input: The first time I came upon Delirious, I only heard it. I listened to the entire comedic performance and never have I laughed so much in my life. Eddie's ability to paint hilarious pictures in our minds and do great imitation is captivating. When I finally got to see him perform this act, I had to have it. Eddie Murphy's performance on Delirious shows his genius! With it being the new millennium, his acts in 1983 is just as funny today as it was then. My parents loved it as teenagers and I (age eighteen) love it as well. From that point on, I had to view Murphy's other movies such as Coming To America and Harlem Nights. There will be no other comedian like Eddie.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: While the idea is more original than most Sci-Fi movies, the execution is, as usual lacking. While the practical mummy effects are not bad, and the "Gun Nut" character is over the top giggle inducing, the only real draw is to see Morena Baccarin and Adam Baldwin reunited on the small screen. I suspect that was the idea all along. They do the best they can with what they have but the "must see" moments for me were in the first 40 minutes or so when Morena's character sported some Tomb Raider style shorts. Not high brow cinema I know but you can't deny true beauty when you see it!!! And Adam Baldwin once again hams it up as the guy you love to hate. If you just want to watch a couple of your favorite Firefly characters have a good time with some sub par material then this might be for you. If you want good acting and character development then be advised to look elsewhere.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Sydney Lumet hasn't had a box office hit in 20 years and yet at 83 has managed to churn out a tight, well-cast, suspenseful thriller set in his old stamping ground, New York City. (How he got insurance, let alone the budget after all those flops, is a mystery also). The story is a pretty grim one and the characters are not particularly likable but it held me on the edge of my seat till the final scene.

Two brothers with pressing financial problems conspire to rob a suburban jewelry store owned by their elderly parents. The only victim is going to be the insurance company. The robbery goes awry and two people die. Most of the film is concerned with the aftermath. The action is non-linear and seen from the main character's differing points of view, but it is not difficult to follow. What is not so easy to work out is the back story how did the brothers get into such a mess? There are clues the younger brother being the baby of the family is his fathers' favorite while the older brother seems to be carrying a lot of baggage about his relationship with his father, and vice versa, but that hardly accounts for him becoming a heroin-using murdering embezzler.

As the scheming older brother, a corpulent Philip Seymour Hoffman dominates the film, but he is well supported by Ethan Hawke as his bullied, inadequate younger brother. Albert Finney as their father seems to be in a constant state of rage but then the script calls for that. Marisa Tomei as the older brother's cheating wife at the age of 42 puts in the sexiest performance I've seen in many a year. The film literally starts with a bang, but we are out of that comfort zone pretty quickly.

I don't know the origins of this story by first time scriptwriter Kelly Masterton but I suspect that like Lumet's great 70's film "Dog Day Afternoon" it is based on fact it's too silly to be untrue. Lumet is just about the last of those immensely versatile old-time craftsman studio directors who with immense speed were able to direct just about anything that was put in front of them. Some great films were produced that way as well as some classic turkeys. This isn't a classic of either sort it's a well-crafted piece of downbeat entertainment. It will probably leave you feeling that you were lucky not be a member of a family as dysfunctional as this one, but still wondering as to how they got that way. We do know the parents were happy but we see so little of the mother and hear so little about her it is impossible pick up on her relationship with the boys. (There is also a daughter whose presence seems redundant). Well, like Tolstoy, we have to conclude that "each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way".

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The movie is absolutely silly.

But were you expecting a high-brow intellectual film based on a comic called Slam Dunk? Really? Jay Chou's acting isn't exactly the most moving thing I've ever seen, but I certainly enjoyed the movie. Was it somewhere near the level of awesome that someone like Jet Li or Stephen Chow can produce? No, not really. Was it thoroughly entertaining if you're just taking it at surface value? Absolutely. It's a movie about some Chinese eye-candy idols and musicians who can play basketball at an unreal level of expertise. There's an evil Triad-style dude and a wacky scheming guy who gets Jay Chou involved in all of this. A love interest. It's formulaic but really, suspend disbelief for a while. Come on. It's called Kung Fu Dunk. What do you really think you signed on for? Do yourself a favor if you watch it - I found myself a copy with some Engrish subtitles that made the movie nigh unintelligible conversation wise, but we got a great laugh out of it. They would appear to be extremely fixated on Jerusalem and the numbers 1, 10.

I laughed, I cried, I hurled. I'd watch it again.

Especially for that fight scene in the bar. Well choreographed and well shot. I especially enjoy the plexiglass lit pool table - I'd LOVE to play on one of those.

Slick enough for me, but I dig on trash cinema.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive