input: I stumbled upon this movie on cable and was totally hooked. The story of a group of surfers who ride the big waves, waves that are monstrously huge, waves that would make any rational person run away in terror is a one that manages to be spectacular and make you understand why people spend their lives chasing waves. There is nothing special about the film, other than it brings together some very interesting people who are are in love with what they do and lets them talk. Sure there are scenes of them surfing, but what makes this movie so special is the people. Here are a bunch of guys who are so enthusiastic about what they do that it crosses over to the people watching. Half way into this movie you'll want to go off and learn to surf as well. Few documentaries have ever managed to covey the passion that these people have and its the films ability to make us feel it that makes this a great film. See it.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Why can't this type of compact, entertaining mystery be filmed in the new century? It keeps the viewer thinking and guessing all the way. The cast is a great ensemble. William Powell exhibits true star quality. Who knows--perhaps he was rehearsing for his future as Nick Charles. He is a joy to watch. One also can see why Eugene Pallette made more than 200 films. He is a great supporting character actor and his excellent chemistry with Powell is fun to watch. Mary Astor does above average work in a not very meaty role. All other hands chip in to make this a thoroughly enjoyable way to spend 73 minutes. I suspect Michael Curtiz had a ball directing his one. Bravo!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: While this film certainly does possess the stench of a bad film, it's surprisingly watchable on several levels. First, for old movie fans, it's interesting to see the leading role played by Dean Jagger (no relation to Mick). While Jagger later went on to a very respectable role as a supporting actor (even garnering the Oscar in this category for 12 O'CLOCK HIGH), here his performance is truly unique since he actually has a full head of hair (I never saw him this way before) and because he was by far the worst actor in the film. This film just goes to show that if an actor cannot act in his earlier films doesn't mean he can't eventually learn to be a great actor. Another good example of this phenomenon is Paul Newman, whose first movie (THE SILVER CHALICE) is considered one of the worst films of the 1950s.

A second reason to watch the film is the shear cheesiness of it all. The writing is bad, the acting is bad and the special effects are bad. For example, when Jagger and an unnamed Cambodian are wading through the water, it's obvious they are really just walking in place and the background is poorly projected behind them. Plus, once they leave the water, their costumes are 100% dry!!! Horrid continuity and mindlessly bad dialog abounds throughout the film--so much so that it's hard to imagine why they didn't ask Bela Lugosi or George Zucco to star in the film--since both of them starred in many grade-z horror films. In many ways, this would be a perfect example for a film class on how NOT to make a film.

So, while giving it a 3 is probably a bit over-generous, it's fun to laugh at and short so it's worth a look for bad film fans.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This was a disappointing movie. Considering the material---army life is always good for a laugh---and the stars, this movie should have been a fall down laughfest. It was worth a couple of chuckles, at best. Steve Martin has been much funnier than this and it appears that Dan Ackroyd should stick to dramatic roles, where he might follow Robin Williams' lead and someday win an Oscar.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative