input: "Sandra, the Making of a Woman" is a standout among exploitation films, and is so for two reasons: (1) an excellent, yet effortless, performance by Monica Gayle, and (2) the fact that Gary Graver was at the helm of the project. These two talents, both of whom are quite underrated, make "Sandra" a film that should be seen.

Another key element of the film's success is its realism -- there is nothing fake or "Hollywood" about this set-in-California film. It is truly a slice of life. The modest house in which Sandra lives at the beginning of the film, the simple dresses worn by the character, the scene where Sandra wakes up in the morning to find Uschi Digart bouncing at her front door, and Sandra sits on the couch without make-up, while Digart tries to sell her some cosmetics, looking truly as if she just woke up (but nevertheless beautiful), the harmless weirdo Sandra picks up who likes to make love with her while he wears a bra, the one-room apartment into which Sandra moves --all of these elements of the film seem totally real, and as such, the viewer is drawn into Sandra's little world from the beginning and immediately becomes interested in her and wants her to succeed. Sandra also makes her case for free love with eloquence and dignity and she comes off with a lot of class.

This film could have easily failed in less competent hands, and could have gone off in any of the usual sexploitation directions, but the Garver/Gale team see to it that "Sandra" is not only the making of a woman but the making of an excellent film.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This film is so unbelievable; - the whole premise is bunkum; the fact that a serial killer (vampire or otherwise) could fly around untraced and kill as many people as the film implies is laughable. The vampire himself would not look out of place in a Bela Lugosi film. Most of the acting is so wooden the actors should be treated for dry rot. I await the day when someone makes a decent film from a Steven King novel (with the exception, possibly, of Stand by Me). This film suffers from what most Stephen King films do - lack of money used for the "special" effects, poor actors, appalling characterisation and dialogue. This film is cheap, tacky and fails in everything it tries to do.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I just have to add, in case anyone actually reads this and hasn't completely gotten the point yet. These other reviewers aren't joking around, this really IS the worst colour movie you're likely to ever see. When the movie started I couldn't believe something like this actually made it out for the world to see.

They're not just saying it when they said it looks like a home movie. It really does. Like the "director" took the family hi8 camcorder (before DV cameras and computer non-linear editing), no other equipment (lights, sound gear, etc), grabbed some decent-looking acting students, and went out to shoot a movie. No script, just making it up as he went along.

When I watched it, it was on my mono TV, so I only have one channel of audio (left of right speaker). At first I thought I'd hooked it up wrong. The movie was silent until someone spoke a couple of minutes in. I got up and switched over to the other channel and suddenly I could hear music and sound effects but then couldn't hear the dialog. They recorded the sound on different bloody channels! I mean, there's movies that can be funny to watch, so bad they're good, kind of thing. I'm not sure this is one of those. I mean, I'll admit to being a bit of a budding film maker. And seeing bad movies just makes you want to go out there and PROVE you can do it better, you know. But watching this just made me feel sorry for whoever made it.

As bad as they were, the actors are the only good thing about this. I thought the chick was hot and was disappointed in the brevity of her bath scene. A bit of T and A from her would have raised the score from nothing to maybe a 3 or 4. But alas, no. If you want to make a movie but it's turning out crap, throw in some gratuitous nudity. Worked for Roger Corman.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The only thing that surprises me more than the number of people who liked this movie is that it was directed by Clint Eastwood, whose work I admire immensely. The leads had absolutely no chemistry. Not for a second could I believe that there was anything deeper than lust between them. The story just didn't ring true. Add to that stilted conversation, tons of stereotypes, and an incredibly slow plot that basically leads nowhere, and you've got yourself a real stinker. Kay Lenz's nude scenes might be worthwhile for those seeking some salacious fare, but otherwise this is a colossal waste of time. My thoughts as I watched the movie was that itwould have been better titled "Cheesy."

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative