input: The plot doesn't begin to describe the film: a man is writing a film, or rather, *this* film. It's totally self referential to the point that you think it's going to fold in on itself like a black hole. The writer writes something and it happens, or something happens and he writes about it.

It's very philosophical, like "Waking Life" but more Zen oriented and for that matter, much better, in my opinion. At one point there are person-on-the-street interviews and then you see shots of these people being filmed, and then you discover that their responses are scripted when one keeps flubbing her lines. There is beautiful scenery and optical illusions.

I hope it comes out on DVD so I can watch it again more carefully. Seen at Cinequest (the San Jose, CA film festival) on 2/25/2002.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Dull, flatly-directed "comedy" has zero laughs and wastes a great cast. Alan Alda wore too many hats on this one and it shows. Newcomer Anthony LaPaglia provides the only spark of life in this tedium but it's not enough.

One of those scripts that, if you were a neophyte and submitted it to an agent or producer, would be ripped to shreds and rejected without discussion.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Wow and I thought that any Steven Segal movie was bad. Every time I thought that the movie couldn't get worse it proved me wrong. The story was good but the actors couldn't carry it off. Also, they made a lot of mistakes on how proper archiological digs are done. For instance you don't handle artifacts untill they are catologed and accounted for. The biggest crime in casting was the archiologist girl. She is a weak actress and I felt that her acting really made the movie less realistic then it already was. The whole concept of the knights templar being underground all these years seemed pretty stupid to me. I like the idea of how they disappeared and stuff, so that almost seemed depressing. I thought that the characters wern't explained well enough. You didn't find out much background and that made it harder to relate to them.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: "The College Girl Murders" is my first acquaintance with the writing work of Edgar Wallace and generally my first real acquaintance with "Krimi" films in general and I can say that I'm moderately impressed. This stuff is really entertaining, although I never would have expected it to be so goofy! The film has an exhilarating and nicely convoluted plot, with a healthy dose of humor, flamboyant twists and pretty inventive killings. There's some James Bond type of evil mastermind who always sits in the shadow and in front of a large monitor - recruiting prisoners to kill certain girls at a specific college with a new type of poison. There's also a villainous monk with a whip, dressed like a communist KKK member, getting rid of the leftover characters, like overly curious teachers and such, as well as a kooky police commissioner who persists on solving the case with a psychological approach. Seriously, if I had known sooner that these Krimi films were so colorful and crazy, I would have purchased a whole collection of them already. The pretzel plot actually raises more questions than it answers in the end, and the overload of comical gimmicks on the account of Scotland Yard Inspector Higgins are sometimes a bit much to swallow, but I don't care because it was sublime entertainment. Even the funky 60's soundtrack remained stuck in my head for a long time. It's like a variant on the Italian Giallo, but with slapstick elements.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
positive