input: OK, it was a good American Pie. Erick Stifler goes off to college with his buddy Cooze. During their arrival they meet up with Eric's cousin Dwight. The two pledge to become Betas and along the way they get involved with a whole lot of sex, tits, and some hot girls along the way. In a few words there is a lot more sex, nudity and alcohol. It is a good movie for those who want to enjoy an American Pie movie, granted it isn't as great as the first three is is a good movie. If you enjoy hot girls with really nice tits, get this movie. If you enjoy seeing a bunch of dudes making assholes of themselves, go to this movie. If you want to see the full thing, get the unrated addition. One last thing this is a better attempt than the last two American Pies.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The fourth of five westerns Anthony Mann did with James Stewart, this one involves a hard bitten cattleman named Jeff Webster who takes a cattle drive from Wyoming to Alaska, via Seattle. He hooks up in Seattle with his partners Ben Tatum (Walter Brennan) and Rube Morris (Jay C. Flippen) that he has sent ahead of time in order to make preparations for the boat trip, north.

But first, he has to put up with insubordinate trail hands, cheating riverboat captains and the charms of coy, manipulative Ronda Castle (Ruth Roman) who believes Jeff could be a valuable ally in the future. That's why she hides him out on the boat while the captain's looking for him for the earlier (and justifiable) killing of a trail hand.

Jeff also has the misfortune of running into sleazy Judge Gannon (John McIntire) who runs the town of Skagway, Alaska. Gannon locks Jeff up for disrupting his public hanging by running his cattle through town. He fines Jeff the ownership of his cattle and Jeff just has to eat crow for the time being.

In the meantime, Jeff agrees to ride point for Ronda up to Dawson in order to deliver supplies. But this is just a ruse so Jeff, Ben and Rube can slip back into Skagway and steal his cattle back. Of course Judge Gannon finds out about this and is right behind but is delayed by Jeff with a rifle while Ben races the cattle over the Canadian border out of Gannon's reach.

After avoiding an avalanche and another shootout with some other Skagway men, they finally reach Dawson where Jeff sells his cattle to the highest bidder, which just happens to be Ronda who then promptly sets up a new gambling house in Dawson. Jeff then takes his money and buys himself a claim and starts panning for gold.

But then Judge Gannon comes up to Dawson to get in on the gold action up there, and tells Jeff that he was getting a little bored with Skagway and wants to try his luck up in the Klondike, himself. That involves bring some hired gunman with him and forcibly stealing some of the other miner's claims. Jeff and Ben now feel it's time to clear out while the goings are good, leaving Rube to fend for himself as a most ineffective sheriff against Gannon and his gang.

They look for a back way out only to find themselves ambushed by Gannon's men because Ben made the mistake of opening his big mouth. Ben is killed and Jeff is severely wounded but that doesn't save Judge Gannon from his just due. The ending shootout at night on the muddy Dawson street pretty much takes care of that. First Jeff kills two of Gannon's best gunman (Jack Elam and Robert Wilkie). Then as Ronda comes out to warn Jeff that Gannon is trying to slip around behind him, Gannon shoots her in the back and she dies right there in Jeff's arms. Then Jeff kills Gannon as he's hiding under a wooden sidewalk. Revenge has spoken.

This is another rip-roaring western that's right up there with THE NAKED SPUR and THE MAN FROM LARAMIE. Why the Universal DVD uses a pan-and-scan print instead of the widescreen print TCM uses, is beyond me. You'll wind up missing half the glorious Alberta cinematography by William Daniels. So if you like well-written 50s westerns, then this one's an A-list keeper.

8 out of 10

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This film uses all art-house cliches (slow pace, long static shots, minimal amount of dialog) to try to hide the fact that there really is nothing worth watching here: There is no plot to speak of, the characters are dreary (female lead) or cliche (Tersteeghe's character), and they do not ever talk to each other about anything that concerns their rather uneventful lives. The film is centered around a woman who finds out about her husbands adultery. Instead of confronting him, she half-heartedly takes revenge by committing adultery herself. After a fight and a reconciliation with her sister - who knew about the adultery without telling her - she asks her husband to stop cheating on her. They seem to be re-united as a family. Two other story lines - the planned move of the woman's elderly father with his young wife to Guernsey and the rivalry with the woman's sister - do not offer any interesting developments. The suicide of a colleague of the woman that seems to set off events in the film is not a subject in itself. For 2005 - or any other year for that matter - this is not enough to make an interesting film.

Moreover, what little possibilities for dramatic development there are in the script are not used or are consciously avoided, as when both the woman and her sister mark a particular piece of furniture from their fathers house which is going to be sold because of his planned move. Both sisters want this particular piece and given their rivalry in the past - over much more important things than furniture: men - this could in theory lead to a confrontation. Or the matter could be resolved by one sister giving way to the other. Either way, this would not be a very interesting or original development of the story but at least it would constitute some development. The film clearly sets this situation up (with both sisters looking intently at each other during the marking and one sister having mentioned she does not want to draw straws) but it cheats us out of any resolution: the scene simply ends and how this - in itself rather dreary and materialistic - issue is solved, is not shown.

Although almost completely absent, the dialog that is in the film is excruciatingly flat and tepid. For example, when during a visit to Guernsey, the 2 sisters address their rivalry it is in a three line dialog that has a childish "yes it is - no it isn't" ring to it. The fight and reconciliation scene with the 2 sisters is completely without dialog - giving a highly artificial, overly stylised and unrealistic impression and considerably reducing its impact. The way the woman finally - finally! - addresses her husbands adultery in a single line of dialog has to be seen to be believed - and is at the same time completely unbelievable. The husband does not seem to have any noticeable reaction or if he has any, it is not shown. The woman does not mention her own adultery to her husband. The scene showing the woman, husband and their young son asleep on an airliner, watched by the sister is possibly meant as a happy end, but the way the characters addressed the issues of their lives in what went before makes this unlikely.

Because of its slow pace, uninteresting story, leaden direction and absurd lack of dialog, I found this film an example of everything that can be wrong with an art-house movie and a complete waste of time.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative