input: I remember this film, exhibit in Barcelona (Spain) in 1970, for the time of a week. Although it could seems incredible, and I can't offer any explanation for it, this movie was exhibit in a theater dedicated to... movies of art and big quality (that, is, Bergman, Resnais, Malle, Bunuel, and... The Projected Man). Few people saw it (luckly people, no doubt) and no reference about this very boring SF movie can be found in the Peter Nichols Science Fiction Encyclopidie, or about the author of the original novel. Very indicative. I remember of it, after all this years, a no-story, a lot of special effects that seems ridiculous effects in fact, and no more. It seems that in some countries the running time is 90 mm. and in anothers 77 min. Well, it means only a little more of pain.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: ....ripoff of a dozen better films. Particularly Steven Martin's "LA Story", which at least had the grace to be obviously fictional even though it starred his then-girlfriend playing his girlfriend in the film.

Yes, naive boys and girls, "20 Dates" IS a mockumentary, although I am not absolutely certain that was Myles Berkowitz's intent when he started. My impression is that he started the project semi-seriously, then quickly realized that it would be pathetic and not funny unless he made the situations more and more ridiculous. As a result, the whole thing has an uneasy, cheap and insincere feeling about it.

As someone smartly pointed out, the film has two of the "dates" suing and putting restraining orders on Myles and yet they appear in the film, which would be impossible as it would require a consent form. It also appears to me that the majority of women who appear as "the dates" are professional actresses (albiet not famous ones, excepting Tina Carrere) -- they are simply too obviously pretty, polished, thin and comfortable in front of the camera to be average civilians.

Mr. Berkowitz makes a classic error in only casting this kind of very pretty thin actress, instead of utilizing a variety of believable women, which might have made the premise (even in a mockumentary) more believable and funnier. He also skates over what is probably his real-world problem, and which is that both the movie character and the real world Myles Berkowitz appear to be functionally unemployed (his real life IMDb credits are practically non-existent, excepting this film). Even in the world of the movie, his ex-wife divorced him for never being employed. I think the viewer (let alone Mr. Berkowitz's real life dates) are deserving of an explanation of he manages to live in one of the most expensive urban environments in the US, in a luxury apartment, driving a fancy car and eating out at pricey restaurants when he doesn't seen to have any source of income whatsoever. (Is he drug dealer? Living off his rich parents? No clue!)

You can get away with most anything in a film, if the jokes are really funny. "20 Dates" is painfully, embarrassingly UN-funny. Mr. Berkowitz's idea of a joke is to have his character, while on restaurant dates, announce to his companions how the food served is likely to give him either diarrhea or constipation -- the WORST kind of childish potty humor.

It is not very surprising to discover that Mr. Berkowitz never made a film before "20 Dates" and in the last 8 years, has not made a single film, appeared as an actor in anyone else's film OR had a writing or producing credit of any kind. My gut instinct tells me that this film was not financed by "Elie" (the gangster money man who appears off-camera) but more likely by Mr. Berkowitz's affluent parents, or perhaps represents a shocking abuse of credit cards. Whichever it was, we can all rest easy that we are unlikely to have to see Myles Berkowitz or any of his creative efforts EVER AGAIN. Hallelujah!!!

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: When I was younger, I liked this show, but now...BLECCH!!! This show is sappy, badly written, and rarely funny. The three leads were all good actors and funny men (Saget's stand up was a lot better than the stuff this show came up with, as was Coulier a better stand up, and Stamos was a better than average actor). After a while, Stamos wanted off the show because it wanted to do more serious stuff (who could blame him?). The show eventually got cancelled when many of the actors demanded more money.

Here are a few things that drive me crazy about the show:

1. The catch phrases- How many times can one person put up with tiring catch phrases like with 'how rude', 'you got it dude', 'nerdbomber', 'cut it out' and 'have mercy' in a 24 hour time period?

2. Kimmy Gibler- the most annoying character ever written for television.

3. The writing- stale and cliched as an oreo cookie. There is good cliched writing and bad cliched writing. Full House had bad cliched writing.

4. Three men living together in San Francisco- Enough said.

5. Unrealistic stuff- Too much to recall.

6. Trendy kids- The girls had all the latest mall fashions and you can see posters of trendy recording artists they would be into.

Now this show is on Nick @ Nite. I would hardly call it a classic. I have nothing bad to say about the people involved since I think many of them are talented in their own right. But this show was just so sugary sweet, I couldn't stand it after a while.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: "The Plainsman" represents the directorial prowess of Cecil B. DeMille at its most inaccurate and un-factual. It sets up parallel plots for no less stellar an entourage than Wild Bill Hickok (Gary Cooper), Buffalo Bill Cody (James Ellison), Calamity Jane (Jean Arthur), George Armstrong Custer and Abraham Lincoln to interact, even though in reality Lincoln was already dead at the time the story takes place. Every once in a while DeMille floats dangerously close toward the truth, but just as easily veers away from it into unabashed spectacle and showmanship. The film is an attempt to buttress Custer's last stand with a heap of fiction that is only loosely based on the lives of people, who were already the product of manufactured stuffs and legends. Truly, this is the world according to DeMille - a zeitgeist in the annals of entertainment, but a pretty campy relic by today's standards.

TRANSFER: Considering the vintage of the film, this is a moderately appealing transfer, with often clean whites and extremely solid blacks. There's a considerable amount of film grain in some scenes and an absence of it at other moments. All in all, the image quality is therefore somewhat inconsistent, but it is never all bad or all good just a bit better than middle of the road. Age related artifacts are kept to a minimum and digital anomalies do not distract. The audio is mono but nicely balanced.

EXTRAS: Forget it. It's Universal! BOTTOM LINE: As pseudo-history painted on celluloid, this western is compelling and fun. Just take its characters and story with a grain of salt in some cases a whole box seems more appropriate!

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

pos/neg ans:
positive