input: I really enjoyed this episode. Seeing The Flash, Cyborg, Green Arrow, and Aquaman (even though all he did was swim) made my eyes widen. To see most of the founders of the Justice League trying to bring down Lex Luthor is what i've been waiting for. This sounds a bit off topic, but making a live action Justice League show would definitely make me have a reason to shove everything that i usually do during the week down the drain just to watch one episode. This is the thrill i got from watching this episode. I wish they had made this episode a little longer, like a two hour special, because i felt that one hour of the Justice League wasn't enough. Now before i bore you (unless i already have with my rambling) i just want to say, Smallville is cool again. It sort of lost its touch when the show started focusing on Lana. But i'm sure the writers will just fall back into that loop hole. :( So enjoy this episode. Who knows when another good one's going to come out. Catch it again this Thursday, Feb. 22, if you missed the first airing.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: IN COLD BLOOD has to be ranked as first-rate movie-making, even if the subject matter is about as grim as it gets in the world of make-believe, but film noir fans should definitely find this one a gripping piece of work, based as it is on a true-life crime spree.

It opens with Quincy Jones' music under the credits and starkly dramatic views of a highway bus heading toward Kansas City, effectively setting the mood of the film even before the credits end. The B&W photography of Conrad Hall does a superb job right from the start.

Also clear from the start: ROBERT BLAKE and SCOTT Wilson are natural born actors. They do a great job of portraying free spirited buddies looking for the next thrill. "Ever see a millionaire fry in the electric hair? Hell no. There are two kinds of rules in this world. One for the rich and one for the poor," says Wilson, taking a swig of alcohol behind the wheel.

Both are destined to cross the path of a farm family, showing no mercy and leaving no witnesses behind.

Blake, reminiscing about movies, and thinking of hunting for gold in Mexico, says: "Remember Bogart in 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre'?" (An ironic moment, because Blake himself was in the film as a little boy selling lottery tickets). "I got you pegged for a natural born killer," Wilson tells Blake.

JOHN FORSYTHE is one of the lead detectives on the case, discovering that all four family members were tied up, shot in the head and one had his throat cut. "Don't people around here lock doors?" asks PAUL STEWART. "They will tonight," is the terse reply.

After the murders, the killers discover that there was "no big fat safe in the wall", like their prison informant told them. So, in the end, it was truly a stupid, senseless crime. The question is: WHY did they do it? And this is something the second half of the film explores in depth. It takes an hour and a half into the movie before the detectives catch up with the killers and begin the interrogation.

It's these final scenes that carry the most conviction and the most interest as the boys are told they've made numerous mistakes and left a living witness. The actual events up to and including the murder are saved until the end. "It makes no sense," Blake tells Forsythe. "Mr. Cutter was a very nice gentleman. I thought so right up until the time I cut his throat." The screenplay by Richard Brooks is concise and to the point--and so is his direction.

Summing up: Brilliant depiction of two aimless young men on a crime spree that made no sense then or now for a mere $43. Chilling.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The Lion King series is easily the crowning achievement in Disney animation. The original Lion King is the greatest masterpiece in cel animation. Lion King II:Simba's Pride is the BY FAR the best direct-to-video sequel that Disney, or any other studio, has made for an animated feature. It deserved a theatrical release. The same can be said for this movie. It has the original cast, songs by Elton John, a hilarious story, exciting action, and touching character moments. Everything you've come to expect from this series. Not so much a new story, but filler and extended background on Timon and Pumbaa, and their place in this story. What impressed me the most, was the care taken in the animation. All to often, Disney shorts on the animation quality of their video and television efforts. But here, they seamlessly blend new animation with footage from the original film. The scenes never seem out of place. Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella are in full swing as Timon and Pumbaa. Matthew Broderick, Robert Guillame, and Moira Kelly reprise their roles as Simba, Rafiki, and Nala, respectively. We even get a return visit by Whoopi Goldberg and Cheech Marin as the hyenas.There are MANY big laughs in this movie. So if you love Lion King, you need this movie. The story is just not complete without it.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Simply, I found the TV show "Mash" trite, preachy, oh ever so "politically correct", repetitious, pretentious and biggest sin of all, and that is,? that it is (was) incredibly dull. You have Alan Alda as the main lead, "(star)", who is so in love with himself and his cleverness, that it actually made me uncomfortable to even try and sit through an episode. The original series had both McLean Stevson, and Wayne Rogers, whom I'll happily admit had a certain panache and style to their character presentation. However, Harry (Henry) Morgan, and Mike Farrell, both singularly and compositely together is like eating caviar and fresh oysters with Wonder Bread. Loretta Swit, which I also found dull, also to no fault of her own wasn't a wonder to look at, and Gary Burghoff, who was good in the movie got tired looking and acting as the show wore on. Seeing one show a year showed that to me. Jamie Farr was just low brow "comedy" and is not even worth really mentioning here at all. The reason I did not give it a (one) rating, which anyone reading this by now would be wondering, is that ratings of any sort is not only a subjective call, but a relative one. Television, except for relatively few exceptions, is such crud. That relatively speaking, Mash had some production quality, (by television standards) of that era and today, and therefore it is deserved of a two. Rob Ritter

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative