input: Victor McLaglen, the title character of John Ford's THE INFORMER, reminded me of the circus man from Fellini's LA STRADA. Anthony Quinn played the brutish man, who may have even been influenced by the pug-faced, Oscar-winning performance given by McLaglen. Poverty-stricken Dublin is the true-life, atmospheric setting of the picture, which takes place in 1922. Dense fog and a long damp night are the main elements of a story about deep Irish patriotism and the fight of the Irish Republican Army. The conflict of individuality and the cause is what makes THE INFORMER tick. McLaglen's large, simple character just wants to go to America and we're reminded by signs of the price for a ticket frequently. Two different signs become the psychological centerpiece for the drunken Irishman. One is the previous, the other a WANTED sign. Should he do it and get the money to go?

John Ford once famously said, "My name is Ford. I make Westerns." After seeing this film, he obviously could do a heck of a lot more. The serious social issues dealt with here are heartfelt and ones you will find yourself thinking about. And the look of the piece is amazing, consisting of long dark shadows cutting into a miserable Ireland night. Ford was always known for his luminescent, gorgeous cinematography that helped to foresee the conflicts within his characters. This is hard in color, but he did it in pictures like THE SEARCHERS, painting John Wayne in a sometimes vicious manner. Victor McLaglen's performance not only benefits from the lighting, but by the sheer simplicity of his acting. He shoves a lot. He knocks people out. He is a brute who knows no better. He should, however, know whether or not to cross the IRA.

See the film to find out the gritty details. See it also for McLaglen and Ford's patriotic portrayal of the IRA. Max Steiner's score is innovative in how it matches gestures of the characters, placing more emphasis on them. This was usually only seen in silent films, especially Chaplin. The topic of naming names or "informing" is obviously still important. Just look at how the media covered this year's Oscars, giving much attention to the Elia Kazan scandal.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I watched part one two days ago and today I saw part two. Of course the two parts are worlds apart so I am a little shaken by all that I just saw. I felt consumed by the knowledge of the inevitability of Che's death; for me, it clouded the entire movie. I suppose that is exactly what Soderbergh wanted us to feel, the slowly evolving inevitability of his death. Part Two was so downbeat compared to, again an inevitability but in Cuba it was positive and in Bolivia it was so negative. The politics of the movement in Bolivia were only alluded to but rarely confronted didactically. For me the memorable scenes were all at the end of the film: the confrontation with the jailer and the milder talk with the Bolivian official where that official questions Che about the failure of the peasants to support his revolution. I had not considered the national differences playing as much role as they did in the conflict, Argentine versus Bolivian. I thought Soderbergh dealt admirably with the inevitable problems of supply in a revolutionary struggle; how do you get food without antagonizing the peasants who do not have enough themselves. I was struck by how hard it would be to try something as Che tried. I guess it is all in the timing; is there sufficient anger against the government to begin the movement; in Bolivia there wasn't. Che realized the terrible corundum of revolutionists in his letter to Fidel read at the beginning of the film: If not now, when, 50 years from now. A very thought provoking and well done film; make every effort to see it.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: . . .but it was on a UHF channel and the reception was very fuzzy. I'd really like to own the movie since the reason I watched it in the first place is because I am a bus driver and at the time I saw this movie, I was driving that model bus. It was only (during his murder trial some 15 years later) that I remember vaguely that OJ was one of the stars in it. I only recall that he was the driver and of the bus' being shot up and driven wildly. I've been looking all over for this movie to no avail, since viewing it in the mid-80s. I liked the movie, I don't usually watch thrillers, but after reading the summary in the TV guide, and viewing its beginning (although fuzzy) I stayed for the whole thing.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I found The FBI Story considerably entertaining and suitably upbeat for my New Years Day holiday viewing. Its drama and action-packed episodes were thrilling. The Hardesty character was well drawn and admirable. Overall the photography, script and direction was perfectly creditable. Rather than taking the film to be a repugnant piece of propaganda, as some might, I enjoyed it as a well mounted portrayal of the necessity of ingenious minds and brave bodies in the fight against crime. Again, the depiction of a family holding together even under the strain of the husband's commitment to his (arguably) important work, I did not find to be a twee representation but an ideal and exemplary one.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive