input: This documentary by Marian Cooper is absolutely amazing. I saw it tonight on Turner Classic Movie channel. I think I will see if I can order a copy of it on DVD. The film footage doesn't look all blurry and choppy like you might think from 1925 B & W silent film. Set in Iran in 1925, The nomadic tribe people in the documentary leave their desert home and cross a raging river, men, women, children, animals... Then up and over a snowy mountain pass all Barefoot. It is sink or swim and climb or die. In search of grass for their animals. They have cows, goats, dogs, horses, mules. In one scene a man is carrying a mule who is too sick to climb the mountain. The children in the documentary all look happy and healthy. They had such a hard life. I wonder if the nomadic tribes of Iran still live like this. Makes you appreciate modern life in USA.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Things to Come is that rarity of rarities, a film about ideas. Many films present a vision of the future, but few attempt to show us how that future came about. The first part of the film, when war comes to Everytown, is short but powerful. (Ironically, film audiences in its release year laughed at reports that enemy planes were attacking England--appeasement was at its height. Wells' prediction was borne out all too soon.) The montage of endless war that follows, while marred by sub-par model work, is most effective. The explanatory titles are strongly reminiscent of German Expressionist graphic design. The art director was the great William Cameron Menzies, and his sets of the ruins of Everytown are among his best work. Margaretta Scott is very seductive as the Chief's mistress. The Everytown of the 21st century is an equally striking design. The acting in the 21st century story is not compelling--perhaps this was a misfired attempt to contrast the technocratic rationality of this time with the barbarism of 1970. Unfortunately, the model work, representing angry crowds rushing down elevated walkways, is laughably bad and could have been done much better, even with 30s technology. This is particularly galling since the scenes of the giant aircraft are very convincing. This is redeemed by Raymond Massey's magnificent speech that concludes the film--rarely has the ideal of scientific progress been expressed so well. Massey's final question is more relevant now than ever, in an era of severely curtailed manned spaceflight. The scene is aided by the stirring music of Sir Arthur Bliss, whose last name I proudly share.

Unfortunately, the VHS versions of this film are absolutely horrible, with serious technical problems. Most versions have edited out a rather interesting montage of futuristic workers and machines that takes us from 1970 to 2038. I hope a good DVD exists of the entire film.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Words can hardly describe it, so I'll be brief. "The Thief of Bagdad" was my favorite movie as a child, and it has never ceased to astound or enchant me. I loved this film from the first moment I saw it, when I was a boy of six who had started reading "The Arabian Nights." I remember walking into the TV room in the middle of Sabu's battle with the giant spider and being instantly beguiled.

Rarely has so much beauty, magic, and wonder been captured on film. Sabu and John Justin are superb as the dashing heros, Conrad Veidt is throughly delightful as the wicked villain Jaffar, and Rex Ingram is a joy to watch as the sardonic genie. Georges Perinal's photography is some of the best use of Technicolor. One of the three credited directors is Michael Powell, a filmmaker who has been rightfully heralded by the critics but is often overlooked by audiences for his remarkable films, including "A Matter of Life and Death" (aka "Stairway to Heaven") and "The Red Shoes." He is one of the true masters of the camera, right up there with David Lean, Akira Kurosawa, and Orson Welles.

As with all great works of art, the beauty of "The Thief of Bagdad" lies in the detail. Every frame has its own magical charm. The story never lags, and the characters and their actions are always involving. Here is a film that will never grow old.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: There were a lot of films made by Hollywood during the war years that were designed to drum up support for our troops from the public. Seen today, some might dismiss them or just see them as propaganda--which they technically are, but of a positive sort and meant to unify the nation. This film is a pretty effective and entertaining example of the genre--having a pretty realistic script and good production values. Pat O'Brien plays pretty much the same character he played in MANY other films (you know, the tough-talking, hard-driven but "swell guy"). Randolph Scott is, as always, competent and entertaining and the rest of the extras are excellent (look for a young Robert Ryan as one of the bombardiers in training). While the story is reminiscent of several other movies about our pilots and crews, the film is well-crafted enough to make it interesting and not too far-fetched. That it, perhaps, except for the very end--where the film is a bit over-the-top but also VERY satisfying. About the only serious negative, and this is mostly for nitpickers, is that some of the stock footage is somewhat sloppily integrated in the film and "nuts" like me who are both history teachers and airplane lovers will probably notice this--all others probably won't notice.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive