Sadly, has not aged well

Rating: 4/10 (24 April 1999)

I can understand how this film would have been so well-received back when it first came out, but quite simply, time has not been kind to this movie. In my opinion, this film is far too slow-moving and simplistic to be considered a masterpiece, much like most of the early films that are considered classics today. This film was far too tame to have an impact on me, and I must confess that I found it to be frequently boring as well. I can certainly appreciate the effort that was put forth, and I can recognize that a great deal of talent worked on this film, but by today's standards, this movie just doesn't measure up.