IN: Review: and not in a fun-to-watch way. it's just bad. it's shocking that people have posted positive things about it here. the story sucks, the acting is bad, it's not scary, the special effects aren't special--oh no! the blackboard has hands coming out of it! oh gee--the mirror turned into water! the hair, clothes and makeup in the '50s scenes aren't accurate, and they got a middle-aged man with a receding hairline to play the high-school version of himself. this is like later-on nightmare on elm street stuff. i enjoy sitting down to watch a cheesy horror movie as much as anyone else, but there are better bad ones out there to choose from.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Yes, as unbelievable as it may be, in 1968 a musical won the Academy Award for best picture - and it was the third musical to win that award in a five-year period, the first being My Fair Lady in 1964 and then The Sound of Music in 1965. The difference between My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music and Oliver! however is that Oliver! is immeasurably better! No comparison. The first two movies are insipid wet noodles compared to the remarkably robust Oliver!. The acting is great; the songs are great; the story is great and the dancing is great. This movie is dynamic, topical, relevant to the human experience and unlike the overblown Gangs of New York, Oliver! offers a portrayal of poverty in 19th century London, England that evokes sympathy without being condescending. Oliver Reed was a great actor and he proves it in Oliver! The other actors and actresses, especially Ron Moody and Shani Wallis, are equally wonderful and offer powerful portrayals of characters who evoke sympathy and warmth without being caricatures.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I had the good fortune of reading the book before seeing the movie. It was an epic of adolescence, a dream of summers gone, a great potential indie film or big budget drama. It somehow got into the hands of a hack, who clearly took notes watching Boogie Nights and Rushmore without actually learning anything at all. The script loses the meat of the book in favor of forced emotional notes and low brow gags. I feel sorry for the actors, since the characters in the book were rich and textured, but cut down to embarrassing charactures in the film. Mason Gamble is great when given the opportunity, as is Dylan Baker, but the skeleton that remains of the story plays out like a bad after school special. Poor people = GOOD, Rich people = BAD.

Though it's almost worth watching to see the Southern California beach where Gary Sinise parks his trailer which is meant to pass for a bay in Delaware.

It's a good book, but an embarrassing turn for first time director Mills Goodloe.

K.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Very outdated film with awful, cliche-ridden and mawkish dialog and a very poor construction. In addition, Cassavetes and Falk overact constantly. A pseudo "good movie". It takes no time to discover how catastrophic this intellectual turkey is. The first scene is a total bore, filled with histrionics and hysteric exchanges. The sound is horrible. Camera movements are without imagination as is the building of characters. No poetry, no subtle psychology, no interesting shots. The actors smoke constantly and we see ads for beer beverages. Very cheap, indeed. (one exception : Ned Beattie"s nice and simple way of playing the hit man).
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative