input: Gandhi, the Great :

Greatness in the world is associated with people like Alexanader the great, Ashoka the Great for their greatness lied in being glorified as more than humans. Gandhi is called great for actually not being a Great but being more human, for I always believe bringing out the humanity in us is where the greatness of being human lies.Gandhi was a human with humanity and one who strived for humanity ready to sacrifice himself in the battle for humanity but not his enemies. Let me move to the movie review now.

About Gandhi My Father :

Gandhi My father is a film not about Gandhi but about his son Harilal Gandhi.On telling the story of a son whose father was one of the greatest humans to walk this earth, the director succeeds in portraying the tale.The film succeeds in telling the story of a mislead son of a father who lead a nation to greatness.The movie is termed as a criticism of Gandhi's failure as a father to his son, I would rather say it is of a sacrifice Gandhi had made as a father of a son to do justice as a father of a nation.

I wish the essence of this movie prevails not just in India, the Gandhian land, but through the hearts of all the people of this world.

Gandhi the true Human. Jaihind.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This is an interesting treatment of a subject that is quite controversial, (just read the other comments on this film). Apparently, you either love it or hate it and it seems most people make that distinction based on whether they believe the tribulation and end times will happen as portrayed in the movie.

Basically, the film - and its sequels - were made for about $1.30 each. The production values are right down there with "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and the acting is about on the same level as "Glen or Glenda", (my apologies to Ed Wood). Putting aside the religious message, the story is as scary as they come. Add in even the slightest thought that the story might actually be close to something that might happen in the future and it becomes even scarier.

This movie, and its sequels, didn't try to bring in the reasons why the tribulation happened when it did. "Left Behind" and "The Omega Code" tried to get in everything "Thief" did and to explain all the politics and maneuvering in the Middle East leading up to it. The net effect was "Thief" did a much better job on the scary part of movie, instead of spreading itself too thin trying to explain what was happening in the Middle East at the same time.

Forget the politics and watch this movie, and its sequels, for what they are - horror stories. That they may be horror stories told, indirectly, by God makes them just that much more frightening. If it makes you think about the subject, it has done its job - even if you never believe.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Not only does this film have one of the great movie titles, it sports the third teaming of 70s child actors Ike Eissenman and Kim Richards. I seem to remember this film being broadcast Halloween week back in '78 going against Linda Blair in Stranger in our House. I missed it on the first run choosing to see the other film. Later, on repeat, I saw I made the right choice. The movie is not really bad, but, really lacks any chills or surprises. Although, I did like the scene where Richard Crenna shoots the family dog to no avail.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Director Sam Fuller has something of a cult following, particularly in Europe. Yet the bulk of his films are more than forgettable. He did however direct one really terrific movie in "Pickup on South Street". Made pretty early on in his career, the movies that followed were vastly inferior.

From the first to the last frame, "Pickup" works on all levels. It's filmed with flawless fluidity, boasting fine performances all round. Richard Widmark and Thelma Ritter both players with a fine record of top notch performances, are at their peak. Widmark, who was no stranger at playing villains, while truly mean to the core, still manages to reveal just the slightest humanity which makes his character fascinating as well as making Jean Peters character's falling for him all the more credible.

Fuller holds no punches in this genuinely tough movie. There is a scene in which Jean Peters get roughed up by Widmark. It's truly shocking in its reality. This is not a case of carefully choreographed photography.

Less self conscious than many film noir's of the period this remains a great example of the genre.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive