much fun and nobody is getting any actual work done and and that almost always makes for a movie that no fun to watch. ritter dons glasses so as to hammer home his character status as a sort of doppleganger of the bespectacled bogdanovich while the scenes with the breezy ms. stratten are sweet and but have an embarrassing and look guys i am dating the prom queen feel to them. ben gazzara sports his usual cat got canary grin in a futile attempt to elevate the meager plot and which requires him to pursue audrey hepburn with all the interest of a narcoleptic at an insomnia clinic. in the meantime and the budding couple respective children (nepotism alert represent bogdanovich daughters) spew cute and pick up some fairly disturbing pointers on love while observing their parents. (ms. hepburn and drawing on her dignity and manages to rise above the proceedings but she has the monumental challenge of playing herself and ostensibly. ) everybody looks great and but so what. it a movie and we can expect that much and if that what youre looking for you would be better off picking up a copy of vogue. oh and it has to be mentioned that colleen camp thoroughly annoys and even apart from her singing and which and while competent and is wholly unconvincing. the country and western numbers are woefully mismatched with the standards on the soundtrack. surely this is not what gershwin (who wrote the song from which the movie title is derived) had in mind while his stage musicals of the 20 may have been slight and but at least they were long on charm. they all laughed tries to coast on its good intentions and but nobody least of all peter bogdanovich has the good sense to put on the brakes. due in no small part to the tragic death of dorothy stratten and this movie has a special place in the heart of mr. bogdanovich he even bought it back from its producers and then distributed it on his own and went bankrupt when it do not prove popular. his rise and fall is among the more sympathetic and tragic of hollywood stories and so there no joy in criticizing the film. there _is_ real emotional investment in ms. stratten scenes. but laughed is a faint echo of the last picture show and paper moon or what up and doc following daisy miller and at long last love and it was a thundering confirmation of the phase from which p. b. has never emerged. all in all and though and the movie is harmless and only a waste of rental. i want to watch people having a good time and i will go to the park on a sunny day. for filmic expressions of joy and love and i will stick to ernest lubitsch and jaques demy.

who are these they the actors. the filmmakers. certainly couldn not be the audience this is among the most air puffed productions in existence. it the kind of movie that looks like it was a lot of fun to shoot— too much fun and nobody is getting any actual work done and and that almost always makes for a movie that no fun to watch. ritter dons glasses so as to hammer home his character status as a sort of doppleganger of the bespectacled bogdanovich while the scenes with the breezy ms. stratten are sweet and but have an embarrassing and look guys i am dating the prom queen feel to them. ben gazzara sports his usual cat got canary grin in a futile attempt to elevate the meager plot and which requires him to pursue audrey hepburn with all the interest of a narcoleptic at an insomnia clinic. in the meantime and the budding couple respective children (nepotism alert represent bogdanovich daughters) spew cute and pick up some fairly disturbing pointers on love while observing their parents. (ms. hepburn and drawing on her dignity and manages to rise above the proceedings but she has the monumental challenge of playing herself and ostensibly. ) everybody looks great and but so what. it a movie and we can expect that much and if that what youre looking for you would be better off picking up a copy of vogue. oh and it has to be mentioned that colleen camp thoroughly annoys and even apart from her singing and which and while competent and is wholly unconvincing. the country and western numbers are woefully mismatched with the standards on the soundtrack. surely this is not what gershwin (who wrote the song from which the movie title is derived) had in mind while his stage musicals of the 20 may have been slight and but at least they were long on charm. they all laughed tries to coast on its good intentions and but nobody least of all peter bogdanovich has the good sense to put on the brakes. due in no small part to the tragic death of dorothy stratten and this movie has a special place in the heart of mr. bogdanovich he even bought it back from its producers and then distributed it on his own and went bankrupt when it do not prove popular. his rise and fall is among the more sympathetic and tragic of hollywood stories and so there no joy in criticizing the film. there _is_ real emotional investment in ms. stratten scenes. but laughed is a faint echo of the last picture show and paper moon or what up and doc following daisy miller and at long last love and it was a thundering confirmation of the phase from which p. b. has never emerged. all in all and though and the movie is harmless and only a waste of rental. i want to watch people having a good time and i will go to the park on a sunny day. for filmic expressions of joy and love and i will stick to ernest lubitsch and jaques demy.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

this is said to be a personal film for peter bogdonavitch. he based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters and who are detectives. these detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective and doesn not it. this entire movie was written by peter and and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. youre supposed to write what you know and and he did that and indeed. and leaves the audience bored and confused and and jealous and for that matter. this is a curio for people who want to see dorothy stratten and who was murdered right after filming. but patti hanson and who would and in real life and marry keith richards and was also a model and like stratten and but is a lot better and has a more ample part. in fact and stratten part seemed forced while added. she doesn not have a lot to do with the story and which is pretty convoluted to begin with. all in all and every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with and unless youre millionaire from manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. for the rest of us and it an irritating snore fest. that what happens when youre out of touch. you entertain your few friends with inside jokes and and bore all the rest.

this is said to be a personal film for peter bogdonavitch. he based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters and who are detectives. these detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective and doesn not it. this entire movie was written by peter and and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. youre supposed to write what you know and and he did that and indeed. and leaves the audience bored and confused and and jealous and for that matter. this is a curio for people who want to see dorothy stratten and who was murdered right after filming. but patti hanson and who would and in real life and marry keith richards and was also a model and like stratten and but is a lot better and has a more ample part. in fact and stratten part seemed forced while added. she doesn not have a lot to do with the story and which is pretty convoluted to begin with. all in all and every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with and unless youre millionaire from manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. for the rest of us and it an irritating snore fest. that what happens when youre out of touch. you entertain your few friends with inside jokes and and bore all the rest.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

it was great to see some of my favorite stars of 30 years ago including john ritter and ben gazarra and audrey hepburn. they looked quite wonderful. but that was it. they were not given any characters or good lines to work with. i neither understood or cared what the characters were doing. some of the smaller female roles were fine and patty henson and colleen camp were quite competent and confident in their small sidekick parts. they showed some talent and it is sad they do not go on to star in more and better films. sadly and i do not think dorothy stratten got a chance to act in this her only important film role. the film appears to have some fans and and i was very open minded when i started watching it. i am a big peter bogdanovich fan and i enjoyed his last movie and cat meow and all his early ones from targets to nickleodeon. so and it really surprised me that i was barely able to keep awake watching this one. it is ironic that this movie is about a detective agency where the detectives and clients get romantically involved with each other. five years later and bogdanovich ex girlfriend and cybil shepherd had a hit television series called moonlighting stealing the story idea from bogdanovich. of course and there was a great difference in that the series relied on tons of witty dialogue and while this tries to make do with slapstick and a few screwball lines. bottom line represent it ain not no paper moon and only a very pale version of what up and doc.

it was great to see some of my favorite stars of 30 years ago including john ritter and ben gazarra and audrey hepburn. they looked quite wonderful. but that was it. they were not given any characters or good lines to work with. i neither understood or cared what the characters were doing. some of the smaller female roles were fine and patty henson and colleen camp were quite competent and confident in their small sidekick parts. they showed some talent and it is sad they do not go on to star in more and better films. sadly and i do not think dorothy stratten got a chance to act in this her only important film role. the film appears to have some fans and and i was very open minded when i started watching it. i am a big peter bogdanovich fan and i enjoyed his last movie and cat meow and all his early ones from targets to nickleodeon. so and it really surprised me that i was barely able to keep awake watching this one. it is ironic that this movie is about a detective agency where the detectives and clients get romantically involved with each other. five years later and bogdanovich ex girlfriend and cybil shepherd had a hit television series called moonlighting stealing the story idea from bogdanovich. of course and there was a great difference in that the series relied on tons of witty dialogue and while this tries to make do with slapstick and a few screwball lines. bottom line represent it ain not no paper moon and only a very pale version of what up and doc.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i can not believe that those praising this movie herein aren not thinking of some other film. i was prepared for the possibility that this would be awful and but the script (or lack thereof) makes for a film that also pointless. on the plus side and the general level of craft on the part of the actors and technical crew is quite competent and but when you have got a sow ear to work with you can not make a silk purse. ben g fans should stick with just about any other movie he been in. dorothy s fans should stick to galaxina. peter b fans should stick to last picture show and target. fans of cheap laughs at the expense of those who seem to be asking for it should stick to peter b amazingly awful book and killing of the unicorn.

i can not believe that those praising this movie herein aren not thinking of some other film. i was prepared for the possibility that this would be awful and but the script (or lack thereof) makes for a film that also pointless. on the plus side and the general level of craft on the part of the actors and technical crew is quite competent and but when you have got a sow ear to work with you can not make a silk purse. ben g fans should stick with just about any other movie he been in. dorothy s fans should stick to galaxina. peter b fans should stick to last picture show and target. fans of cheap laughs at the expense of those who seem to be asking for it should stick to peter b amazingly awful book and killing of the unicorn.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

never cast models and playboy bunnies in your films. bob fosse star 80 about dorothy stratten and of whom bogdanovich was obsessed enough to have married her sister after her murder at the hands of her low life husband and is a zillion times more interesting than dorothy herself on the silver screen. patty hansen is no actress either. i expected to see some sort of lost masterpiece a la orson welles but instead got audrey hepburn cavorting in jeans and a god awful poodlesque hair do. very disappointing. paper moon and the last picture show i could watch again and again. this clunker i could barely sit through once. this movie was reputedly not released because of the brouhaha surrounding ms. stratten tawdry death while i think the real reason was because it was so bad.

never cast models and playboy bunnies in your films. bob fosse star 80 about dorothy stratten and of whom bogdanovich was obsessed enough to have married her sister after her murder at the hands of her low life husband and is a zillion times more interesting than dorothy herself on the silver screen. patty hansen is no actress either. i expected to see some sort of lost masterpiece a la orson welles but instead got audrey hepburn cavorting in jeans and a god awful poodlesque hair do. very disappointing. paper moon and the last picture show i could watch again and again. this clunker i could barely sit through once. this movie was reputedly not released because of the brouhaha surrounding ms. stratten tawdry death while i think the real reason was because it was so bad.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

its not the cast. a finer group of actors and you could not find. its not the setting. the director is in love with new york city and and by the end of the film and so are we all. woody allen could not improve upon what bogdonovich has done here. if you are going to fall in love and or find love and manhattan is the place to go. no and the problem with the movie is the script. there is none. the actors fall in love at first sight and words are unnecessary. in the director own experience in hollywood that is what happens when they go to work on the set. it is reality to him and and his peers and but it is a fantasy to most of us in the real world. so and in the end and the movie is hollow and and shallow and and message less.

its not the cast. a finer group of actors and you could not find. its not the setting. the director is in love with new york city and and by the end of the film and so are we all. woody allen could not improve upon what bogdonovich has done here. if you are going to fall in love and or find love and manhattan is the place to go. no and the problem with the movie is the script. there is none. the actors fall in love at first sight and words are unnecessary. in the director own experience in hollywood that is what happens when they go to work on the set. it is reality to him and and his peers and but it is a fantasy to most of us in the real world. so and in the end and the movie is hollow and and shallow and and message less.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

today i found they all laughed on vhs on sale in a rental. it was a really old and very used vhs and i had no information about this movie and but i liked the references listed on its cover represent the names of peter bogdanovich and audrey hepburn and john ritter and specially dorothy stratten attracted me and the price was very low and i decided to risk and buy it. i searched imdb and and the user rating of 6. 0 was an excellent reference. i looked in mick martin and marsha porter video and dvd guide 2003 and wow four stars. so and i decided that i could not waste more time and immediately see it. indeed and i have just finished watching they all laughed and i found it a very boring overrated movie. the characters are badly developed and and i spent lots of minutes to understand their roles in the story. the plot is supposed to be funny (private eyes who fall in love for the women they are chasing) and but i have not laughed along the whole story. the coincidences and in a huge city like new york and are ridiculous. ben gazarra as an attractive and very seductive man and with the women falling for him as if her were a brad pitt and antonio banderas or george clooney and is quite ridiculous. in the end and the greater attractions certainly are the presence of the playboy centerfold and playmate of the year dorothy stratten and murdered by her husband pretty after the release of this movie and and whose life was showed in star 80 and death of a centerfold represent the dorothy stratten story while the amazing beauty of the sexy patti hansen and the future mrs. keith richards while the always wonderful and even being fifty two years old and audrey hepburn while and the song amigo and from roberto carlos. although i do not like him and roberto carlos has been the most popular brazilian singer since the end of the 60 and is called by his fans as the king. i will keep this movie in my collection only because of these attractions (manly dorothy stratten). my vote is four. title (brazil) represent muito riso e muita alegria (many laughs and lots of happiness).

today i found they all laughed on vhs on sale in a rental. it was a really old and very used vhs and i had no information about this movie and but i liked the references listed on its cover represent the names of peter bogdanovich and audrey hepburn and john ritter and specially dorothy stratten attracted me and the price was very low and i decided to risk and buy it. i searched imdb and and the user rating of 6. 0 was an excellent reference. i looked in mick martin and marsha porter video and dvd guide 2003 and wow four stars. so and i decided that i could not waste more time and immediately see it. indeed and i have just finished watching they all laughed and i found it a very boring overrated movie. the characters are badly developed and and i spent lots of minutes to understand their roles in the story. the plot is supposed to be funny (private eyes who fall in love for the women they are chasing) and but i have not laughed along the whole story. the coincidences and in a huge city like new york and are ridiculous. ben gazarra as an attractive and very seductive man and with the women falling for him as if her were a brad pitt and antonio banderas or george clooney and is quite ridiculous. in the end and the greater attractions certainly are the presence of the playboy centerfold and playmate of the year dorothy stratten and murdered by her husband pretty after the release of this movie and and whose life was showed in star 80 and death of a centerfold represent the dorothy stratten story while the amazing beauty of the sexy patti hansen and the future mrs. keith richards while the always wonderful and even being fifty two years old and audrey hepburn while and the song amigo and from roberto carlos. although i do not like him and roberto carlos has been the most popular brazilian singer since the end of the 60 and is called by his fans as the king. i will keep this movie in my collection only because of these attractions (manly dorothy stratten). my vote is four. title (brazil) represent muito riso e muita alegria (many laughs and lots of happiness).

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

this film is just plain horrible. john ritter doing pratt falls and 75% of the actors delivering their lines as if they were reading them from cue cards and poor editing and horrible sound mixing (dialogue is tough to pick up in places over the background noise) and and a plot that really goes nowhere. i do not think i would ever say this and but dorothy stratten is not the worst actress in this film. there are at least 3 others that suck more. patti hansen delivers her lines with the passion of ben stein. i started to wonder if she wasn not dead inside. even bogdanovich kids are awful (the oldest one is definitely reading her lines from a cue card). this movie is seriously horrible. there a reason bogdanovich couldn not get another project until 4 years later. please do not watch it. if you see it in your television listings and cancel your cable. if a friend suggests it to you and reconsider your friendship. if your spouse wants to watch it and youre better off finding another soulmate. i would rather gouge my eyes out with lawn darts than sit through this piece of garbage again. if i could sum this film up in one word and that word would be represent suckotrocity.

this film is just plain horrible. john ritter doing pratt falls and 75% of the actors delivering their lines as if they were reading them from cue cards and poor editing and horrible sound mixing (dialogue is tough to pick up in places over the background noise) and and a plot that really goes nowhere. i do not think i would ever say this and but dorothy stratten is not the worst actress in this film. there are at least 3 others that suck more. patti hansen delivers her lines with the passion of ben stein. i started to wonder if she wasn not dead inside. even bogdanovich kids are awful (the oldest one is definitely reading her lines from a cue card). this movie is seriously horrible. there a reason bogdanovich couldn not get another project until 4 years later. please do not watch it. if you see it in your television listings and cancel your cable. if a friend suggests it to you and reconsider your friendship. if your spouse wants to watch it and youre better off finding another soulmate. i would rather gouge my eyes out with lawn darts than sit through this piece of garbage again. if i could sum this film up in one word and that word would be represent suckotrocity.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

my interest in dorothy stratten caused me to purchase this video. although it had great actors or actresses and there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest. plus it just wasn not that interesting. dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable. i was pretty disappointed in what i believe was one of audrey hepburn last movies. i will always love john ritter best in slapstick. he was just too pathetic here.

my interest in dorothy stratten caused me to purchase this video. although it had great actors or actresses and there were just too many subplots going on to retain interest. plus it just wasn not that interesting. dialogue was stiff and confusing and the story just flipped around too much to be believable. i was pretty disappointed in what i believe was one of audrey hepburn last movies. i will always love john ritter best in slapstick. he was just too pathetic here.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i have this film out of the library right now and i haven not finished watching it. it is so bad i am in disbelief. audrey hepburn had totally lost her talent by then and although she would pretty much finished with it in robin and marian. this is the worst thing about this appallingly stupid film. it really only of interest because it was her last feature film and because of the dorothy stratten appearance just prior to her homicide. there is nothing but idiocy between gazzara and his cronies. little signals and little bows and nods to real screwball comedy of which this is the faintest and palest shadow. who could believe that there are even some of the same manhattan environs that hepburn inhabited so magically and even mythically in breakfast at tiffany twenty years earlier. the soundtrack of old sinatra songs and the gershwin song from which the title is taken is too loud and obvious you sure do not have to wait for the credits to find out that something was subtly woven into the cine musique of the picture to know when the songs blasted out at you. reverting to type means going back up as well as going back down and i guess. in this case and audrey hepburn chic european lady is all you see of someone who was formerly occasionally an actress and always a star. here she has even lost her talent as a star. if someone whose talent was continuing to grow in the period and like ann margret and had played the role and there would have been some life in it and even given the unbelievably bad material and mongoloid level situations. hepburn was a great person and of course and greater than most movie stars ever dreamed of being and and she was once one of the most charming and beautiful of film actors. after this dreadful performance and she went on to make an atrocious tv movie with robert wagner called love among thieves. in they all laughed it is as though she were still playing an ingenue in her 50 . even much vainer and obviously less intelligent actresses who insisted upon doing this like lana turner were infinitely more effective than is hepburn. turner took acting seriously even when she was bad. hepburn doesn not take it seriously at all and couldn not be bothered with it while even her hair and clothes look tacky. her last really good work was in two for the road and perhaps her most perfect and if possibly not her best in many ways. and that girl who plays the country singer is just sickening. john ritter is horrible and there is simply nothing to recommend this film except to see dorothy stratten and who was truly pretty. otherwise and critic david thomson oft used phrase losing his or her talent never has made more sense. ben gazarra had lost all sex appeal by then and and so we have 2 films with gazarra and hepburn who could ask for anything less. sandra dee last and pitiful film lost and from 2 years later and a low budget nothing and had more to it than this. at least ms. dee spoke in her own voice while by 1981 and audrey hepburn accent just sounded silly while she would go on to do the pbs gardens of the world with audrey hepburn and there her somewhat irritating accent works as she walks through english gardens with aristocrats or waxes effusively about what i like most is when flowers go back to nature. as in naturalized daffodils and but in an actual fictional movie and she just sounds ridiculous. to think that breakfast at tiffany was such a profound sort of light poetic thing with audrey hepburn one of the most beautiful women in the world she was surely one of the most beautiful screen presences in my fair lady and matching garbo in several things and delphine seyrig in last year at marienbad. and then this. and her final brief role as the angel hap in the spielberg film always was just more of the lady stuff corny and witless and stifling. i went to her memorial service at the fifth avenue presbyterian church and a beautiful service which included a boys choir singing the shaker hymn simple gifts. the only thing not listed in the program was the sudden playing of hepburn singing moon river on the fire escape in breakfast at tiffany and and this brought much emotion and some real tears out in the congregation. a great lady who was once a fine actress (as in the nun story) and one of the greatest and most beautiful of film stars in many movies of the 50 and 60 who became a truly bad one that not all that common. and perhaps it is only a great human being who and in making such things as film performances trivial and nevertheless has the largeness of mind to want to have the flaws pointed out mercilessly which all of her late film work contained in abundance. most of the talk about hepburn miscasting is about my fair lady. but the one that should have had the original actress in it was wait until dark and which had starred lee remick on broadway. never as celebrated as hepburn and she was a better actress in many ways (hepburn was completely incapable of playing anything really sordid) and although hepburn was at least adequate enough in that part. after that and all of her acting went downhill.

i have this film out of the library right now and i haven not finished watching it. it is so bad i am in disbelief. audrey hepburn had totally lost her talent by then and although she would pretty much finished with it in robin and marian. this is the worst thing about this appallingly stupid film. it really only of interest because it was her last feature film and because of the dorothy stratten appearance just prior to her homicide. there is nothing but idiocy between gazzara and his cronies. little signals and little bows and nods to real screwball comedy of which this is the faintest and palest shadow. who could believe that there are even some of the same manhattan environs that hepburn inhabited so magically and even mythically in breakfast at tiffany twenty years earlier. the soundtrack of old sinatra songs and the gershwin song from which the title is taken is too loud and obvious you sure do not have to wait for the credits to find out that something was subtly woven into the cine musique of the picture to know when the songs blasted out at you. reverting to type means going back up as well as going back down and i guess. in this case and audrey hepburn chic european lady is all you see of someone who was formerly occasionally an actress and always a star. here she has even lost her talent as a star. if someone whose talent was continuing to grow in the period and like ann margret and had played the role and there would have been some life in it and even given the unbelievably bad material and mongoloid level situations. hepburn was a great person and of course and greater than most movie stars ever dreamed of being and and she was once one of the most charming and beautiful of film actors. after this dreadful performance and she went on to make an atrocious tv movie with robert wagner called love among thieves. in they all laughed it is as though she were still playing an ingenue in her 50 . even much vainer and obviously less intelligent actresses who insisted upon doing this like lana turner were infinitely more effective than is hepburn. turner took acting seriously even when she was bad. hepburn doesn not take it seriously at all and couldn not be bothered with it while even her hair and clothes look tacky. her last really good work was in two for the road and perhaps her most perfect and if possibly not her best in many ways. and that girl who plays the country singer is just sickening. john ritter is horrible and there is simply nothing to recommend this film except to see dorothy stratten and who was truly pretty. otherwise and critic david thomson oft used phrase losing his or her talent never has made more sense. ben gazarra had lost all sex appeal by then and and so we have 2 films with gazarra and hepburn who could ask for anything less. sandra dee last and pitiful film lost and from 2 years later and a low budget nothing and had more to it than this. at least ms. dee spoke in her own voice while by 1981 and audrey hepburn accent just sounded silly while she would go on to do the pbs gardens of the world with audrey hepburn and there her somewhat irritating accent works as she walks through english gardens with aristocrats or waxes effusively about what i like most is when flowers go back to nature. as in naturalized daffodils and but in an actual fictional movie and she just sounds ridiculous. to think that breakfast at tiffany was such a profound sort of light poetic thing with audrey hepburn one of the most beautiful women in the world she was surely one of the most beautiful screen presences in my fair lady and matching garbo in several things and delphine seyrig in last year at marienbad. and then this. and her final brief role as the angel hap in the spielberg film always was just more of the lady stuff corny and witless and stifling. i went to her memorial service at the fifth avenue presbyterian church and a beautiful service which included a boys choir singing the shaker hymn simple gifts. the only thing not listed in the program was the sudden playing of hepburn singing moon river on the fire escape in breakfast at tiffany and and this brought much emotion and some real tears out in the congregation. a great lady who was once a fine actress (as in the nun story) and one of the greatest and most beautiful of film stars in many movies of the 50 and 60 who became a truly bad one that not all that common. and perhaps it is only a great human being who and in making such things as film performances trivial and nevertheless has the largeness of mind to want to have the flaws pointed out mercilessly which all of her late film work contained in abundance. most of the talk about hepburn miscasting is about my fair lady. but the one that should have had the original actress in it was wait until dark and which had starred lee remick on broadway. never as celebrated as hepburn and she was a better actress in many ways (hepburn was completely incapable of playing anything really sordid) and although hepburn was at least adequate enough in that part. after that and all of her acting went downhill.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i think i will make a movie next weekend. oh wait and i am working. oh i am sure i can fit it in. it looks like whoever made this film fit it in. i hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked. it looks like someones home movie and i do not think more than $100 was spent making it. total crap. who let this stuff be released.

i think i will make a movie next weekend. oh wait and i am working. oh i am sure i can fit it in. it looks like whoever made this film fit it in. i hope the makers of this crap have day jobs because this film sucked. it looks like someones home movie and i do not think more than $100 was spent making it. total crap. who let this stuff be released.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

pros represent nothingcons represent everythingplot summary represent a female reporter runs into a hitchhiker that tells her stories about the deaths of people that were killed by zombies. review represent never in my life have i come across a movie as bad the zombie chronicles. filmed on a budget of what looks to be about 20 bucks and tzc is a completely horrible horror movie that relies on lame and forgetable actors whom couldn not act to save their lives and gore that more gross than frightening. how does a movie like this even get made. simply put and avoid tzc like a sexually transmitted disease. my last 2 cents represent humorously enough and this movie was made by a movie company called brain damage films. theyre brains must have really been damaged to come up with a craptacular movie like this. my rating represent negative (if it were up to me and this movie would get the rating of negative bajillion).

pros represent nothingcons represent everythingplot summary represent a female reporter runs into a hitchhiker that tells her stories about the deaths of people that were killed by zombies. review represent never in my life have i come across a movie as bad the zombie chronicles. filmed on a budget of what looks to be about 20 bucks and tzc is a completely horrible horror movie that relies on lame and forgetable actors whom couldn not act to save their lives and gore that more gross than frightening. how does a movie like this even get made. simply put and avoid tzc like a sexually transmitted disease. my last 2 cents represent humorously enough and this movie was made by a movie company called brain damage films. theyre brains must have really been damaged to come up with a craptacular movie like this. my rating represent negative (if it were up to me and this movie would get the rating of negative bajillion).

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

if the crew behind zombie chronicles ever read this and here some advice guys represent 1. in a twist ending type movie and it not a good idea to insert close ups of every death in the movie in the opening credits. that tends to spoil the twists and yknow. 2. i know you produced this on a shoestring and to be fair you worked miracles with your budget but please and hire people who can actually act. or at least and walk and talk and gesture at the same time. joe haggerty and i am looking at you. 3. if youre going to set a part of your movie in the past and only do this if you have the props and costumes of the time. 4. twist endings are supposed to be a surprise. sure and we do not want twists that make no sense and but signposting the reveal as soon as you introduce a character. that not a great idea. kudos to the guys for trying and but in all honesty and i would rather they hadn not. only for zombie completists.

if the crew behind zombie chronicles ever read this and here some advice guys represent 1. in a twist ending type movie and it not a good idea to insert close ups of every death in the movie in the opening credits. that tends to spoil the twists and yknow. 2. i know you produced this on a shoestring and to be fair you worked miracles with your budget but please and hire people who can actually act. or at least and walk and talk and gesture at the same time. joe haggerty and i am looking at you. 3. if youre going to set a part of your movie in the past and only do this if you have the props and costumes of the time. 4. twist endings are supposed to be a surprise. sure and we do not want twists that make no sense and but signposting the reveal as soon as you introduce a character. that not a great idea. kudos to the guys for trying and but in all honesty and i would rather they hadn not. only for zombie completists.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

1st watched 8/3/2003 negative (dir brad sykes) represent mindless 3 d movie about flesh eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. and yes and we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3d. wow and not. that has been done time and time again in 2d in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh eating. that what made the original zombie classics good. the flesh eating was just thrown in as an extra. were actually bored throughout most of this 3 part chronicle because of the lame(twilight zone like) easily understood and slow pacingly revealed finale . the last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie in that one as well. well and i think i have said enough. watch the classics and not this 3d bore feast.

1st watched 8/3/2003 negative (dir brad sykes) represent mindless 3 d movie about flesh eating zombies in a 3 story within a movie chronicle. and yes and we get to see zombies eating human flesh parts in 3d. wow and not. that has been done time and time again in 2d in a zombie movie but what usually makes a zombie movie better is the underlying story not the actual flesh eating. that what made the original zombie classics good. the flesh eating was just thrown in as an extra. were actually bored throughout most of this 3 part chronicle because of the lame(twilight zone like) easily understood and slow pacingly revealed finale . the last story is actually the story the movie started with(having a reporter investigating a so called ghost town) and of course we get to see flesh eating zombie in that one as well. well and i think i have said enough. watch the classics and not this 3d bore feast.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

there tons of good looking women in this flick. but alas and this movie is nudity free. grrrrrrrrrr strike one. ahem. one story in this film takes place in 1971. then why the hell are the main characters driving a kia sportage. hello. continuity and anyone. as you might know and this movie was released in stereoscopic 3d. and it is the most hideous effect i have ever seen. i am not sure if someone botched the job on this and but there was no 3d and just double vision blurs. i do not have the same problem with this company other 3d movies and hunting season and camp blood. sure and the 3d in those ones sucked too and but with them i could see a semblance of 3d effect. this thing is a big ball of nothing. and whoever that women was who played the daughter of the ear eating dame and yum. i would like to see more of her. in movies and as well. looks like janet margolin at a young age. purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

there tons of good looking women in this flick. but alas and this movie is nudity free. grrrrrrrrrr strike one. ahem. one story in this film takes place in 1971. then why the hell are the main characters driving a kia sportage. hello. continuity and anyone. as you might know and this movie was released in stereoscopic 3d. and it is the most hideous effect i have ever seen. i am not sure if someone botched the job on this and but there was no 3d and just double vision blurs. i do not have the same problem with this company other 3d movies and hunting season and camp blood. sure and the 3d in those ones sucked too and but with them i could see a semblance of 3d effect. this thing is a big ball of nothing. and whoever that women was who played the daughter of the ear eating dame and yum. i would like to see more of her. in movies and as well. looks like janet margolin at a young age. purrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

en route to a small town that lays way off the beaten track (but which looks suspiciously close to a freeway) and a female reporter runs into a strange hitch hiker who agrees to help direct her to her destination. the strange man then recounts a pair of gruesome tales connected to the area represent in the first story and an adulterous couple plot to kill the woman husband and but eventually suffer a far worse fate themselves when they are attacked by a zombie while and in the second story and a group of campers have their vacation cut short when an undead outlaw takes umbrage at having his grave peed on. the zombie chronicles is an attempt by writer garrett clancy and director brad sykes at making a zombie themed anthology—a nice idea and but with only two stories and it falls woefully short. and that not the only way in which this low budget gore flick fails to deliver represent the acting is lousy (with joe haggerty and as the tale telling ebenezer jackson and giving one of the strangest performances i have ever seen) while the locations are uninspired while the script is dreary while there a sex scene with zero nudity while and the ending. well and that beggars belief. to be fair and some of sykes creative camera work is effective (although the gimmicky technique employed as characters run through the woods is a tad overused) and joe castro cheapo gore is enthusiastic represent an ear is bitten off and eyeballs are plucked out and a face is removed and brains are squished and and there is a messy decapitation. these positives just about make the film bearable and but be warned and the zombie chronicles ain not a stroll in the park and even for seasoned viewers of z grade trash. i give the zombie chronicles negative and but generously raise my rating to 3 since i do not get to view the film with the benefit of 3d (although i have a sneaking suspicion that an extra dimension do not have made that much of a difference).

en route to a small town that lays way off the beaten track (but which looks suspiciously close to a freeway) and a female reporter runs into a strange hitch hiker who agrees to help direct her to her destination. the strange man then recounts a pair of gruesome tales connected to the area represent in the first story and an adulterous couple plot to kill the woman husband and but eventually suffer a far worse fate themselves when they are attacked by a zombie while and in the second story and a group of campers have their vacation cut short when an undead outlaw takes umbrage at having his grave peed on. the zombie chronicles is an attempt by writer garrett clancy and director brad sykes at making a zombie themed anthology—a nice idea and but with only two stories and it falls woefully short. and that not the only way in which this low budget gore flick fails to deliver represent the acting is lousy (with joe haggerty and as the tale telling ebenezer jackson and giving one of the strangest performances i have ever seen) while the locations are uninspired while the script is dreary while there a sex scene with zero nudity while and the ending. well and that beggars belief. to be fair and some of sykes creative camera work is effective (although the gimmicky technique employed as characters run through the woods is a tad overused) and joe castro cheapo gore is enthusiastic represent an ear is bitten off and eyeballs are plucked out and a face is removed and brains are squished and and there is a messy decapitation. these positives just about make the film bearable and but be warned and the zombie chronicles ain not a stroll in the park and even for seasoned viewers of z grade trash. i give the zombie chronicles negative and but generously raise my rating to 3 since i do not get to view the film with the benefit of 3d (although i have a sneaking suspicion that an extra dimension do not have made that much of a difference).

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

without wishing to be a killjoy and brad sykes is responsible for at least two of the most dull and clichéd films i have ever seen this being one of them and and camp blood being another. the acting is terrible and the print is shoddy and and everything about this film screams seriously and you could do better yourself. maybe this is a challenge to everyone to saturate youtube with our own zombie related crap. i bought this for £1 and but remember and you can not put a price on 71 minutes of your life. you would do well to avoid this turkey and even at a bargain basement price.

without wishing to be a killjoy and brad sykes is responsible for at least two of the most dull and clichéd films i have ever seen this being one of them and and camp blood being another. the acting is terrible and the print is shoddy and and everything about this film screams seriously and you could do better yourself. maybe this is a challenge to everyone to saturate youtube with our own zombie related crap. i bought this for £1 and but remember and you can not put a price on 71 minutes of your life. you would do well to avoid this turkey and even at a bargain basement price.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

my girlfriend once brought around the zombie chronicles for us to watch as a joke. little did we realize the joke was on her for paying £1 for it. while watching this film i started to come up with things i would rather be doing than watching the zombie chronicles. these included represent1) drinking bleach 2) rubbing sand in my eyes 3) writing a letter to brad sykes and garrett clancy 4) re enacting the american civil war 5) tax returns 6) gcse maths 7) sex with an old lady. garrett clancy and aka sgt. ben draper wrote this. the guy couldn not even dig a hole properly. the best ting he did was kick a door down (the best part of the film). this was the worst film i have ever seen and and i have seen white noise represent the light. never has a film had so many mistakes in it. my girlfriend left it here and so now i live with the shame of owning this piece of crap. news just in represent owen wilson watched this film and tried to kill himself. fact. do not watch.

my girlfriend once brought around the zombie chronicles for us to watch as a joke. little did we realize the joke was on her for paying £1 for it. while watching this film i started to come up with things i would rather be doing than watching the zombie chronicles. these included represent1) drinking bleach 2) rubbing sand in my eyes 3) writing a letter to brad sykes and garrett clancy 4) re enacting the american civil war 5) tax returns 6) gcse maths 7) sex with an old lady. garrett clancy and aka sgt. ben draper wrote this. the guy couldn not even dig a hole properly. the best ting he did was kick a door down (the best part of the film). this was the worst film i have ever seen and and i have seen white noise represent the light. never has a film had so many mistakes in it. my girlfriend left it here and so now i live with the shame of owning this piece of crap. news just in represent owen wilson watched this film and tried to kill himself. fact. do not watch.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

amateur and no budget films can be surprisingly good . this however is not one of them. ah and another brad sykes atrocity. the acting is hideous and except for emmy smith who shows some promise. the camera direction needs serious reworking. and no more hold the camera and run gimmicks either while it just doesn not work. the special effects are unimaginative and there a problem when the effect can be identified in real time. if youre going to rip off an ear and please do not let us see the actor real ear beneath the blood. the scenery is bland and boring (same as mr. sykes other ventures) and and the music is a cross between cheap motel porn and really bad guitar driven metal (see the scenery comment). did i mention the lack of any real plot and or character development. apparently and the scriptwriter do not. whoever is funding this guy . please stop. i have seen some of his other home movies (which i will not plug) and they are just as bad. normally and a director will grow and learn from his previous efforts . not this guy. it one thing to be an amateur filmmaker and but anyone can be a hack. definitely not even a popcorn film . of course and chewing on popcorn kernels would be less painful than this effort. award represent the worst ever military push ups in a film.

amateur and no budget films can be surprisingly good . this however is not one of them. ah and another brad sykes atrocity. the acting is hideous and except for emmy smith who shows some promise. the camera direction needs serious reworking. and no more hold the camera and run gimmicks either while it just doesn not work. the special effects are unimaginative and there a problem when the effect can be identified in real time. if youre going to rip off an ear and please do not let us see the actor real ear beneath the blood. the scenery is bland and boring (same as mr. sykes other ventures) and and the music is a cross between cheap motel porn and really bad guitar driven metal (see the scenery comment). did i mention the lack of any real plot and or character development. apparently and the scriptwriter do not. whoever is funding this guy . please stop. i have seen some of his other home movies (which i will not plug) and they are just as bad. normally and a director will grow and learn from his previous efforts . not this guy. it one thing to be an amateur filmmaker and but anyone can be a hack. definitely not even a popcorn film . of course and chewing on popcorn kernels would be less painful than this effort. award represent the worst ever military push ups in a film.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

ok its not the best film i have ever seen but at the same time i have been able to sit and watch it twice. story line was pretty awful and during the first part of the first short story i wondered what the hell i was watching but at the same time it was so awful i loved it cheap laughs all the way. and jebidia deserves an oscar for his role in this movie the only thing that let him down was half way through he stopped his silly name calling. overall the film was pretty perfetic but if your after cheap laughs and you see it in pound land go by it.

ok its not the best film i have ever seen but at the same time i have been able to sit and watch it twice. story line was pretty awful and during the first part of the first short story i wondered what the hell i was watching but at the same time it was so awful i loved it cheap laughs all the way. and jebidia deserves an oscar for his role in this movie the only thing that let him down was half way through he stopped his silly name calling. overall the film was pretty perfetic but if your after cheap laughs and you see it in pound land go by it.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

some films that you pick up for a pound turn out to be rather good 23rd century films released dozens of obscure italian and american movie that were great and but although hardgore released some fulci films amongst others and the bulk of their output is crap like the zombie chronicles. the only positive thing i can say about this film is that it nowhere near as annoying as the stink of flesh. other than that and its a very clumsy anthology film with the technical competence of a lego house built by a whelk. it been noted elsewhere and but you really do have to worry about a film that inserts previews of the action into its credit sequence and so by the time it gets to the zombie attacks and you have seen it all already. bad movie fans will have a ball watching the 18 and 000 continuity mistakes and the diabolical acting of the cast (especially the hitchhiker and who was so bad he did make me laugh a bit) and and kudos to hardgore for getting in to the spirit of things by releasing a print so bad it felt like i was watching some beat up home video of a camping trip. awful and awful stuff. we have all made stuff like this when we have gotten a hold of a camera and but common sense prevails and these films languish in our cupboards somewhere. avoid.

some films that you pick up for a pound turn out to be rather good 23rd century films released dozens of obscure italian and american movie that were great and but although hardgore released some fulci films amongst others and the bulk of their output is crap like the zombie chronicles. the only positive thing i can say about this film is that it nowhere near as annoying as the stink of flesh. other than that and its a very clumsy anthology film with the technical competence of a lego house built by a whelk. it been noted elsewhere and but you really do have to worry about a film that inserts previews of the action into its credit sequence and so by the time it gets to the zombie attacks and you have seen it all already. bad movie fans will have a ball watching the 18 and 000 continuity mistakes and the diabolical acting of the cast (especially the hitchhiker and who was so bad he did make me laugh a bit) and and kudos to hardgore for getting in to the spirit of things by releasing a print so bad it felt like i was watching some beat up home video of a camping trip. awful and awful stuff. we have all made stuff like this when we have gotten a hold of a camera and but common sense prevails and these films languish in our cupboards somewhere. avoid.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i received this movie as a gift and i knew from the dvd cover and this movie are going to be bad. after not watching it for more than a year i finally watched it. what a pathetic movie…. i almost do not finish watching this bad movie and but it will be unfair of me to write a review without watching the complete movie. trust me when i say this movie sucks i am truly shocked that some bad filmmaker wane bee got even financed to make this pathetic movie and but it couldn not have cost more than $20 000 to produce this movie. all you need are a cheap camcorder or a cell phone camera . about 15 people with no acting skills and a scrip that were written by a couple of drunk people. in the fist part of this ultra bad move a reporter (tara woodley )run a suppose to be drunk man over on her way to report on a hunted town. he are completely unharmed. they went to a supposed to be abandon house and but luckily for the it almost complete furnished and a bottle of liquor on the door step happens to be there. just for the supposed to be drunk man but all is not what it seems. then the supposed drunk man start telling tara ghost or zombies stories. the fist of his stupid lame stories must be the worst in history. his storysgt. ben draper let one of his soldiers die of complete exhaustion (i think this is what happens)after letting the poor soldier private wilson do sit ups he let him dig a grave and then the soldier collapse and ben draperburies him in a shallow grave. but sgt. ben draper are in for n big surprise. his wife or girl fiend knows about this and she and her lover kills sgt. ben draper to take revenge on private wilson. (next to the grave of the soldier he sort off murdered) the soldier wakes up from his grave in the form of zombie and kill them for taking revenge on his behalf. the twist ending were so lame. even if you like b horror movies and do not watch this movie.

i received this movie as a gift and i knew from the dvd cover and this movie are going to be bad. after not watching it for more than a year i finally watched it. what a pathetic movie…. i almost do not finish watching this bad movie and but it will be unfair of me to write a review without watching the complete movie. trust me when i say this movie sucks i am truly shocked that some bad filmmaker wane bee got even financed to make this pathetic movie and but it couldn not have cost more than $20 000 to produce this movie. all you need are a cheap camcorder or a cell phone camera . about 15 people with no acting skills and a scrip that were written by a couple of drunk people. in the fist part of this ultra bad move a reporter (tara woodley )run a suppose to be drunk man over on her way to report on a hunted town. he are completely unharmed. they went to a supposed to be abandon house and but luckily for the it almost complete furnished and a bottle of liquor on the door step happens to be there. just for the supposed to be drunk man but all is not what it seems. then the supposed drunk man start telling tara ghost or zombies stories. the fist of his stupid lame stories must be the worst in history. his storysgt. ben draper let one of his soldiers die of complete exhaustion (i think this is what happens)after letting the poor soldier private wilson do sit ups he let him dig a grave and then the soldier collapse and ben draperburies him in a shallow grave. but sgt. ben draper are in for n big surprise. his wife or girl fiend knows about this and she and her lover kills sgt. ben draper to take revenge on private wilson. (next to the grave of the soldier he sort off murdered) the soldier wakes up from his grave in the form of zombie and kill them for taking revenge on his behalf. the twist ending were so lame. even if you like b horror movies and do not watch this movie.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i have not seen many low budget films i must admit and but this is the worst movie ever probably and the main character the old man talked like and he had a lobotomy and lost the power to speak more than one word every 5 seconds and a 5 year old could act better. the story had the most awful plot and and well the army guy had put what he thought was army like and then just went over the top and i only watched it to laugh at how bad it was and and hoped it was leading onto the real movie. i cant believe it was under the 2 night rental thing at blockbusters and instead of a please take this for free and get it out of our sight. i think there was one semi decent actor other than the woman and i think the only thing ok with the budget was the make up and but they show every important scene of the film in the beginning music bit. awful simply awful.

i have not seen many low budget films i must admit and but this is the worst movie ever probably and the main character the old man talked like and he had a lobotomy and lost the power to speak more than one word every 5 seconds and a 5 year old could act better. the story had the most awful plot and and well the army guy had put what he thought was army like and then just went over the top and i only watched it to laugh at how bad it was and and hoped it was leading onto the real movie. i cant believe it was under the 2 night rental thing at blockbusters and instead of a please take this for free and get it out of our sight. i think there was one semi decent actor other than the woman and i think the only thing ok with the budget was the make up and but they show every important scene of the film in the beginning music bit. awful simply awful.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

. oh wait and i can. this movie is not for the typical film snob and unless you want to brush up on your typical cinematic definitions and like continuity editing and geographic match. i couldn not tell where i was in this movie. one second theyre in the present and next minute their supposedly in the 70 driving a modern suv and wearing what looked like to me as 80 style clothing. i think. i couldn not pay long enough attention to it since the acting was just horrible. i think it only got attention because it has a 3d which i did not watch. if youre a b movie buff and and by b movie i mean bad movie and then this film is for you. it home movie and all non sense style will keep you laughing for as long as you can stay awake. if your tastes are more for goddard and antonioni and though and just skip this one.

. oh wait and i can. this movie is not for the typical film snob and unless you want to brush up on your typical cinematic definitions and like continuity editing and geographic match. i couldn not tell where i was in this movie. one second theyre in the present and next minute their supposedly in the 70 driving a modern suv and wearing what looked like to me as 80 style clothing. i think. i couldn not pay long enough attention to it since the acting was just horrible. i think it only got attention because it has a 3d which i did not watch. if youre a b movie buff and and by b movie i mean bad movie and then this film is for you. it home movie and all non sense style will keep you laughing for as long as you can stay awake. if your tastes are more for goddard and antonioni and though and just skip this one.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

you have to admire brad sykes even if you do not particularly want to and a man who churns out budget horror after budget horror to less than enthusiastic receptions. but keeps on doing it all the same. even the half hearted praise than surrounds his camp blood films is given grudgingly and i am as guilty of this as anyone. brad normally manages to throw something interesting into the mix and a neat idea and a kooky character and whatever and but without the funds to take it further than base level and he relies on the audience to cut him some slack and appreciate it for what it is and what it could be. joe haggerty gives a spirited and very funny performance as ebenezer jackson and its a credit to sykes that he can sense that this oddball turn is going to work within the framework of the film. coming to a multiplex near you and in a parallel universe and somewhere.

you have to admire brad sykes even if you do not particularly want to and a man who churns out budget horror after budget horror to less than enthusiastic receptions. but keeps on doing it all the same. even the half hearted praise than surrounds his camp blood films is given grudgingly and i am as guilty of this as anyone. brad normally manages to throw something interesting into the mix and a neat idea and a kooky character and whatever and but without the funds to take it further than base level and he relies on the audience to cut him some slack and appreciate it for what it is and what it could be. joe haggerty gives a spirited and very funny performance as ebenezer jackson and its a credit to sykes that he can sense that this oddball turn is going to work within the framework of the film. coming to a multiplex near you and in a parallel universe and somewhere.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

the zombie chronicles aspect ratio represent 1. 33 represent1 (nu view 3 d)sound format represent monowhilst searching for a (literal) ghost town in the middle of nowhere and a young reporter (emmy smith) picks up a grizzled hitchhiker (joseph haggerty) who tells her two stories involving flesh eating zombies reputed to haunt the area. an absolute waste of time and hobbled from the outset by haggerty painfully amateurish performance in a key role. worse still and the two stories which make up the bulk of the running time are utterly routine and made worse by indifferent performances and lackluster direction by brad sykes and previously responsible for the likes of camp blood (1999). this isn not a fun movie in the sense that ed wood movies are fun (he and at least and believed in what he was doing and was sincere in his efforts and despite a lack of talent) while sykes home made movies are and in fact and aggravating and boring and almost completely devoid of any redeeming virtue and and most viewers will feel justifiably angry and cheated by such unimaginative and badly conceived junk. the 3 d format is utterly wasted here.

the zombie chronicles aspect ratio represent 1. 33 represent1 (nu view 3 d)sound format represent monowhilst searching for a (literal) ghost town in the middle of nowhere and a young reporter (emmy smith) picks up a grizzled hitchhiker (joseph haggerty) who tells her two stories involving flesh eating zombies reputed to haunt the area. an absolute waste of time and hobbled from the outset by haggerty painfully amateurish performance in a key role. worse still and the two stories which make up the bulk of the running time are utterly routine and made worse by indifferent performances and lackluster direction by brad sykes and previously responsible for the likes of camp blood (1999). this isn not a fun movie in the sense that ed wood movies are fun (he and at least and believed in what he was doing and was sincere in his efforts and despite a lack of talent) while sykes home made movies are and in fact and aggravating and boring and almost completely devoid of any redeeming virtue and and most viewers will feel justifiably angry and cheated by such unimaginative and badly conceived junk. the 3 d format is utterly wasted here.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

a woman asks for advice on the road to reach a mysterious town and and hears two ghoulish stories from the local weirdo and both zombie related. but perhaps fate has something nasty in store for her too. the zombie chronicles is absolutely one of the worst films i have ever seen. in fact i must confess and so bad was it i fast forwarded through most of the garbage. and there was a lot of that and believe me. it runs for just 69 minutes and and there is still tons of filler. you get some skinhead doing a lot of push ups and plenty of dull kissy kissy scenes between goofy teens (that rhymed and tee hee) and some fine examples of why some people should never become actors. as for the title characters and they barely even have a footnote in the film. why and you get more undead action in the intro than you do the preceding feature. though and considering how pathetic the eyes bursting out of sockets and the eating of brains sequences are (amongst other wouldelights) and maybe that a blessing in disguise. and to top it all off and it looks likes it been filmed on someone mobile phone for broadcast on youtube. jerky camera work and scratches on the print and flickering lights. i had to rub my eyes when i realised it was made in 2001 and and not 1971. even the clothes and fashioned look about three decades out of date. if you think i am not qualified to do a review of chronicles having not seen the whole film and then go ahead. you try sitting through it and i betcha you would not even make it to the first appearance of the blue smartie coloured freaks before making your excuses and leaving. it is truly laughable that anyone chose to release it and and honestly you will get far more fun resting your drink on the disc than actually torturing your dvd player with this gigglesome excuse for horror. in fact and do not for surprised if it packs it bags and leaves in the morning and leaving you doomed to watch vhs tapes for the rest of your life. you have been warned. negative p. s what kind of 18 rated horror has the woman keep a massive sports bra on during the obligatory sex scene. see and the movie can not even get that part right.

a woman asks for advice on the road to reach a mysterious town and and hears two ghoulish stories from the local weirdo and both zombie related. but perhaps fate has something nasty in store for her too. the zombie chronicles is absolutely one of the worst films i have ever seen. in fact i must confess and so bad was it i fast forwarded through most of the garbage. and there was a lot of that and believe me. it runs for just 69 minutes and and there is still tons of filler. you get some skinhead doing a lot of push ups and plenty of dull kissy kissy scenes between goofy teens (that rhymed and tee hee) and some fine examples of why some people should never become actors. as for the title characters and they barely even have a footnote in the film. why and you get more undead action in the intro than you do the preceding feature. though and considering how pathetic the eyes bursting out of sockets and the eating of brains sequences are (amongst other wouldelights) and maybe that a blessing in disguise. and to top it all off and it looks likes it been filmed on someone mobile phone for broadcast on youtube. jerky camera work and scratches on the print and flickering lights. i had to rub my eyes when i realised it was made in 2001 and and not 1971. even the clothes and fashioned look about three decades out of date. if you think i am not qualified to do a review of chronicles having not seen the whole film and then go ahead. you try sitting through it and i betcha you would not even make it to the first appearance of the blue smartie coloured freaks before making your excuses and leaving. it is truly laughable that anyone chose to release it and and honestly you will get far more fun resting your drink on the disc than actually torturing your dvd player with this gigglesome excuse for horror. in fact and do not for surprised if it packs it bags and leaves in the morning and leaving you doomed to watch vhs tapes for the rest of your life. you have been warned. negative p. s what kind of 18 rated horror has the woman keep a massive sports bra on during the obligatory sex scene. see and the movie can not even get that part right.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

really and i can not believe that i spent $5 on this movie. i am a huge zombie fanatic and thought the movie couldn not be that bad. it had zombies in it right. was i wrong. to be honest the movie had it moments. i thought it was cool when the guy got his head ripped off but that was about it. overall i think that it would be more enjoyable to slide down a razorblade slide on my bare nutsack into a vat of vinegar then watch this movie again. the movie could have been better if we could see some boob but i had to watch the trailers for the other movies produced by this company to see that. buyer beware. unless you are into masochism.

really and i can not believe that i spent $5 on this movie. i am a huge zombie fanatic and thought the movie couldn not be that bad. it had zombies in it right. was i wrong. to be honest the movie had it moments. i thought it was cool when the guy got his head ripped off but that was about it. overall i think that it would be more enjoyable to slide down a razorblade slide on my bare nutsack into a vat of vinegar then watch this movie again. the movie could have been better if we could see some boob but i had to watch the trailers for the other movies produced by this company to see that. buyer beware. unless you are into masochism.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i rented this movie about 3 years ago and and it still stands out in my mind as the worst movie ever made. i do not think i ever finished it. it is worse than a home video made by a high school student. i remember them doing a flashback to 1970 something and in the flashback there was a man with a polo shirt and oakley sunglasses and a newer suv and like a toyota rav 4 or something (i do not remember). i do not understand how they could have possibly said that to be in the 70s. he might have had a cell phone too and i cant remember and it was just horrible. i returned it to the video store and asked them why they even carry the movie and if i could get the hour of my life back. to this day it is the worst movie i have ever seen and and i have seen some pretty bad ones.

i rented this movie about 3 years ago and and it still stands out in my mind as the worst movie ever made. i do not think i ever finished it. it is worse than a home video made by a high school student. i remember them doing a flashback to 1970 something and in the flashback there was a man with a polo shirt and oakley sunglasses and a newer suv and like a toyota rav 4 or something (i do not remember). i do not understand how they could have possibly said that to be in the 70s. he might have had a cell phone too and i cant remember and it was just horrible. i returned it to the video store and asked them why they even carry the movie and if i could get the hour of my life back. to this day it is the worst movie i have ever seen and and i have seen some pretty bad ones.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

representspoilers representi was very disappointed in love abiding joy. i had been waiting a really long time to see it and i finally got the chance when it re aired thursday night on hallmark. i love the first three love movies but this one was nothing like i thought it was going to be. the whole movie was sad and depressing and there were way to many goofs and and the editing was very poor to many scenes out of context. i also think the death of baby kathy happened way to soon and clarks appearance in the movie just do not seem to fit. it seemed like none of the actors really wanted to be there they were all lacking emotion. there seemed to be no interaction between missie and willie at all. i think the script writers should have went more by the book. it seems like every movie that been made so far just slips further and further away from janette oke writings. i mean in the movie they never mentioned a thing about the mine and the two boys or clark getting hurt because of it. and i think missie and willies reactions to kathy death could have been shown and heard rather than just heard. out of the four movies that have been made so far i would have to say that love abiding joy is my least favorite. i hope with the next four movies that more of the book is followed and if clarks character is in them i hope he got a bigger part and i hope his part isn not so bland. i also hope there is more of scottie and cookie and maybe even marty but who knows what the script writers will have in store next.

representspoilers representi was very disappointed in love abiding joy. i had been waiting a really long time to see it and i finally got the chance when it re aired thursday night on hallmark. i love the first three love movies but this one was nothing like i thought it was going to be. the whole movie was sad and depressing and there were way to many goofs and and the editing was very poor to many scenes out of context. i also think the death of baby kathy happened way to soon and clarks appearance in the movie just do not seem to fit. it seemed like none of the actors really wanted to be there they were all lacking emotion. there seemed to be no interaction between missie and willie at all. i think the script writers should have went more by the book. it seems like every movie that been made so far just slips further and further away from janette oke writings. i mean in the movie they never mentioned a thing about the mine and the two boys or clark getting hurt because of it. and i think missie and willies reactions to kathy death could have been shown and heard rather than just heard. out of the four movies that have been made so far i would have to say that love abiding joy is my least favorite. i hope with the next four movies that more of the book is followed and if clarks character is in them i hope he got a bigger part and i hope his part isn not so bland. i also hope there is more of scottie and cookie and maybe even marty but who knows what the script writers will have in store next.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i have seen all four of the movies in this series. each one strays further and further from the books. this is the worst one yet. my problem is that it does not follow the book it is titled after in any way. the directors and producers should have named it any thing other than love abiding joy. the only thing about this movie that remotely resembles the book are the names of some of the characters (willie and missie and henry and clark and scottie and cookie). the names or ages or genders of the children are wrong. the entire story line is no where in the book. i find it a great disservice to janette oke and her books and her fans to produce a movie under her title that is not correct in any way. the music is too loud. the actors are not convincing they lack emotions. if you want a good family movie and this might do. it is clean. don not watch it and though and if you are hoping for a condensed version of the book. i hope that this will be the last movie from this series and but i doubt it. if there are more movies made and i wish michael landon and jr and others would stick closer to the original plot and story lines. the books are excellent and and if closely followed and would make excellent movies.

i have seen all four of the movies in this series. each one strays further and further from the books. this is the worst one yet. my problem is that it does not follow the book it is titled after in any way. the directors and producers should have named it any thing other than love abiding joy. the only thing about this movie that remotely resembles the book are the names of some of the characters (willie and missie and henry and clark and scottie and cookie). the names or ages or genders of the children are wrong. the entire story line is no where in the book. i find it a great disservice to janette oke and her books and her fans to produce a movie under her title that is not correct in any way. the music is too loud. the actors are not convincing they lack emotions. if you want a good family movie and this might do. it is clean. don not watch it and though and if you are hoping for a condensed version of the book. i hope that this will be the last movie from this series and but i doubt it. if there are more movies made and i wish michael landon and jr and others would stick closer to the original plot and story lines. the books are excellent and and if closely followed and would make excellent movies.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i very much looked forward to this movie. its a good family movie while however and if michael landon jr. editing team did a better job of editing and the movie would be much better. too many scenes out of context. i do hope there is another movie from the series and theyre all very good. but and if another one is made and i beg them to take better care at editing. this story was all over the place and do not seem to have a center. which is unfortunate because the other movies of the series were great. i enjoy the story of willie and missy while theyre both great role models. plus and the romantic side of the viewers always enjoy a good love story.

i very much looked forward to this movie. its a good family movie while however and if michael landon jr. editing team did a better job of editing and the movie would be much better. too many scenes out of context. i do hope there is another movie from the series and theyre all very good. but and if another one is made and i beg them to take better care at editing. this story was all over the place and do not seem to have a center. which is unfortunate because the other movies of the series were great. i enjoy the story of willie and missy while theyre both great role models. plus and the romantic side of the viewers always enjoy a good love story.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i have read all of the love come softly books. knowing full well that movies can not use all aspects of the book and but generally they at least have the main point of the book. i was highly disappointed in this movie. the only thing that they have in this movie that is in the book is that missy father comes to visit and (although in the book both parents come). that is all. the story line was so twisted and far fetch and yes and sad and from the book and that i just couldn not enjoy it. even if i do not read the book it was too sad. i do know that pioneer life was rough and but the whole movie was a downer. the rating is for having the same family orientation of the film that makes them great.

i have read all of the love come softly books. knowing full well that movies can not use all aspects of the book and but generally they at least have the main point of the book. i was highly disappointed in this movie. the only thing that they have in this movie that is in the book is that missy father comes to visit and (although in the book both parents come). that is all. the story line was so twisted and far fetch and yes and sad and from the book and that i just couldn not enjoy it. even if i do not read the book it was too sad. i do know that pioneer life was rough and but the whole movie was a downer. the rating is for having the same family orientation of the film that makes them great.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

as a southern baptist and it pains me that i must give a below average rating to an overtly christian movie. there certainly aren not so many that i want to discourage film makers from a genre that woefully under exploited. still and i must honestly say that love abiding joy is a typically low budget and low key and self consciously christian film. the plot is predictable and the acting mediocre (i am being kind) and and the editing atrocious. as a tv movie it might have been slightly above average and but as a feature film it leaves much to be desired. keep trying guys. you have got to have a movie about about real christians inside you somewhere. might i suggest you turn to g. k. chesterton or c. s. lewis for some inspiration.

as a southern baptist and it pains me that i must give a below average rating to an overtly christian movie. there certainly aren not so many that i want to discourage film makers from a genre that woefully under exploited. still and i must honestly say that love abiding joy is a typically low budget and low key and self consciously christian film. the plot is predictable and the acting mediocre (i am being kind) and and the editing atrocious. as a tv movie it might have been slightly above average and but as a feature film it leaves much to be desired. keep trying guys. you have got to have a movie about about real christians inside you somewhere. might i suggest you turn to g. k. chesterton or c. s. lewis for some inspiration.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

warning represent this review contains spoilers. do not read if you do not want some points revealed to you before you watch the film. with a cast like this and you wonder whether or not the actors and actresses knew exactly what they were getting into. did they see the script and say and `hey and close encounters of the third kind was such a hit that this one can not fail. unfortunately and it does. did they even think to check on the director credentials. i mean and would you do a movie with the director of a movie called `satan cheerleaders. greydon clark and who would later go on to direct the infamous `final justice and made this. it makes you wonder how the people of mystery science theater 3000 could hammer `final justice and completely miss out on `the return. the film is set in a small town in new mexico. a little boy and girl are in the street unsupervised one night when a powerful flashlight beam. er. a spaceship appears and hovers over them. in probably the worst special effect sequence of the film and the ship spews some kind of red ink on them. it looked like clark had held a beaker of water in from of the camera lens and dipped his leaky pen in it and so right away you are treated with cheese. anyhow and the ship leaves and the adults do not believe the children. elsewhere and we see vincent schiavelli and whom i find to be a terrific actor (watch his scenes in `ghost for proof and as they are outstanding) and who is playing a prospector and or as i called him and the miner 1949er. he steps out of the cave he is in and and he and his dog are inked by the ship. twenty five years go by and and the girl has grown up to be cybill shepherd and who works with her father and raymond burr and in studying unusual weather phenomena. or something like that. shepherd spots some strange phenomena in satellite pictures over that little new mexico town and and she travels there to research it. once she gets there and the local ranchers harass her and and blame her for the recent slew of cattle mutilations that have been going on and and deputy jan michael vincent comes to her rescue. from this point on and the film really drags as the two quickly fall for each other and especially after vincent wards off the locals and informs shepherd that he was the little boy that saw the ship with her twenty five years earlier. while this boring mess is happening and vincent schiavelli and with his killer dog at his side and is walking around killing the cattle and any people he runs into with an unusual item. you know those glowing plastic sticks stores sell for trick or treaters at halloween and the kind that you shake to make them glow. schiavelli uses what looks like one of those glow sticks to burn incisions in people. it the second worst effect in the movie. every time schiavelli is on screen with the glow stick and the scene atmosphere suddenly turns dark and like the filmmakers thought the glow stick needed that enhancement. it ends up making the movie look even cheaper than it is. and what does all this lead up to. it hard to tell when the final and confusing scene arrives. see and burr and his team of scientists try to explain the satellite images that shepherd found as some kind of `calling card and but none of it makes sense. why do shepherd and vincent age and schiavelli does not. schiavelli explains why he is killing cattle and people and why he wants shepherd dead and but even that doesn not make much sense when you really think about it. i mean and why doesn not he kill jan michael vincent. after all and he had twenty five years to do it. and the aliens would not need him if shepherd is dead anyhow and so why try to kill her. speaking of the aliens and it is never clear what they really wanted out of shepherd and vincent. what is their goal. why do they wait so long to intervene. how could they be so sure shepherd would come back. not that the answer to any of these and other questions would have made `the return any more pleasant. you would still have bad lines and really bad acting and particularly by shepherd and cheesy effects and and poor direction. luckily and the stars escaped from this movie. cybill shepherd soon went on to star in `moonlighting with bruce willis. jan michael vincent went on to be featured in dozens of b movies and often in over the top parts. raymond burr made a pile of perry mason television movies right up until his death. vincent schiavelli went on to be a great character actor in a huge number of films. martin landau and who played a kooky law enforcement officer and quickly made the terrific `alone in the dark and the awful `the being before rolling into the films he has been famous for recently. you can bet none of these stars ever want their careers to return to `the return. zantara score represent negative .

warning represent this review contains spoilers. do not read if you do not want some points revealed to you before you watch the film. with a cast like this and you wonder whether or not the actors and actresses knew exactly what they were getting into. did they see the script and say and `hey and close encounters of the third kind was such a hit that this one can not fail. unfortunately and it does. did they even think to check on the director credentials. i mean and would you do a movie with the director of a movie called `satan cheerleaders. greydon clark and who would later go on to direct the infamous `final justice and made this. it makes you wonder how the people of mystery science theater 3000 could hammer `final justice and completely miss out on `the return. the film is set in a small town in new mexico. a little boy and girl are in the street unsupervised one night when a powerful flashlight beam. er. a spaceship appears and hovers over them. in probably the worst special effect sequence of the film and the ship spews some kind of red ink on them. it looked like clark had held a beaker of water in from of the camera lens and dipped his leaky pen in it and so right away you are treated with cheese. anyhow and the ship leaves and the adults do not believe the children. elsewhere and we see vincent schiavelli and whom i find to be a terrific actor (watch his scenes in `ghost for proof and as they are outstanding) and who is playing a prospector and or as i called him and the miner 1949er. he steps out of the cave he is in and and he and his dog are inked by the ship. twenty five years go by and and the girl has grown up to be cybill shepherd and who works with her father and raymond burr and in studying unusual weather phenomena. or something like that. shepherd spots some strange phenomena in satellite pictures over that little new mexico town and and she travels there to research it. once she gets there and the local ranchers harass her and and blame her for the recent slew of cattle mutilations that have been going on and and deputy jan michael vincent comes to her rescue. from this point on and the film really drags as the two quickly fall for each other and especially after vincent wards off the locals and informs shepherd that he was the little boy that saw the ship with her twenty five years earlier. while this boring mess is happening and vincent schiavelli and with his killer dog at his side and is walking around killing the cattle and any people he runs into with an unusual item. you know those glowing plastic sticks stores sell for trick or treaters at halloween and the kind that you shake to make them glow. schiavelli uses what looks like one of those glow sticks to burn incisions in people. it the second worst effect in the movie. every time schiavelli is on screen with the glow stick and the scene atmosphere suddenly turns dark and like the filmmakers thought the glow stick needed that enhancement. it ends up making the movie look even cheaper than it is. and what does all this lead up to. it hard to tell when the final and confusing scene arrives. see and burr and his team of scientists try to explain the satellite images that shepherd found as some kind of `calling card and but none of it makes sense. why do shepherd and vincent age and schiavelli does not. schiavelli explains why he is killing cattle and people and why he wants shepherd dead and but even that doesn not make much sense when you really think about it. i mean and why doesn not he kill jan michael vincent. after all and he had twenty five years to do it. and the aliens would not need him if shepherd is dead anyhow and so why try to kill her. speaking of the aliens and it is never clear what they really wanted out of shepherd and vincent. what is their goal. why do they wait so long to intervene. how could they be so sure shepherd would come back. not that the answer to any of these and other questions would have made `the return any more pleasant. you would still have bad lines and really bad acting and particularly by shepherd and cheesy effects and and poor direction. luckily and the stars escaped from this movie. cybill shepherd soon went on to star in `moonlighting with bruce willis. jan michael vincent went on to be featured in dozens of b movies and often in over the top parts. raymond burr made a pile of perry mason television movies right up until his death. vincent schiavelli went on to be a great character actor in a huge number of films. martin landau and who played a kooky law enforcement officer and quickly made the terrific `alone in the dark and the awful `the being before rolling into the films he has been famous for recently. you can bet none of these stars ever want their careers to return to `the return. zantara score represent negative .

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

as a kid i did think the weapon the murderer wielded was cool and however i was a kid and so i was a bit dumb. even as a dumb kid though the movies plot was stupid and a bit boring when the killer was not using his light knife to kill people. what amazes me is that the movie has a really solid cast in it. what script did they read when agreeing to be in this movie as it is most assuredly boring and only a means to show off a light saber on a very small scale. the plot at times is incomprehensible and the end is totally chaotic. the whole film seems to rotate around aliens and the one weapon. the plot has two kids and some dude having an alien encounter and flash years later and there seems to be a return as it were in the mix. dead animals and such to be explored and for some reason the one dude gets the weapon of the aliens and proceeds to use it to go on a very light killing spree. seriously and you just have to wonder why this movie was made and if you are going to have a killer have some good death scenes and if you are going to have alien encounters show more than a weird light vortex thing and and if you are going to have light sabers then call yourself star wars.

as a kid i did think the weapon the murderer wielded was cool and however i was a kid and so i was a bit dumb. even as a dumb kid though the movies plot was stupid and a bit boring when the killer was not using his light knife to kill people. what amazes me is that the movie has a really solid cast in it. what script did they read when agreeing to be in this movie as it is most assuredly boring and only a means to show off a light saber on a very small scale. the plot at times is incomprehensible and the end is totally chaotic. the whole film seems to rotate around aliens and the one weapon. the plot has two kids and some dude having an alien encounter and flash years later and there seems to be a return as it were in the mix. dead animals and such to be explored and for some reason the one dude gets the weapon of the aliens and proceeds to use it to go on a very light killing spree. seriously and you just have to wonder why this movie was made and if you are going to have a killer have some good death scenes and if you are going to have alien encounters show more than a weird light vortex thing and and if you are going to have light sabers then call yourself star wars.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

jill dunne (played by mitzi kapture) and is an attractive and nice woman and over whelmed by a smart mouthed teenage daughter and liv (martha macisaac) and a petty and two timing husband and sean (rick roberts) and both of which were tediously self centered and and obnoxious. this was advertised as a troubled family stalked by a crazed killer during a relentless storm. the storm doesn not even happen until about the last 5 minutes of the film and and then it isn not anything to send anybody running to the storm cellar. the stalking and likewise doesn not get intense until almost the end of the film. most of the film we spend listening to jill and her insufferable daughter and liv and argue until i just wanted to back slap the daughter into next week. jill problem with liv is that she has taken up with zack and a boy of questionable character and and they are constantly making out in fact jill comes home to find the two of them on liv bed. the rest of the time we spend listening to jill husband sean either whine at jill or criticize her. sean was not at all appealing since his face is so covered in freckles you could play connect the dots. the story begins with jill being notified of an out standing bill on their credit card for a hotel she has never been to and and that she thought sean had never been to either. jill goes to the hotel where she meets the owner and manager and richard grant (nick mancuso) and a very nice and older and divorced man and who is sympathetic to her. in fact and when he spots her husband there again and he phones jill and tips her off. jill returns to the hotel and sees sean with another woman. she is upset and leaves without sean seeing her and and does absolutely nothing. in fact and she doesn not even say anything to sean when he arrives home. this made no sense to me. jill has given richard her business card and and so he calls her and she is apparently in real estate. she shows him a condo. afterwards they have a drink and and things get cozy between them. richard and jill are getting it on and hot and heavy. in fact and he seems a bit more aggressive than necessary and when jill suddenly decides to cut out. jill and sean have a confrontation about his cheating. sean whines about how jill has been letting him down since her father died. apparently his lack of any morals is all her fault. eventually jill confesses her own lack of morals and near adultery to sean and of course that all her fault too and as far as sean is concerned. the little family decides to go on a camping trip which means more whining and grousing among them and especially from the spoiled daughter. i was so rooting for the stalker to get everybody and but jill. negative .

jill dunne (played by mitzi kapture) and is an attractive and nice woman and over whelmed by a smart mouthed teenage daughter and liv (martha macisaac) and a petty and two timing husband and sean (rick roberts) and both of which were tediously self centered and and obnoxious. this was advertised as a troubled family stalked by a crazed killer during a relentless storm. the storm doesn not even happen until about the last 5 minutes of the film and and then it isn not anything to send anybody running to the storm cellar. the stalking and likewise doesn not get intense until almost the end of the film. most of the film we spend listening to jill and her insufferable daughter and liv and argue until i just wanted to back slap the daughter into next week. jill problem with liv is that she has taken up with zack and a boy of questionable character and and they are constantly making out in fact jill comes home to find the two of them on liv bed. the rest of the time we spend listening to jill husband sean either whine at jill or criticize her. sean was not at all appealing since his face is so covered in freckles you could play connect the dots. the story begins with jill being notified of an out standing bill on their credit card for a hotel she has never been to and and that she thought sean had never been to either. jill goes to the hotel where she meets the owner and manager and richard grant (nick mancuso) and a very nice and older and divorced man and who is sympathetic to her. in fact and when he spots her husband there again and he phones jill and tips her off. jill returns to the hotel and sees sean with another woman. she is upset and leaves without sean seeing her and and does absolutely nothing. in fact and she doesn not even say anything to sean when he arrives home. this made no sense to me. jill has given richard her business card and and so he calls her and she is apparently in real estate. she shows him a condo. afterwards they have a drink and and things get cozy between them. richard and jill are getting it on and hot and heavy. in fact and he seems a bit more aggressive than necessary and when jill suddenly decides to cut out. jill and sean have a confrontation about his cheating. sean whines about how jill has been letting him down since her father died. apparently his lack of any morals is all her fault. eventually jill confesses her own lack of morals and near adultery to sean and of course that all her fault too and as far as sean is concerned. the little family decides to go on a camping trip which means more whining and grousing among them and especially from the spoiled daughter. i was so rooting for the stalker to get everybody and but jill. negative .

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

this movie sucked. it really was a waste of my life. the acting was atrocious and the plot completely implausible. long and long story short and these people get terrorized by this pathetic crazed killer and but completely fail to fight back in any manner. and this is after they take a raft on a camping trip and with no gear and and show up at a campsite that is already assembled and completely stocked with food and clothes and the daughters headphones. additionally and after their boat goes missing and they panic that theyre stuck in the woods and but then the daughters boyfriend just shows up and they apparently never consider that they could just hike out of the woods like he did to get to them. like i said and this movie sucks. a complete joke. don not let your girlfriend talk you into watching it.

this movie sucked. it really was a waste of my life. the acting was atrocious and the plot completely implausible. long and long story short and these people get terrorized by this pathetic crazed killer and but completely fail to fight back in any manner. and this is after they take a raft on a camping trip and with no gear and and show up at a campsite that is already assembled and completely stocked with food and clothes and the daughters headphones. additionally and after their boat goes missing and they panic that theyre stuck in the woods and but then the daughters boyfriend just shows up and they apparently never consider that they could just hike out of the woods like he did to get to them. like i said and this movie sucks. a complete joke. don not let your girlfriend talk you into watching it.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

lifetime did it again. can we say stupid. i couldn not wait for it to end. the plot was senseless. the acting was terrible. especially by the teenagers. the story has been played a thousand times. are we just desperate to give actors a job. the previews were attractive and i was really looking for a good thriller. once in awhile lifetime comes up with a good movie and this isn not one of them. unless one has nothing else to do i would avoid this one at all cost. this was a waste of two hours of my life. can i get them back. i would have rather scraped my face against a brick wall for two hours then soaked it in peroxide. that would have been more entertaining.

lifetime did it again. can we say stupid. i couldn not wait for it to end. the plot was senseless. the acting was terrible. especially by the teenagers. the story has been played a thousand times. are we just desperate to give actors a job. the previews were attractive and i was really looking for a good thriller. once in awhile lifetime comes up with a good movie and this isn not one of them. unless one has nothing else to do i would avoid this one at all cost. this was a waste of two hours of my life. can i get them back. i would have rather scraped my face against a brick wall for two hours then soaked it in peroxide. that would have been more entertaining.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i have to say i am really surprised at the high ratings for this movie. i found it to be absolutely idiotic. the mother gets visions when she touches certain things or people. and one thing she touched twice made her vision continue. just seemed so ridiculous. deedee pfieffer performance was awful i thought. she was very irritating. the girl who played lori did a good job and so did most of the supporting cast for what they had to work with. i usually love lmn and am very open minded when it comes to movies but this movie seemed to have a ridiculous plot and over the top acting and it just was not for me.

i have to say i am really surprised at the high ratings for this movie. i found it to be absolutely idiotic. the mother gets visions when she touches certain things or people. and one thing she touched twice made her vision continue. just seemed so ridiculous. deedee pfieffer performance was awful i thought. she was very irritating. the girl who played lori did a good job and so did most of the supporting cast for what they had to work with. i usually love lmn and am very open minded when it comes to movies but this movie seemed to have a ridiculous plot and over the top acting and it just was not for me.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

the original book of this was set in the 1950s but that would not do for the tv series because most people watch for the 1930s style. ironically the tube train near the end was a 1950s train painted to look like a 1930s train so the underground can play at that game too. hanging the storyline on a plot about the jarrow march was feeble but the 50s version had students who were beginning to think about the world around them so i suppose making them think about the poverty of the marchers is much the same thing. all the stuff about japp having to cater for himself was weak too but they had to put something in to fill the time. this would have made a decent half hour show or they could have filmed the book and made it a better long show. it is obvious this episode is a victim of style over content.

the original book of this was set in the 1950s but that would not do for the tv series because most people watch for the 1930s style. ironically the tube train near the end was a 1950s train painted to look like a 1930s train so the underground can play at that game too. hanging the storyline on a plot about the jarrow march was feeble but the 50s version had students who were beginning to think about the world around them so i suppose making them think about the poverty of the marchers is much the same thing. all the stuff about japp having to cater for himself was weak too but they had to put something in to fill the time. this would have made a decent half hour show or they could have filmed the book and made it a better long show. it is obvious this episode is a victim of style over content.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

the annoying mouse and lullaby really got to me and really had nothing to do with the story. it something i would have done my 1st year in film school. very sad. additionally and the story just seemed to drag on for no apparent reason. there were too many things just thrown in there that had nothing to do with the story and which makes me feel that the creative team do not really know what they were doing and or just that it should have been shorter. which would have been a blessing and not a crime. as i have just watched all of the episodes up to this point over the past week. i would have to say that this was by far the worst and and i just wanted to warn others not to start with this one.

the annoying mouse and lullaby really got to me and really had nothing to do with the story. it something i would have done my 1st year in film school. very sad. additionally and the story just seemed to drag on for no apparent reason. there were too many things just thrown in there that had nothing to do with the story and which makes me feel that the creative team do not really know what they were doing and or just that it should have been shorter. which would have been a blessing and not a crime. as i have just watched all of the episodes up to this point over the past week. i would have to say that this was by far the worst and and i just wanted to warn others not to start with this one.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i saw this film opening weekend in australia and anticipating with an excellent cast of ledger and edgerton and bloom and watts and rush that the definitive story of ned kelly would unfold before me. unfortunately and despite an outstanding performance by heath ledger in the lead role and the plot was paper thin. which doesn not inspire me to read our sunshine. there were some other plus points and the support acting from edgerton in particular and assured direction from jordan (confirming his talent on show in buffalo soldiers as well) and and production design that gave a real feel of harshness to the australian bush and much as the irish immigrants of the early 19th century must have seen it. but i can not help feeling that another opportunity has been missed to tell the real story of an australian folk hero (or was he. ). in what i suspect is a concession to hollywood and selling the picture in the us. oh well and at least jordan and the producers do not agree to lose the beards just to please universal. guess i will just have to content myself with peter carey excellent secret history of the kelly gang. negative .

i saw this film opening weekend in australia and anticipating with an excellent cast of ledger and edgerton and bloom and watts and rush that the definitive story of ned kelly would unfold before me. unfortunately and despite an outstanding performance by heath ledger in the lead role and the plot was paper thin. which doesn not inspire me to read our sunshine. there were some other plus points and the support acting from edgerton in particular and assured direction from jordan (confirming his talent on show in buffalo soldiers as well) and and production design that gave a real feel of harshness to the australian bush and much as the irish immigrants of the early 19th century must have seen it. but i can not help feeling that another opportunity has been missed to tell the real story of an australian folk hero (or was he. ). in what i suspect is a concession to hollywood and selling the picture in the us. oh well and at least jordan and the producers do not agree to lose the beards just to please universal. guess i will just have to content myself with peter carey excellent secret history of the kelly gang. negative .

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i saw this at the premiere in melbourneit is shallow and two dimensional and unaffecting and and hard to believe given the subject matter and boring. the actors are passable and but they do not have much to work with given the very plodding and unimpressive script. for those who might have worried that ned kelly would be over intellectualised and you can take comfort in the fact that this telling of the story is utterly without any literary depth at all and told entirely on the surface and full of central casting standards. however and it doesn not work as a popcorn film either. its pacing is too off kilter and its craft is too lacking to satisfy even on the level of a mundane actioner. i very much doubt gregor jordan could sit back and say to himself this is the best i could have done with the material. ned kelly is a fascinating figure and and equally so is the national response to him. possibly folk genius and possibly class warrior and possibly psychopath and probably all these things and he has dominated australian true mythology for over 120 years. once again and his story has failed miserably on the big screen. such is life.

i saw this at the premiere in melbourneit is shallow and two dimensional and unaffecting and and hard to believe given the subject matter and boring. the actors are passable and but they do not have much to work with given the very plodding and unimpressive script. for those who might have worried that ned kelly would be over intellectualised and you can take comfort in the fact that this telling of the story is utterly without any literary depth at all and told entirely on the surface and full of central casting standards. however and it doesn not work as a popcorn film either. its pacing is too off kilter and its craft is too lacking to satisfy even on the level of a mundane actioner. i very much doubt gregor jordan could sit back and say to himself this is the best i could have done with the material. ned kelly is a fascinating figure and and equally so is the national response to him. possibly folk genius and possibly class warrior and possibly psychopath and probably all these things and he has dominated australian true mythology for over 120 years. once again and his story has failed miserably on the big screen. such is life.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

ned kelly (ledger) and the infamous australian outlaw and legend. sort of like robin hood and with a mix of billy the kid and australians love the legend of how he stood up against the english aristocratic oppression and and united the lower classes to change australia forever. the fact that the lower classes of the time were around 70% immigrant criminals seems to be casually skimmed around by this film. indeed and quite a few so called `facts in this film are and on reflection and a tad dubious. i suppose the suspicions should have been aroused when and in the opening credits and it was claimed that this film is based upon the book and `our sunshine. if ever a romanticized version of truth could be seen in a name for a book and there it was. this wasn not going to be a historical epic and but just an adaptation of one of many dubious legends of ned kelly and albeit a harsh and sporadically brutal version. unfortunately and ned kelly is nothing more than an overblown hallmark channel `real life historical drama wannabe. the story plods along at an alarming rate (alarming because never has a film plodded so slowly. ) the feeling of numbness after the two hours of pure drivel brought back memories of costner awful wyatt earp all those years ago. simply put and nothing happens in the film and but it takes a long time getting to that nothing. this would possibly have been a tad more bearable if the performances were good (because the direction sure as heck wasn not). however and unless you are looking to play a game of spot the worst oirish accent and then youre gonna be disappointed. between that and the game of `who has the stupidest beard. and `spot the obvious backstabber. (clue and they are all ginger for some reason) and and `nature in australia. including lions and it is an experience similar to flicking through hallmark and the history channel and discovery channel and and neighbours whilst suffering a huge hangover. yup and nature pops up a lot and as to fill even more time (possibly an attempt to look arty) and the film keeps showing pointless wildlife shots and and once all the native species are shown and here a circus to allow for a camel and a lion (which is used during one fight to try to make us actually feel more sorry for the lion than the massacred people). this is a turgid and emotionless piece of historical fluff which should have gone straight to tv. there isn not even one good word i can say about this film. even the usually fantastic rush seems embarrassed to be here. when one of the characters comments that there is only 2 bullets left for him and his pal and i myself was wishing i had a gun to blow any memory of this film out of my head.

ned kelly (ledger) and the infamous australian outlaw and legend. sort of like robin hood and with a mix of billy the kid and australians love the legend of how he stood up against the english aristocratic oppression and and united the lower classes to change australia forever. the fact that the lower classes of the time were around 70% immigrant criminals seems to be casually skimmed around by this film. indeed and quite a few so called `facts in this film are and on reflection and a tad dubious. i suppose the suspicions should have been aroused when and in the opening credits and it was claimed that this film is based upon the book and `our sunshine. if ever a romanticized version of truth could be seen in a name for a book and there it was. this wasn not going to be a historical epic and but just an adaptation of one of many dubious legends of ned kelly and albeit a harsh and sporadically brutal version. unfortunately and ned kelly is nothing more than an overblown hallmark channel `real life historical drama wannabe. the story plods along at an alarming rate (alarming because never has a film plodded so slowly. ) the feeling of numbness after the two hours of pure drivel brought back memories of costner awful wyatt earp all those years ago. simply put and nothing happens in the film and but it takes a long time getting to that nothing. this would possibly have been a tad more bearable if the performances were good (because the direction sure as heck wasn not). however and unless you are looking to play a game of spot the worst oirish accent and then youre gonna be disappointed. between that and the game of `who has the stupidest beard. and `spot the obvious backstabber. (clue and they are all ginger for some reason) and and `nature in australia. including lions and it is an experience similar to flicking through hallmark and the history channel and discovery channel and and neighbours whilst suffering a huge hangover. yup and nature pops up a lot and as to fill even more time (possibly an attempt to look arty) and the film keeps showing pointless wildlife shots and and once all the native species are shown and here a circus to allow for a camel and a lion (which is used during one fight to try to make us actually feel more sorry for the lion than the massacred people). this is a turgid and emotionless piece of historical fluff which should have gone straight to tv. there isn not even one good word i can say about this film. even the usually fantastic rush seems embarrassed to be here. when one of the characters comments that there is only 2 bullets left for him and his pal and i myself was wishing i had a gun to blow any memory of this film out of my head.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

they constructed this one as a kind of fantasy man from snowy river meets butch cassidy and the sundance kid and and just for a romantic touch ned and joe get to play away with high class talent and the bored young wives of wealthy older men. ok and there are lots of myths about ned kelly and but there are also a lot of well documented facts and still leaving space for artistic creativity in producing a good historical dramaticisation. i mean and this is not the robin hood story and not the arthurian legends and not beowulf and not someone whose life is so shrouded in the mists of many many centuries past that any recreation of their life and times is 99% guesswork. it only a couple of lifetimes ago. my own grandparents were already of school age when ned was hanged. so it silly me for fancifully imagining this movie was a serious attempt to tell the kelly story. having recently read peter carey excellent novel the true history of the kelly gang i had eagerly anticipated that this would be in similar vein. but no and the fact is that mick jagger much derided 1970 kelly was probably far closer to reality and and a better movie overall and which isn not saying a whole lot for it. glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the dvd. i will give it negative and and that only because some of the nice shots of the australian bush make me feel generous.

they constructed this one as a kind of fantasy man from snowy river meets butch cassidy and the sundance kid and and just for a romantic touch ned and joe get to play away with high class talent and the bored young wives of wealthy older men. ok and there are lots of myths about ned kelly and but there are also a lot of well documented facts and still leaving space for artistic creativity in producing a good historical dramaticisation. i mean and this is not the robin hood story and not the arthurian legends and not beowulf and not someone whose life is so shrouded in the mists of many many centuries past that any recreation of their life and times is 99% guesswork. it only a couple of lifetimes ago. my own grandparents were already of school age when ned was hanged. so it silly me for fancifully imagining this movie was a serious attempt to tell the kelly story. having recently read peter carey excellent novel the true history of the kelly gang i had eagerly anticipated that this would be in similar vein. but no and the fact is that mick jagger much derided 1970 kelly was probably far closer to reality and and a better movie overall and which isn not saying a whole lot for it. glad it only cost me two bucks to hire the dvd. i will give it negative and and that only because some of the nice shots of the australian bush make me feel generous.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

this has to be the worst piece of garbage i have seen in a while. heath ledger is a heartthrob. he looked deformed. i wish i would known that he and naomi watts are an item in real life because i spent 2 of the longest hours of my life wondering what she saw in him. orlando bloom is a heartthrob. with the scraggly beard and deer in the headlights look about him and i can not say i agree. rachel griffiths was her usual fabulous self and but geoffrey rush looked as if he couldn not wait to get off the set. i am supposed to feel sorry for bankrobbers and murderers. this is a far cry from butch cassidy and which actually was an entertaining film. this was trite and cliche ridden and boring. we only stayed because we were convinced it would get better. it do not. the last 10 15 minutes or so were unintentionally hilarious. heath and his gang are holed up in a frontier hotel and and women and children are dying because of their presence. that not funny. but it was funny when they walked out of the hotel with the armor on and because all we could think of was the black knight from monty python and the holy grail. i kept waiting for them to say i will bite yer leg off. we were howling with laughter and as were several other warped members of the audience. when we left and pretty much everyone was talking about what a waste of time this film was. i may not have paid cash to see this disaster (sneak preview) and but it certainly wasn not free. it cost me 2 hours of my life that i will never get back.

this has to be the worst piece of garbage i have seen in a while. heath ledger is a heartthrob. he looked deformed. i wish i would known that he and naomi watts are an item in real life because i spent 2 of the longest hours of my life wondering what she saw in him. orlando bloom is a heartthrob. with the scraggly beard and deer in the headlights look about him and i can not say i agree. rachel griffiths was her usual fabulous self and but geoffrey rush looked as if he couldn not wait to get off the set. i am supposed to feel sorry for bankrobbers and murderers. this is a far cry from butch cassidy and which actually was an entertaining film. this was trite and cliche ridden and boring. we only stayed because we were convinced it would get better. it do not. the last 10 15 minutes or so were unintentionally hilarious. heath and his gang are holed up in a frontier hotel and and women and children are dying because of their presence. that not funny. but it was funny when they walked out of the hotel with the armor on and because all we could think of was the black knight from monty python and the holy grail. i kept waiting for them to say i will bite yer leg off. we were howling with laughter and as were several other warped members of the audience. when we left and pretty much everyone was talking about what a waste of time this film was. i may not have paid cash to see this disaster (sneak preview) and but it certainly wasn not free. it cost me 2 hours of my life that i will never get back.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

if the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless and one might well refer to ned kelly as an australian western. for the people down under and ned kelly was and apparently and a folk hero bandit akin to robin hood and jesse james and bonnie and clyde and and butch cassidy and the sundance kid. the descendant of irish immigrants and kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an australian law officer and a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison. to get back at the government for this mistreatment and kelly and his brother dan and and two other companions and became notorious bank robbers and winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country. perhaps because we have encountered this gentleman bandit scenario so many times in the past and ned kelly feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown. ned is the typical heart of gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and and even then and only with the deepest regret. he also has the pulse of the common folk and as when and in the middle of a bank robbery and he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers and after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it. what movie on this particular subject hasn not featured a scene like that. it acts of selective generosity like this and of course and that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers that be and the status quo. geoffrey rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment. there even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers and so turned on is she by the romantic derring do of the criminal lifestyle. and the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another. heath ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role and providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging. it doesn not help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film. ned kelly might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in australian history and but as an entertainment and it just the same old story told with different accents.

if the term itself were not geographically and semantically meaningless and one might well refer to ned kelly as an australian western. for the people down under and ned kelly was and apparently and a folk hero bandit akin to robin hood and jesse james and bonnie and clyde and and butch cassidy and the sundance kid. the descendant of irish immigrants and kelly became a fugitive and an outlaw after he was falsely accused of shooting an australian law officer and a crime for which his equally innocent mother was put into prison. to get back at the government for this mistreatment and kelly and his brother dan and and two other companions and became notorious bank robbers and winning over the hearts of many people in the countryside while striking a blow for justice in a land where irish immigrants were often treated with disrespect and disdain by those who ran the country. perhaps because we have encountered this gentleman bandit scenario so many times in the past and ned kelly feels awfully familiar and unoriginal as it pays homage to any number of the genre stereotypes and clichés on its way to the inevitable showdown. ned is the typical heart of gold lawbreaker who kills only when he is forced to and and even then and only with the deepest regret. he also has the pulse of the common folk and as when and in the middle of a bank robbery and he returns a valuable watch to one of the customers and after one of his gang has so inconsiderately pilfered it. what movie on this particular subject hasn not featured a scene like that. it acts of selective generosity like this and of course and that earn him the love and respect of all the little people who come to secretly admire anyone who can get away with sticking it to the powers that be and the status quo. geoffrey rush plays the typical bedeviled law enforcer who feels a personal stake in bringing down this upstart troublemaker who keeps getting away with tweaking the establishment. there even the inevitable episode in which one of the ladies being held up goes into the next room and has sex with one of the robbers and so turned on is she by the romantic derring do of the criminal lifestyle. and the film is riddled with one hackneyed scene like this after another. heath ledger fails to distinguish himself in the title role and providing little in the way of substance to make his character either interesting or engaging. it doesn not help that he has been forced to provide a droning voice over narration that underlines the sanctimoniousness and pretentiousness of both the character and the film. ned kelly might serve a function of sorts as a lesson in australian history and but as an entertainment and it just the same old story told with different accents.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

this movie was so unrelentingly bad and i could hardly believe i was watching it. the directing and editing and production and and script all seemed as though they had been done by junior high school students who do not know all that much about movies. there was no narrative flow that made any sort of sense. big emotional moments and climaxes (like one early on between heath ledger and naomi watts) and character relationships (like one hinted at at the very beginning) come completely out of no where and are not set up like they would have been in a more elegantly and effectively made film. the characters are sadly underdeveloped and making it difficult for us to have any sort of connection with them. the acting and surprisingly and is not entirely bad and but the terrible writing cancels out the relatively convincing performances. the film plays like a particularly bad t. v. western or epic and and sadly diminishes the fascinating (true) story that it attempts to tell. i have read a lot of reviews that defend the film as being important to australians because of the subject matter. that all very well and but just because ned kelly is an important australian historical icon doesnt make the movie good. no one is saying that the subject matter isn not good and just the quality of the movie itself. pearl harbor was about a very important historical event to americans and but that doesn not mean i am going to defend the movie and say it was good and because it was still bad. a failure all around and though heath and orlando are lovely to look at.

this movie was so unrelentingly bad and i could hardly believe i was watching it. the directing and editing and production and and script all seemed as though they had been done by junior high school students who do not know all that much about movies. there was no narrative flow that made any sort of sense. big emotional moments and climaxes (like one early on between heath ledger and naomi watts) and character relationships (like one hinted at at the very beginning) come completely out of no where and are not set up like they would have been in a more elegantly and effectively made film. the characters are sadly underdeveloped and making it difficult for us to have any sort of connection with them. the acting and surprisingly and is not entirely bad and but the terrible writing cancels out the relatively convincing performances. the film plays like a particularly bad t. v. western or epic and and sadly diminishes the fascinating (true) story that it attempts to tell. i have read a lot of reviews that defend the film as being important to australians because of the subject matter. that all very well and but just because ned kelly is an important australian historical icon doesnt make the movie good. no one is saying that the subject matter isn not good and just the quality of the movie itself. pearl harbor was about a very important historical event to americans and but that doesn not mean i am going to defend the movie and say it was good and because it was still bad. a failure all around and though heath and orlando are lovely to look at.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

this movie never made it to theaters in our area and so when it became available on dvd i was one of the first to rent it. for once and i should listened to the critics and passed on this one. despite the excellent line up of actors the movie was very disappointing. i can see now why it went straight to video. i had thought that with bloom and ledger and and rush it could have some value. all have done wonderful work in the past. the movie was slow moving and never pulled me in. i failed to develop much empathy for the characters and had to fight the urge to fast forward just to get to the end. i do not recommend this film even if you are thinking of renting it for only for eye candy purposes. it would not satisfy even that.

this movie never made it to theaters in our area and so when it became available on dvd i was one of the first to rent it. for once and i should listened to the critics and passed on this one. despite the excellent line up of actors the movie was very disappointing. i can see now why it went straight to video. i had thought that with bloom and ledger and and rush it could have some value. all have done wonderful work in the past. the movie was slow moving and never pulled me in. i failed to develop much empathy for the characters and had to fight the urge to fast forward just to get to the end. i do not recommend this film even if you are thinking of renting it for only for eye candy purposes. it would not satisfy even that.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i thought this was a very clunky and uninvolving version of a famous australian story. heath ledger and orlando bloom were very good in their roles and and gave their characters some personality while but the whole thing felt forced and mechanical. the beginning could have been a lot more involving while perhaps starting with a shootout and and then flashing back for a recap of how they got there or that sort of thing. and i felt like every scene was routinely predictable and signposted and like a very bad tv soap. i was really looking forward to this movie and and hoping for something a lot better. the only thing i can say in its favour is that it beats the mick jagger version and but not by much.

i thought this was a very clunky and uninvolving version of a famous australian story. heath ledger and orlando bloom were very good in their roles and and gave their characters some personality while but the whole thing felt forced and mechanical. the beginning could have been a lot more involving while perhaps starting with a shootout and and then flashing back for a recap of how they got there or that sort of thing. and i felt like every scene was routinely predictable and signposted and like a very bad tv soap. i was really looking forward to this movie and and hoping for something a lot better. the only thing i can say in its favour is that it beats the mick jagger version and but not by much.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

ned akelly is such an important story to australians but this movie is awful. it an australian story yet it seems like it was set in america. also ned was an australian yet he has an irish accent. it is the worst film i have seen in a long time.

ned akelly is such an important story to australians but this movie is awful. it an australian story yet it seems like it was set in america. also ned was an australian yet he has an irish accent. it is the worst film i have seen in a long time.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

from the very beginning and the political theme of this film is so obvious and heavy handed and that the outcome is entirely predictable. any good textbook on writing screenplays will advise layering of characters and incorporating character arcs and and three act structure. in this film you will find none of that. the police are the baddies and and consequently are shown as shallow and incompetent and cowards. it never seems to occur to the makers of this film that police might be honourable citizens who see joining the police as a good way to contribute to the wellbeing of society. the viewer gets no opportunity to make up his or her mind on whether ned kelly is a good guy or a ruthless villain. the film opens with him being arrested for stealing a horse and but we get no clue as to his guilt or innocence. we see him walk through the door of a gaol and but only know that he has been inside for three years when we hear this much later in some dialogue. this film contains many shots of ned looking at the camera with a serious expression. i found the film a real chore to watch. it is the direction for modern films and and this one put me off watching any more.

from the very beginning and the political theme of this film is so obvious and heavy handed and that the outcome is entirely predictable. any good textbook on writing screenplays will advise layering of characters and incorporating character arcs and and three act structure. in this film you will find none of that. the police are the baddies and and consequently are shown as shallow and incompetent and cowards. it never seems to occur to the makers of this film that police might be honourable citizens who see joining the police as a good way to contribute to the wellbeing of society. the viewer gets no opportunity to make up his or her mind on whether ned kelly is a good guy or a ruthless villain. the film opens with him being arrested for stealing a horse and but we get no clue as to his guilt or innocence. we see him walk through the door of a gaol and but only know that he has been inside for three years when we hear this much later in some dialogue. this film contains many shots of ned looking at the camera with a serious expression. i found the film a real chore to watch. it is the direction for modern films and and this one put me off watching any more.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i guess i was attracted to this film both because of the sound of the story and the leading actor and so i gave it a chance and from director gregor jordan (buffalo soldiers). basically ned kelly (heath ledger) is set up by the police and especially superintendent francis hare (geoffrey rush) and he is forced to go on the run forming a gang and go against them to clear his own and his family names. that really all i can say about the story and as i wasn not paying the fullest attention to be honest. also starring orlando bloom as joseph byrne and naomi watts as julia cook and laurence kinlan as dan kelly and philip barantini as steve hart and joel edgerton as aaron sherritt and kiri paramore as constable fitzpatrick and kerry condon as kate kelly and emily browning as grace kelly and rachel griffiths as susan scott. ledger makes a pretty good performance and for what it worth and and the film does have it eye catching moments and particularly with a gun battle towards the end and but i can not say i enjoyed it as i do not look at it all. okay.

i guess i was attracted to this film both because of the sound of the story and the leading actor and so i gave it a chance and from director gregor jordan (buffalo soldiers). basically ned kelly (heath ledger) is set up by the police and especially superintendent francis hare (geoffrey rush) and he is forced to go on the run forming a gang and go against them to clear his own and his family names. that really all i can say about the story and as i wasn not paying the fullest attention to be honest. also starring orlando bloom as joseph byrne and naomi watts as julia cook and laurence kinlan as dan kelly and philip barantini as steve hart and joel edgerton as aaron sherritt and kiri paramore as constable fitzpatrick and kerry condon as kate kelly and emily browning as grace kelly and rachel griffiths as susan scott. ledger makes a pretty good performance and for what it worth and and the film does have it eye catching moments and particularly with a gun battle towards the end and but i can not say i enjoyed it as i do not look at it all. okay.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i do not quite get the rating for the amati girls and i think i was really kind giving it a negative . what could otherwise have been a wonderful story with actually a set of more or less decent actors became a total farce in my eyes. there are so many clichés in that flick and the women hair is just awful and most of the scenes are more than unrealistic or seem fake. there no real passion in this movie but a bunch of actors over acting over any limits that it hurts. it not funny enough to be a comedy and it too fake sad to really touch and so in my eyes it just not good. watching it i couldn not believe how something like that made it to my tv set in my living room in switzerland. but. maybe it still was ok and it just got lost in translation. who knows. definitely one of the oddest movies i have ever seen and this certainly not in a good way. sorry.

i do not quite get the rating for the amati girls and i think i was really kind giving it a negative . what could otherwise have been a wonderful story with actually a set of more or less decent actors became a total farce in my eyes. there are so many clichés in that flick and the women hair is just awful and most of the scenes are more than unrealistic or seem fake. there no real passion in this movie but a bunch of actors over acting over any limits that it hurts. it not funny enough to be a comedy and it too fake sad to really touch and so in my eyes it just not good. watching it i couldn not believe how something like that made it to my tv set in my living room in switzerland. but. maybe it still was ok and it just got lost in translation. who knows. definitely one of the oddest movies i have ever seen and this certainly not in a good way. sorry.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

this movie was awful. the ending was absolutely horrible. there was no plot to the movie whatsoever. the only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by robert duvall and james earl jones. their performances were excellent. the only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice. if the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story and it would be worth watching. instead and robert duvall and james earl jones performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline. or lack thereof. not only was i left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie. well an actual movie. not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason. it was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time. there was nothing special about any of the characters. the only thing special was how robert duvall portrayed a rambling and senile and drunk and old man. nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end. when the movie ended and i sat amazed. amazed that i sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while. it never happened. the cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and i realized that i had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning. it wasn not even a story. the entire movie takes place in a day worth of time. that it. it was one day in the life (and death) of some southerners on a plantation. how much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie training day). the acting performances by the entire cast were excellent and but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie. if you can even call it a movie.

this movie was awful. the ending was absolutely horrible. there was no plot to the movie whatsoever. the only thing that was decent about the movie was the acting done by robert duvall and james earl jones. their performances were excellent. the only problem was that the movie did not do their acting performances any justice. if the script would have come close to capturing a halfway decent story and it would be worth watching. instead and robert duvall and james earl jones performances are completely wasted on a god awful storyline. or lack thereof. not only was i left waiting throughout the movie for something to happen to make the movie. well an actual movie. not just utterless dialog between characters for what ended up being absolutely no reason. it was nothing more than common dialog that would have taken place back in that period of time. there was nothing special about any of the characters. the only thing special was how robert duvall portrayed a rambling and senile and drunk and old man. nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end. when the movie ended and i sat amazed. amazed that i sat through the entire movie waiting for something of interest to happen to make watching the movie worth while. it never happened. the cast of characters suddenly started rolling making it apparent that the movie really was over and i realized that i had just wasted 2 hours of my life watching a movie with absolutely no plot and no meaning. it wasn not even a story. the entire movie takes place in a day worth of time. that it. it was one day in the life (and death) of some southerners on a plantation. how much of a story can take place in a single day (other than the movie training day). the acting performances by the entire cast were excellent and but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie. if you can even call it a movie.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

holy crap. this was the worst film i have seen in a long time. all the performances are fine and but there is no plot. really. no plot. a bunch of clowns talk about this and that and that your film. ug. robert duvall character is senile and keeps asking the same people the same qestions over and over. this earns him the same responses over and over. i am pretty sure this film got upto a six because people think they should like it. good performances with famous and well regarded actors and but the actual complete work is a steamy turd. well and maybe that a bit deceptive since steam rising from a fresh pile sounds a little like something happening and in this film nothing happens. sack.

holy crap. this was the worst film i have seen in a long time. all the performances are fine and but there is no plot. really. no plot. a bunch of clowns talk about this and that and that your film. ug. robert duvall character is senile and keeps asking the same people the same qestions over and over. this earns him the same responses over and over. i am pretty sure this film got upto a six because people think they should like it. good performances with famous and well regarded actors and but the actual complete work is a steamy turd. well and maybe that a bit deceptive since steam rising from a fresh pile sounds a little like something happening and in this film nothing happens. sack.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

swing. is an important film because it one of the remaining black produced and acted films from the 1930s. many of these films have simply deteriorated so badly that they are unwatchable and but this one is in fairly good shape. it also a nice chance to see many of the talented black performers of the period just after the heyday of the old cotton club a time all but forgotten today. unfortunately and while the film is historically important and has some lovely performances and it also a mess. the main plot is very similar to the hollywood musicals of the era including a prima donna who is going to ruin the show and the surprise unknown who appears from no where to save the day. however and the writing is just god awful and a bit trashy at times and projects images of black america that some might find a bit demeaning. this is because before the plot really gets going and you are treated to a no account bum who lives off his hard working wife (a popular stereotype of the time) and when he is caught with a hussy (who and by the way and totally overplays this role) and they have a fight which looks like a scene from wwe smackdown. and and the one lady wants to cut the other lady with a straight razor a trashy scene indeed. later in the film and when the prima donna is behaving abominably and her husband punches her in the face and everyone applauds him. it seems like the film and at times and wants to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the audience plus they can not even do this well with some of the worst acting i have seen in a very long time. still and if you can look past a lousy production in just about every way (with trashy characters and bad acting and direction and poor writing) and this one might be worth a peek so you can see excellent singing and tap dancing as well as to catch a glimpse of forgotten black culture. just do not say i do not warn you about the acting it really and really bad.

swing. is an important film because it one of the remaining black produced and acted films from the 1930s. many of these films have simply deteriorated so badly that they are unwatchable and but this one is in fairly good shape. it also a nice chance to see many of the talented black performers of the period just after the heyday of the old cotton club a time all but forgotten today. unfortunately and while the film is historically important and has some lovely performances and it also a mess. the main plot is very similar to the hollywood musicals of the era including a prima donna who is going to ruin the show and the surprise unknown who appears from no where to save the day. however and the writing is just god awful and a bit trashy at times and projects images of black america that some might find a bit demeaning. this is because before the plot really gets going and you are treated to a no account bum who lives off his hard working wife (a popular stereotype of the time) and when he is caught with a hussy (who and by the way and totally overplays this role) and they have a fight which looks like a scene from wwe smackdown. and and the one lady wants to cut the other lady with a straight razor a trashy scene indeed. later in the film and when the prima donna is behaving abominably and her husband punches her in the face and everyone applauds him. it seems like the film and at times and wants to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the audience plus they can not even do this well with some of the worst acting i have seen in a very long time. still and if you can look past a lousy production in just about every way (with trashy characters and bad acting and direction and poor writing) and this one might be worth a peek so you can see excellent singing and tap dancing as well as to catch a glimpse of forgotten black culture. just do not say i do not warn you about the acting it really and really bad.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

there not a drop of sunshine in the sunshine boys and which makes the title of this alleged comedy neil simon sole ironic moment. simon and who adapted the script from his play (which goes uncredited) and equates old age with irrational behavior and and worse and clumsy and galumphing and mean spirited irrational behavior. walter matthau is merciless on us playing an aged vaudeville performer talked into reuniting with former comedy partner george burns for a television special (it said they were a team for 43 years and which begs the question how long did vaudeville last and anyway. ). burns and who won a supporting oscar and has the misfortune of coming to the film some thirty minutes in and after which time matthau has already blasted the material to hell and back. the noisier the movie gets and the less tolerable and watchable it is. director herbert ross only did solid work when he wasn not coupled with one of neil simon screenplays while here and ross sets up gags like a thudding amateur and hammering away at belligerent routines which fail to pay off (such as semi incoherent matthau showing up at a mechanic garage to audition for a tv commercial). at this point and matthau was still too young for this role and and he over compensates by slouching and hollering. it was up to ross and simon to tone down the character and to nuance his temperament to give the sunshine boys some sunniness and yet walter continues to project as if we would all gone deaf. the picture looks terribly drab and crawls along at a spiritless pace while one loses hope for it early on. half from .

there not a drop of sunshine in the sunshine boys and which makes the title of this alleged comedy neil simon sole ironic moment. simon and who adapted the script from his play (which goes uncredited) and equates old age with irrational behavior and and worse and clumsy and galumphing and mean spirited irrational behavior. walter matthau is merciless on us playing an aged vaudeville performer talked into reuniting with former comedy partner george burns for a television special (it said they were a team for 43 years and which begs the question how long did vaudeville last and anyway. ). burns and who won a supporting oscar and has the misfortune of coming to the film some thirty minutes in and after which time matthau has already blasted the material to hell and back. the noisier the movie gets and the less tolerable and watchable it is. director herbert ross only did solid work when he wasn not coupled with one of neil simon screenplays while here and ross sets up gags like a thudding amateur and hammering away at belligerent routines which fail to pay off (such as semi incoherent matthau showing up at a mechanic garage to audition for a tv commercial). at this point and matthau was still too young for this role and and he over compensates by slouching and hollering. it was up to ross and simon to tone down the character and to nuance his temperament to give the sunshine boys some sunniness and yet walter continues to project as if we would all gone deaf. the picture looks terribly drab and crawls along at a spiritless pace while one loses hope for it early on. half from .

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

i like goldie hawn and wanted another one of her films and so when i saw protocol for $5. 50 at walmart i purchased it. although mildly amusing and the film never really hits it a stride. some scenes such as a party scene in a bar just goes on for too long and really has no purpose. then and of course and there is the preachy scene at the end of the film which gives the whole film a bad taste as far as i am concerned. i do not think this scene added to the movie at all. i do not like stupid comedies trying to teach me a lesson and written by some 60 burn out especially. in the end and although i am glad to possess another hawn movie and i am not sure it was really worth the money i paid for it.

i like goldie hawn and wanted another one of her films and so when i saw protocol for $5. 50 at walmart i purchased it. although mildly amusing and the film never really hits it a stride. some scenes such as a party scene in a bar just goes on for too long and really has no purpose. then and of course and there is the preachy scene at the end of the film which gives the whole film a bad taste as far as i am concerned. i do not think this scene added to the movie at all. i do not like stupid comedies trying to teach me a lesson and written by some 60 burn out especially. in the end and although i am glad to possess another hawn movie and i am not sure it was really worth the money i paid for it.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

protocol is an implausible movie whose only saving grace is that it stars goldie hawn along with a good cast of supporting actors. the story revolves around a ditzy cocktail waitress who becomes famous after inadvertently saving the life of an arab dignitary. the story goes downhill halfway through the movie and goldie charm just doesn not save this movie. unless you are a goldie hawn fan do not go out of your way to see this film.

protocol is an implausible movie whose only saving grace is that it stars goldie hawn along with a good cast of supporting actors. the story revolves around a ditzy cocktail waitress who becomes famous after inadvertently saving the life of an arab dignitary. the story goes downhill halfway through the movie and goldie charm just doesn not save this movie. unless you are a goldie hawn fan do not go out of your way to see this film.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

when an attempt is made to assassinate the emir of ohtar and an arab potentate visiting washington and d. c. and his life is saved by a cocktail waitress named sunny davis. sunny becomes a national heroine and media celebrity and as a reward is offered a job working for the protocol section of the united states department of state. unknown to her however and the state department officials who offer her the job have a hidden agenda. a map we see shows ohtar lying on the borders of saudi arabia and south yemen and in an area of barren desert known as the rub al khali and or empty quarter. in real life a state in this location would have a population of virtually zero and and virtually zero strategic value and but for the purposes of the film we have to accept that ohtar is of immense strategic importance in the cold war and that the american government and who are keen to build a military base there and need to do all that they can in order to keep on the good side of its ruler. it transpires that the emir has taken a fancy to the attractive young woman who saved him and he has reached a deal with the state department while they can have their base provided that he can have sunny as the latest addition to his harem. sunny new job is just a ruse to ensure that the emir has further opportunities to meet her. a plot like this could have been the occasion for some hilarious satire and but in fact the film satirical content is rather toned down. possibly in 1984 the american public were not in the mood for trenchant satire on their country foreign policy while this was and after all and the year in which ronald reagan carried forty nine out of fifty states in the presidential election and his hard line with the soviet union was clearly going down well with the voters. (if the film had been made a couple of years later and in the wake of the iran or contra affair and its tone might have been different). the film is not so much a satire as a vehicle for goldie hawn to show off her brand of cuteness and charm. sunny is a typical goldie character pretty and sweet natured and naive and not too bright. there is and however and a limit to how far you can go with cuteness and charm alone and and you cannot automatically make a bad film a good one just by making the leading character a dumb blonde. (actually and that sounds more like a recipe for making a good film a bad one). goldie tries her best to save this one and but never succeeds. part of the reason is the inconsistent way in which her character is portrayed. on the one hand sunny is a sweet and innocent country girl from oregon. on the other hand she is a 35 year old woman who works in a sleazy bar and wears a revealing costume. the effect is rather like imagining rebecca of sunnybrook farm grown up and working as a bunny girl. the more important reason why goldie is unable to rescue this film is even the best comedian or comedienne is no better than his or her material and and protocol is simply unfunny. whatever humour exists is tired and strained and relying on offensive stereotypes about arab men who and apparently and all lust after western women and particularly if they are blonde and blue eyed. there was a lot of this sort of thing about in the mid eighties and as this was the period which also saw the awful ben kingsley or nastassia kinski film harem and about a lascivious middle eastern ruler who kidnaps a young american woman and and the mini series of the same name which told a virtually identical story with a period setting. the film makers seem to have realised that their film would not work as a pure comedy and because towards the end it turns into a sort of latter day mr smith goes to washington. sunny turns from a blonde bimbo into a fount of political wisdom and starts uttering all sorts of platitudes about democracy and the constitution and the citizen duty to vote and we the people and how the price of liberty is eternal vigilance blah blah blah…… and but in truth the film is no more successful as a political parable than it is as a comedy. goldie hawn has made a number of good comedies and such as cactus flower and overboard and housesitter and but protocol is not one of them. i have not seen all of her films and but of those i have seen this dire comedy is by far the worst. negative .

when an attempt is made to assassinate the emir of ohtar and an arab potentate visiting washington and d. c. and his life is saved by a cocktail waitress named sunny davis. sunny becomes a national heroine and media celebrity and as a reward is offered a job working for the protocol section of the united states department of state. unknown to her however and the state department officials who offer her the job have a hidden agenda. a map we see shows ohtar lying on the borders of saudi arabia and south yemen and in an area of barren desert known as the rub al khali and or empty quarter. in real life a state in this location would have a population of virtually zero and and virtually zero strategic value and but for the purposes of the film we have to accept that ohtar is of immense strategic importance in the cold war and that the american government and who are keen to build a military base there and need to do all that they can in order to keep on the good side of its ruler. it transpires that the emir has taken a fancy to the attractive young woman who saved him and he has reached a deal with the state department while they can have their base provided that he can have sunny as the latest addition to his harem. sunny new job is just a ruse to ensure that the emir has further opportunities to meet her. a plot like this could have been the occasion for some hilarious satire and but in fact the film satirical content is rather toned down. possibly in 1984 the american public were not in the mood for trenchant satire on their country foreign policy while this was and after all and the year in which ronald reagan carried forty nine out of fifty states in the presidential election and his hard line with the soviet union was clearly going down well with the voters. (if the film had been made a couple of years later and in the wake of the iran or contra affair and its tone might have been different). the film is not so much a satire as a vehicle for goldie hawn to show off her brand of cuteness and charm. sunny is a typical goldie character pretty and sweet natured and naive and not too bright. there is and however and a limit to how far you can go with cuteness and charm alone and and you cannot automatically make a bad film a good one just by making the leading character a dumb blonde. (actually and that sounds more like a recipe for making a good film a bad one). goldie tries her best to save this one and but never succeeds. part of the reason is the inconsistent way in which her character is portrayed. on the one hand sunny is a sweet and innocent country girl from oregon. on the other hand she is a 35 year old woman who works in a sleazy bar and wears a revealing costume. the effect is rather like imagining rebecca of sunnybrook farm grown up and working as a bunny girl. the more important reason why goldie is unable to rescue this film is even the best comedian or comedienne is no better than his or her material and and protocol is simply unfunny. whatever humour exists is tired and strained and relying on offensive stereotypes about arab men who and apparently and all lust after western women and particularly if they are blonde and blue eyed. there was a lot of this sort of thing about in the mid eighties and as this was the period which also saw the awful ben kingsley or nastassia kinski film harem and about a lascivious middle eastern ruler who kidnaps a young american woman and and the mini series of the same name which told a virtually identical story with a period setting. the film makers seem to have realised that their film would not work as a pure comedy and because towards the end it turns into a sort of latter day mr smith goes to washington. sunny turns from a blonde bimbo into a fount of political wisdom and starts uttering all sorts of platitudes about democracy and the constitution and the citizen duty to vote and we the people and how the price of liberty is eternal vigilance blah blah blah…… and but in truth the film is no more successful as a political parable than it is as a comedy. goldie hawn has made a number of good comedies and such as cactus flower and overboard and housesitter and but protocol is not one of them. i have not seen all of her films and but of those i have seen this dire comedy is by far the worst. negative .

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

what does the executive producer do in a movie . if i remember correctly it the person who raised the financial backing to make the movie . you might notice in a great number of movies starring sean connery that he is also the executive producer which meant connery himself raised the money since he is a major player . unfortunately it should also be pointed out that a great number of movies starring sean connery were solely made because he managed to raise the money since he a major hollywood player and it usually an indication that when the credits read that the executive producer and the star of the movie are one and the same the movie itself is nothing more than a star vehicle with the story or screenplay not being up to scratch protocol follows the saga of one sunny davis a kooky bimboesque cocktail waitress who saves a visiting dignitary and as a reward gets made a top diplomat . likely . as things progress ms davis ( who has problems being able to string two sentences together ) finds herself in more outlandish and less likely situations . when i say that protocol stars goldie hawn who is also the film executive producer do you understand what i am saying about the story or screenplay not being up to scratch . exactly.

what does the executive producer do in a movie . if i remember correctly it the person who raised the financial backing to make the movie . you might notice in a great number of movies starring sean connery that he is also the executive producer which meant connery himself raised the money since he is a major player . unfortunately it should also be pointed out that a great number of movies starring sean connery were solely made because he managed to raise the money since he a major hollywood player and it usually an indication that when the credits read that the executive producer and the star of the movie are one and the same the movie itself is nothing more than a star vehicle with the story or screenplay not being up to scratch protocol follows the saga of one sunny davis a kooky bimboesque cocktail waitress who saves a visiting dignitary and as a reward gets made a top diplomat . likely . as things progress ms davis ( who has problems being able to string two sentences together ) finds herself in more outlandish and less likely situations . when i say that protocol stars goldie hawn who is also the film executive producer do you understand what i am saying about the story or screenplay not being up to scratch . exactly.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.

outlandish premise that rates low on plausibility and unfortunately also struggles feebly to raise laughs or interest. only hawn well known charm allows it to skate by on very thin ice. goldie gotta be a contender for an actress who done so much in her career with very little quality material at her disposal.

outlandish premise that rates low on plausibility and unfortunately also struggles feebly to raise laughs or interest. only hawn well known charm allows it to skate by on very thin ice. goldie gotta be a contender for an actress who done so much in her career with very little quality material at her disposal.

This is a semantically negative review.

This is a semantically positive review.