input: This move was on TV last night. I guess as a time filler, because it sucked bad! The movie is just an excuse to show some tits and ass at the start and somewhere about half way. (Not bad tits and ass though). But the story is too ridiculous for words. The "wolf", if that is what you can call it, is hardly shown fully save his teeth. When it is fully in view, you can clearly see they had some interns working on the CGI, because the wolf runs like he's running in a treadmill, and the CGI fur looks like it's been waxed, all shiny :)

The movie is full of gore and blood, and you can easily spot who is going to get killed/slashed/eaten next. Even if you like these kind of splatter movies you will be disappointed, they didn't do a good job at it.

Don't even get me started on the actors... Very corny lines and the girls scream at everything about every 5 seconds. But then again, if someone asked me to do bad acting just to give me a few bucks, then hey, where do I sign up?

Overall boring and laughable horror.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This is a kind of genre thing, meaning you either like the 1950s musicals or you don't. If you do, you'll love this. Personally, I prefer the 1930s and most of the '40s musicals with the dancing talents of Astaire and Rogers, and Eleanor Powell, Bill Robinson, Ruby Keeler, James Cagney, Shirley Temple and so forth but the songs of the '50s, the slower dance numbers and the soapy melodramas of the decade all turn me off.

This film is a case-in-point. The first song was okay but the next three did nothing for me. By then, the story didn't have much appeal, either. The presence of Deborah Kerr is another minus. I don't think I've seen a movie she starred in that I liked, including this one, where the goody two-shoes English teacher she portrays spends half the movie threatening to leave Siam. (I which she had!).

However, divorcing myself from likes-and-dislikes, there is no denying this Rogers and Hammerstein production has a lot of appeal to many folks, particularly those who liked "The Sound Of Music" a decade later. There are similarities in the R&H musicals. Thus, if you liked the Julie Andrews flick, you should like this, too.

This is a Lavish production with, yes, a capital "L." This is the kind of big-production musicals you rarely saw after that generation. You also get the dubbed singers, unlike today, where the actress isn't able to really sing so Marnie Nixon comes to rescue of Kerr, as she did with Natalie Wood in "West Side Story" and Audrey Hepburn in "My Fair Lady."

Yul Brynner is "King Mongkut" and is the stereotypical traditionalist, the kind filmmakers always portray in a negative way. He isn't "progressive," as the left wingers like the say, but the education teacher (Kerr, as "Anna Leonowens") will set him straight. Secular-progressives of today always place teachers higher than people trying to cure cancer! However, Yul is good in this role and even employs some comedy along with his more-bark-than-bite character. Justifiably, he is the big star of this film. Brynner had magnetism. Even in "The Magnificent Seven," Yul was the one cowboy who mesmerized the audience.

In summary, it's a fine movie for its day and millions of people enjoyed it. I'll leave it at that.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This movie was a confusing piece of garbage. You never knew what was going on. The characters were poorly written and for the most part they were totally unsympathetic except for Gus (played masterfully by George Eads). I hate this movie but compared to others (Dark Harvest, Dracula's Curse) it should have won an academy award. It was particularly sad to see a talented actor like George Eads in such a disgraceful and tacky film. Lifetime you have sunken to whole new low. Someone needs to make sure that this director never works in movies again. Also was this supposed to be a horror film because it was a lot more funny than scary. For shame Lifetime, For shame.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I suppose many people comment/review their first movie on IMDb because the movie was spectacular or horrible -- I'm writing due to the latter.

I was excited for the sequel to "Wargames" .. I thought the original was quite good considering its time period and content, I felt it was worth watching more than once. This being 2008, I had high hopes for what they would do with this film. Computers, Gaming, Terror, Military over-zealousness have all grown so much since the time of the first film, and "Wargames: The Dead Code" had an opportunity to bring it all into a great flick.

The movie failed on pretty much every level, but I particularly blame the writers and anyone who had any input regarding the realism of gaming aspects. "The Dead Code" was a 1990's air flight simulator with a few people on the ground waving their arms. Meanwhile, Will Farmer is button mashing about 7,000 commands -- none of which are impacting what is happening on the screen. Until finally he "wins" by clicking a box on the screen with his mouse that release gas that instantly kills 20,000 virtual people (nobody is near the gas). Because he beat 5 LEVELS in 15 minutes, this tells RIPLEY (the real life war machine) that he is a high level terror threat.

Even though any 5-16 year old could complete this same task - The government believes he is a lethal threat to humanity. They say things like "He has expert knowledge of bio-terror" ... He displayed less knowledge than someone who read the first 3 paragraphs of the Wiki entry on Bio-Terror. So then a movie-long chase scene with about .01% of the budget and excitement of any of the Bourne titles ensues. They have about 1000 opportunities to catch him and clear up the entire matter.. sometimes they are mad they barely miss him.. but other times they masterfully create opportunities just let him go intentionally to follow him.

Ugh... I would write more.. but I already wasted 1.5 hours watching this, I would rather watch the Broderick and Joshua play tic-tac-toe for 1.5 hours.

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

pos/neg ans:
negative