input: Quite unimpressive. The 'twists' are all pretty predictable, if you've seen any movies within the last ten years, and the few somewhat interesting parts (wherein someone utilizes context clues to make a decision) are few and lack much punch, since the 'secret' has already been shown before these clues are explained.

(spoilers, sorta)

The acting is decent enough. The story simply isn't very interesting. The whole 'still awake' premise becomes nullified by the astral projection stuff(not kidding).

The surgery scene is initially tense, a bit discomforting, but then becomes utterly banal.

Not horrible, but not memorable. Terrence Howard's least interesting role to date, so far as I've seen.

Kind of boring, overall.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The Thief of Bagdad is a treasure. First and foremost, it is a good story. Though my four children's primary exposure to this tale, the most famous of the stories of the Arabian Nights, comes from the Disney Corporation, the Thief of Bagdad held their interest to the end. The story moves along at a good pace and includes a twist or two that reduced predictability. Sabu, who plays the young thief, Abu, also measures up to any of today's teen actors in appeal, judging from the number of times I heard my oldest daughter say, "He's c-u-t-e!"

In 1940, the film won Oscars for cinematography and special effects. Today, of course, those effects seem very dated ("Look, it's Barbie flying through the air," declared my daughter at the sight of the genie flying). Yet they fit into the story well. The film is, after all, over 60 years old. The effects fit with the script. Furthermore, what ones sees in The Thief of Bagdad remained pretty much state-of-the-art for the next twenty-five years. One need only compare the opening montage from a 1967 Star Trek episode to see this. In that, it was quite an achievement.

This qualifies as a family film, though there are a few stabbings near the end. The acting is so obvious and the wounds so bloodless as to those scenes nearly as artificial as animation.

All in all, a fun film worth watching for either an evening of pure entertainment, or for the historical value of the effects. I recommend it.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Definitely the worst movie I have ever seen... Can somebody tell me where should have I laughed? There's not a single hint or shadow of an idea. The three leading actors are pestilential, especially the one (I think it's Aldo) from Sicily who _can't_ make a Sicilian accent!!! Not to say about the dream-like insertion about Dracula... just another expedient, drawn from the worst cabaret tradition, to make this "film" last a little longer. Massironi and Littizzetto do what they can, but this so-called movie was really too, too hard to rescue. I would have given it "0"/10, but the lowest mark was 1/10 and so I had to overestimate it by one mark.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Sadly I don't remember the book anymore, but I do recall that I was captivated by the stories of Edgar Wallace. This Film represents a typical German Production of low quality. It does not hold my attention - although the story itself is good, it is just badly adabted. At the center of the misery are the characters that are overly simplyfied and exaggerated - they have no nuances in their performances. Even the well known and liked German Actors Joachim Fuchsberger and Eddy Aren't cannot rescue this poor spectacle. However there's hope ... I've been told that the films following this one are getting better and better. So in conclusion I must say that this film doesn't deserve the cinematic screen but may be enough for a lazy afternoon.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative