input: The TV productions at the 2000's start were between weak and bad. Before marks like (Alias, Lost, Prison Break, Desperate Housewives, or Monk) the TV didn't have the right hit yet, which could capture the attention and the interests of the 2000s' viewer. Titles like (Relic Hunter), (Mutant X), (The Lost World), (Sheena), or even (Baywatch Hawaii) weren't encouraging for you to watch and follow, or at least weren't that captivating and interesting all the time as what preceded them. (Special Unit 2) was no exception. In fact it's Men in Black meets The X Files' spoof ! (As if these were the special unit 1). But even according to this brilliant formula; it didn't work well. It was promising; at the time there was some saturation out of the "supernatural" cases after a decade of many X files already, so the natural spirit to lampoon it naughtily too (imagine Mulder as womanizer !). However (Special Unit 2) wasn't the strongest in this, or a strong when it comes to make a comic Sci-Fi show. It was highly ridiculous, where for instance every sexy situation must turn into ugly disgusting one. It enjoyed that bad taste sickeningly. (Michael Landes) was non-charismatic and mostly unbearable as a comedian. His chemistry with (Alexondra Lee), as well as any supposed sexual attention, was all languid. Sure the show got a funny look but overall it was unfunny work. It's clear that there was nothing more interesting than its main idea. Among (Evan Katz)'s other works as a co-writer and a co-producer like (Seven Days) before or (24) later this must be a low point !. Despite the distinctive personality, it managed to be a silly jest for most of the time. Therefore if that was there goal, so they made one of the silliest indeed ! And truly, it would be one of the rarest times to be thankful for the cancellation of a show after 19 episodes of it only !

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Everyone has already commented on the cinematography (good to great), the personalities (larger than life), the structure (chronological, with many references to surf culture through time). What is missed is a bigger question of sociological importance: chucking mainstream American culture for something more fulfilling and rewarding.

I was a surfer in the 1970s. We used to watch 16mm films at the local high schools in SoCal. I remember the great feeling of surfing all day until my skin radiated heat, putting on a Hawaiian shirt and shorts and going to watch the latest surf film at night. Often, the narrator was the filmmaker himself, reading a script off sheets of paper. Sometimes, a surf band or proto-punk band would add music. I was never happier. Except for the hooting and hollering, seeing 'Riding Giants' took me back in time.

IT also reinforced a feeling that living life on the edge, not worrying about the money and the climbing the social and corporate ladder, not keeping up with the Joneses, pushing yourself physically and mentally for a fleeting moment of joy and jubilation - may be the answer to the question, "what is the purpose of life?" At least for those like Greg Noll, Laird Hamilton and the like, they seem to have found something that few of us are bold enough or honest with ourselves enough to pursue: to live life solely on our own terms. Maybe society would fall apart if we all did exactly what we wanted in life, but it is wonderful to see people who actually are living out their dreams.

It was this message that really impressed me.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: you can be fooled by your first impressions. as in, initial reactions to a movie, for example. as in, the first time i saw this movie i was bedazzled by the idea of it (first of all, i love black comedies). could even - despite being male, myself - empathise with the feisty girls' fervor to see their husbands deceased without delay. was tripped up by my own face-value (and, i do mean "face-value") response to nicolette sheridan and a couple of the other delicious dames in the picture. it just goes to show you that you've gotta step back from a situation sometimes and see that it's bad (and not "bad good," either): the reason i'm giving this movie a "4" rating is because of ms sheridan and her gams (the rest of 'er is pretty good, too); but this movie has all the hallmark TV movie characteristics - which means you'll be disappointed if your a lover of movies made for the big screen. the story contains plot holes you could run a tunnel through - and i'll generally overlook holes in a plot if the overall thing does it for me; and i just experienced an incredible letdown the second time i saw it. i don't think it's a total waste of time, but....

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: "I'm a cartoon!" "You're an illustration!" what does that suppose to mean?! This plot could not be worse as a boy, who's afraid of everything, becomes very brave at the very end of the film because he went into a library. The only purpose of this waste of celluloid was to encourage American kids to read, when a cheaper, and more effective way of doing this could have been a series of adverts! Even the talents of Macaulay Culkin(as the kid), Christopher Lloyd (as the so predictable "that he's a the Page Master" librarian), could save this pointless film from the dull plot. Even the voices of Whoopi Goldberg, Patrick Stewart,(even) Leonard Nimoy, or the Hollywood God of voices, Frank Welker as the cartoon characters don't save it ever. I can only describe it as a 1990s equivalent to the even ghastly 1978 adaption of the Water Babies, because the bland animation makes the film worse, not improving the dull plot!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative