input: I guess I am coming late to the party. I just saw this 1995 version of Bye Bye Birdy on Sky TV. I didn't know it existed and was fully prepared to see the 1963 film version when I turned it on.

I played Albert a long time ago and I am thinking of putting on an amateur production of the show because I remembered it as being so much fun to do. I was not impressed with this newer version. It just wasn't enough fun. It was not colorful. It lacked the exuberance of youth. The lighting was bad. No one seemed to mention this fact. This is not a moody musical, it is bright and up beat. The lighting decision was a poor creative choice.

Bye Bye Birdy is a farce, a comedy of errors. I got no sense of that in this version. The lighting was awful and it dulled the overall performances. The dance numbers seemed anemic as well. We do have music videos these day. At least the dance numbers should have measured up to some of the best of those, or how about some of the best of Broadway. The choreographer was asleep at the wheel it seemed.

Although all the actors were supremely talented, there were some really bad casting choices. Vanessa Williams is not Latin, and with so many talented Latin performers out there, wouldn't it have been more correct to cast one of them in the role of Rosie. Vanessa is African American, lovely and talented, but bad casting. Jason Alexander's effort was astounding, he always does intelligent work, but he just wasn't Albert. He was miscast and I think that is obvious to most people who see this version.

The medium of film is not the medium of stage. There needs to be translation from one medium to another. The exuberance and the flash of stage musical must be TRANSLATED to film. There is no merit being faithful to a stage script when it is being filmed. The spirit, the essence of the production must be brought forth. To me the 1963 film production of Bye Bye Birdy was bright and lively, while the 1995 production was as gloomy as the lighting and as lackluster as the dance numbers. It turned out to be an unfortunate waste of effort by many really talented people.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Buffs of the adult western that flourished in the 1950s try and trace its origins to the film that kicked off the syndrome. Of course, we can go back to Howard Hawks's Red River (1948) or further still to John Ford's My Darling Clementine (1946), but if we want to stick with this single decade, then it has to be one of a couple of films made in that era's initial year. One is "The Gunfighter," an exquisitely grim tale of a famed gunslinger (Ringo) facing his last shootout. Another from that same year is "Winchester '73," and it's worth noting that Millard Mitchell appears in both as grim, mustached, highly realistic range riders. In The Gunfighter, he's the town marshal expected to arrest Ringo but once rode with him in an outlaw gang. In Winchester, he's the sidekick to Jimmy Stewart, a kind of Horatio to Stewart's Hamlet in this epic/tragic tale. The plot is simple enough: Stewart's lonesome cowpoke wins a remarkable Winchester in a shooting match, beating the meanest man in the west (Stephen McNally), who is actually his own brother and caused the death of their father. When the brother steals the gun, Stewart and Mitchell go after him in a cowboy odyssey that takes them all across the frontier, meeting up with both outlaws and Indians. (In one wonderful bit, two future stars - Rock Hudson and Tony Curtis - play an Indian chief and a U.S. cavalry soldier - during a well staged pitched-battle. Dan Duryea steals the whole show as a giggling outlaw leader, while Shelly Winters, just before she began to gain weight, is fine as the shady lady who ties all the plots together. Today, filmmakers would go on for about four hours to bring such an ambitious idea to the screen, but Anthony Mann does so in an extremely economical amount of time, with not a minute wasted. Such western legends as Bat Masterson and Wyatt Earp (terrifically played by Will Geer) make brief appearances, adding to the historicity as well as the epic nature. The final battle between good and bad brothers, high atop a series of jutting rock canyons, is now legendary among western buffs. It's also worth noting that Stewart, however much associated he became with western films, does what is actually his first western leading man role here - yes, he was in Destry Rides Again eleven years earlier, but was cast in that comedy spoof because he seemed so WRONG for westerns!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This is the worst movie I have ever seen. I was going to get up and leave at Tape 4 but I stuck it out. I now consider myself a Masochist! Afghanistan? Come on guys! Who's the idiot who forgot to hide the Sanskrit billboards? I thought the lead actor(George Calil) was particularly inept. Apart from the bad acting and over zealous camera shake, I thought using the events of 9/11 as a reason to make "Larson the Lunatic Implodes, all over a screen near you" disgraceful and irreverent to the victims of 9/11. Using a phone call from Larson's wife, Sarah, supposedly from one of the terrorist held planes on that day, was appalling. The camera shake didn't make me feel sick, that cold hearted stunt did.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I saw this movie at a 'sneak preview' and i must honestly confess that I do not like films with Meryl Streep that much. This picture was the worst. Half the theatre did not return after the break halfway the film. I couldnt blame them, if this wasn't a true story there had been absolutely no need for the second half of the picture. Just before the film goes forward in time about ten years I myself was expecting the credits to appear.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative