input: I consider this film to be the best one about Mike Hammer, with Biff Elliott's performance the definitive Mike Hammer. Harry Essex's script is excellent and contains many improvements on Mickey Spillane's novel. His direction is strong and imaginative, and he makes fine use of light and shadow. The camera work by John Alton is top-notch, as is the score by Franz Waxman. The cast includes many veteran players, as well as Peggie Castle in her memorable performance as Charlotte Manning. All in all, this is one of the finest private eye films ever made. Biff Elliott and Haary Essex should have received more opportunities. I have always treasured this film.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I've just purchased the restored version of a film that I remember with much affection from childhood and it's certainly made for a curious afternoon's entertainment. Bedknobs definitely makes more sense in its complete form, the deleted scenes (especially those with McDowall) link events together quite neatly. What is a little disconcerting is the way the scenes have been remastered. Clearly, the soundtrack to this footage had been lost or damaged, so some bright spark at Disney decided to dub the scenes with new dialogue. Which would have been great except that half the cast weren't around to do it (some for better reasons than others) and the whole thing has a rather shoddy quality to it. Some of the lip-synching is pretty poor, and David Tomlinson's voice has been dubbed by a bloke who sounds absolutely nothing like David Tomlinson (there's actually a hint of German in it, I think). However, good to hear the full versions of all the songs (although 'Step in the right Direction' is still absent) and the moments of magic in this film still shine through. And I challenge you not to giggle when young Paul gazes so innocently at Angela Lansbury and coos "but what's that got to do with my knob??"

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I was forced to see this because a) I have an 11 year-old girl and b) we had shown her the Bonita Granville Nacy Drew movies from the 1930s, which she thoroughly enjoyed. Personally, I didn't think it was as humorous as the 1930s flicks, but on the other hand, it wasn't the nauseating piece of intelligence-insulting fluff I feared it would be. It was an inoffensive, mildly entertaining movie. Although I'm pleased that they didn't try to "upgrade" Nancy to 21st Century "hipness" (Veronica Mars holds the title as the Modern Nancy Drew), I do think that they made her a little too bland, that they didn't do enough to develop Nancy Drew - the movie could have been titled "Jane Doe, Girl Detective". I have to blame the script: I think each actor did a good job with what they had to work with. I liked Emma Roberts in this role, but they gave her a made-for-TV, not theatrical release, script...

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This was a strange kind of film about a low-lifes in New York City and centering around a main character (the title name, played by Brad Pitt) who thinks he''s a Ricky Nelson-type musician, except he has no real talent.

It's kind of fun to watch until a profane tough New York City-type woman with horrible accent enters the picture and takes over. That ruined the film for me. It must have been Catherine Keener, who usually plays tough and garbage-mouthed women.

The hairdo on Pitt - an exaggerated Pompadour - was fun to look at. I can picture Johnny Depp playing this role better. One last note: it odd to hear a film made in 1992 (other than Woody Allen's) with just mono sound.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative