input: I haven't seen this movie in a while, so I'm afraid I can't be very specific about details... It did have some interesting points. Ralph Bakshi's attempt at an animated adaptation of J.R.R Tolkien's masterpiece was a very ambitious project, so ambitious in fact that it went bankrupt at some point during the production. Therefore, not only does it stop abruptly somewhere around the middle of the second book of the trilogy (with sort of a shade of a hint of a sequel that was never made), the film itself seems less than finished. It seems that some characters were animated while others were filmed, but whether or not it's intentional is hard to say. The whole thing seems shabbily made and undone, especially the Orcs and the Nazgul. Another problem, of course, is the huge gaps in the plot. Bakshi was in a rush to finish this movie, and he somehow hoped to cram a book and a half in little more than two hours (the new trilogy by Peter Jackson does it in about twice that time.) Far too many important bits were left out (and I don't refer only to Tom Bombadil, which, I think, was lovely in the book but would look silly in a movie.) And of course, the ending, which is completely sudden and out of place. I'm not even sure if Bakshi originally intended to end the film there, or if he even had any idea where he's going to end it.

The characters... well, most of them were okay. The hobbits don't look so bad (except for the gay Sam. Did you know that the producers of the new trilogy originally wanted to make Sam a woman so there would be a feminine lead character?) If you're a Tolkien fanatic (like me), watch this movie (though I'm not too sure about buying it. What special features does the DVD version have, anyway?) But know in advance that you're not going to watch a real 'Lord Of The Rings Movie' but not much more than a historical curiosity, which probably looks not much better than the 60s version would have had the Beatles carried on with their plan (I actually think a psychedelic LOTR could have been quite cool. The idea was to cast George as Gandalf, Paul as Frodo, Ringo as Sam and John as Gollum.) If you didn't read the book or didn't like it much or don't like animation films or don't want to see a half-finished movie... stay away.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This movie displays the kind of ensemble work one wishes for in every film. Barbara Bain and Donald Sutherland (who play husband and wife)are positive chilling, discussing the "family business" as if it were a grocery store or a dry cleaners. Macy, Campbell, Ullman, and Ritter are also terrific. They play off each other like members of a top-notch theatrical troupe, who realize that a quality product requires each actor to support the others unselfishly. And finally, there's Sammy (David Dorfman). What an amazing performance from a child...and what an uncanny resemblance he has to Ullman, whose son he plays!

We're treated to a unique story in "Panic," and that's a rarity in these days of tired formulaic crap. The dialogue is sharp and smart, and this relatively short film nevertheless has the power to elicit a full range of emotions from the viewer. There are places to laugh, to be shocked, to be horrified, to be saddened, to be aroused, to be angry, and to love. It's not a movie that leaves you jumping for joy, but when it's over you're more than satisfied knowing you've spent the last ninety minutes experiencing a darn good piece of work.

More of us would go to theatres if we were treated to quality fare like this. When are the powers that be in Hollywood going to wake up? It's a real shame when something this good fails to get exposure beyond festivals and households fortunate enough to have cable.

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I only hope that no classicists/ancient historians saw "Cleopatra", or, if they did, that they took it as a laugh. The movie is horrendously inaccurate, more laughably, even, than "Gladiator" (which is at least a well-written script whose historical errors are articulate and correspond well to the story). Most blatant is Octavius, Caesar's heir, in the Senate before Caesar's assassination: at the ripe old age of 19!

Besides this, the acting is mediocre. Timothy Dalton has more than a hint of James Bond in him when he says, "Caesar. Julius Caesar." Billy Zane is a laughably dense Marc Antony. And Leonor Varela tries her best to be the seductive Pharaoh (who in real life was not good-looking at all) but comes off as unbelievable.

So this is a warning for all historians--this movie is not true to life!

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This is a movie that demonstrates that mood and music and texture aren't enough to make a good film. Sure, the viewer is treated to numerous fine scenes of Los Angeles in the thirties--I especially liked the view of the trolley approaching the tunnel, and the tram rising up the hillside--but in a sense this fine cinematography is self-defeating, because it creates a mood that "something's going to happen"--and nothing does. The script too keeps feinting toward some plot or action or trauma--and time after time not delivering. Not even delivering the (I assume) theme of the movie, the characters' essential misfit. The lead actors, both too pretty for their roles, didn't convey any repression or agony, and the script didn't expose us to any.

Now, Donald Sutherland? That's another story. His character was so well fashioned, so perfectly played, that I wanted the camera to follow him.

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

pos/neg ans:
negative