input: Connie Hoffman is very pretty and is attractively topless at times.

That's it, folks. The sole reason for even considering whether to watch this film or not.

These 70s sexploitation period pieces are sometimes entertaining by virtue of their very datedness (flared trousers, big hair, Zapata moustaches etc.). This one isn't.

The script is bad, the acting is bad, the direction is bad, and the idea of having a senior citizen romantic leading man is exceptionally bad.

The title, hinting at a sex comedy, is grossly misleading.

I heartily recommend avoiding this one like the plague.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: > Contrary to most reviews I've read, I didn't feel this followed any of the other rock movies ("Spinal Tap", etc.) The story was more unique, although I feel most people wanted to see the "sex, drugs & rock and roll" vices that the band kept alluding to.

> As an American, I knew a few of the actors - Spall, Connelly & Rea. Surprised to find out "Brian"/Bruce Robinson was in Zifferedi's (<sp?) classic "Romeo & Juliet". Guess I'll have to rent that next.

> "THE FLAME STILL BURNS" - My wife, who hails from Mexico, didn't follow the English/British language too well, missed some of the jokes (which I dutifully explained) but she cried her eyes out at the concert scene. She loves the song so much now.

> Funny that Amazon.com has the soundtrack for $30+usd when I bought the DVD in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart for $5.50usd. Price non-withstanding, I first saw this on late night cable and have been dying to find it ever since.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: As this happens to be one of most favorite novels , I was very excited to see the move. I was not disappointed! Yes of course there are a few things that I could pick on , but I think that the movie stuck true to the book, and was a really good movie. It seems that Stephen King films mostly get a bad review , but this is one of the good ones. It is such a dark story , which I guess is why I like it .. and what is better than the dead coming to life.. and something about animals returning from the grave is quite creepy too. If you have seen the movie do yourself a huge favor and now read the book!! It is a well written screen play , the actors could have done a better job ( I only say this for Rachel , and Ellie .. she was so whinny ) I liked everyone else a lot.. and most important to me .. it stuck true with the novel.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I rented this because I'm a bit weary of '80s NBC programming and apparently I saved myself a lot of money. I have nothing against any of the actors and for their credit they do a good job but this show is flawed from the premise.

We have a character who is unlikable. He's full of flaws, not enlightened, and a complete jerk on a good day. Yet the reason why anybody should care just isn't there. While creating an American sitcom centered around a complete bullheaded jackass is revolutionary and full of potential, it just isn't met here within this show. Most of the supporting characters aren't fully fleshed characters but rather sad punching bags that want empathy from the audience for being punching bags. As in any sitcom, they are the ones who are made the most normal for the audience to relate to, and in doing this they negate the lead character to such an extent that we see Bittinger being himself and harming people and they just stay there because....why? There is no reason. Any normal people would have simply left the abuse. Keeping them there without any real reason--even the really unbelievable one given by Joanna Cassidy in the very special 2-part abortion episode that has major problems of its own--is where the show just falls apart. To simply believe that people put up with this guy because we are told he has a heart of gold does not mesh with the reality of the situation. If anything, this isn't even dramedy. This is a badly plotted, conceived, and executed premise that had a few moments but overall met the fate it deserved. Someone had the guts to go out and make a very good idea, but the execution is so haphazard that it just looks like a weirdly scripted version of the Jerry Springer show where someone is abused by this tyrant that we're supposed to root for because we are told to. A show like this requires a deft touch that the actors here could have provided easily, but somehow aren't able to. And that's a fatal error that really killed the program.

Chalk it up to a show in its infancy. Regardless, the show is worth a watch. But it really screwed up when trying to aim for the stars, and made the whole enterprise not what it could have been.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative