IN: Review: This is said to be a personal film for Peter Bogdonavitch. He based it on his life but changed things around to fit the characters, who are detectives. These detectives date beautiful models and have no problem getting them. Sounds more like a millionaire playboy filmmaker than a detective, doesn't it? This entire movie was written by Peter, and it shows how out of touch with real people he was. You're supposed to write what you know, and he did that, indeed. And leaves the audience bored and confused, and jealous, for that matter. This is a curio for people who want to see Dorothy Stratten, who was murdered right after filming. But Patti Hanson, who would, in real life, marry Keith Richards, was also a model, like Stratten, but is a lot better and has a more ample part. In fact, Stratten's part seemed forced; added. She doesn't have a lot to do with the story, which is pretty convoluted to begin with. All in all, every character in this film is somebody that very few people can relate with, unless you're millionaire from Manhattan with beautiful supermodels at your beckon call. For the rest of us, it's an irritating snore fest. That's what happens when you're out of touch. You entertain your few friends with inside jokes, and bore all the rest.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: they have sex with melons in Asia.

okay. first, i doubted that, but after seeing the wayward cloud, i changed my mind and was finally convinced that they have sex with watermelons, with people dead or alive. no safe sex of course. the (terrifyingly ugly) leading man shoots it all into the lady's mouth after he did the dead lady. never heard of HIV? guess not.

the rest of this movie is mainly boring, but also incredibly revolting. as a matter of fact, in parts it got so disgusting i couldn't take my virgin eyes off. sex with dead people! how gross is that? and what's the message behind it all? we need water, we need melons, we need to be dead to have sex? sorry, but this stinks!
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: It's amazing that from a good, though not wonderful, film made back in the early Nineties, a whole franchise can grow. 'Stargate; SG1' is, without a doubt, a worthy addition to the science fiction genre and has the right to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with 'Star Trek' as the kings of sci-fi.

Following on from the 1994 feature film 'Stargate', this series sees Stargate command (a military/science organisation) figuring out that the stargate system can be used to travel to various planets across the galaxy and beyond and the military sets up a number of teams to explore. SG1 is one such team, headed by military veteran Colonel Jack O'Neill, and includes archaeologist Doctor Daniel Jackson, military scientist Captain Samantha Carter and alien Teal'c, who has betrayed his overlord leaders in the hopes of one day freeing his people. Earth quickly makes an enemy of the Goa'uld, a parasitic race who use humans as hosts and think themselves equal to gods.

The top-notch cast have much to be congratulated for in bringing this show to life. Richard Dean Anderson is perfect as the cynical and sarcastic O'Neill, who can shift from boyish to deadly in the blink of an eye. Michael Shanks, as Daniel, brings heart and an will of steel to the character, who has grown from wide-eyed innocence to darker and more hard-bitten as the show has progressed. Amanda Tapping, as Carter, has perfected the balance between depicting her character's femininity without comprising the fact she is a strong, intelligent military scientist. Christopher Judge is excellent as the aloof Teal'c, who is able to depict the character's emotions with subtlety. And Don S Davis is perfect as the esteemed General Hammond who leads with a good balance of fairness and firmness.

Almost all the episodes are are involving and portrayed with intelligence, reflecting on moral dilemmas as well as the friction between military interests and civilian beliefs (often shown through arguments between O'Neill and Jackson). Guest characters are solidly depicted and story arcs are handled in a manner that doesn't bore viewers. SG1 also excels in humour, from O'Neill's wisecracks to episodes that are just wacky and odd! SG1 has everything from action to drama to romance to suspense to the heartbreaking scenes of death. It isn't just an excellent sci-fi show but is an excellent show, overall.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: After seeing this film I complained to my local cinema about the quality of the sound-track or whether the cinema sound system may be faulty. For at least the first half of the film it is extremely difficult to understand what anyone is saying because of the background 20's music and the scratchiness of the sound-track. I was ready to blame the cinema equipment but not so - it was the Director.

I was told the subject of my complaint was an essential part of the making of the film. The music and the sound was supposed to be distorted to create a very disturbing effect within the film. These days, directors will go to many lengths to make their film unique. Unfortunately, no matter where or how you see that film the sound score will be the same.

So apart from the historical inaccuracies of this film (which you can find out for yourself elsewhere) the sound-track distortions are in themselves a good reason to give this film a miss. You will only hear the distorted scratchiness of the sound-track and certainly not a cat's meow.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative