input: True, it does not follow the book very closely, but it's still a very entertaining take on the story. Swayze was far better in the role than I expected. And Doody avoided the "silly woman out of her depth in the wilderness" portrayal most of us probably expected (cf. Kate Capshaw in "Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom").

At any rate, it's amazingly better than Richard Chamberlain's awful pair of Quatermain flicks.

It is very reminiscent of a western in many ways. About the only thing I didn't care for was all the mysticism, but I guess that is part and parcel of the genre. Like "how can you have an African adventure story without witch doctresses and preternaturally wise wandering tribesmen?" Heh.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: After gorging myself on a variety of seemingly immature movies purchased on ex-rental DVDs, I figured that the time was right for a little serious drama and who better to provide it than Sam Mendes? For a number of reasons, "American Beauty" doesn't appeal to me as much as this film which is easily the darkest thing that Tom Hanks has ever done and probably one of the most underrated films of the last decade. For this is not a simple gangster tale lifted from its graphic novel origins, and is simply wonderful to watch because of it. And despite my usual allergy to any film with Tom Hanks' name on it (still can't watch "Big" without wanting a cat to kick), I'm glad I gave this a try because this is one of those movies that you'll kick yourself for if you miss it.

Normally squeaky-clean Hanks plays Michael Sullivan, a devoted family man and father of two sons growing up during Prohibition in the early 1930's. He is also a professional hit-man to mob boss John Rooney (Paul Newman) but has managed to keep his job a secret from his sons. But after his eldest (Tyler Hoechlin) witnesses his dad involved in a mob killing, the pair are forced to go on the run as John seeks to tidy the matter up. Soon, father and son are pursued to Chicago where a fellow hit-man (a menacing Jude Law) is waiting for them.

On the face of it, it reads like a pretty standard gangster film but as I've said, this isn't really about gangsters at all. It's about the relationship between a father and son thrown together in the most tragic of circumstances. Hanks is (*grits teeth*) superb as the tortured man who finds out that everything has its price and little Hoechlin is also good as Sullivan's son. In all honesty, there is not a single performance that I could single out as weaker than the others - the cast is pretty much faultless. As is the cinematography and costumes (and it's not often I praise costumes!) which recreates the 30's with stunning effect. There has been so much effort to get everything right and it pays off in spades. This could easily have looked rubbish - they admit that the early 30's look was difficult to put down - but it doesn't and that deserves every bit of credit. Chicago especially looks fantastic, lined with hundreds of rickety cars from the era and filled with people in monochrome suits and hats. True time-travel, even if a little CGI is needed.

The story is also a winner, offering a human face to what is often seen as a stereotypical genre of movie villain. Law is surprisingly menacing as the almost mechanical killer Maguire and proves that you don't have to be Cagney or De Niro or Brando to play a gangster. The film is decidedly noir-ish, driving rain and ill-lit warehouses predominate but at least violence and killing are (finally) seen to have an emotional and psychological impact on those who perpetrate and those who merely witness such acts. The whole thing is evocative of a previous age and previous movies but it sweeps away the old and refreshes with a modern tale of redemption amid the Tommy-Gun shootouts and extortion rackets. It can feel a little slow in places, especially if you're used to masses of gun-play in movies like most modern audiences (like yours truly) but sometimes, words can speak louder than actions. Mendes has delivered a fine follow-up to his Oscar-winning debut, a film which is as intelligent as it is beautiful to watch. "Road To Perdition" may not be to everyone's tastes but this is one DVD I shall not be exchanging anytime soon.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: "The Running Jumping & Standing Still Film" is not a film as such, but it is a short series of clips with a comical slapstick theme. This 'film' got Richard Lester recognised and paved the way for him to direct the first Beatles film: 'A Hard Day's Night".

Richard Lester directed and wrote the music for his first film in 1959. This film was entitled The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film. It was intended to be viewed only by those who had aided in its production. Since the film was intended to be viewed by Lester and his partners alone, a small amount of money and time was invested. The sole purpose of this film is entertainment, but the main reason for its existence is the fact that it served as an experiment to work the camera. The film cost 70 to make, and it was filmed in sepia-toned film stock in a field on a couple of Sundays. All of the shots that were filmed were included in the finished production; the finished production is eleven minutes in length.

The Running, Jumping, & Standing Still Film is a comedy about English Sundays and the small hobbies that people do to pass the time. All of the events in this film take place in a field. A few of these comical events include a woman scrubbing a lawn, a man running around a tree stump with a needle to play a record, a photographer developing film in a pond, an artist aided in painting by the numbers on a model's face, a man building a tent, an athlete running over the tent, and a duel between a man with a knife and a man with a gun. Not only does the film poke fun at the hobbies that people do to pass the time away, but it also pokes fun at English culture when compared to American culture. Another one of several events in this film includes a group of men and a kite, which has been constructed out of the flag of the United Kingdom. One of the men jumps inside the kite while the other men attempt to fly it, and the kite breaks. According to Neil Sinyard, author of The Films of Richard Lester, this event symbolizes the United Kingdom as lesser in power and technology when compared to the United States during the space age. According to this scene, the British fly primitive kites while the Americans, the world-power after World War II, fly highly-advanced rockets and space shuttles.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative