input: Strange, almost all reviewers are highly positive about this movie. Is it because it's from 1975 and has Chamberlain and Curtis in it and therefore forgive the by times very bad acting and childish ways of storytelling?

Maybe it's because some people get sentimental about this film because they have read the book? (I have not read the book, but I don't think that's a problem, film makers never presume that the viewers have read the book).

Or is it because I am subconsciously irritated about the fact that English-speaking actors try to behave as their French counterparts?

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Here is one of those movies spoiled by the studio's insistence on a happy ending. Conflicts which have stretched out for years are settled in a few minutes. It would have been far more interesting to inject a tone of ambiguity. The talented Barbara Stanwyck is undone by a sudden metamorphosis from independent and assertive woman to a compliant female of the kind she has put down all her life. Brent, as usual, is well over his head and then there is the ludicrous situation of Gig Young playing a character named Gig Young. Someone mentions "Gig Young" and then who appears but Gig Young, the actor! Worth seeing though far below what it could have been.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: There is no denying that Ealing comedies are good, but for me this film stands out as one of the best.

The basic premise of the film is that a small part of Pimlico in London is discovered to be part of Burgundy, not the UK. We then follow the lives of the residents in their battle to keep the treasure found after the bomb explodes, and keep out the black market traders who soon realise that being exempt from UK law, rationing does not exist. When they become prisoners in their own street because the government has decided to close the boarder we see them fight back against the system.

They are forced to ration water and food in their stand for what is right. In fact becoming worse off than they were before it all started, that's where the moral comes in. It's when they loose all the food that they think they are beaten and call for a surrender, only to have the whole of London respond to their plight by sending food, lot's of it. Thus enabling them to continue their struggle.

This film hit's the right note throughout, the acting is superb, with Stanley Holloway, Margaret Rutherford, Hermione Baddeley and Betty Warren standing out. It's pitched just right, not too sentimental and the moral of the story not forced down your throat. Well worth a viewing

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: As an ordinary movie-watcher I can't say I enjoyed watching this one. It's not too emotional for a drama, not too gripping for a thriller, not too fast for an action. Plus, some moments of the movie are hardly credible. OK, I understand, soldiers become a bit out of their mind out there, but it's hard to believe that a person would risk his life, carjack into the middle of a hostile city, and after being shouted at by a professor's wife run away, without having asked a question (in a proper way). It would seem terribly romantic if it were an animation or so, but it's supposed to be a SERIOUS film about war.. There are several episodes like this, so the whole picture makes an impression that it's just a raw preview of a movie, and it needs considerable work.

It feels like the movie makers wanted to create an image of an emotional brave soldier, but all these 'curves' of his psychology seem simply unnatural.

This picture left a question in my head: WHY? Why they gave it an Oscar? Why SIX? And IMHO it's the most thrilling part of the movie :)

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative