input: I'm not sure that this comment contains an actual spoiler, but I'm playing it safe, so don't read this if you haven't seen the movie.

I adore this movie, and so does everyone I work with -- and that is the point. I spent a large part of my working life in cinema, without being an actor. Such people are the _sung_ heroes of this movie: the gaffers, the pullers, the on-air directors, the lighters and writers, the costume people etc etc, and the whole thing is told from their point of view, at least to a great extent. Most actors are nuts and self-absorbed to the point of absurdity, which is what this movie spoofs so well, but you have to have worked with actors to recognize that this movie is real-life drama! Possible spoiler alert: in one great scene, the two leads, both actors, are _discussing_ how to _discuss_ something personal, something entirely 'out-of-script', with another actor, and they start making up lines, rehearsing them, and critiquing each other's performance.

Since this movie appeared in, what was it, '91, it has become fashionable to do this, especially on TV. But hardly anyone has done it so well.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

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: It's hard to put your finger on this one. Basically I suppose it's a comedy about an idle rich drunk who falls in love with a (comparatively) poor girl, whom he wants to marry at the risk of being disowned by his family.

It has funny moments, romantic moments, and touching moments. Dudley Moore is funny and somehow makes his self-centred character endearing, Liza Minelli is a convincing foil as the the feisty opposite he attracts, but John Gielgud steals the show as Arthur's wonderfully sarcastic butler.

It's corny but great fun with a memorable soundtrack, and ran for nearly 3 months at our local fleapit.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: First off, I dislike almost all Neil Simon movies. But there is something about this that is unique, that draws me in, and I would say it is among the most entertaining comedies I have seen. The second time I watched it, the connection was clear. When did Neil Simon meet my grandmothers?

Ah, afraid they might sue, so he changed them into men. And how dull would it be if they were only housewives, show biz stars is more fun. Well this is a personal review, and my still living grandmother at age 97 (she even outlived Walter Matthau's magnificent impersonation of her!)would deny it -- but some of you must find resonance in these characters.

Secondly, I have little tolerance for George Burns, but somehow he turned in one of the finest supporting performances I can recall (and my late grandmother even enjoyed it, although failing to recognize the remarkable similarities she shared with the film character).

Very ethnic in flavor, and over the top, you will either laugh and laugh or turn this off. For me, the pleasure lingers.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive