input: This bomb is just one 'explosion' after another, with no humor and only absurd situations. Really, pyrotechnics to the extreme. Reality is not one of its strong points. I give it a 1 out of 10. I would have made it a zero but that option wasn't permitted. Sorry, but Lithgow and Sutherland deserve better roles. But then at times we all need to have money. And I still recoil at that Tim Burton farce about Mars. Nicholson was brave enough to admit that was a turkey. But if that was a turkey, this movie then is not even a gizzard. I wish I could say, "give me back my money". You can bet I would if I could. But that is the trouble with premium services, the subscription variety.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I love this show!

Every time i watch an episode i repeat that line and remind myself how good of a show this is. I am a huge sci-fi fan and this show has grounds to be the most important science (fiction?) show in the history of film/TV. There are so many theories in this show about the universe i could start a religion. Its amazing, season after season the show gets better and better.

I've been a fan of MacGyver since i was 5 (19 now) and i find it so ironic that my 2 favorite TV shows of all time star Richard Dean Anderson. Its also interesting how each character is practically the opposite of the other.

Back when i first saw Stargate the movie, i instantly liked it and considered it one of my favorite sci-fi flicks, then hearing a TV show would spin from it i got really excited, but didn't get showtime till the fifth season was almost over.

Though, I'm disappointed to hear that Roland Emmerich and Dean Devlin wanted to do a trilogy of movies but the studio optioned the series instead.

Id say though that it turned out just fine. Maybe even better.

This show is amazing, and i hope it never dies. Atlantis here we come!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I picked this DVD up at the Dollar Store. The DVD was on the 2 for $1 rack, but since it had Michael Madsen in it, I thought that since I had never seen the movie, I bought it anyway.

I must say that I didn't like the movie. The movie played more like a documentary or an advertisement for religion than anything else. I found that the director's use of flashbacks did not add to the story line for me. I would have preferred to view the story line in chronological order.

I won't throw it away like one of the other commentators, but It may be quite awhile before I would consider watching this movie again.

Who knows, since it was Michael Madsen's film debut, maybe it might have some archival value at some future date.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: An entertaining kung fu film, with acting, plot and fight scenes a cut above the average chop socky. All of the cast are likeable characters and skilled martial artists. Alexander Fu-Sheng's proto-Jackie Chan comedy antics are fun to watch, and his austere companion shows particularly impressive skills. For me, the film's only glaring flaw is the size of the cast -- at times, things get a little confused as the film chops and changes between various subplots, and some of the characters are not as fully fleshed-out as one might wish.

But a kung fu film should be judged first and foremost on the quality of the action, and Shaolin Temple definitely delivers on that count. The film climaxes with a high-bodycount battle that allows each character to show off his skills against a worthy opponent.

Overall, Shaolin Temple is an enjoyable low-budget kung fu movie. Not up to the quality of a good Jet Li film, but definitely worth a look for fans of the genre. My rating: 8/10.

Misc notes: The 1987 Warner Home Video release I saw was (predictably) poorly dubbed, and lacked full cast & crew credits.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive