input: I just finished reading a book about Dillinger. This movie was horribly inaccurate. It's like they got a list of names and just made everything up. His robberies and getaways were well planned, down to the second - when the time was up, they left whether they had all of the money or not. They had notes of every road, where to turn, etc. Purvis never saw him at the restaurant, he was told that Dillinger paid for his meal after Dillinger left. Purvis never even SAW Dillinger before the night Dillinger was killed, only photos of him. The way his gang members died were fictitious. Dillinger never robbed a bank by himself, like he did in this movie. If I had never read the book, maybe I could have enjoyed the movie. The acting was a bit over the top in places. The action was overdone as well. On second thought, I doubt if I would have enjoyed it much even if I HADN'T read the book.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This one was marred by potentially great matches being cut very short.

The opening match was a waste of the Legion of Doom, but I guess the only way they could have been eliminated by Demolition was a double-DQ. Otherwise, Mr. Perfect would have had to put in overtime. Kerry von Erich, the I-C champ, was wasted here. And this was the third ppv in a row where Perfect jobbed. Remember, before that he never lost a match.

The second match was very good, possibly the best of the night. Ted DiBiase and the Undertaker were excellent, while the Jim Neidhart had one of his WWF highlights, pinning the Honky Tonk Man. Koko B. Ware continued his tradition of being the first to put over a new heel (remember the Big Bossman and Yokozuna?). This was a foreshadowing of Bret Hart's singles career, as he came back from two-on-one and almost survived the match. He and DiBiase put on a wrestling clinic, making us forget that the point of the match was DiBiase's boring feud with Dusty Rhodes.

Even though the Visionaries were the first team to have all of its members survive (and only the second since '87 to have four survivors), this match was not a squash. This was the longest match of the night, and Jake did a repeat of his '88 performance when he was left alone against four men and dominated. I think he could have actually pulled off an upset. These days, the match would have ended the other way around.

One of the shortest SS matches ever was also one of its most surprising. Possibly the most underrated wrestler ever, Tito Santana was the inspirational wrestler of the night, putting on war paint and pinning Boris Zukhov, Tanaka, and even the Warlord in the final survival match. It was so strange to see him put over so overwhelmingly, then go right back to his mediocre career. Sgt. Slaughter also did well, getting rid of Volkoff and the Bushwhackers, but that just wasn't a surprise. Tito was.

I think the only point of the survival match was to have Hogan and the Warrior win together at the end.

This show was boring and the matches were too short. The Undertaker's debut was cool, but Tito Santana is the reason I will remember this one.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Old horror movies are interesting, plenty of screams, plenty of shouts, and plenty of humor to go along with it. "The Blob" is a classic in it's own work. Steve McQueen(1930-80) plays a teen who tries to be a hero in his town. Going out on a date with his girl is rather typical for all teens. But when the old man discovers the same falling object form the sky, he ends up being the victim, and Steve helps him out the best he can. When its up to teen power, this movie really provides it. I know most teens have had their hardships when they act up, when danger comes around, they must learn to forget the past and start doing something good to save humanity. When the adults in town ended up learn the hard way about "The Blob" running amok, they must learn to trust teenagers and not let their behavior get the better of them. The oozing juggernaut was rather cute in the day, and in my opinion I think it was JELL-O! When everyone pitches in to stop the menace, the town is once again safe, thanks to good old cooperation. I still eat Jello and watch this movie all the time, if you don't like Jello, TOUGH! RATING 5 STARS

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Cafe Lumiere is a beautifully photographed nullity. Unacquainted with the work of the director, I am well-acquainted with the filmmaker he is supposedly paying tribute to - Ozu Yasujiro. While not even approaching Ozu in greatness, Hou has communicated nothing of Ozu's depth of emotion and concentration on meaning within a closed space. One of the things he misses entirely is Ozu's attention to character - we are not even "introduced" by Hou to his lead character (a perfect blank page). There are no medium or close shots of his people. One of the DVD extras offers interviews with the actors and gives us precisely what Hou doesn't - a good look at their faces.

There was a great Spanish film by Bardem called Nunca Pasa Nada, which translates to something like "Nothing Ever Happens". That would be a far better title to this pointless exercise. All through the film we are given clues about an obscure Taiwanese composer some of whose work we hear on the soundtrack. But the clues, like everything else, add up to nothing. Unless you're a trainspotter, this film has nothing to recommend it.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative