input: Sudden Impact was overall better than The Enforcer in my opinion. It was building up to be a great movie, but then I saw the villain(s) and was disappointed.

Sudden Impact was different than the previous installments. The plot went a different direction in this movie, as Dirty Harry doesn't take as much of a police approach this time around. We also don't see the villain(s) until later, which means less screen time for them, which is better for us all.

Clint Eastwood once again steals the show as Dirty Harry, enough said. Pat Hingle was enjoyable as Chief Jannings, Harry's new assigned boss. Bradford Dillman seemed to change his name to Captain Briggs here, either way, he wasn't any different. Michael Currie is decent as Lt. Donnelly, Harry's annoying superior. I personally enjoyed Kevyn Major Howard as Hawkins, the young punk who has a vendetta against Harry. Albert Popwell was excellent as Horace, Harry's buddy. Audrie J. Neenan was good as Ray Parkins, a famous lesbian around town. Jack Thibeau was well cast as Kruger, a pervert. Now for the really bad part. Sandra Locke, Eastwood's long-time lover was horribly miscast as Jennifer Spencer, Harry's love interest. And Paul Drake was just horrible as Mick.

The movie would have been so much better if not for better writing and acting on some parts.

8/10.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This is a genuinely horrible film. The plot (such as it is) is totally undecipherable. (I think it has something to do with blackmail, but I'm not entirely certain.)

Half of the dialogue consists of useless cliches. The other half is spoken by the various actors in such unintelligible imitations of "southern" accents that (thankfully) the words cannot be recognized.

But the one true tragedy of the movie is that such a historic talent as Mary Tyler Moore apparently was in such dire financial or personal circumstances that she appeared in it.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I got this movie from Netflix after a long waiting time, so I was anticipating it greatly when it arrived. My worst fears were that it would be plodding, as well as... well, you know what all the screaming fan girls were babbling about? GACKTnHYDE=hawt yaoi love? That sort of thing? Dreading it. I was very, very pleasantly surprised. The movie was surprisingly watchable, even if the filming and music did make it feel like someone was going to bust out a pair of nun-chucks every two scenes, and the acting on Gackt's part was quite good. Hyde, being, um, Hyde, acted as a quasi-romantic friend/gang member character that anyone who saw him on stage would hardly be surprised by. He's one of my two major beefs with the film itself. But the rest of the cast (including the child actors in the opening scene) were very good at doing what they did- which was, mostly, get shot at and yelled at. But my second problem was very minor, having to do with the goriness. It seemed way too suspense-horror to me- like every scene where someone is shot they either slump over, really most sincerely dead, or lay there burbling for a rather long time. But Sho just... takes the shots, repeatedly, keels over, bubbles a LOT while he talks, and makes Hyde cry. All in all, if you're a fan of any of the actors or just a j-film fan, it's definitely worth a watch.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This is the most saccharine romance I ever sat through. The perfect film for an idle housewife in kerchief, housedress, and ostrich-trimmed high-heeled mules to watch in the afternoon, lying on the couch eating bonbons. In fact, bonbons play a prominent role in the movie.

The only reason I was able to watch to the end, is that I finally was able to gaze at Keanu Reeves' dreamy face in almost every scene. In most of his films, he moves too fast to get a good look. The only rapid action in this show is Giancarlo Giannini waving his hands with Latin emotionality - more Italian than Mexican, really.

The dialog is as stiff as wood. Unfortunately, no bodices are ripped - the hero is disgracefully perfect-mannered and mild. The aristocratic warm-blooded old-world family cliche is as old as the hills. What does it matter if they are Irish or Italian or Mexican? This is a fairy story.

I knew before the titles finished running that this would not be the movie I hoped for. The glowing grapes looked like the paragon of all food ads in Women's Day Magazine. I didn't see his name listed, but the art director surely was Thomas Kinkade, who paints the million dollar canvases of Irish cottages snuggled in fuchsias. This film was literally seen through rose-colored glasses. If you like dreamy pink and blue sky, this film is for you! (The bonbons looked really good, too!)

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative