Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: I saw this when it was in the theater, it started out so strong I mean back in 1980 this was a bold movie and the special effects were excellent AT THE time. Now you would have to of been at least 30 or so in 1980 to really understand this point because studying film historically misses the mind set at the time the expectations, and other related psychological factors. Now as I said the movie was engaging suspenseful and very entertaining. It builds to an excellent climax then.... IT ends I mean the person that described it as having a water balloon break in your hand before throwing it, besides being a very poetic description. In my experience, it was just not strong enough. My wife and I were well... how can I say this? We were upset, I mean we paid money, invested the time to watch the movie which was excellent. "We both felt we were robbed with an ending that convinced us both the production company must of run out of money and could not raise enough to finish it correctly. In fact my wife said it best, it did not end, IT JUST STOPPED!

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: It was great to see some of my favorite stars of 30 years ago including John Ritter, Ben Gazarra and Audrey Hepburn. They looked quite wonderful. But that was it. They were not given any characters or good lines to work with. I neither understood or cared what the characters were doing.

Some of the smaller female roles were fine, Patty Henson and Colleen Camp were quite competent and confident in their small sidekick parts. They showed some talent and it is sad they didn't go on to star in more and better films. Sadly, I didn't think Dorothy Stratten got a chance to act in this her only important film role.

The film appears to have some fans, and I was very open-minded when I started watching it. I am a big Peter Bogdanovich fan and I enjoyed his last movie, "Cat's Meow" and all his early ones from "Targets" to "Nickleodeon". So, it really surprised me that I was barely able to keep awake watching this one.

It is ironic that this movie is about a detective agency where the detectives and clients get romantically involved with each other. Five years later, Bogdanovich's ex-girlfriend, Cybil Shepherd had a hit television series called "Moonlighting" stealing the story idea from Bogdanovich. Of course, there was a great difference in that the series relied on tons of witty dialogue, while this tries to make do with slapstick and a few screwball lines.

Bottom line: It ain't no "Paper Moon" and only a very pale version of "What's Up, Doc".

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Is it just me or is that kid really annoying?

Hideos sister, spends most of her time running around after the disobedient little so and so. As for him, well, I know he's a kid n all, but his acting ability is about as wooden as a dead tree. So far I'm only half way through, and am fascinated by the story, but the people in it, let it down, I just hope it gets better by the end, as I can't not know what it's all about. Although, some supposedly cryptic messages in the scribbles on the wall and a notebook, indicate everything is backwards, i.e. Dog is God, Live is Evil etc... just seems a little obvious at the moment, yet nobody mentions its obvious meaning, (As yet anyway) If my opinion changes at the end of the movie, I'll update this post, but if your reading this, then well...... See above statement.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
This film is an attempt to present Jared Diamonds theory of "Guns, Germs and Steel", explaining how Europeans have dominated much of the globe.

The version I saw of this documentary came on 2 discs covering 3 hours. I think the information could have been presented in 20 minutes. There are completely useless scenes of: Professor Jared Diamond watching birds through binoculars, Professor Jared Diamond failing to use a bow and arrow properly, Professor Jared Diamond firing a muzzle-loader badly. Was this documentary supposed to make a hero out of "Professor Jared diamond?". This part of the documentary was so bad, it could have been a spoof. The worst was when Diamond is shown breaking down and weeping when touring the malaria ward in an African hospital. None of this helps me understand his theory of "Guns, Germs and Steel." BTW, "Guns, Germs and Steel" is said about 100 times. "Can the Europeans guns, germs and steel get them out of this dire situation? Stay tuned and find out!" When he finally gets down to business, his theory is equal parts interesting and utterly boring. Europeans conquered the natives peoples of other lands, because they had guns and fine blades against stone and wooden weapons. Do I really need a professor to convince me of this? The parts of his theory that explain how the Europeans came to have the advantages that allow the conquest are interesting, but the coverage is paper-thin.

In the end, I think the documentary was only trying to convince me that non-Europeans are as capable as Europeans. If I'm not a racist, I already know this. If I'm a racist, Jared Diamond is not going to convince me with his bumbling use of native implements.

I don't think adults are the intended audience for this documentary. Kids may enjoy this more than I, though. I have read that the book from which this documentary is much better than the documentary.