input: I highly recommend this film. Set in the Bladerunner-esquire future of 2054 Paris, it is in most respect a classic film noir script: lady in peril, sister trying to find her, honest cop fighting everyone. Luckily, it avoids being stereotypical, and combines a pretty good storyline with interesting, innovative visuals. The film might remind you of Sin City in look, but it has an even sharper, even more graphic novel look that I found really compelling. Each frame, each sequence seems like it could have been pulled from the desk of a skilled graphic designer. In terms of story and artwork, you can find nods going back to the nineteen forties (or even earlier with the classic views of the Eiffel Tower and Sacre Couer) and movies like Casablanca, as well as looking toward a grim future where our destines are ruled by corporations. Make any excuse you need to see this film.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Peeew this stinks! As everyone knows it's based upon some Geico insurance commercials; what no one knows is WHY?! Those commercials were amusing on first viewing at best; hardly fodder for a series. (The talking Geico gecko -- that's another story. Now that would make for an intriguing series!) And why on earth did ABC -- as reported in the press -- actually agree to buy the cavemen character rights from Geico for this? After all, the idea of cavemen struggling in the modern world is hardly unique to TV; Phil Hartman had a recurring Saturday Night Live role as The Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer over a decade ago. And that's how a concept like this works best -- as an occasional installment. But a regular series? Fuhgeddaboudit. (A 1960s series called "It's About Time" also used the cavemen in the modern world concept. It lasted one season.)

One of the show's directors, who was also responsible for the Geico commercials, was recently quoted as saying: "We were so excited when we were shooting our commercials because we felt like we had something that was very unique and we had bigger stories to tell." Wrong.

In the annals of bad TV, this is destined to take its place alongside 1972's "Me and the Chimp" as one of the all-time worst. The lead actor in the embarrassing Chimp fiasco actually went into shame-by-association hiding after it was abruptly canceled. No doubt our cavemen friends will follow suit.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I am of "the Christopher Reeve Generation" it is fair to say that he was the best actor to play Superman yet, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying other actors in the role, and George Reeves makes a pretty good bid to knock Chris off the top, though he just barely falls short. That doesn't stop me from enjoying this film, it has a lot going for it. It has all that a movie needs, a plot with beginning, middle, and end, plus all those parts are intelligently written. The film is edgy both in acting and storyline, something a film-noir but with tights. The story is both exciting and meaningful, this is a movie with a message that isn't too preachy. I am still amazed this was shot over 12 days, oh the glory days of Hollywood, when we didn't have to wait 5 years just to see if the movie would fall into development hell... The film is polished and expertly made, directed by Lee "Roll'em" Sholem, best known for directing with both speed and efficiency. It never lets the constraints of technology slow it down, in fact there is some creative things done to create the effect of flight, including putting a camera on a boom on a truck and shooting high and traveling fast to make it look like we are seeing it from Superman's point of view, also a few closeups of George in process work, and a long shot of an animated Superman.

This is now available on DVD as an extra feature on the first season of the George Reeves Television series. A DVD worth owning in its own right, the inclusion of the film as its original whole, is icing on the cake.

Give Blood Today God Bless!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Why is it that everyone who has seen this movie feels it is their responsibility to tell us whether or not they are fencers? That point is completely immaterial to any argument to be made against this total dog of a movie.

I think sports movies fall into two categories; well made movies about the human spirit and competitions, and 'By the Sword'.

Honestly this movie never could decide what it wanted to be, a touching drama for trying to be your best in life, an indictment of competitive motivation or a martial arts flick. In the end it didn't do any of those convincingly or completely enough to make me give one ounce of care of any of it.

For the record I also am a fencing instructor (and now I am officially as bad as the rest). But putting bad fencing in a movie doesn't make it bad automatically. I mean look at Star Wars (Episodes 4-6, good movies, bad fencing). I liked those movies. But when you put bad sports into a bad movie for some reason people think that it is only the purists that think it a lame effort.

Don't be fooled by any comments on the smaller issue of fencing. This is just a bad movie. In the end, this movie has nothing for the fencing enthusiast or the movie buff or simply anyone with a pulse and three brain cells.

When I see a movie and am forced to think, 'Man, I wish I was watching the Mighty Ducks.' I know that it is time to bypass the argument with the theater manager to get my money back and see if there is anyone in the lobby that will somehow give me two hours of my life back.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative