input: I was very impressed with this film. I would have to rate it as one of the better classic-era westerns. I say that for the whole thing: the acting, mature dialog, no- nonsense story and excellent cinematography.

Director Anthony Mann, who did several well-photographed film noirs around this same era, also made some westerns such as this one. It has that same film-noir look. Mann and Jimmy Stewart collaborated on several westerns during this period. . If you like this movie, I recommend the Mann-Stewart film "Bend Of The River."

In a nutshell, the story is about a man, "Lin McAdam," (Stewart) who owns this prestigious Winchester 73 rifle, a weapon he won fair-and-square in a contest. It is then stolen and passed on from villain to villain. All of those villains are interesting characters.

Aiding Stewart act out this interesting tale are Shelley Winters, Dan Duryea, Stephen McNally, Millard Mitchell, Charles Drake, Will Greer and J. C. Flippen. All of them are fun to watch. It was a bit of a stretch, however, to see Rock Hudson playing an Indian ("Young Bull"), but you can't have everything.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I always enjoy seeing movies that make you think, and don't just drip-feed the answers to their audience. "Revolver" is one of these films, and although many reviewers have stated that it is difficult to follow, with a bit of concentration and an open mind I got it. First time. True, it doesn't compare to other mind-mucks like "The Usual Suspects" or "Memento", but in its own right its an intelligent and thought-provoking film.

Another thing I really liked about this film is how damn beautiful it is. Every scene, every camera angle seems to have been thought about for ages. If you see it you'll know what I mean.

So, to conclude... watch it with an open mind and you may enjoy it. If not, well, no-one ever said "Revolver" is for everyone. And that's my 2 cents.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: All internet buzz aside, this movie was god awful. I expected the movie to be more of a farce than anything. Instead the film makers tried to make a serious thriller/horror movie, and they completely missed. There were only a few good parts, and a couple good lines by Samuel Jackson. Other than that, it was a bunch of gore and some poorly animated snakes. All of the internet joking was miles better than the actual movie. Now that the movie has actually come out, hopefully this joke will die. Don't waste your time or money on this piece of over hyped trash. If you're looking for something that's funny and entertaining, then just go to Snakes on a Blog.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: TV does influence society...just look at the surge in popularity of cappucino shops after this shallow little piece of work debuted. Besides, real people who look as good as these people do don't have any problems.

Besides, does anyone really believe that these people can afford to live in a nice Manhattan loft considering what they do for a living? NBC just loves to insult the viewer's intelligence, even if they're just around Gump's level. I know a person who makes $100,000 a year as a web designer and lives in a tiny one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan that costs $2200 a month in rent.

I'd like to see a show called Phriends, where it's six ugly nobodies in dead-end jobs, living in a crummy neighborhood where sirens constantly wail and someone gets mugged every week...and then the landlord jacks up the rent. Now THAT I would watch.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative