input: Frank Sinatra plays a no-goodnik ex-soldier and frustrated writer, hard-living and hard-drinking, who returns to his Midwestern hometown and reunites with his estranged brother (Arthur Kennedy), now the town big-shot with a disinterested wife and headstrong daughter. Frank gets involved with gambler Dean Martin, uneducated flooze Shirley MacLaine, and has some run-ins with the law, but what he really wants to do is write and settle down with a good woman. Over-simplified drama verging on soap opera, with a role for MacLaine that is by turns overly 'colorful' and embarrassingly sentimental (her drunken belting on "After You've Gone" is however the film's highlight, and is expertly handled). Director Vincente Minnelli oversees it in straight-forward fashion, but he's in surprisingly glum spirits and most of the big scenes are flat or dense. The picture looks incredibly handsome in widescreen, with a nice eye for detail and composition, but the story and these characters are stuck in the dregs. ** from ****

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Chris Gerolmo took care not to simply give us a 'Jack-the-stripper' type of list of murdered people: he delved into the psychological characterization with convincing results. Perhaps mostly due to Stephen Rea's excellent performance playing off against Donald Sutherland with good empathy by both. It was the playing of these two parts above all which made the film something more than just a morbid account of the history of the butcher of Rostov. Supporting actors, especially Max von Sydow, carried out their parts really well. Good directing. The photography was good too. Needless to say, the fact that the film was shot in Hungary was bound to produce a couple of aberrations, but, frankly, given the depth of the story-telling and interpretations, we can completely forget these little trivialia.

For once, a made for TV film from HBO has come up trumps. Recommended, especially if you like to analyse characteriology and forget some of the morbid scenes which, I hasten to add, are never exaggerated.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Basically this is an overlong, unfunny, action/comedy. First of all I'd like to say that I did enjoy the Wayans brother Scary Movie (1) and the sequel had it's moments. Unfortunately white chicks doesn't even deliver HALF the laughs.

The humour in it is absolutely crude. If you like burping, farting, stupid catchphrases you should probably look at this. When it isn't crude it's idiotic. The first 10 minutes of the film gave everything away to me, totally unfunny, simply idiotic.

However I watched the whole thing since I was with a friend (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered). The story is undeniably thin, it was in scary movie too but there at least the laughs were quick and constant. I think this is probably one of the main problems too with this film, the laughs don't come quick enough. Some jokes are dragged out too long when they're more disgusting than funny in the first place. If you prefer your comedy with a few brain cells then just avoid this. If you want a silly comedy with more laughs then look at scary movie, airplane, hotshots 1 + 2.

1/10 Completely unfunny, Thin storyline, A film that seems to be based on one idea (i.e. what if we dressed up as white chicks for a film?) but simply didn't have enough material.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Alfred Hitchcock invented any kind of thriller you could think of:he set the standards so high that any director who makes a suspense movie will be fatally compared to him.

The main subject of this Bullock vehicle ,all the ideas,almost everything was already in Hitchcock's classic " Rope":the two students who commit a gratuitous crime, Nietsche's philosophy,and the clues that the boys disseminate ,the Master was the first to transfer them to the screen.And with an eighty-minute movie which was a technical riveting tour de force.

"Murder by numbers " does not take place in a single room,like "the rope" ,mind you.And ,what a supreme originality,it pits two cops against the evil youngsters;and ,you would never guess it,these two cops are very different:actually,Bullock plays the part of woman living like a man ,and her partner (Chaplin) is as shy as a clueless girlie.The two boys' performances are not really mind-boggling ,not as good ,as ,say ,that of Edward Norton in "primal fear" .

Well,you know ," Rope" was so good ....

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
negative