input: 10 ITEMS OR LESS was made in two weeks on a shoestring budget by writer/director Brad Silberling, just a little film shot in Carson, CA that feels like the entire story was improvised...in the best sense of the word. Silberling had the good fortune to pair veteran actor Morgan Freeman, in between his big projects, with Spanish actress Paz Vega, and the result is a dialogue between two people from different vantages who manage to enhance the life of the other.

Morgan Freeman plays himself - yet part of the comedy is that he is depicted as an actor who has been out of work for four years, scouting a location for a little 'filler film' to get back into the flow of things. His 'role' is to be that of a market manager and he is dropped off at seedy market in Carson where he encounters, among others, one Scarlet, the girl at the argumentative 10 Items or Less checkout line. Not only is Scarlet tired of her static job, she is also generally angry about her philandering husband (Bobby Cannavale), currently sleeping with Scarlet's lazy co-worker (Anne Dudek), and her lack of ability to get a decent job elsewhere. The two pair after a few shared problems and off they go on a 'road trip' that results in each of the characters growing from the presence and life story of the other.

It is a simple story, simply told, but because of the tender bonding between Freeman and Paz it works very well. This is one of those little films about human relationships where being vulnerable to change and exchange is the message. It is well worth viewing, and this is a DVD that has featurettes that are touching, informative, and comic - a pleasure to view. Grady Harp

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I am a Motion Picture Production major at Wright State University in Ohio, and yesterday I was sadly given the opportunity to watch this god-awful film in class. We were informed by our professor that it would be very funny to us, but the reason we were watching it was because it was one of the first sound films - a complete disaster.

The problem with early sound films was that Hollywood actors only knew how to do silent movies and they weren't good at memorizing lines. So producers and directors would look to the stage to get actors. Sounds like a great idea, right? Well, the kind of acting one does on stage doesn't show up too well on film. Most of the actors in "Atlantic" look and sound like they're acting in a play, which results in lots of hearty laughs at the over-acting. Another limitation of early sound film was the technology of microphones. You couldn't move the mikes like you can today, you had to keep them static or it would pick up the sound of air moving through. There was usually one mike used in any given scene in this movie. In one particular scene, there is a man sitting at a table. Someone walks right up to him and delivers their line, then walks away. Another actor comes up from behind him, delivers their line, then walks away. It goes on like this for a couple more people. The microphone is obviously right by the man at the table, making for a laughable actor carousel.

Those are only technical problems. If you get into the story and direction, then it gets even worse. The story is a fictionalized account of what happened on the Titanic. The characters are unbelievable and pointless. A "story" about a man cheating on his wife and their teenage daughter has no place in the movie. It is barely resolved and leaves you wondering why it was there in the first place. A lousy attempt at high drama, the actors take long, pregnant pauses between lines many times. It is tiresome, and you can't wait for this 90 minute (feels like 180 at least) movie to get over with. I'm not going to talk a whole lot about the issue of racism at this time in our country, but it really offended me that there were only two blacks in the whole movie, and they were portrayed as animals. They both pushed past the women and children to try and get in one of the lifeboats. They were ordered to stop or be shot, and of course they didn't so they were shot. I was appalled.

I give this movie a 2/10. I would have given it a 1/10 (the lowest rating possible), but I gave it an extra point just because it was one of the first sound films, and I tried to put it into context. If you want to see a good early sound film, check out Alfred Hitchcock's "Blackmail" that also came out in the year 1929. You will find that the best directors were able to adapt to new technology immediately.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The problem with the 1985 version of this movie is simple; Indiana Jones was so closely modeled after Alan Quartermain (or at least is an Alan Quartermain TYPE of character), that the '85 director made the mistake of plundering the IJ movies for dialog and story far too deeply. What you got as a finished product was a jumbled mess of the name Alan Quartermain, in an uneven hodge podge of a cheaply imitated IJ saga (with a touch of Austin Powers-esquire cheese here and there).

It was labeled by many critics to have been a "great parody," or "unintentional comedy." Unintentional is the word. This movie was never intended to be humorous; witty, yes, but not humorous. Unfortunately, it's witless rather than witty.

With this new M4TV mini-series, you get much more story, character development of your lead, solid portrayals, and a fine, even, entertaining blend. This story is a bit long; much longer than its predecessors, but deservedly so as this version carries a real storyline and not just action and Eye Candy. While it features both action and Eye Candy, it also corrects the mistake made in the 1985 version by forgetting IJ all together and going back to the source materials for AQ, making for a fine, well - thought - out plot, and some nice complementing sub-plots.

Now this attempt is not the all out action-extravaganza that is Indiana Jones. Nor is it a poor attempt to be so. This vehicle is plot and character driven and is a beautiful rendition of the AQ/KSM saga. Filmed on location in South Africa, the audience is granted beautiful (if desolate) vistas, SA aboriginal cultures, and some nice wildlife footage to blend smoothly with the performances and storyline here.

Steve Boyum totally surprised me with this one, as I have never been one to subscribe to his vision. In fact, I have disliked most of his work as a director, until this attempt. I hope this is more a new vein of talent and less the fluke that it seems to be.

This version rates a 9.8/10 on the "TV" scale from...

the Fiend :.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive