input: Orson Welles manages to knock me on my ass with every picture of his I see. Lady of Shanghai is on the same level as his other masterpieces, The Magnificent Ambersons, Touch of Evil, The Trial, and Chimes at Midnight. The plot can tend to be confusing sometimes, and sometimes it seems to be moving maybe a tiny bit too fast (about an hour of it was edited out when test screenings went poorly). It doesn't matter, however. You can't watch Welles' films and manage to concentrate too much on the plot. His direction defines what great direction is. Almost any scene from this film can hold up with any other scene he directed. Check out the courtroom scene. Usually they are such stock scenes that I can't stand them. Case in point, try to sit through Welles' own speech near the end of Compulsion. In Lady from Shanghai, just pay attention to the level of detail in that courtroom scene. Watch that juror who is always sneezing and interrupting the proceedings. Or just take a look at the lighting in that scene. I know, it is just a simple Venetian blind, and that it was used constantly in film noirs and crime films of the era, but Welles gives it a beauty all its own. The dialogue is also remarkable. Welles had the skill, a skill that no one else seemed to have, to make a crime film containing examples of the grandest poetry. Whether he was speaking Shakespeare or spitting out hard-boiled lines, it had the power to stir the soul. 10/10.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: In all truth, this really isn't a "movie" so much as an extended final episode; by this I mean that, had you NOT followed the TV series (Homicide: Life On The Street) I suspect that you would have a hard time following this made-for-tv movie. Having said that, "Homicide: The Movie" is still a great watch. I think it says a lot about a television production that EVERY single cast member would return, many after years of absence, to once again portray their characters and bring closure to an incredible program. The movie brings out that sense of "family", not only amongst the characters, but amongst the actors, as well. It's all very bitter-sweet knowing that this will be the LAST time we will see them all together again under the title of HOMICIDE. Story-wise, I found this film somewhat lacking. Giardello's mayoral candidacy seems particularly contrived, and I felt his shooting could've been dealt with within the parameters of his regular position, as Leiutenant. Also, Det. Bayliss's extreme plot twist, which was left hanging at series end, is finally resolved, but I, for one, NEVER felt that it needed to be; I enjoyed being left with a mystery (let us recall that the very first episode's first case also went unsolved for the entire series run!). As a DEVOTED fan of the TV series I can love this movie, and the fact that it even got made after H:LOTS had been canceled, but I would not recommend it to anyone who hasn't had the slightest exposure to the series. Now, if they'd just release it on DVD...

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The movie was disappointing. The book was powerful. The views and the learning of Little Tree were powerfully portrayed in the book. The movie just coasted along and finally dribbled away. Still a nice tale for kids.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: There are some excellent comments and observations on this film. I was pleased to note the comparisons to Fritz Lang's "M" (forget the 50's abortive remake with lightweight David Wayne). The real villain is not the tortured murderer (extraordinarily fine performance by Jeffery DeMunn), taking out his sexually frustrated anger on his victims-- mostly children. He is the objective. The real villain is the stifling bureaucratic Soviet system, drowning in its own corrupted incompetence. The frustration of an uncompromisingly dedicated man (Rea in his best role since "The Crying Game"), a facile pragmatist who's willing to use the system to his advantage (Sutherland always successful in this kind of role), a hesitant, frightened but determined psychiatrist (the incomparable Max Sydow), the bumbling, boopous bureaucrat of a prosecutor (brilliant Brit actor John Wood) and the quiet, supporting wife of the driven investigator (delightful supporter, Imelda Staunton). This is one damn fine film. Its darkness and bleakness are supported by the portrayal of a corrupt, incompetent system which works against success. The is no need to dip into gore-laden slice 'n dice sensationalism that has characterized so many recent films. Gore is present-- it's a ghastly story-- but it adds to the depicting of a pathologically twisted human being. The success of the story is precisely that: these were acts perpetrated by a person, a human like you or I. Where you and I choose to vent our frustration by reasonable means, Chikatilo took his anger out on the most innocent and vulnerable of us, our children. The superb premise of this story is made manifest by an equally superb cast of excellent actors. --sadly, I note that our Australian friend didn't like the speech and no doubt would have preferred to hear them speaking in Aussie dialect. Well, too bad. This fine film sure worked for me and everyone else I've talked with who has seen it.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive