input: With an absolutely amazing cast and crew, this might have been a classic. Instead it is a repetitive paraphrasing of all the conspiracy theories extant in 1979 about the JFK assassination grafted, rather pointlessly, on to a vaguely incoherent plot about the murder of fictitious president Kegan in 1960. Many superb character actors are wasted as they are either not given enough to do - Sterling Hayden or Eli Wallach, for instance, or they are asked to go rather luridly over the top - John Huston. Jeff Bridges and Anthony Perkins do manage to acquit themselves very well, in their very different ways, though.

The photography is gorgeous, but does not justify an hour and a half of your life, or the price of the DVD purchase.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: When Marlene Dietrich was labeled box office poison in 1938 one of a handful of actresses so named by the trades papers, it was films like The Garden Of Allah. How a film could be so breathtakingly beautiful to behold and be so insipidly dull is beyond me. Also how Marlene if she was trying to expand her range and not play a sexpot got stuck with such an old fashioned story is beyond me.

The Garden Of Allah, one of the very first films in modern technicolor was a novel set at the turn of the last century by Robert Hitchens who then collaborated on a play adaption with Mary Anderson that ran for 241 performances in 1911-12. It then got two silent screen adaptions. The story is about a monk who runs away from the monastery out in French Tunisia to see some of what he's missed in the world. He runs into a similarly sheltered woman who was unmarried and spent her prime years caring for a sick parent. She's traveling now in the desert and the two meet on a train.

The woman is of course Marlene and the runaway monk is Charles Boyer. I'm not sure what was in David O. Selznick's mind in filming this story. Someone like Ingrid Bergman might have made it palatable for the audience. But you can bet that the movie-going public of 1936 when they plunked their money down for a ticket they expected to see Marlene as a modern day Salome rather than a saint with that title. The public still remembered Rudolph Valentino and you can bet that it was some desert romance and seduction that they were expecting.

As for the monks you have to remember that they are self supporting in their monasteries and this particular one bottles a special wine of which Boyer happens to be the one with the secret. The monastery will have to rethink it's economics if Boyer leaves. The monks are a sincerely pious group, but from the head man Charles Waldron on down they've a right to be a little concerned with some self interest.

Anyway a whole lot of religious platitudes get said here by a pair of leads that really are not suited for the parts. Most especially Marlene Dietrich. I would watch this film with an eye for the special color desert cinematography and forget the plot.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Frankly I don't understand why this movie has been such a big "flop" in publicity. Sharon Stone certainly has not lost any of her charisma and "touch" since "Basic instinct". I voted this film 10 and I tell you why: Game opens in London this time. London is the city where Catherine Tramell has moved since the events in BI1. Again she proves to be a mastermind manipulator of her own class -unchallenged. She is "screwing your brain" as Catherine with such a skill that in the end you don't be quite sure who is the real villain.

As for the technical part of the film: Only real setback is the B-rate crew of actors. Sharon Stone is the only really big name in the cast compared to her and Michael Douglas etc in the first part. I also think BI2 would have been better had Sharon Stone been a bit younger but she is still quite stunning in her looks and has only improved concerning her charisma. Her B-rate "assistants" are not so bad either although I would have wanted some bigger names to the cast.

I think there are quite good improvements in the basic plot. I think this is a far better thriller than many of the run-off-the-mill crap Hollywood so readily distributes these days. The plot is great, it's easy to see technically, you don't snore in the half way through the film and most important -the heath is on.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Not everything is said in this excellent first feature from Celine Sciamma. The friendship, the "wanting to fit in", the first sexual feelings... All this and much more is sublimated through the underwater synchro swimming scenes.

All three girls in the movie try to find and express their personality in a very different way. It is a much less violent approach to the understanding of the teenage years compared to, say, "Thirteen", but a very worthwhile trip nonetheless.

A must see, and please leave all American cinematographic preconceptions at he door. The soundtrack is A+ by the way.

Bon cinema !

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
positive