IN: Review: Let's face it; some lame kid who dies and has his soul transfered into a scarecrow. Das no gonna happen neva! OMFG This stupid loser kid who can't stand up for himself gets his ass handed to him by some drunk bastard screwing his mom. Right as he dies, he looks up at the scarecrow and he let's his spirit go into the scarecrow. The drunk guy covered up his death by making it seem suicidal and thought he had gotten away with it. We later see he is tossed out of the trailer and later earns another encounter with the scarecrow. They had a brief encounter which includes the drunk calling him a loser and the scarecrow rebounding with "Takes one to know one, loser!" The scarecrow flips off the building, calls him "daddy-o", and then beheads the poor man. We can see how this awesome movie unfolds from that. He goes on to kill many people, afterward. He mainly kills the people who gave him a hard time in rl and goes off to kill some random ass people, just for some laughs. No laughing here. He adds a punchline to every kill, too. Every time he killed someone, he would do some karate flips and finish it all off with one of his signature punchlines. In the case of someone who was hard of hearing, he would say "Here, have an EAR of corn!" then shove it up their ass. OR we can actually take an example from the movie! He just got done killing a cop and was on his way to killing the only person who ever stood up for him. Her father, the sheriff, yelled to the madman to stop, and he said "Hey, stay awhile!" and threw a dagger threw his chest and stuck him onto some tree. In the end of the movie, he killed two guys and threw in the punchline "Gotta split!" and killed two guys by shoving a scythe into their heads. Wowzors, this movie made me want to cream my pants so bad. Maybe next time this guy makes a movie, it won't be gay.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: I don't understand why the reviews of this film are so universally bad, unless I'm just off my rocker. I found it sick, brilliant, twisted, and psychologically sophisticated. You won't get deeper into the mind of a criminal psychopath in a Hollywood film than this one. It has layers within layers, nuanced acting by Stone,and a plot that will keep you guessing even after it's over. People need to get over the fact that Sharon Stone is 48,and that Michael Douglas isn't in this one. I predict that this film will be a huge hit on DVD once people see it for themselves and stop paying attention to the drivel professional reviewers put out. Give it a shot, you might be glad you did!
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: As a child I always hated being forced to sit through musicals. I never understood why people would break out into song like that, and I was far too young to appreciate the artistry (choreography, set design, costumes, pacing) behind it all. Carol Reed's "Oliver!" was the one musical I remember oddly enjoying as a child, probably because it is one of the darker ones and is appropriately drenched in the spirit of Dickensian squalor. This is a musical about ghetto life in Victorian London, and while the scenery and set designs are stark, dark, and true to that way of life, it is flat out bizarre for people to be breaking out into such ridiculous songs amidst their misery. Upon a recent viewing, my first since childhood, I have some new thoughts and insights into why this musical "works" in that bizarre breaking out into song kind of way, and why most just don't do it for me.

When musicals work or really say something, it is because they realize their own inherent strangeness. Lars von Trier's "Dancer in the Dark" as tragic and operatic and over reaching as it was, worked as a musical because the musical numbers were the products of the imagination of the protagonist, an immigrant obsessed with Hollywood musicals. Likewise, the very cynical and enjoyable "Chicago" worked on a similar level because the musical numbers were the products of a homicidal ingenue singer/dancer. Musicals don't work when they take their own musical-nature too seriously (like in "Moulin Rouge") or are simply too much fluff about nothing (i.e. something pointless like "Mary Poppins"). Upon viewing "Oliver!" for the first time as an adult, I saw it in a new light. Told mostly from the point of view young Oliver, I saw the musical numbers as the products of his childhood imagination and his way of coping with the horrors of ghetto life around him. The best musical number was probably when Nancy got everyone in the tavern signing and dancing about the joys of getting drunk (as a cover to help poor Oliver escape the clutches of the evil Bill Sykes). It was undeniably catchy and sounded like a real pub tune that drunks might start singing around a piano. There are other great and classic tunes to be heard here, and the direction and acting from the leads to the dancing extras are all top notch.

Still, for all its bleakness (although it does have a happy ending for Oliver at least, though certainly things didn't end happily for Nancy, and unless you think a life on the streets being a pick-pocket is fun, it wasn't a necessarily a good ending for Fagin or the Dodger, despite their peppy closing tune) I wouldn't really classify this as a family film, though I don't think showing it to kids over the age of seven or eight will do any harm. This is a harsh tale about an unfortunate orphan trying to survive on the streets and find some happiness. I think it would be very interesting to see a modern update on this some how, perhaps a revisionist take on it, where people on the streets of Compton break into happy songs about their horrible lives. I'd like to see a hard-edged hip-hop version of "Oliver!". I always thought Dickens would translate well in those regards. As it stands, "Oliver!" was probably the last of the great film musicals and maybe the strangest G-rated film I've ever seen.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I was lucky to see "Oliver!" in 1968 on a big cinema screen in Boston when I was a young teenager. Later, during the summer of 1969, I was pleased to see this film was still playing at a prominent cinema in Leicester Square, London, after it had won the Academy Award for Best Picture of the previous year.

Th success of "Oliver!" on both the stage and screen reminded me that not all talent begins on Broadway and ends in Hollywood. This legendary story by Charles Dickens, which is part of the literary heritage of all English-speaking people, was admirably brought to the London stage by Lionel Bart of Great Britain. His charming musical then became a hit in New York and throughout the world. The film adaptation was made in England during the summer of 1967 and then released in 1968. The sets and musical numbers are mind boggling. The song "Who Will Buy?" required hundreds of actors and the British film director truly deserved his Oscar for putting it all together in a seamless manner. Some Canadian and American talent is also part of this wonderful production, but mostly it is a tribute to the fine craftsmanship of the British film studios, such as Shepperton. Good show! Other film studios at Elstree, Boreham Wood, Bray, Denham, and Ealing have also given the world many films to treasure over the years.
What is this review like?
OUT:
positive