input: This movie had the potential to be far more than it was. But it not only fails to deliver, it brings up nauseous self righteous preaching at the same time.

John Cusack is even flatter than he was in Midnight of the Garden of Good and Evil. The difference is that this time he is supposed to have an southern accent, which he noticeably loses several times each scene.

Al Pacino does his shtick but seems to be walking through this film and collecting a paycheck. He's good as usual but hardly standout.

Supporting cast -- throw in female romantic interest which added little, if anything, to the story. Speaking of the story, a convoluted "who really cares" tale where Cusack is the self-righteous Mayor's boy who just has to search for "the right thing" to be done.

People don't act this way. Cusack's character loses all credibility at the end, of which without revealing it, is preach and nauseous. The final scene makes the penultimate silliness seem profound. It's also completely inaccurate but I won't get into law.

This is a bad, by the numbers movie. It seems interesting for the first 40 minutes and then it's really a preachy, proselytizing, self-righteous film for the last hour. Better off with mindless crap than this pile of junk.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: In Paris, the shy and insecure bureaucrat Trelkovsky (Roman Polanski) rents an old apartment without bathroom where the previous tenant, the Egyptologist Simone Choule (Dominique Poulange), committed suicide. The unfriendly concierge (Shelley Winters) and the tough landlord Mr. Zy (Melvyn Douglas) establish stringent rules of behavior and Trekovsky feels ridden by his neighbors. Meanwhile he visits Simone in the hospital and befriends her girlfriend Stella (Isabelle Adjani). After the death of Simone, Trekovsky feels obsessed for her and believes his landlord and neighbors are plotting a scheme to force him to also commit suicide.

The weird "Le Locataire" is a disturbing and creepy tale of paranoia and delusion. The story and the process of madness and loss of identity of the lonely Trelkovsky are slowly developed in a nightmarish atmosphere in the gruesome location of his apartment, and what is happening indeed is totally unpredictable. The performances are awesome and Isabelle Adjani is extremely beautiful. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "O Inquilino" ("The Tenant")

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I saw this movie literally directly after finishing the book, and maybe that was a neutral idea or a very stupid one. I think it was the latter. First of all, it was inaccurate in many small, yet important details. One of the first things I noticed was, during Winston's day to day life in his work, his conversations, eating in the cafeteria, etc. he feels free to look unhappy and make suggestive glances at people without immense fear. One of the most important parts of the book, was that even in small activities it was virtually impossible to safely show even a hint of his true emotions on his face AT ANY MOMENT. This is also shown in the scenes on the streets of the proletarions. In the book Winston knew that this was a huge risk to wander around there and was skeptical and frightened at every trip. While in the movie, he does it so often and without fear, that you lose the important feeling of heavy surveillance and risk right off the bat.

Other minor inaccuracies included Winston hiding his diary in the wall, yes a very small change, but it begs the question, what's the point? There was also the most annoying thing a director can do with a book, and that is morphing characters.

The large inaccuracies were far more disturbing, however. First of all, one of the important pieces of the book is that Big Brother is a government based on an intelligent, yet crude philosophy. In the movie, they skip that and go straight to making you think that the government is run by Hitler with technology. Which is true, in a sense, when directed with its facism, but if that's all you get out of Big Brother, you really missed the point of the book. The terrifying thing about Big Brother is that, in a way, it has some points behind its philosophy. When O'Brien is picking at Winstons mind in the Ministry of Love, he is LISTENING to everything Winston says against Big Brother. The fact that he listens, and advances forward in his philosophy, is in effect what is most creepy and intriguing. In the end, (careful SPOILER ahead) when Winston says he loves Big Brother, the terrifying thing is that you are not sure whether it was souly the beating and torture that caused this, or the actual power behind the philosophy. I am in no way saying that the Big Brother's philosophy has points that appeal to me, but its intelligence and depth is what makes this book incredibly disturbing.

Also, how could anyone feel any connection between Julia and Winston in the film? It was awful, no connection whatsoever.

And where was O'Brien before he gave Winston his address? One of the things that carried the book was Winstons thoughts about O'Brien BEFORE he made contact with him. In the movie, they just jump the gun.

But that about sums up why this movie was a terrible adaption: because its impossible NOT to jump the gun and morph characters in less than two hours. How could anyone think this movie was watchable if it was under two hours? At the very least, the movie demands 3 hours to be able to capture some of the important moods and connections. Anything less is just pointless.

If you loved the book, and I mean TRULY adored it, you will not approve of this movie, and chances are, you already knew you wouldn't. Because the book is unfilmable, and this movie just proves how impossible it is cram something decent into a small reel of film.

Two stars out of ten

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This movie has one of the cheesiest plots I have seen. For me, that's what makes it so awesome! Fred Gwynne and Al Lewis are very good at what they achieved in the original Munsters series. While there was less slapstick, they still worked wonderfully together "comedically." I wish Yvonne De Carlo, as Lily, would have had more plot involvement. She showed that she could do comedy in the original series, but it was mostly wasted in this movie. This movie also stars the great Sid Caesar, but sadly he doesn't have any interaction with Gwynne and Lewis. I think some better work could have come out of that.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive