input: This movie stinks. The stench resembles bad cowpies that sat in the sun too long. I can't believe that so many talented actors wasted their time making such a hopelessly awful film. Whew!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This is an Arnold movie. Now that you know that, I've saved a lot of you the time it would have taken to read this review. If you don't like Arnold, then you wont like this movie. If the case is the other, then you will very probably like it. It's as simple as that.

Now, if you're still reading this I expect you like Arnold. Good for you! He is quite good isn't he. The Running Man is a very typical Arnold feature. It's got the usual retro-future we know so well from 80's B-Sci Fi, it's got a bunch of terrible one-liners, lots of violence and explosions, and a good-looking heroine and a happy ending.

In this case, the evil opponent is the all-controlling 1984ish government, which uses television as an effective crowd-control with gladiator-type game shows. Arnold, of course, ends up in one of these shows and turns it all up-side-down, with a little help from his two confederates and the good-looking Amber.

It's not a big budget movie, but it still managed to create a pretty good atmosphere of the future, with some nice matte paintings and sets to help it. It's hopelessly 80's, but I find that charming. Acting is varying, Arnold doing his usual grunt and shout thing, with a helping of stone-faced one-liners. Heroine Amber is, to put it lightly, a bit stereotypical, and the subtly named Damen Killian is a typical evil TV man.

In spite of all it's flaws, the movie shows its message very clearly; television is an opiate of the masses, a good way to control people. It also features some at the time futuristic digital video editing, allowing the bad guys to change faces in a video to fool their audience. This does not seem futuristic at all today, which is a bit alarming.

If you've seen Arnold movies before then you know when to watch this one. Enjoy.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: A group of models is seeking an apartment to live in, and are shown one by a local real estate agent. Unknown to the models and the agent, however, is that "hell's threshold" is in the apartment and when crossed, the demon "Dethman" is summoned to kill all those in his path. The story is told by Sam Bishop, a journalist who was accused of the murders.

Although I am a champion of low budget, microbudget, and independent films, I cannot praise this movie. The creators take pride in their 24-hour shooting schedule and at least one actor boasts on the DVD of his acting prowess, but I cannot wrap my head around this. Why make a film in 24 hours if an extra one or two hours of editing would make all the difference? And why pride yourself on acting that is poor, nonsensical and results in the bad delivery of a handful of lines?

Through much of the film, the models are being shown parts of an apartment by a real estate agent. The dialog is clearly ad-libbed because no scriptwriter could come up with such empty diction. The agent, also, clearly knows nothing about housing... she focuses on aspects of a home that no one could care about, incorrectly explains the heat source (didn't she see the radiator?) and says the vermin problem will be solved when they call "the terminator". Please, write a script -- some deviation is fine, but this was a mess.

And why were the girls moving in models? Their careers had no point in the plot, and this seems like a forced situation. At one point, an actress breaks character and says something to the effect of "dude, they're going to be (upset)" which sounded more natural than any other line, though out of place because of the other bad dialog.

The demon made no sense. I appreciated the attempt to explain how "hell's threshold" jumps to random places on Earth (including apartment fireplaces), but why not explain where the demon came from? His background involves a man whose love is killed by another man. How does this make you a demon? (Also, why did we need all these Victorian flashbacks with no dialog and glances across a field? It was overdone.)

The dramatic pauses between lines was awful. The Sam Bishop character was by far the worst, with the interviewer not far behind. Does every question require a pause, a funny face and a response... followed by a pause, a funny face and a response? I was so frustrated. To me, the only point was to drag the time out... but I'd rather have thirty minutes of good delivery than an hour of horrible delivery (and then more time is wasted by rolling through the same credits twice).

Who was the Sam Bishop character, anyway? Allegedly he "saw" all this and was accused of killing the girls, but yet at no point was he ever in the part of the tale with the girls. So how did he see them? And if he didn't, how did he know Dethman killed them? And if he didn't see Dethman, how does he know Dethman is the spirit of Apostoles? I was so lost... was there even an outline for a plot when this was written?

The only part I found enjoyable in this movie was a scene with one of the models in the bathroom. Not that it was really important or anything, but it was the only break from boredom I was given. I wonder what director Felix Diaz was thinking. His music is very good (see the DVD behind the scenes for his impromptu playing), but I wonder about his movie making skills. Although, by far the best part of the DVD was the trailer for his "Superhero Excelsior" (the trailer alone was better than this entire waste of time).

I am sorry I have to be so harsh. I'd like to think that this movie was a test of what can be done in 24 hours or maybe just an experiment for fun and the idea was never to make a quality film. But if "Superhero Excelsior" is any indication, Diaz can make quality... so why did he choose to avoid that here? Perhaps the world will never know.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: One of the most timely and engrossing documentaries, you'll ever watch. While the story takes place in the Venezuelan capital of Caracas, it provides an intimate look into political dynamics, that prevail throughout the western Hemisphere. While essentially another chapter in the story of the "U.S. backed, Latin American coup", this film chronicles in real-time, what can happen when the poorest people, are armed with unity, political savvy, and courage!

The political insights offered by this film are invaluable. One gets clear examples of the private media, as a formidable force for mass deception and propaganda. We see the poor people of Caracas grappling with the brutal realities of "American politics". One gets a clear sense of impending doom, if the people fail to address the blatant tyranny, which has been abruptly, and illegally, thrust upon them by the conspirators. We also see the arrogance and fascism, of the CIA backed, private media, plutocrats, and generals, who've conspired to bring Venezuela back under Washington's domination. Though ably led by President Hugo Chavez, the people of Caracas are forced to act without him, after Chavez was forcibly kidnapped by renegade generals. Their response is the highpoint of the film. If one seeks an excellent portrait of what the U.S. government, Hugo Chavez, and revolutionary Venezuela, are all about, this movie is it!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive