input:

However, the ladies of all ages will lap it up, no doubt; at least the opposite sex understand what it is to be a mother, and most of us men try to fathom out what it is to be a father. Whether changing nappies is not at all my favourite occupation and trying to get those bottled baby-foodstuffs into errant toothless mouths must rank very high on household duties preferably left to its mother, has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.

Some good interpretations here, and a good story idea; the handling of the matter, limited to rather scanty TV-production concepts, gives the film a rather over-mellowy taste with not much new to offer. An insipid way of delivering the goods, and in the end the outcome is so forseeable during the last 20 minutes or so, even my wife dozed off, and I was jumping up to the computer to get the on-line scoring in the Barcelona-Deportivo match, hoping the away team would do something rather good. They did. This film did not.

Better by far is Mike Leigh's magnificent "Secrets and Lies" (qv) which touches on the same subject matter, but with Brenda Blethyn playing a far superior part.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Of the many problems with this film, the worst is continuity; and re-editing it on VHS for a college cable channel many years ago, I tried to figure out what exactly went wrong. What seems to have happened is that they actually constructed a much longer film and then chopped it down for standard theatrical viewing. How much longer? to fill in all the holes in the plot as we have it would require about three more hours of narrative and character development - especially given the fact that the film we do have is just so slow and takes itself just so seriously.

That's staggering; what could the Halperins have possibly been trying to accomplish here? Their previous film, "White Zombie", was a successful low budget attempt to duplicate the early Universal Studios monster films (The Mummy, Dracula, etc.), and as such stuck pretty close to the zombie mythology that those in North America would know from popular magazines.

Revolt of the Zombies, to the contrary, appears to have been intended as some allegory for the politics of modern war. This would not only explain the opening, and the change of Dean Jagger's character into a megalomaniac, but it also explains why the zombies don't actually do much in the film, besides stand around, look frightening, and wait for orders - they're just allegorical soldiers, not the undead cannibals we've all come to love and loathe in zombie films.

I am the equal to any in my dislike for modern war and its politics - but I think a film ought to be entertaining first, and only later, maybe, educational. And definitely - a film about zombies ought to be about zombies.

Truly one of the most bizarre films in Hollywood history, but not one I can recommend, even for historic value.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Once again, Disney manages to make a children's movie which totally ignores its background. About the only thing common with this and the original Gadget cartoons is the names. The most glaring errors are the characters - Penny does not have her book, Brain has been reduced from a character to a fancy prop, Dr Claw is more a show-off than an evil villain, etc. but there are more than that. The horrors start from the first minutes of the film - having Gadget as a security guard called John Brown doesn't help identifying him as the classic Inspector Gadget. And right in the beginning we see Disney's blatant attempt to turn every story ever into a love affair between a man and a woman - they introduce Brenda, who only serves to make this movie Disney-compatible. Add to this the fact that the "Claw" seen in this film and the classic Dr Claw are almost diagonally opposite and you'll see this is going to be nowhere near the original storyline. What would help would be a better storyline to replace it - but as you guessed, Disney failed in that too. The whole movie is just Gadget acting silly for silliness's sake and lusting after Brenda. As if to add insult to the injury, Disney introduced the "new" Gadgetmobile - it doesn't look, function or think like the old Gadgetmobile at all, it's just the canonical "comic relief" figure. Disney obviously recognised that the Gadget cartoons were a comedy, so they made the film a comedy too, but they took out all the clever running gags (like the assignment paper exploding in the Chief's face) and replaced them with Gadget being a moron, the Gadgetmobile being a wise-ass, and "Claw" showing off. Someone should tell Disney that "children's movie" doesn't imply "total lack of any brain usage". Gadget should be targeted for children of 10-12 years... not children of 10-12 months like this movie. Whatever this movie is supposed to be, it is NOT, repeat NOT, the real Inspector Gadget. Because I love the old Gadget, I hate this.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: It's like what other Dracula movies always do, the minions of Dracula always on Dracula's side, which is what disappointed me at the ending. Regardless the person wants to stay a vampire or not, I would like to see something like in the first movie that the minion fights against her master. It is much interesting (since you can almost predict how the story goes) than just either the priest or D. win the game (we need some surprising plots!).

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative