input: Classic, highly influential low budget thriller that gave birth to a horror icon and launched the careers of both director Carpenter and star Curtis.

Seemingly unstoppable murderer escapes from mental institution and returns to his hometown where he begins to stalk a local babysitter on Halloween.

Halloween is a film that never fails to live up to its reputation as a horror masterpiece! Carpenter's frightening story and clever direction give this film such chillingly good life that it must be seen to really be felt! The direction often consists of such simple elements, shadows, dark streets, creaking doors, that it makes even the everyday setting of a small town neighborhood truly creepy. Carpenter well-times his suspense and his jolting shocks to make them the most effectively startling, that in itself is a feat few horror filmmakers ever manage! Plus, he is wise enough to give us some truly likable young characters and a very scary villain to keep the tension all the more strong. Highest kudos also go to Carpenter's simple, yet frighteningly unnerving music score. In a sense, Halloween is a fine example of a perfect horror film!

The cast is excellent. Young Jamie Lee Curtis does a very nice turn as lovable babysitter Laurie Strode, she's so good that she would go on to be in a number of other horror films before breaking into bigger films. The great Donald Pleasants does a perfect performance as a Myer's doctor, who's desperate to capture him again. Supporting cast Loomis, Soles, Castle, and others are good too.

So like its own villain, Halloween is an unstoppable force that never fails to thrill and chill. It is a MUST for all genre fans!

**** out of ****

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: With this movie being the only Dirty Harry movie which Clint Eastwood not only stars, but produces and directs as well, you know it's got to be good. Although some say that The Enforcer is the best out of the series, I completely disagree. In my opinion, apart from the original Dirty Harry, Sudden Impact and Magnum Force are the only two worthy of being in the series. Although The Enforcer is an alright film with a couple of good action sequences, it doesn't get the dirty and gritty impact that the other three films do. This film captures all the excitement that makes a Clint Eastwood film good, and it's got the quotes that make a Dirty Harry film good. In Diry Harry it's "..Well do ya, punk?"; in Magnum Force "A man's got to know his limitations" ; and in this it's "Go ahead. Make my day." Also in this film it's nice to see a change of scenery, as you get a bit tired of seeing the same old San Fransisco streets in the other films in the series. With great acting by Clint Eastwood and co-star Sandra Locke, and good directing by Clint, this is in my opinion the best Dirty Harry sequel ever.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This true story of Carlson's Raiders is more of a Army training film than anything else.Obviously thrown together quickly on a miniscule budget about the only thing it has to recommend it is an early performance by Robert Mitchum,who's the only decent actor in the cast,and actual footage of the wreckage at Pearl Harbor which gets your blood boiling,as it was obviously intended to do.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: When people ask me why do I like movies so much, I usually respond, "have you seen the art-gallery sequence in De Palma's Dressed to Kill?" That scene alone, pretty much represents everything I want to see in a film. If I was a film director, that would be the kind of thing I'd like to do. "Pure cinema" is one way of describing that sequence, and it is truly amazing to see how director De Palma's entire movie works at the same high artistic frequency of that scene. It is a dream-like movie, clever as hell, and with more zest and intelligence than a dozen films put together. I think the movie raises an important point that will always be a topic of heated discussion: could a movie rely solely on technique and still be considered an artistic success? The film has no message to speak of, acting is great but it is at the service of the style, and the script is short on logic. De Palma's movie makes a really good case that style, when handled properly, can sustain a feature length film. Sure, Michael Caine, Angie Dickinson, Nancy Allen and Keith Gordon give superlative performances, but this is a director's movie all the way to the fadeout. It is a sensational demonstration of the possibilities of the film medium. I won't tell you what Hitchcock movie the film pays homage to (I don't want to spoil any surprises), but I think De Palma transcends the story's arc, and he manages to create a film that pretty much summarizes his entire career. Not for the faint of heart!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive