input: When I was a teen-ager seeing this film for the first time, I thought it was one of the best movies ever made. Of course, the reason for that is Bo Derek and her various states of undress in this film. However, now that I'm older, I can honestly say that this film is awful. Mind you, Bo Derek is absolutely incredibly beautiful, and she and husband-director John Derek make sure you see plenty of her. But when you take that aspect out of the film, it becomes one big dull ride. And Tarzan, well, he's all muscular like you think he should be, but when he sees Jane (that's Bo, of course) for the first time, he doesn't know what to think. This despite the fact that Bo is wearing a wet see-thru shirt, with her breast prominently displayed. Tarzan would be the only primitive man on the planet who would have that problem. If you are looking for a movie to slobber over a beautiful naked body, then this might fill the ticket. If you are looking for a thoughtful, entertaining and worth-while film, go elsewhere...almost anywhere else at that!!!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This made for television version of the legendary stand against hopeless odds is more objective, more realistic than earlier filmed versions of the events, though the one movie made after this went perhaps too far in humanizing the figures of Sam Houston, Bowie, Travis and Crockett.

The focus here is on Jim Bowie, played with sharp, cynical detachment by James Arness who is apparently still alive at age 85. Then 65, he made a comeback to acting after years away from the screen to do this part.

Puerto Rican-born Raul Julia humanizes Gen. Santa Ana as no one since J. Carol Naish back in '54 had done. However, the Mexican dictator is portrayed as a lecherous, vainglorious popinjay--gaudier uniforms have never been seen before or since. He receives excellent advice from the European officers he has hired but, convinced of his own infallibility, he does not heed it.

Alec Baldwin is the one actor whose age is appropriate to the character he plays: Col. William Travis. His portrayal is earnest. He is almost in awe of the older men who share command with him.

The one jarring note was Brian Keith as Crockett. In a coonskin cap and carrying Ol' Betsy, he stumbles about as if he had wandered in from another movie. With no conviction in the portrayal, the character is reduced to a few stage conventions.

The script reveals some historical facts overlooked or suppressed in earlier film versions. We learn that Jim Bowie was, in the person of Santa Ana, fighting his own brother-in-law. The Mexican soldiers performed poorly in part because they were armed with rifles left over from the Napoleonic Wars a generation earlier. "Santa Ana likes a bargain." Bowie wryly explains. The whole project of defending the former Spanish mission as a fort was militarily ill- advised--a fact explored in greater depth in the 2004 film "The Alamo".

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The location of the shop around the corner is precisely stated at the start of the film, Balta Street in Budapest but it could really be in any place. The small number of sets reflect a middle European design but it could be a shop around any corner. The film is not about Budapest or the retail leather goods business but about the ups and downs of love, reflected in most of the main characters.

Alfred Kralik and Klara Novak are sparring partners at work but their anonymous letters to each other are full of hope and aspiration and romance, and the story unwinds to bring these two aspects together beautifully. Hugo Matuschek, the owner of the shop, is having trouble with his wife, she only a voice at the end of the phone. Ferencz Vadas has a secret affair. Ilona Novodny has a gentleman friend who buys her fur garments. Mr Pirovitch's life is centred around his wife and children. Pepi Katona 'plays Santa Claus' to a girl at Christmas. You even sense that quiet Flora Katchuck, while staying at home with her mother dreams of someone.

The script is a masterpiece of comedy and drama. It moves effortlessly from scene to scene. It is one of those quiet films that repays looking at again and again, simple yet profound. The dialogue reflects the character speaking which is not common these days.

All the acting is magnificent. Even the minor characters like the waiter in the cafe and the policeman in the street are perfect. James Stewart and Margaret Sullavan play off each other perfectly. He was really getting into his stride as an actor then and gives a sweet and sharp performance. Margaret Sullavan was a terrific actor and under appreciated these days. Some of her other films are worth catching. As Mr Matuschek, Frank Morgan is amazing. His moment of truth is very moving. Gold stars all round to the performers.

It is a well worn phrase that they don't make them like they used to (The vague re-make 'You've Got Mail' was dire) but in this case it is true. The director Lubitsch is not in farce mode thankfully but delivered a classic film of spirit, charm and warm humanity.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I almost called HBO and demanded my money back for the month just because they've been airing this movie. I can just see the movie execs sitting around going, "Okay, we need to come up with something that's just like Home Alone, only we'll add a bunch of cash for the kid, hire cut-rate actors, and oh yeah, we'll make it a lot less funny!"

Okay, maybe not the last part, but that's basically what you've got here. Not even worth seeing if someone else rents it. And as a movie for kids? Forget it. I wouldn't let my kids see this, not necessarily because of bad-taste jokes, but because I wouldn't want them to say, "What were you thinking showing us that lame piece of garbage, Dad?!?!"

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative