input: If, like me, you like your films to be unique, and unlike the majority of other movies, then I wholly recommend that you check out The Beast. The film is a grotesque, erotic, fantasy fairytale that centres around a mythological 'Beast' that is rumoured to wander the grounds of a French mansion and lusts after women. The film is very daring with it's subject material, and that is something to give it credit for. The theme of bestiality is a definite taboo, and for good reason, I might add; but the film conveys it; straight and to the point. Like other films that handle a taboo subject at their centre, The Beast could have gone around it, and made us use our imagination to fill in the gaps, but Borowczyk didn't do that, and he is brave in that respect, especially as making a film like this will leave him open to all kinds of criticisms, but the fact that he went ahead with it, in my view, means a big thumbs up for the guy.

The film starts off with a sequence that sees a randy male horse mount a female. This opener puts an exclamation mark on the film and prepares the audience, in some ways, for the incredible, tour de force of eroticism that they are about to see. The scenes which see the beast mate with the woman are gratuitous and shocking, and are bound to offend many people (hence the reason it was banned for over 20 years), but these scenes are not merely an excuse for Borowczyk to shock the viewer; this film has a defining point. As said during the film; the only difference between man and beast is intelligence. Both man and beast have instincts, only man knows how to control them. The Beast explores this difference between man and beast through sexuality; the fantasy sequence in which the beast appears epitomises the control of human desire, and it is only when the central female character lets go of her control that she can see the beast. The film has strong themes of the age-old story of 'beauty and beast' weaved into it, and overall this is a shockingly morbid tale of lust, but not without a moral.

Many criticise the scenes around the film's shocking sex sequences for being boring, but these scenes are important to the film's story. Without these scenes, we wouldn't get to know the characters or the story of the beast, and, most importantly; the story of 'beauty and the beast' would not be able to have it's horrifying conclusion dealt to the audience, and as that is one of the key elements of the film; it would be a real shame. Besides that, Borowczyk keeps his audience entertained through these scenes, not with shocks, but with dialogue and the upper class persona of the family, along with the beautiful shots of the mansion's ground would not be seen, and therefore the stark contrast between that and the events later on in the film would not exist either.

Overall, The Beast is a shocking film. It's portrayal of a taboo subject and the shocking way it is portrayed will ensure that this film is not for everyone. However, if you can get over the film's shock, and embrace The Beast; what awaits is a skilful and beautiful piece of art that should not be missed by anyone that is willing to give this film a chance.

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This is an entertaining "history" of the FBI, but it should be viewed as fiction, because that's exactly what it is. What else could it be when J. Edgar Hoover personally approved and had a cameo role in the production. James Stewart is excellent, as usual, and the supporting cast, except for the talentless Vera Miles, is good. Murray Hamilton is especially good in a supporting role as Stewart's partner and best friend. The FBI accomplishments that the film highlights are undoubtedly all true. What is significant is what it leaves out.

One of the most shameful parts of the film is the depiction of the killing of John Dillinger. It is portrayed pretty much as it happened, but no mention at all is made of Melvin Purvis, the Chicago Bureau Chief who headed the operation. Instead, the operation is depicted as if the fictional Chip Hardesty were running it. It has been said that Hoover was jealous of the publicity that Purvis received after Dillinger was killed; Purvis was subsequently transferred to a remote outpost, and shortly afterward left the FBI. This is no doubt why Purvis was never mentioned in the film. But this viewer, at least, paused to think that if Purvis was treated this way, what about all the agents who conducted all the other operations depicted in the film. Were they also completely ignored and replaced by the fictional Hardesty.

The film is probably accurate in its portrayal of FBI activity up through the end of WWII. However, after that point, the film would have us believe that the only threat facing the US came from international communism, which is no doubt what Hoover believed. Never mind the Mafia. Never mind the lynchings that were still going on in the South. Never mind that blacks were being intimidated to keep them from voting in much of the South. I don't know if the FBI had started wiretapping Martin Luther King by the time this film was made, but if not, it wasn't very long afterward that it started.

As I said at the outset, this is pretty good entertainment, but it should be viewed as the sanitized fictionalization that it is.

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I had never heard of this Adam Sandler movie until I saw it on the wall at Blockbuster. Being an Adam Sandler fan at the time, I rented it. HONESTLY I could only watch about 30 mins. of it. It was TERRIBLE. Do whatever it takes to keep this out of the hands of the public. I honestly hope this movie goes OOP soon, and I hope it STAYS THAT WAY!

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This ranks as one of the worst movies I've seen in years. Besides Cuba and Angie, the acting is actually embarrassing. Wasn't Archer once a decent actress? What happened to her? The action is decent but completely implausible. The make up is so bad it's worth mentioning. I mean, who ever even thinks about the makeup in a contemporary feature film. Someone should tell the make up artist, and the DOP that you're not supposed to actually see it. The ending is a massive disappointment - along the lines of "and then they realized it was all a dream"

Don't waste your time or your money. You're better off just staring into space for 2 hours.

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

pos/neg ans:
negative