Q: About five minutes in, and I saw where this was heading. Bunch of high school kids get annoyed by the school's administration and thoughts of rebellion start fomenting. I said to my girlfriend: if it gets below a 5 on IMDb, I'll go and read a book. It got 5.0, so she persuaded me to go on watching. What are the good things? Well, it is a good thing this film does not have a story, because you would surely be distracted from it by the editing. It's like the student's drawing that was torn up by one of the teachers, all the footage for this film was cut up in a freak accident involving a meat-grinder, and left half the stock destroyed, with the other half spliced into two-second bits. Even in a ten-second scene of the local TV news, there are about six cuts and three different angles. And then there are the montages. These are all set to electronic music, which forewarns you of yet another montage, so that like Pavlov's dog you start cringing every time you hear it, which is about every three minutes. Oh, I was supposed to say what's good about this film. Well, the film was shot very well, with a nice color palette, that nicely matched the emotional content - such as there was - of the scenes. Okay, now with the film's major flaw, and it wasn't the story, or lack thereof. The director made that fatal mistake of leading you astray about people and situations, not by clever storytelling, but by being highly selective about what to show about the main characters. That's just cheating. I guess he did it in order to make the central character more likable. But it just became plain annoying. If the story is full of holes, it's no good trying to patch it up by misdirecting the viewer. And often there wasn't even any point to it. And then the ending. Basically, the main villain of the peace turns out be an okay guy, if a coward. Plus it turns what seemed to be the whole point of the movie, that you should stand up for a just cause on its head, by the already mentioned misdirection, and makes it into a point about the nature of revolutions, that was already made, and much better, by animal farm. It also committed what I call the Bill Cosby sin: no matter how things may seem at first, in the end adults are always right, and children always wrong. And let's face it: unless you're me, that's just not true. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Oh, dear lord.... They've turned what was a fairly thought provoking movie into a swaggering testosterone fest.

The original 1971 version of this movie was beautifully vague about our hero Kowalski. He was a man trying to drive from Denver to San Fransisco to win a bet. Why was he willing to risk his life for the price of a handful of uppers? We're not really sure.

We had a few flashbacks that gave us the picture that he was an adrenaline junkie, and presumably he had led his entire life trying to make it to the vanishing point. That point you see off in the distance where the left and right shoulders of the road come together, and the road itself vanishes. He lives only to be free, and means no ill on anyone. We saw several times when there were accidents he stopped to make sure the other driver was okay before moving on, even the cops that were chasing him.

When he saw the futility of his quest he took his life rather than be arrested and live a life of captivity. He died like he lived, running wide open.

In the remake Kowalski has a whole history (including a first name, even.) He's trying to get to the hospital where his wife is suffering from complications to her pregnancy. He is a devoted husband, and excited expectant father. He comes to the decision to take his life after hearing his wife died in delivery, but they even leave THAT in question when they suggest that he may have jumped out of the car before it ran into the bulldozers. They even gave the part of "super soul," the blind DJ (brilliantly portrayed by Clevon Little in the original) to JASON PRIESTLY?!?!?!?!?!? Give me a break. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: This service comedy, for which Peter Marshall (Joanne Dru's brother and later perennial host of The Hollywood Squares) and Tommy Noonan were hyped as 'the new Lewis and Martin' is just shy of dreadful: a few random sight gags are inserted, everyone talks fast and nothing works quite right -- there's one scene in which Noonan is throwing grenades at officers and politicians in anger; they're about five feet apart, Noonan is throwing them in between, and the total reaction is that everyone flinches.

In the midst of an awfulness relieved only by the fetching Julie Newmar, there are a few moments of brightness: Marshall and Noonan engage in occasional bouts of double talk and argufying, and their timing is nigh unto perfect -- clearly they were a well honed comedy pair.

It isn't enough to save this turkey, alas. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: Historical drama and coming of age story involving free people of color in pre civil war New Orleans. Starts off slow but picks up steam once you have learned about the main characters and the real action can begin. This is not just a story about the exploitation of black women, because these were free people. They may not have had all the rights of whites but they certainly had more control over their destinies than their slave ancestors. The young men and women in this story must each make their own choice about how to live their lives, whether to give into the depravity of the system or live with optimism and contribute to their community. I enjoyed all of the characters but my favorites were Christophe, Anna Bella, and Marcel. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive