input: I saw Crispin Glover's "What Is It?" at the Ann Arbor film festival. Admittedly, the film was at least aptly named, because I got the distinct sense that even the writer/director could provide no answer. At the question and answer session after the screening, Mr. Glover said that the film was originally meant to be a short film to show the virtue of using actors with down-syndrome. However, this is in itself not enough of a reason to create a film. Actors are, in my opinion, building blocks for a larger vision - a larger vision that seemed muddled at best and absent at worst.

Crispin Glover also said that he wanted to address taboo subjects. Well, he does do that. But why? The film seems to have no stance, no reason for addressing anything. Does he feel these things shouldn't be taboo? The film doesn't even give me an indicator of that. Taboo for the sake of taboo is not interesting. It can't even afford to make the taboo disturbing or inciting on any level because he hasn't made the audience care in any way.

Ignoring problems with the concept for a moment, the thing that actually shocked me most was how poorly the film was put together. The editing, cinematography, and other technical aspects seemed frequently to be extremely amateur. Glover said 125-150 thousand dollars went into the movie, and I feel that the money should have been spent on different designers (Glover actually did some design himself - I know I saw at least sound design in the credits). The painted sets are okay (not great), but used poorly. Parts feel like a photographed stage play - which would be fine if that went to any sort of purpose, but in Glover's hands it just feels sloppy. Other parts are filmed like a sort of Home Movie, of inferior quality to a lot of the stuff I see first-time filmmakers do on iMovie.

Perhaps the biggest problem with "What Is It?" is I can't even understand how seriously the film is to be taken. There are some parts that feel like Glover is screaming at you to think seriously. At other points, he seems off on his own little joke. Perhaps he meant for this to be ironic, or meaningful in some way, but I just felt that Glover couldn't even get himself to give his film any sort of serious attention.

Glover said he originally wanted it to be a short film. If only it had been. At seventy-two minutes, the film runs out of imagery and ideas in the first twenty, and it is arguable if the ideas were formulated enough to claim that they were even there for that period of time.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The Dirty Harry series began with very gritty cop action, and was almost immediately lightened up for "Magnum Force". By the time that "The Enforcer" rolled around, Dirty Harry was little more than a television cop show (saved only by Tyne Daly). After a break of seven years, Dirty Harry has finally gone back to his roots. Maybe he's been gone for too long this time.

Clint Eastwood makes the first well-directed Harry film since Don Siegel made the first, which helps considerably. Harry is a darker character once again, not the nice cop he had become. He can once again say things like "Go ahead, make my day" and really mean it. "Sudden Impact" is a true Dirty Harry sequel. "The Enforcer" should never have been made.

7.2 out of 10

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Brilliant kung-fu scenes, loads of melodrama, peculiar footwear symbolism and an unhappy (?) end makes Barefoot Kid an unforgettable film.

One of the silliest subtitles I've seen...

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The Crater Lake Monster is easily one of the most awful, amateurish film I've ever seen - ranking right up there with Manos, the Hands of Fate in terms of poor acting, useless direction, and kindergarten-level production values. In this movie a silly-looking claymation/stop-motion animated dinosaur wakes up after a meteor hits a lake in Bumblebum, CA, and begins dining on the local hayseeds. In the thrilling climax, the creature, described by one local as "a giant alligator with flippers", drags it's ponderous bulk over the ground to chase its would-be lunch, before a bulldozer bumps it a couple of times & it dies from boredom. Every character in this moovie is a complete moron. One pointless subplot shows a hick go into a liquor store to purchase a $4.75 pint of Ripple; instead of simply buying the bottle, the idiot shoots the cashier and another bystander, shoots at a cop, gets chased towards the lake, all so that he can eaten by the monster. Unfortunate close-ups of the monster reveal it to be nothing more than a piece of styrofoam. There's a fake magician struggling with a phony British accent (to make him seem more legit), two overly-bumbling redneck boat renters, some cheesy "pre-historic cave art" done in crayon, and annoying banjo-pickin' background moosic. In one painful scene, the fake magician and his dopey wife/girlfriend/accomplice manage to pad the movie an extra 4 minutes by cowmenting on how may stars they can see in the night sky, even though it is clearly day time still. Even on constant fast-forward, this moovie hurts, and hurts bad. MooCow says call the fumigators, 'cause this cow pie really stinks! :=8P

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative