input: This snarky, homophobic thing was dated in 1976. It seems particularly mean-spirited now, filled with gay stereotypes, and characters that are meant to be laughed at, rather than with. Redd Foxx does his standard schtick, Michael Warren at least tries to bring humanity to a one dimensional character, and Pearl--Pearl what were you thinking--? Pearl Bailey deserves far better.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Fassbinder's most lavish production sacrifices little of his talent for identifying and deconstructing a locus of suffering in long, mobile takes that somehow also act as social encapsulations; here, it's much more overt, since the story takes place in war-torn Germany at the end of WWII, and the central character is a woman (Hanna Schygulla as Maria) who capitalizes on vulnerabilities (both economic and gender-related) to catapult herself up the ladder of a prominent textile corp. that makes coveted goods like lederhosen available to indigent workers (as she once was). Married amidst allied air raids, Maria and her new husband Herrmann are allowed a brief honeymoon before he's shipped out to the Russian front. In his absence, her despair is great: she spends most days at the train station, waiting for him to return. When he is reported dead, she abruptly stops grieving and takes a job as a barmaid/prostitute at a brothel catering to American GI's.

When he returns, things get plenty messy, as circumstances (and his sense of noble self-sacrifice) conspire to keep them apart. The message is Fassbinder's M.O. writ large: 'Love is colder than death,' but not only is Maria contending with her own sanity and a husband largely incapable of loving her, but a country in deep flux with no discernible light at the end of the tunnel. Fassbinder is making some kind of statement on post-war Germany selling out to the highest bidder, but as with all his films, I tend to block those elements out and focus on the unbearable passions on display: Fassbinder's as evoked through his characters; his actors' as filtered through their real-life connections with Fassbinder. Taken together, his films can be either unbearable or indescribably mesmeric, often at once; this falls somewhere in-between, although definitely closer to the latter. While I didn't like it quite as much as The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant or Katzelmacher, Maria Braun certainly has a greater scope and what's more, I could feel its passion and authentic detail to human emotions.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: When I read the summary of the movie, something like what happens when a man gets powers of a God, and how he later learns that having supernatural powers requires giant responsibility and strength, I though that was clever and original concept. Casting was promising too, Carrey, Freeman, Aniston... How can movie with a good idea and good actors, not to mention costs of filming, can be bad? It can. Idea is good, but script and story itself is terrible. Bruce Nolan is, let's be honest, a pretty mediocre journalist, with not exactly great stories (like a story of a giant cookie, what a faux pas, and the Niagara report is complete fiasco!), he's a man with a job he completely DESERVES (he's not a good journalist, he's a comedian), considering his potentials, with a nice home, sugar sweet girlfriend, and OH HORROR!!!! Dog who is not house trained!!! Yes, as soon as Bruce, at the beginning of the movie starts addressing GOd in a "God, why do you hate me!" manner, average viewer must think: "Why, what's wrong with your life, Bruce?". Bruce is not, and definitely NOT the man with real problems in life. Most the troubles that happen to him are minor and not really worth of all that fuss he makes, and some of them are really only the result of his stupidity. Most people have really big problems, worth of attention, most people are more worth of attention that Bruce, who doesn't seem too human after all, doesn't look even realistic, too goofy and neurotic, but God still addresses to him. Why? Though Morgan Freeman looks nice as a God, I can't help but to ask what is he doing in this particularly bad movie. And what does Bruce do when God gives him his powers? God in this movie could as easily give his powers to a 5 year old kid and there hardly would be any difference. No, wait, a smart kid would probably use his God powers better than Bruce. What does Bruce do? Pulls the moon closer to earth to create romantic atmosphere, parts the red soup, lifts up a pretty woman's dress on the street, answers prayers via e-mail and make all of them come true!!!! No more, Bruce, please! What Bruce did could actually end the world, but in the movie, that doesn't happen, because this is "nice, family, little movie" and doesn't make any sense at all!!! Not a hint of sarcasm, of real humor, of wittiness, of some dirty humor at least!!! Nothing. Just Carrey playing silly, which is starting to look pathetic on middle aged actor. Aniston here is understated. She plays pale, undeveloped character of Bruce's girlfriend Grace, and stays completely forgettable in this movie. Nobody in the right mind would believe that this two have any chemistry at all between them. When Grace says prayer for Bruce it sounds not only lame and pathetic, but completely false. These two are not meant to be together. I would give three stars, but I doubt movie deserves a one. Bad script, lame dialogs, lack of real humor, wittiness and any sophistication, as well as undeveloped characters and understated Freeman's and Aniston's roles, total lack of boldness and sarcasm, it all makes movie hardly worth ***. But OK, there were few funny moments, and Freeman is always nice to see in any movie so, lets leave three stars.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: A great slasher movie -- too bad it was the producers and not part of the script. Basic plot summary - man with redhead fetish goes invites such women to his flat only to go into some kind of freakish coma and proceeds in offing them to various degrees of success. Only the cutting crew behind the scenes must have thought the movie was as ad as I did and chopped the heck out of the movie. Nothing flows, you get lost on which redhead he is with at the time (didn't he off that one earlier??), and most of the time it looks like the camera man passed out and resumed filming when he awoke. Not that I can blame him I passed out 2-3 times and had to rewind and resume to try to regain what little plot that does exist. Warning when you see the ending DO NOT try to connect it with anything that happens before -- you will just get an aneurysm. Not worth the time, effort, or God forbid money. Only reason to get a 2 instead of a 1 - the slim chance that the hacking occurred between film release and the horrible version that I watched.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative