Q: I myself feel this film is a rare treasure. Not only is it the beginning of Shirley Temple's career, but a rare look on how our society has changed. You have to understand, certain things we today would view as sexual, back then would be considered innocent. For example, the parents of the children in the film as well as the many parents who took their children to see this movie, saw this as just children mimicking adults. Most people didn't think of anyone viewing children sexually attractive, other than teenage boys lusting over teenage girls. To them it wasn't sexual. Mind you this was before we had internet, TV, etc... Most sex crimes weren't openly brought up. Occasionally there would be a whisper about the kid with the "funny uncle." But that was often all that came of it. Yes very sad. But it is kinda sad today, for even I too can see this film as anything other than what it was intended, innocent and funny. When I saw Shirley dance like that and the boys eye balling her, yes I felt disturbed. I have to remind myself the time this took place! Those children didn't know what sex was. The parents knew that, both those of the children in the movie and those watching it. The thought may not have even entered their minds. In the eyes of the average adult back then, this was no more sexual then if Shirley was playing house. Even today kids will enter beauty contest, many dressed up extremely maturely, for a three yr old. However the child is merely pretending. I don't blame the child for wanting to act like an adult. Or the old movies that display this. In all honesty, our media has made a lot of things seem back then seem sick and wrong. This sometimes can be for the best. But I truly believe this movie isn't one of them. It gives a rare look of an innocent mentality, that we have long lost. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Hayao Miyazaki has no equal when it comes to using hand-drawn animation as a form of storytelling, yet often he is being compared to Walt Disney. That is just so unfair, because it becomes apparent by watching Miyazaki's films that he is the superior artist. He really has a gift of thrilling both grownups and children, and Laputa is indeed one awesome ride.

But where can I begin to describe a movie so magical and breathtaking! Miyazaki's works have never cease to amaze me. Laputa is an adventure of a grand scale and I wonder how a film can be so packed with details and imagination. Ask yourself this question: if you are a kid dreaming of an adventure so grand in scope and so magical, what would it be like? The answer would be to strap yourself in some seat and watch Laputa, because it's truly a childhood fantasy come true. Every minute of the movie is rich and engrossing ... from the train chase to the amazing air-flying sequences... and to the wonderous sight of the floating castle itself. Not to mention the excellent score by Joe Hisaishi! Everything you ever possibly want from an adventure movie is here. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I watched this movie in the wee hours of the morning when I should have been asleep. This, in itself, was testimony that Deliverance was a spell-binding movie. I think Boorman did a wonderful job on directing this film. How expertly the early scene with the hill folk and the dueling banjos was done. It showed so well and early on how inherently reserved and simple the people of the area were. Case in point - near the end of the "duel", the banjo-playing boy was smiling (loved his banjo), but when Drew tried to shake the boy's hand after the "duel", the kid was too reserved to respond. The river trip never left you bored, for sure. The rape scene was brutal, but necessary to show just what the group was up against in this backwoods area of Georgia. I think Beatty's traumatic shock afterward was well done. Some have said he was pretty unaffected by the ordeal. I disagree - if you really payed attention, he was unresponsive during the entire action immediately following, in which Reynolds put the arrow through the attacker and they chased off the toothless guy. It was confusing when Ed killed the other guy later, at the top of the cliff. It almost appeared that the arrow was shot while Ed was curled up and expecting to die, but then you realize the arrow he had shot earlier had finally taken effect.

Anyway, a great movie, and I was wavering between an 8 and 9 on my vote, but after reading a message from a disgruntled voter who gave it a "1", I gave it a "10". This individual's reasoning seemed based on personal bias, rather than an objective viewpoint, and his vote was obviously a non-correlating attempt to lower the rating. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: Very low-budget police procedural film about homicide detectives trying to solve the murder of a woman whose body turns up in a stolen car in Central Park, and their only clue is a tattoo on her arm. Although released by RKO, this has the look of an independent production that was picked up by the studio for distribution. The cast and crew, with a few exceptions--among them a young and uncredited Jack Lord, director Edward Montagne and cameraman William Steiner--are comprised of complete unknowns, and it shows. The performances are universally sub-par and wouldn't pass muster in a high school training film, the direction is stodgy and choppy and, as mentioned previously, there's no chemistry whatsoever between the lead actors. However, despite the film's many shortcomings, it does have a few good points. The location shooting in New York City, and the film's ultra-low budget, gives it a gritty authenticity much like that of the far superior "The Naked City", a shootout in a dark basement is decently handled, and some of the investigating procedures are clever. Otherwise, it's not much to write home about. It is worth a look, however, for a glimpse at the seamier sections of New York City in the early 1950s, and old-car buffs will be ecstatic to see the legions of '30s and '40s cars in the streets.

. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative