input: The fact that most of the budget for this presumably went on the heavy-duty cast list shouldn't have mattered if it had been staged with flair and imagination and some sympathy for the original's satirical intent. Instead we get risibly bad song and dance sequences featuring picturesque beggars and whores, and the final alienation is accomplished by pulling back to reveal the action has taken place on a music-hall stage, appropriately enough for a production that's more Lionel 'Oliver' Blair than Brecht. The acting talent is shamefully misused: Migenes and Walters are good but don't have to try very hard: Migenes at least has a great voice and some feel for the material. Julia looks perfect as Mack, but struggles with the character, straitjacketed by a fake plummy accent. Harris's Peachum is embarrassingly mannered and Polly is atrocious. The adaptations of lyrics, script and music are often awkward: it was a bad move to base the film on Marc Blitzstein's bowdlerised Broadway version, but at least his words were singable, unlike most of what's been interpolated in gestures of faithfulness. And the attempt at overcoming the low budget by filming at claustrophobic angles on mist-shrouded sets lit in garish blues and oranges as if by some bargain-basement Vittorio Storaro fails utterly -- the film just looks cheap, shoddy and thoughtlessly made. Disgraceful.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The basic hook here is: Lincoln Is Slow. It is his slowness that represents his thoughtfulness and deliberation, making him a Great Leader who is here engaged in single-handedly civilizing the American frontier through the grand instrument of Law. All that John Ford hooey and more, including one lurking slave and extraneous Death By Injun. However! The 'slow' conceit is also at the center of one brilliant piece of movie-making, funny and moving at extremes. The history may be bunk, but the telling of it suggests a view of history as process that inspires some excitingly true-seeming moments. Check out Henry Fonda's big introductory stroll across the deck, his shockingly beautiful second visit with his girl by the river, his dalliance with Mary Todd on the porch, and the priceless business that follows 'Ma'am, we've got to hurry!' Things do thin out once we settle into the big courtroom drama; but Fonda is priceless throughout.

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: ANDY HARDY MEETS DEBUTANTE (1940) is the ninth (9th) film of the series and it shows the direction it was inevitably headed into. Characters ANDY HARDY (Mickey Rooney) and JUDGE HARDY (Lewis Stone) were going to be front and center. The rest of the cast was going too just punch the clock and collect their checks. The series would rise to the occasion again and have its moments but a fatal decline had set in.

Lewis Stone throughout the series would continue too portray the character of JUDGE HARDY in a sympathetic manner. The rest of the cast would be professional even though given less and less to do. Mickey Rooney on the other hand would continue his character as if there was no learning curve. ANDYs' reaction to any situation was in a naive and unbelievable way. Even after he returned as a veteran of World War II service in LOVE LAUGHS AT ANDY HARDY (1946) his reaction to any 'teapot tempest' was the same, juvenile.

In this film it is clearly illustrated. ANDY gets himself into several unbelievable situations that with a simple explanation would have been resolved. This screen writing device was known as the 'idiot plot'. A means of stretching a poorly written scenario. Maybe it was less Mickey Rooneys' fault then the Director and the Writers. Most likely George B. Seitz had directed one too many and a firmer hand was needed too control Rooneys' excesses. To see our overview of the entire series go to YOU'RE ONLY YOUNG ONCE (1937).

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The original Boogeyman was a silly but entertaining supernatural slasher flick. It was by no means a great film but fun in the right frame of mind. The third instalment in this series, Return of the Boogeyman, on the other hand, is simply atrocious. It consists of two things. Firstly, cheap and lifeless new footage. Secondly, LOADS of recycled bits from the first movie. The new material is unbelievably amateurish but not in an amusingly inept way, simply incredibly tedious. This footage has clearly been knocked together quickly and without any effort. It serves as a framing device for the endless clips from the first (and possibly second) movies. And boy, do they milk those clips from the earlier films; sometimes reusing sequences over and over again. The only new addition to these parts is a voice over that pointlessly describes exactly what we can see with our own eyes. The whole experience of watching this is truly mind-numbing.

Return of the Boogeyman is an example of the very worst kind of exploitation flick; the kind that exploits the audience in a highly cynical way. I want to keep this review brief and to the point because this film deserves no more. There is nothing here of value at all. This is worthless.

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

pos/neg ans:
negative