input: Jameson Parker And Marilyn Hassett are the screen's most unbelievable couple since John Travolta and Lily Tomlin. Larry Peerce's direction wavers uncontrollably between black farce and Roman tragedy. Robert Klein certainly think it's the former and his self-centered performance in a minor role underscores the total lack of balance and chemistry between the players in the film. Normally, I don't like to let myself get so ascerbic, but The Bell Jar is one of my all-time favorite books, and to watch what they did with it makes me literally crazy.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I have never read the Bradbury novel that this movie is based on but from what I've gathered, it will be interesting (when I finally do read it and I will). My comments will be based purely on the film. As soon as I saw the trailer I knew I had to see it and was so excited but when I finally did, I was so disappointed it hurt. This is because the movie itself felt so amateurish. The actors were not well cast (though Robards and Pryce are both good actors - just not here). The kid actors, it seemed, were merely asked to show up, get in the characters' clothes, say the lines and make the faces. The set and props were cheap and unrealistic. The direction was surprisingly bad. I was so surprised at the awfulness of it that I had to go online and check who directed it, just to see the kind of work he had done. The editing was cut and paste and the plot (screenplay) was just that as well (even though the author had been involved himself, irony?). The building up of the tension, fear and suspense was so mild it was ineffective when the climax finally came.

I've read some of the comments on this movie and find it hard to believe people actually like it. What hurts the most is that the content is interesting and fun and intriguing. It had so much potential. Unfortunately, the film was so technically bad it takes away from the brilliance of the story.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I have to say, when "Pushing Daisies" came out I was immediately won out by the fairy-tale like setting of such grimness. The narrator made a cake out of the whole ordeal by making death seem as routine as, well, Ned (Lee Pace) baking pies. And that bringing them back to life was just as routine.

The trio of Ned, Emerson Cod (Chi McBride) and Charlotte "Chuck" Charles (Anna Friel), plus sometimes-sidekick Olive Snook (Kristin Chenoweth, who made the musical Wicked such a delight) made for some fantastic dialogue and silliness. It definitely deserves the title of a (romantic) comedy/drama.

Ned and Chuck made for a shy and not-quite-ready-for-love couple who are still exploring their feelings even though they cannot touch - an obstacle that seems to be truly no obstacle with aids such as gloves, cellophane, and quirky schedules around the apartment. But despite the awkwardness presented as they work their feelings around a strange secret which only a few know, they still manage to show their on screen chemistry in touching scenes like when Ned gives Chuck the beehives. The presence of Olive, though, makes for some break-out-in-song moments in the pie shop and unforeseen complications for the couple.

Second season sharply declined, putting a damper on a show that had real potential. On some of the episodes, the plot line was rushed and awkward, making you ask "what just happened?" in both the overall dead-person-of-the-week plot and in the overriding plot line. The addition of Chuck's father plus two half-brothers for Ned didn't help, and at least one of the plot lines felt almost recycled (didn't the episode "Comfort Food" feel like the episode "Bitter Sweets" in the fact that the dead-person-of-the-week died in food?). A few touching moments (the beehives) happened to help advance the relationship between Chuck and Ned, but every time they got close, the writers decided to throw in another monkey wrench rather than let the relation develop (Oliver comes back from the monastery, Chuck's dead father comes back to life and doesn't go back, you get the picture).

Shame it didn't work out, but the concept was good and seemed surreal in a good way, just enough Pleasantvillesque color/happy-smiley going on and implausible scenarios to remind you that it's not "Dead Like Me." Then again, it's in "Pushing Daisies time," according to Creator Bryan Fuller, so it makes it plausible again.

It should have lasted longer, but it's merely wistful thinking at this point. Kudos to whatever new show attempts to replace this short-lived gem.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I love John Saxon in anything he's in. The one time he takes over the camera though he directs a movie that should have more aptly been been titled "Please Do Not Watch This Movie Called: Zombie Death House". The $1000 dollar Shock Insurance Certificate is dear Fred Olen Ray's tricky way of making you spend 14 dollars on a filmed dump churned out by a major 70's cheese legend. Ray being the front man at RetroMedia. Ray by the way makes Charles Band look hotter than stucco ceilings on a Ford Falcon. Just plain bad now, the both of them- and boring besides. It's great that Ray is digging up this old stuff and in some cases it's public domain like the rest of the dollar video hucksters but in the case of Zombie Death House- (the word "Zombie" sloppily superimposed to add ownership and interest on the part of F.O.R.) THE ONLY WAY TO DO SERVICE TO THIS TRIPE IS TO RELEASE IT ON THE DOLLAR MARKET FOR THE CURIOUS COLLECTOR AND FANS OF SAXON!!! If you wanna see real Saxon, pick up Black Christmas, Nightmare on Elm Street or The Glove.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative