input: Okay, let me start off by saying that nothing in this will come as a surprise to anyone who's read the other comments. That being said, MY G-D, THIS MOVIE REEKED! I mean, WOW, I didn't know it was possible to throw as much money as they obviously did at something and still come out worse than ANY Roger Corman movie! Corman was probably pitched this movie at some point but declined due to the poor quality of the script! The only reason this movie got made in the first place is that someone said, 'Hey, Zombies are popular. Video games are popular. What game can we get a hold of that has zombies in it? Resident Evil? No, someone else got there first. Silent Hill? No, too silent. People will never sit in a dark room just to be scared silly. Hey, didn't Sega have a game where people ran around shooting zombies? They're out of the platform biz, we could get that for pennies!'

Basically they tried their best to make a movie that felt like the video game, even down to shooting the combat as if the characters were actually playing the game.

The first and major problem is that the original game was horrid. I mean,

bad-movie-merchandising-made-into-a-worse-game-in-two-weeks-and-then-shippe d-out-and-bought-by-morons-and-their-parents-for-christmas horrid. The graphics were boring. The monsters were boring. The levels were boring. The interface was boring. The CASE was boring. In other words, this was a boring game. And that was the ARCADE version. The home version was even worse! With the home version, you didn't even get the shotgun to hold in your hand while you were being bored silly by this pointless game! But I digress.

The second problem is that they went so far as to actually intercut scenes from actual gameplay during the fight scenes. HUH??? Didn't the editor have enough confidence in the effects to indicate that there was an actual fight going on? Not to mention that EVERY fight was shot from the perspective of a video game, which may explain the tedious use of Matrix-style effects. The problem with this is that the game was a first-person shooter (the player proceeds from the POV of the character). Maybe that's why they put in the game graphics, to let you know that they were alluding to the game... Right, whatever...

Anyway, the only thing that made this ENTIRE experience remotely enjoyable was the fact that everyone in the theatre was making fun of the movie out loud, so my sudden fits of hysterical laughter and general incredulity were taken as commonplace and didn't get me kicked out.

To sum up, DON'T GO SEE THIS MOVIE! Don't even deign to rent it when it comes out on video in a couple of week. Run. Just run.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Sniper gives a true new meaning to war movies. I remember movies about Vietnam or WWII, lots of firing, everybody dies, bam bam. "Sniper" takes war to a new level or refinement. The movie certainly conveys all of the emotions it aims for - The helplessness of humans in the jungle, the hatred and eventual trust between Beckett and Miller, and the rush of the moment when they pull the trigger. A seemingly low-budget film makes up for every flaw with action, suspense, and thrill, because when it comes down to it, it's just one shot, one kill.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I saw "Shiner" on DVD. While I was watching it, I thought, "This is a really bad porn flick without the porn." I also thought, "Whoever wrote this has some real issues." Then I watched the director/writer Carlson explain his process as a special feature. Yeah, it was real special.

The emphasis of the film is placed on two alcoholic losers who hit each other to get off. They are marginally attractive. There is frontal and full nudity. These factors probably account for the film being seen at all.

The most upsetting element of the film is the gay bashing and the subsequent further gay bashing of the same victim who tries ineptly to exact revenge from his assailants, the two drunken losers. Not only is the subject handled absurdly and badly from a technical point of view, but the acting is horrendously bad.

Then there's the boxer-stalker theme. This is really insane, not just absurd. This hunky boxer is somehow traumatized by the persistent attentions of a fleshy momma's boy who works at his gym's parking lot. This is in LA, mind you. The boxer is so traumatized that he turns up at the stalker's house, strips in front of him and gets excited in the process.

Well, all I can say is, why would a boxer who is at heart an exhibitionist be so traumatized by the attention of a stalker? It simply makes no sense. And, I'm afraid, some psycho-dynamics actually do make sense, if you take the time to read about them. However, bad scripts seldom make sense at all.

The director/writer seems to have thought that this film represents a considerable minority within the gay community. Well, he may be correct, I suppose. We may never know, since that minority would be so dysfunctional they would hardly be able to get organized enough to ever get to an obscure gay film festival or DVD store, the only two places they could possibly find this turkey. Thank goodness for that.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: What is most striking about this semi-musical set in 1920s Berlin is the marvelous cinematography and editing. It's top of the line from First National in these departments. The story is mildly engaging and similar to the plots of Miller's other two films (SUNNY, SALLY) where working girl is romanced by rich boy with family disapproval, complications and final clinch. All the four musical numbers are bunched at the beginning of the film and we go for a long stretch without any further musical buoyancy. Miller sings parts of I THINK OF BABY and reprises BECAUSE OF YOU. There are also DON'T EVER BE BLUE and THOUGH YOU'RE NOT THE FIRST ONE.

Miller here is very engaging and delightful, quite reminiscent of Irene Dunne in manner and delivery. Sad she does not dance as that is her forte. SALLY remains her finest film, with this trailing as second and the rather poor SUNNY a vastly inferior runner up. Her life was tragically cut short by a sinus infection before the days when hospitals and antibiotics made such tragedies preventable. It's worth visiting these films though to see Ziegfeld's top star of the twenties.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative