IN: Review: There are so many incorrect statements in this so-called "documentary" that I found myself shouting at the television.

Bart Sibrel might be able to produce a flashy looking DVD, but he is sadly lacking at looking at the science behind his claims.

He relies on either being inaccurate, not telling the full story, or the old favourite "government always lies to us" innuendos, and people believing what is told to them and not checking on the accuracy or details behind the claims.

What's more, his "exclusive" or "unreleased" footage is freely available over the internet from various sites.

Further reading about the circumstances regarding the filming of this production shows that he used false pretenses to gain interviews, and has used creative editing of the responses in order to promote his own opinions.

All of the claims made by Mr Sibrel about "inaccuracies", "mistakes", or "whistleblowing" in the Apollo programme have been thoroughly disproven.

How do I get that 40-odd minutes of my life back?
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Disney (and the wonderful folks at PIXAR of course) offer a nice, humourous story combined with the best of computer animation. I admit that maybe the 'faces' of the bugs were a little more static than in 'Antz' and they only had four legs (in 'Antz' six...). But backgrounds were superb and animation was breathtaking. But let this be a lesson: it was not the computer who made it such a success : it was the man behind the machine, who added the nice little twists, which I missed in 'Antz'. Some highlights were of course the 'bloopers' at the end (So keep watching at the end, it's worth it!), which were highly amusing and original. The line 'Filmed entirely on location' was intended for the more attentive viewer.
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Every now and then there gets released this movie no one has ever heard of and got shot in a very short time with very little money and resource but everybody goes crazy about and turns out to be a surprisingly great one. This also happened in the '50's with quite a few little movies, that not a lot of people have ever heard of. There are really some unknown great surprising little jewels from the '50's that are worth digging out. "Panic in the Streets" is another movie like that that springs to the mind. Both are movies that aren't really like the usual genre flicks from their time and are also made with limited resources.

I was really surprised at how much I ended up liking this movie. It was truly a movie that got better and better as it progressed. Like all 'old' movies it tends to begin sort of slow but once you get into the story and it's characters you're in for a real treat with this movie.

The movie has a really great story that involves espionage, though the movie doesn't start of like that. It begins as this typical crime-thriller with a touch of film-noir to it. But "Pickup on South Street" just isn't really a movie by the numbers so it starts to take its own directions pretty soon on. It ensures that the movie remains a surprising but above all also really refreshing one to watch.

I also really liked the characters within this movie. None of them are really good guys and they all of their flaws and weaknesses. Really humane. It also especially features a great performance from Thelma Ritter, who even received a well deserved Oscar nomination for. It has really got to be one of the greatest female roles I have ever seen.

Even despite its somewhat obvious low budget this is simply one great, original, special little movie that deserves to be seen by more!

10/10
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I literally fell asleep 3 times watching this movie. Granted, it's Shakespeare and that takes a certain mindset to be interested or not. But this movie exceeds any barrier of long soliloquies and what not, that may prevent many from just not caring about a Shakespeare based story.

The largest roadblock to this production is the complete flatness of the characters. Often during character's interacting, it's nearly difficult to distinguish who's lines are who's. Granted, I believe this movie is dubbed in English. Certainly they could've obtained voice actors which could've added a bit more drama to these classic, literary lines.

It would be difficult to rate this movie greater than 1, although perhaps that's based on prejudices of perhaps age and what would seem a very low budget. Still, it's absolutely painful and boring. If you insist on Hamlet, do yourself a favor and read the book again. 1/10
What is this review like?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
OUT:
negative