input: Oh, how we have a misfire here; a film so bad that your mind will wonder and drift away onto other things as it wastes your time with brain numbingly poor production values; character stereotypes of the worst and racist kind since D.W. Griffith referred to the Chinese character in Broken Blossoms as 'the yellow man'; characters so unimaginative and un-engaging that it's difficult to watch as well as a narrative that plods along at such a slow, stupid and pointless pace that you will question the very people who say they like this film.

Prizzi's Honor is a film that ends up being an absolute post-modern disaster in every which way possible. The film is a messy and senseless disaster that has John Huston directing; Kathleen Turner and Jack Nicholson staring and everybody else filling in the gaps as either dumb stereotypes or supporting characters that weep on a phone now and again or bicker with a main character. Prizzi's Honor is a film that falls into a genre of neo-noir, comedy, romance, action, gangster and overall crime this twinned with its director and cast should be enough to propel it through some sort of a story; some sort of a sequence of good scenes; some sort of intelligence in the form of a screenplay or something else but no what we get is a nasty and ugly film revolving around nothing at all.

I'll give a couple of examples of how shoddy this horror show of a film actually is. Firstly, the film thinks it's a love story and it thinks this for about an hour of its time: of MY time. Charley Partanna (Nicholson) is an assassin who kills people for a family that he works for in New York and yet he resembles his character out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest more than an international hit-man. He meets and falls in love with Irene Walker (Turner) who is another assassin and they hit it off but as the poor excuse for a plot plays out, it appears all is not right. I read that the plot for this film is: "A professional hit man and hit woman fall in love, only to discover that they have each been hired to kill the other." Well, yes that's true but that actual revelation doesn't happen until about twenty minutes to the end! Nicholson plays Partanna like someone with an IQ of 60: he walks around; seemingly making observations and talking out loud about things he sees; he talks like he is either drunk or has a more serious problem from within and worse of all we never get the feeling he is an assassin one really poorly shot assassination early on (that actually happens off screen) is not enough to suggest this guy is a hard-bodied, best of the best, international hit-man.

So with a main character who is un-likable and un-realistic, we move to the script. The first hour and a half is just a cinematic dead zone with what ever there is to suggest traces of life merely poor conventions: Partanna slouches around on the phone or in person asking the same things over and over again: "Do I marry her?; Do I love her? What is love? What do I do?" and it gets so repetitive, it's not even able to act as good humour. This twinned with the way he always seemed to be on the phone to someone: a girl called Maerose Prizzi (Huston) played by director John's daughter; which served absolutely no purpose to the plot whatsoever and seemed to be there for laughs as was the scene in which she tells her father about how she slept with Partanna and loved it that got me thinking, was this supposed to be funny? Should I be laughing? The film felt like a smart mafia picture what with its opening scene of a wedding (ala The Godfather) and consequential scenes with a touch of noir as gangsters, police men and assassins were introduced into the film. But what we get is something very, very different.

The second hour revolves around some sort of a kidnap plot; right, the love and romance is dealt with maybe the film will kick-start. I was so very wrong: with more characters continuously talking very slowly and very deliberately in a monotone way, we have a kidnap scene involving some guy coming out of his office: this scene sums the film up. Everything is briefly planned and then executed in a heavy handed and dumb way that just makes it look cheesy. We do not get to see them arrive to some dramatic music; perhaps they have to get through security to get to the elevators; maybe they have to be careful of civilians when they hide in their chosen places and when that random woman steps out of the elevator and the gunshot occurs the scene isn't even edited correctly. Some suspense, some drama: "Do I shoot or don't I?"; maybe some slow motion as the character has to quick draw before it's too late anything but how it was actually executed. Prizzi's Honor continues its monotonous and uninteresting decent into filmic oblivion as it nears its climax. It's a film where cameras reflect in windows; lights reflect in sides of cars and 'dead' chauffeurs blink when nudged. Prizzi's Honor is a jumbled and messy film that will try the patients of any film-goer and don't say it was a comedy because I didn't laugh with it AT it is another matter. The film is repetitive, drawn out and colourless in its vision and scope for originality - there is no Honour here.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I studied Charlotte Bronte's novel in high school, and it left me with a stunning impression. Here was a beautiful novel about a young woman's struggle to find love and acceptance in the dark times of Victorian England. This young woman was Jane Eyre, a poor and plain character with a strong mind and will of her own. Her story, which Bronte told through Jane's own eyes, was both sad and inspiring.

As part of our study, we watched the 1983 adaptation of the story, and it blew me away. The mini-series not only made the effort to stay true to Bronte's original text and the essence of the story, but the actors who portrayed the characters were just great. Both Zelah Clarke (Jane Eyre) and Timothy Dalton (Jane's lover, by the name of Rochester) captured brilliantly the essence of their characters. I cannot imagine anyone else in their roles. (The other performances of Rochester in other versions such as the 2006 version lack the passion, energy, and tenderness needed to portray Rochester accurately. I say that Timothy Dalton comes out on top because he possesses all these characteristics in his portrayal of Rochester. Zelah Clarke not only looks like Jane Eyre, but she captures Jane's quiet, but firm and passionate nature brilliantly. She holds in her emotions, like the Jane of the book, at the appropriate moments in the story but allows her fire to come out in Jane's passionate scenes. The chemistry that Clarke and Dalton portray in their scenes together is also credible and true to Jane and Rochester's devoted relationship.) As well, the supporting actors also fit their roles perfectly, and the sets fit the Gothic nature of the story.

I strongly recommend this version of the classic Bronte tale. If you have not read the book before, then you can watch this production as a faithful introduction to this beautiful story.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive