input: High school friends Andre Kriegman and Cal Gabriel declare war on their classmates and plan a terrifying assault on their high school. As they begin the deadly countdown to their final act of revenge, the two start a video diary to explain their feelings and chronicle their mission.

There is another similar movie like this, called "Elephant." Why do I bring this up? To compare the two films, of course. I have to say, even though I liked "Elephant," this is a much better film. What's the difference, you ask? Well, for starters, this is shot differently, much along the lines of "Cloverfield," "Blair Witch Project," and "Diary of the Dead." This makes the movie all the better because it's much more painfully realistic.

But what won me over was how the movie was willing to show the "other side of the story." You get to know these two shooters, unlike "Elephant." I actually cared for one of the shooters and could understand their actions and why they did what they did. This movie actually makes you feel sympathetic to these people and that's a good thing because it's not always black and white.

To be honest, this is why I almost cried in this movie. The characters are real human beings with logic and reasons behind their actions. You get to understand them. It's not like they want to kill people for attention. Overall, this film is emotionally gripping and very haunting and much better than "Elephant."

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Joel schumacher Made a heck of a choice when he decided on this cast and this script. The story is well written and well laid out, and this entirely new cast of 10 or 12 central characters was absolutely brilliant. It seemed that there were 6 "leads" and about a half dozen supporting, and by far this is the best thing about the movie, the fresh young faces of tomorrow. It has been a long time since hollywood has touched the controversial vietnam war films,which says something for the"story that needed to be told"(as stated by schumacher) and Tigerland lands in that handful of top war movies period. Yet it can not be labeled as a war movie because it seemed to be based more on the human spirit of Bozz and the others. I Think anyone who just wants to see a good film with out all of the special FX, but just good, gritty drama should go see Tigerland, obviously Shumachers Best works in the past 8 years.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: If Mr Cranky had rated this, I'd be tempted just to copy his review and paste it here. But as he hasn't, I'll have to give it a go myself.

The only thing giving this movie a 1 instead of a 0 is that Malcolm McDowall's acting is excellent. However not even he can save this film from disaster. The director must have been really distracted when he worked on this one because it is just a conglomeration of scenes that were thrown together with very little continuity - reminiscent of bad '70's movies. Even worse, both the actors and director appeared to be making it up as they went along which probably showed how bad the original script was.

It's not even worth discussing the story line although it revolves around a futuristic corporation called the Proxate Corporation who put together a crew of dispensable people to carry a dangerous cargo on an old container/slave ship to Nigeria. This ship's computer is a baby kept in a glass jar and wired into one of the crew via USB 12 or something. The company should have been called the Prostate Corporation as the entertainment value of this movie is on a par with an examination of the same name.

I honestly can't find one scene that I could say was well made and made any real sense in the context of the movie. I only watched it to the end as I had a touch of the bird flu and this movie reminded me that there were people out there who were actually worse off than me - Malcolm McDowall in particular. I won't hold this against him as he's a great actor and every great actor is entitled to one bad movie in their career and this one is a doosie.

So, unless this is the only movie your shop hires out or you're male and you're doctor isn't doing prostate examinations this week and you somehow feel this is a bad thing then give this one a really wide berth unless of course if you're really community minded, buy a copy to support Malcolm and then use it as a drink coaster.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I saw this when it was in the theater, it started out so strong I mean back in 1980 this was a bold movie and the special effects were excellent AT THE time. Now you would have to of been at least 30 or so in 1980 to really understand this point because studying film historically misses the mind set at the time the expectations, and other related psychological factors. Now as I said the movie was engaging suspenseful and very entertaining. It builds to an excellent climax then.... IT ends I mean the person that described it as having a water balloon break in your hand before throwing it, besides being a very poetic description. In my experience, it was just not strong enough. My wife and I were well... how can I say this? We were upset, I mean we paid money, invested the time to watch the movie which was excellent. "We both felt we were robbed with an ending that convinced us both the production company must of run out of money and could not raise enough to finish it correctly. In fact my wife said it best, it did not end, IT JUST STOPPED!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative