input: I am curious of what rifle Beckett was using in the movie, and also the caliber of the bullet that he was suppose to be firing. If this is loosely based on Carlos Hathcock's sniping, I am guessing that it is a 7mm. round. I am also curious of the rifle itself. He also made a comment in the final Sniper movie about the rifle that the Vietnamese man let him use that belonged to his father. Beckett mentioned that he thought it was the best sniper rifle ever made. I would like to know which rifle that is also. I know that this particular rifle was made around WWII or beforehand. I just couldn't get a close enough look at it watching the movie to identify it.

As for Mr. Hathcocks kills, his longest shot was 1.47 miles, and he had 93 confirmed kills and 14 unconfirmed kills. After his wounds somewhat healed from being burned in Vietnam, he spent the rest of his career teaching snipers in the USMC the skills that they would need in the field. His sniping career is still mentioned to our brothers and sisters that train in the USMC. I found out his name from my friend who is a former Marine. Any information would be great.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I think this is almost all I need to say. I feel obliged to explain my actions though. I've basically never seen such an armateur production, and I mean that in all senses of the word. Although the physical camera work, boom MIC operation and other technical aspects of this film are laughable, unfortunately its not the only areas.

Unlike some classic independent films that have been saved by their scripts great characterization and plot, this unfortunately has an awful script, awful acting and worst of all, awful annoying characters.

It's a crime that for the every independent film that gets, distribution like Haiku Tunnel, there's a 101 other indie films that died silent deaths. I don't know who the Kornbluth brothers know at Sony, but that can be my only explanation as to how this amateur family production ever got distribution. I'm quite bemused as to why they picked this up.

The ONLY part of this film that holds out any intrigue is its title. However, the reason for that is even a let down. I hope this review will save a few people that may be intrigued by this films title from going to watch it. I've seen a lot of films in my time, and I'm very forgiving when in the cinema, but this was too much. I'll never forget 'tunnel', for marking an important point in my life experience of cinema. Shame it's such a low point.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: To be honest, I had to go see this movie backwards, didn't expect that much, but hey, I was not deceived, I had a good time.

I would say this movie is way a fresh breeze, despite some facts that they tried to modernize Nancy Drew, but this made me remember these youth movies of the 60-70s from Europe and Quebec, where they manage to have children getting interacting with adults. In this case, a 16 year-old teenager tries to do justice by trying to solve a mystery concerning the death of an actress who died 25 years ago. Anyway, as her dad had business in Hollywood, why not rent a home with a mystery behind doors ? Well, at least Emma Roberts does a great job here. Kinda like the chubby kid, who at first is naively brought to support his sister's pranks to Nancy, but at the end, found Nancy quite cool enough to stick with her, even with her matters...

Rest of the supporting cast is great, and was happy to see Rachael Leigh Cook in a different role this time: a single mother (she did it in Family Rescue, but this time, she plays a mature woman...) Anyway, don't dump this, it is fun !

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This very peculiar setting of Wagner's last opera definitely grew on me. When I first saw it, I was somewhat annoyed by many of the films surrealistic images, and felt that far too much was superimposed upon the story. However, if you can put up with a fair amount of rather recherche "gimmicks," I think you will find that the film DOES manage to capture the very strange, other-worldly atmosphere of the opera, and that there are moments which are particularly fine.

Personally, I never really understood the role of Kundry until I saw how Edith Clever portrayed her. Her performance (a lip-synchronized mime of the singing voice of Yvonne Minton) is nothing short of dazzling, from end to end, and alone justifies the hours it takes to absorb the film.

Another reason to delight in this film is that it captures the spectacular interpretation of Robert Lloyd of the crucial role of Gurnemanz, one which Lloyd has performed to a crisp at opera houses throughout the world. I have been privileged to enjoy him in the role of Gurnemanz on the stage of the Metropolitan Opera several times, and the lusciousness of his voice, and the warm, fatherliness of his interpretation of this noble character really needed to be preserved, as did his performance in the character's two major monologues, the Karfreitag scene and the recounting of the prophecy in Act 1.

The version I have seen was a videotape made for America, and so there were subtitles which, alas, could not be done away with. This is especially unfortunate because the translation used is very inaccurate and forces an extremely Christian interpretation on a film which is already forcing layers of interpretation on the opera. This seemed to me to be quite contrary both to Wagner's clear AVOIDANCE of Christianity, and his very deliberate attempt to "generalize" the Christian elements of the story. (See footnote with spoiler at the end of this review.) I find it nearly impossible, when viewing a film with subtitles, to keep from absorbing them, and strongly recommend that, if in the DVD versions you have the ability to turn the subtitles off, you do so, and instead, if the opera is unfamiliar to you, that you read the libretto carefully beforehand.

The bottom line is that there is much in the film which I dislike, and would just as soon have seen done differently...but it has risen steadily in my estimation over the years since I first saw it, and I find myself drawn to enjoy it again and again.

__________________________________________________________________

FOOTNOTE CONTAINING A SPOILER: A good example would be Kundry's famous line, "I saw him...him...and laughed." This gets translated, in the subtitles, for reasons which escape me, as "I saw the Savior's face." It is especially irritating to me, because throughout the libretto, Wagner very deliberately and carefully refers to this unseen character WHO NEED NOT BE THE BIBLICAL Jesus as "der Heiland," i.e., the German for "The Healer"--a reference to the wound of Amfortas, and to all wounds and maladies and the need for healing.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive