input: This has to be one of the worst movies I've ever seen. This movie has nothing positive about it. Some of you people actually like this movie! I've seen a lot of Dracula movies and I've liked everyone that I've seen, but when I saw this movie I said to myself, "What the hell is this?" What a stupid movie. Now they have Dracula becoming who he is because he is Judas. For those of you who don't know who Judas is, he betrayed Jesus Christ and then felt so guilty he hung himself. You have to be kidding me. That's the dumbest reason I've ever heard for why Dracula became evil. Who asked for a reason anyway? What a piece of sh** this movie is. Who ever came up with this sorry excuse for a movie should be beaten. Even the Dracula is horrible. If you ever saw this movie you wouldn't even think it was Dracula. Wow, Dracula 2000! Is that title supposed to impress me? Don't waste your time or your money on this trash.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This movie is flawed on many fronts. Like many before it, it portrays more of the mythology of the Alamo than the history. The production is poor, overall giving the impression of a welfare project for lots of actors who might have otherwise had to work on Hollywood Squares. This to me was the greatest flaw - I know the ages and general personalities of the real Alamo protagonists and the geriatric ensemble of TV actors chosen to portray them never let any hint of believability intrude.

As a native Texan, I grew up with the mythology. I later learned more about the history. I can accept a decent production from either perspective (although I prefer more historical accuracy), but this never gave me a chance to enjoy it. Even John Wayne's or Fess Parker's versions had more life than this stolid mess, while being only slightly less accurate.

Very disappointing - avoid it.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I happily admit that I'm a sucker for a beautiful film, and sufficiently inventive camera movements and angles can be enough to keep my interest in a fairly long film. Not one the length of Gojoe though, even though it had some of the most remarkable cinematography I've seen since the Korean period piece MUSA. However, Gojoe provides far more than just beautiful images (as does MUSA... don't which to imply a contrast) - it's second greatest strength is superb acting, and a fascinating story with some very dark philosophy. I must admit to being quite unsure what the point was it was trying to make in the end, but it definitely provokes some thoughts along the way. Vague ones, but definitely thoughts :p

One department in which the film could have been better is the action. There's a tremendous amount of bloodletting in the film, but the action is all filmed with hyperkinetic close-ups, and frequently obscured by objects in the foreground. It does create some very intense and impressive visuals, but it would have been nice to see some more actual moves, something to make it more believable that the villains could just wade through entire armies laying waste to everyone.

Still, the film is definitely one of the most interesting and most beautiful films I've seen for quite some time. Recommended!

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Robert Culp (they call his character "doctor"...I think he's a vet or something) and family move to an affluent, low-tax, zero-law-enforcement suburb. Lantern-jawed Culp and his dog are nearly killed when some local idiot neighbor kids get drunk and "go cruising" through his front yard at 60mph. He presses charges, which arouses the kids' ire, and suddenly him and his family are the victims of a violent and disturbing prank campaign.

Marilyn Manson, er, Marlyn Mason rather, plays his fretful, boiled-celery wife, who urges him not to use violence against his sneering nemeses, and who really just wants to move somewhere with decent public services. But The System is getting Culp nowhere, and he's not about to leave his house because of some punk kids and their crazy rock and roll music. And we all know what movie people do when The System fails...(but this is based on a true story, which makes it even better).

It should be noted that while the villainous hooligans do have convenient '70s funk-o-matic "teenage" theme music that warns us when they're up to no good, this film actually ends up treating the age brackets even-handedly (really!). It doesn't make a big generational thing out of it. Kudos for that.

Anyway, if you like dogs (or at least believe in protecting their civil rights, like me), and you like justice, and you like fire, and you like justice for dogs by way of fire, and you think people who skitter nervously out of troubled communities are "too damn soft," then this flick's ethos is up your alley. No, it's not really "good," at least not in any widely recognized sense of the word. There's nothing subtle or understated or clever about it, it's just sort of a feature-length PSA for vigilantism. It does, however, capture the feeling of some memorable scenes in other, beloved works. Remember in Frank Miller's The Dark Knight Returns when Batman leads the Mutants on horseback to reclaim Gotham City? Remember that scene in A Christmas Story where the kid pounds the bully's face in? Remember how cool that was? Or do you just really hate being looked at funny by your neighbors? Yeah, mon.

Unfortunately, this was a 1973 made-for-TV movie that I just happened to catch at 4am on my local WB affiliate, and it's probably not destined for DVD release. But after being inspired by this film, do you think I'm gonna just sit here and take it!?!

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

pos/neg ans:
positive