input: I had watched (and recorded) this a few years back on local TV and, having been underwhelmed by it, I subsequently erased the tape; however, when it was released by MGM as part of a "Midnite Movie" double-feature DVD of Curtis Harrington/Shelley Winters films for a very affordable price, I couldn't resist giving it a second look (this has since gone out-of-print). Actually, I received the DVD a few months ago but only now, with Harrington's passing, did I get to it; thankfully, this time around I was more receptive to the film and, in fact, now consider it one of the more satisfying WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE? (1962) imitations (with whom, incidentally, it shared screenwriter Henry Farrell).

The film offers a splendid evocation of 1930s Depression America - with its child-star craze and sensational murders (exploited during the fake newsreel opening); it's stylishly made (kudos to Lucien Ballard's cinematography and the set design by Eugene Lourie') and boasts an effective David Raksin score. Shelley Winters, Debbie Reynolds and Michael MacLiammoir deliver excellent performances; the latter is especially impressive as the larger-than-life and vaguely sinister diction coach (though he ultimately proves a mere red herring!). Also featured are Dennis Weaver and Agnes Moorehead (hers is only a cameo, really, as the evangelist she plays is mostly heard over the radio).

Many seemed to regret the inclusion of musical numbers by the kids (including an amusing Mae West imitation), but I personally wasn't bothered by them; the film does slightly overstay its welcome due to an unhurried pace and (perhaps needlessly) convoluted plot. Reynolds - a musical star herself - is ideally cast as the dancing-school owner and, despite their on-set rivalry, she and Winters work well together. The latter, in fact, gives a more balanced depiction of paranoia and insanity than in WHOEVER SLEW AUNTIE ROO? (1971); the narrative, then, comes up with a number of ironic twists that lead up to the expected Grand Guignol-type denouement. Apparently, the film was toned down (it originally contained more gore and even a suggestion of lesbianism!) by producer Martin Ransohoff - against Harrington's wishes - in order to get a PG rating...

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Is there a movement more intolerant and more judgmental than the environmentalist movement? To a budding young socialist joining the circus must seem as intimidating as joining a real circus. Even though such people normally outsource their brain to Hollywood for these important issues, the teachings of Hollywood can often seem fragmented and confusing. Fortunately Ed is here to teach neo-hippies in the art of envirojudgementalism.

Here you'll learn the art of wagging your finger in the face of anyone without losing your trademark smirk. You'll learn how to shrug off logic and science with powerful arguments of fear. You'll learn how to stop any human activity that does not interest you by labeling it as the gateway to planetary Armageddon.

In addition to learning how to lie with a straight face you'll also learn how to shrug off accusations that are deflected your way no matter how much of a hypocrite you are. You'll be able to use as much energy as Al Gore yet while having people treat you as if you were Amish.

In the second season was even more useful as we were able to visit other Hollywood Gods, holy be thy names, and audit - i.e. judge - their lifestyles. NOTE: This is the only time it's appropriate for an envirofascist to judge another because it allows the victim the chance to buy up all sorts of expensive and trendy eco-toys so that they can wag their finger in other people's faces.

What does Ed have in store for us in season three? Maybe he'll teach us how to be judgmental while sleeping!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Some films just simply should not be remade. This is one of them. In and of itself it is not a bad film. But it fails to capture the flavor and the terror of the 1963 film of the same title. Liam Neeson was excellent as he always is, and most of the cast holds up, with the exception of Owen Wilson, who just did not bring the right feel to the character of Luke. But the major fault with this version is that it strayed too far from the Shirley Jackson story in it's attempts to be grandiose and lost some of the thrill of the earlier film in a trade off for snazzier special effects. Again I will say that in and of itself it is not a bad film. But you will enjoy the friction of terror in the older version much more.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I work as a hotel concierge in Washington DC and take my word, there was nothing remotely accurate about the character played by Michael J. Fox- # 1 we simply do not walk around with our pockets bursting with theater tickets and $100 bills! #2 If I ever let anybody use a room for some 'afternoon delight' time I'd be fired on the spot! The organization to which I belong (Les Clefs d'Or) has very definite standards of ethics and conduct that we take seriously. #3 Similarly untrue was the concept, at the end of the movie, of Doug simply removing his gold key emblem and passing it on to some other employee- we earn those keys and it is a badge of honor and knowledge to be allowed to wear them. There is a whole application and vetting process to joining our organization.

This film does nothing to dispel the unfortunate perception of a concierge as nothing but a money grubbing mercenary. In short it does a disservice to our organization. I welcome any comments.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
negative