input: This is not a very good telling of the Tarzan epic. There was only one reason for this movie. John Derek wanted to show off his beautiful wife in the buff! Bo Derek in '10' was at least a humorous movie and there was a reason for nudity and sex. This movie is nothing more than soft porn. If you're into that, well, then fast forward to it and skip the rest! This movie (like Bolero) was again a vehicle for Bo Derek to show off her terrible acting. She is undoubtedly a beautiful woman but a poster of her is more exciting than this movie! Richard Harris was a better actor than this; this was one of his few mistakes! don't waste your time on this movie...go buy the book instead.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: One of the best documentaries released in recent years. Some points...

1. Hugo Chavez was elected Venezuela's president in 1998, his support largely coming from the poorer regions of Venezuela.

2. In 2002, a coup briefly deposed Chavez. At the time, Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha O'Briain were in Caracas, shooting a documentary about Chavez for British television. Their film deconstructs the coup and its aftermath, and electrifyingly records history unfolding on-the-spot, outside and inside the presidential palace.

3. Chavez aimed to free Venezuela from the free-market policies imposed on it by the US. Though Venezuela's oil was already state-owned, it was run for private benefit by executives who Chavez wished to replace.

4. Despite being the world's fourth largest oil supplier, Venezuela remains swamped by poverty, its resources literally sucked away by foreign multinational corporations.

5. The documentary begins by portraying Chavez's first years as president before the coup. It focuses on his popularity with the poor, and his various policies which proved popular with working class locals (educational plans, distribution of the oil revenue, grass-root democracy etc).

6. Chavez was a huge proponent of education, and printed thousands of copies of the Venezuelan constitution, encouraging children and adults to study and understand it.

7. When Chavez came to power, he immediately pledged to redistribute oil profits. This, understandably, made the oil companies nervous.

8. A media-war broke out. The six private TV stations promptly began opposing the state-run TV station. They questioned Chavez's motives, sanity and sexual orientation.

9. Without media support, the coup would not have been successful. The film makes it clear that coups rely heavily on the media to disseminate information and that news can be easily fabricated.

10. Under the guise of "re-establishing democracy", the opposition silenced the state-run TV station, dissolved the National Electoral Board, Supreme Court, National Assembly and took control of the military.

11. Moneyed interests, backed by the military elite (encouraged by the US and CIA), organised a citizens' march on the presidential palace to effect the coup. Snipers shot at Chavez supporters, but the private media stations edited footage so it appeared that return fire was aimed at the opposition march that in fact had been safely diverted.

12. Police went on a shooting rampage against Chavez supporters, further bloodying the streets.

13. Chavez, held captive, refused to resign. Of course the media/government then lied, saying he had resigned, but Chavez's cabinet members communicated the truth to the international community, which eventually got the message back to Venezuela by cable TV.

14. The people rose up, pressuring the return of the president they had elected, whom only a referendum could constitutionally replace.

8.9/10 - At a little over an hour long, this doc is far too short. Nevertheless, its an engrossing piece of journalism and deals with a form of "media warfare" which rarely gets touched upon. Makes a great companion piece to "The Battle of Algiers".

Worth one viewing.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Watch the 1936 version. As personally annoying I find Charles Boyer's voice, he's more of a match to pay cosmopolitan, depressed Rudolf--I mean Omar Sharif tries but, no--too cute and vibrant. Catherine Denueve (sp) besides being too old looks nothing like Marie--nothing! She looks too sophisticated to even think of dying for love of this man in such a fashion.

The only actor in the entire movie who conveys the role they're playing is Ava Gardner whose appearance as Empress Elisabeth on the screen is fittingly brief (and look up pictures of the empress there's more than a passing resemblance) as historically, Empress Elisabeth wasn't involved that much in Rudolf's life.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: If John Thaw had never played "Morse", "Kavanagh", or starred in "The Sweeney" and other productions, he'd be remembered for this wonderfully unforgettable performance in "Goodnight Mr Tom".

Superbly supported by an equally tremendous performance by his co-star (young Nick Robinson in his first role), and an unobtrusive cast, this adaptation of Michelle Magorian's charming novel is a fitting memorial to his art.

When I read this story of an old widowed Norfolk countryman having to accommodate a young boy from London before and during the Blitz, I found a rather obvious time-line error in it, and credit must go to the makers of this film for rectifying this error. They also must be applauded for not over-sentimentalising the tale, and preventing what could have been turned, quite easily, into a mushy mess.

If you keep a CD or video library then this feel-good made for TV movie is an absolute must inclusion.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive