Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: As an avid fan of the Flashman books by George McDonald Fraser, I looked forward immensely to seeing Flashy on the big screen when this film was first released. Sadly it was a huge disappointment then - so I left it alone for 20 years before going back to watch it again, but it was no better the second time. Mr Fraser is a tremendously skillful writer, but I am not a fan of his film screenplay work with Richard Lester. The penchant for slapstick spoilt 'The Three Musketeers' for me and the same applies here. To me, the whole tone and feel of the film is wrong. The Flashman books are uproariously funny in parts, but they are adventure novels. There is much seriousness in the way the adventures that Flashman has - after all, he is involved in dangerous situations. This is conveyed in the novels, but not conveyed at all on film due to the its comedic style. It is a tremendous shame as it could have a great film had it been a more faithful adaptation of the style of the book. When I first read that the book was to be filmed, the article said that the film was to star Oliver Reed. I rejoiced, as Reed to me was the epitome of Flashman. How I would have loved to see him in the role. Malcolm McDowell is a good actor, but does not fit the visual image of Flashman created by the books (too scrawny looking! Flashman is supposed to be a big strapping fellow). Neverheless Reed was excellent as Bismarck. What kills the film is that it is made as a comedy. The only scene in which it creates the true atmosphere of the book is the scene in which Flashman kills de Gautet (Tom Bell). A great shame, as the production values, costumes, sets etc are superb and the casting is generally excellent - just about everybody in the film is well cast apart from Malcolm McDowell. Possibly the directorship of Richard Lester was responsible for the way the film is, as a recent radio adaptation of 'Flash For Freedom', adapted by Mr Fraser, worked quite well. Perhaps one day we may see Flashman done justice on screen.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: 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, it would be worth watching. Instead, Robert DuVall's 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, senile, drunk, old man. Nothing worthy happens during the entire movie including the end. When the movie ended, 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't even a story. The entire movie takes place in a day's worth of time. That's 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, but they were grossly wasted on such a disappointment of a movie...if you can even call it a movie.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
Spinal Tap was funny because if you knew a little about heavy metal, you saw in-jokes all over the place. If you know anything about porn, this mock documentary will leave you cold. Everything in it rings false.

Spinal Tap was funny because it took a familiar world and pushed it over the top. This film is decidedly not funny because it paints a picture of how porn is made that bears no relationship to the real world.

The acting here is uniformly awful, but that would not matter much if the core idea of the movie were good. But it's not.