input: Well, it's Robin Hood as 'geezer' all right... just as advertised! That didn't sound very hopeful, and alas, it was worse than I'd suspected.

A laddish Robin I can take; a Robin who tangles with a pert dyer's daughter I can credit; but a Robin who exchanges not-very-funny banter with his single henchman is harder to swallow, and a Robin and *entire cast* who seem to be having difficulty managing their lines is the kiss of doom. How could anyone let such laboured delivery pass without re-shooting the scenes? Again and again, Much sounds as if he's struggling with half-comprehended Shakespeare rather than letting loose with a salty quip; I hoped at the onset that it was just a failed comedy trait in a character clearly destined for the role of comedy sidekick, but then it started spreading throughout the rest of the cast.

Whatever else you say about Errol Flynn in the role, he had the knack of delivering high-flown dialogue as naturally as if he'd just thought it up on the spur of the moment... and as this production shows, that's not at all as easy as it sounds! If they were going to cast the characters as cheeky chappies, the actors in question should have been given appropriate lines: they sound as if they haven't a clue how to handle them.

I'm afraid I didn't even like the pantomime Sheriff, for a similar reason; the lines are clearly not intended to be taken seriously but delivered (and in this case written) with a nudge and a wink at the audience. They're out of place all right -- fourth-wall-busting stuff -- but really not that funny.

This much-promised production reminded me of a limping school play. The only actor and character I felt any appreciation for at all was the one playing Guy of Gisbourne, who was the sole one who appeared to have any handle on (a) credible villainy and (b) credible characterisation -- but frankly, I wouldn't have said that was a very good augury for the future of the series! As of the time of writing, I'll give it another shot in the hopes that things may improve and bed down a bit by next week, with less stilted scene-setting required and perhaps the actors more at ease with the dialogue: after all, the opening episode of "Doctor Who" wasn't exactly a show-stopper, though it was nowhere near as bad as this. But if I see no improvement after episode 2, I'm afraid the series has almost certainly lost one viewer.

Which would be a pity, because I've got a soft spot for the "Robin Hood" legend on screen, from the adventures of Douglas Fairbanks to the sturdy reliance of Richard Greene. But this Robin fails to stir my blood in the slightest.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: It as absolutely incredible to me that anyone could make the comment that this film is not preachy. It is not only oppressively preachy, but absurd, stagebound, dramatically straight-jacketed, and painfully overwrought. Watching it, one feels like an 8 year old child being punished by having to write "I will not become a fascist" on the blackboard 100 times.

Now I understand that it was made during the height of WW2, and was intended to be a brave condemnation of Hitler and the terrible suffering he brought about, (which anyone would whole-heartedly applaud) and I'm sure it accurately captured the mood of the day. But it is presented in such an immature, over-obvious, sledgehammer way, it fails abysmally as a work of art.

The only good performances here are from Paul Lukas, who brings sincerity and intensity to his role as a quietly heroic anti-fascist; and Lucile Watson as the amusingly ill-mannered rich grandmother who slowly comes to realize how dangerous the world has become. Though their rootless upbringing has subjected them to all kinds of hardships, the children are ridiculously shown as robotically well-behaved little snips. They do not even remotely resemble real human beings. And Bette Davis, a great actress, here is so one dimensionally noble I cringed every time she was on screen. Her every word, her every gesture is meant to convey how SUPPORTIVE and UNDERSTANDING she is of the SACRIFICES her husband has to make and the great CAUSE he is fighting for, that she must've been wired to receive a painful electric shock if she dared allowed any hint of doubt or shading to surface in her portrayal.

So yes, this is a very IMPORTANT film, just not a very good one.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The writer/director of this film obviously doesn't know anything about film. I think the DP on this project was tied up and replaced with a monkey, because every seen was either too dark or had the hotter hot spots than the sun.

The story was awful, the characters were very one dimensional. For someone to have said that this film was made for poker fans and not film fans, that someone is kidding their self (it was probably the writer/director). No poker fan in this world likes this movie. Even your money man hates this project. To go into a casino and play a few hands doesn't give you the experience to write about poker. Keep your day job. And if it's playing poker, then you must be hurt'n.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This second film is just as interesting as the previous one except that there is no suspense. We know what he is going to do and what is going to happen before it is even hinted at on the screen. Then the pleasure comes only from the way the various tricks happen and the succession of them. We know there will be dynamite in the car, that he will lose a wheel, that the car will have a crash, just to speak of the car. And that is what happens. Now the details and the particulars are for you to discover them in the film. That he may be baited by some dumb woman is obvious and has to come but we know that he has already seen through her and that he knows he is being dragged into a trap. Now, how is he going to get out of it? That's what you must discover by yourself. And don't worry he will get the main trafficker but how is another story. A speed boat is no match to our busy beaver on the river. We also know when he is going to be wounded. They did not know what bullet-proof jackets were in those days. It's true recently it was discovered that some GIs did not have that kind of equipment in Iraq. But what is the meaning of such a film? This insistence on hunting the traffickers and this blindness that does not see that it is the prohibition that creates the problem. But the film is a constant and perfect illustration that there is no value what so ever that can stand in the way of this moralistic crusade against the forces of evil. Why not simply legalize these goods so that they can be properly observed and under surveillance? When something is not illegal or pushed out of the way it is all the less fun to use them, to do them. It is the forbidden or the restricted that is attractive.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive