input: Quite average even by Monogram standards, this mystery (a remake of The Sphinx) has an oddball plot which is not unraveled to much effect -- you'll see through it after about ten minutes. The two leads have some nice breezy dialog at the outset, but John Hamilton is hopelessly dull as the villain (perfectly cast Lionel Atwill originated the role) and Warren Hymer's nitwit shtick is pretty annoying. However, it's worth sitting through for a five-minute appearance by the incomparable Mantan Moreland as Nicodemus the janitor, who gets the better of the defense attorney during a hilarious courtroom appearance. You've got to hand it to Bill "One-Take" Beaudine; he wasn't much of a director, but he would always punch up a routine programmer with some goofy vaudeville.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: OMG! The only reason I'm giving this movie a 2 instead of a 1 is because Tom Hanks is funny as an Elvis-in-the-box. Apart from that, how did this halfway decent cast sign on to do such a lame movie?? Maybe it seemed like a good idea at the time... There are no laughs to mention, the stereotypes are pathetic, the cast is wasted, the direction is amateurish. Now that I think about it, most of the blame probably lies with the director, Joel Zwick. He brings out nothing but flat performances from all involved. Don't waste your time like I did; but then, I enjoy a good train wreck. Geez, now the system is telling me I need more lines-- here ya go: This movie should be called Return to Sender. Okay, now THAT was funnier than anything in the movie...

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Yes, even as a fan of shows like survivor and the apprentice, this show is pretty bad. I didn't mind the first couple of shows, but then realizing how pathetic everyone was to actually go on the show in the first place.The antics of Alex and Aaron giving men a bad name at the way they cheated on or dumped their choice at the first opportunity really was not a good look for the show.

Ryan, you can have Trista. She had the most annoying voice I've ever heard on television, and she definitely wasn't the smartest girl around (very media savvy, but I doubt there's much more there).

I haven't really watched any of the shows since, apart from the occastional re-run on daytime TV. I think the point of reality TV is to treat it as "entertaining trash". View it as something you can laugh over, and don't have to think too hard about ( I don't watch CSI its like reality TV-tired and cliched, but you have to think too much anyway while watching).

A couple of thoughts on some reasons fro going on the show. At the very first 'the woman tell all" Woman such as Amy ( who had a lot of class about her) commented that she had tried every scene aka the bar and club scene to meet a guy and it wasn't happening for her. Hey Amy, how about joining a club? getting a hobby? doing charity work? changing your job to one where you meet more guys? gees, all I know is that going to a bar is not the ideal place to meet a future partner.

Amy and many of the other girls seemed to be obsessed with the idea of meeting "the perfect man'. Clue to ladies: he doesn't exist. There are, however, many great guys out there that would make great husbands, some who may be right for you! they may not earn six figures a year or be a JFK junior look alike, but they are great guys all the same. The shallowness of woman on this show is quite unbelievable. Im still a youngster, at was lead to believe that woman gradually grew out of their shallowness as they got older and more realistic about their future partner. This show is proving otherwise.

Overall this show does a lot to confirm many stereotypes of how woman view men in society. It really is a terrible show and I think all of these types of shows should just stop being made. The best dating shows by a country mile are Blind Date and The Fifth Wheel because they are fun. Nothing is manned more between the "couples" than a simple night out. the bachelor, sadly takes itself way too seriously.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: May contain minor spoilers.

Dressed to Kill, having just seen it for the first time the other day, is a movie with some terrific sequences, some decent performances, and a nice, though obvious Hitchcock ripoff, plot twist at the end. It's just too bad certain things, quite obvious, prevent it from being a classic.

Dressed to Kill deals with a mystery of a killer who has slain at least two women (could have been more but the movie never tells us), and the search for the killer by three people: a brainy kid whose mom was a victim, a lively hooker whose the only one who can identify the killer, and a psychiatrist whose patient was the slained brainy kid's mother. There are a host of well done performances including Nancy Allen as the hooker Liz, Angie Dickenson as the sexually frustrated victim Kate Miller, and Micheal Caine as Doctor Rober Elliot whose has more hidden than meets the eye; though by no standard is anyone really outstanding. On the other hand Denis Franz, later to be a great character along the same lines on the hit show NYPD Blue, is embarrassing as an over-exaggerated, ruthless, hateful detective, though he takes little screen time so it doesn't hurt the movie that much. Keith Gordon, the brain child, is decent, but is almost too smart to really be believable.

What sticks with me the most in the film are the tense sequences. The scene with the sexually frustrated mother at the museum is gripping and well done, as is the later sequence leading to her untimely death. I also love the sequence at the doctor's office, that reveals the identity of the killer, which really makes the whole film come together at once. And there's a split screen scene that I thought was almost classic. Still there's another situation when Liz is on a train, running from what may be the killer, that gets taken in directions it should never had with almost embarrassing racial stereotypes. As a thriller it's tense and quite often believable. As a crime drama it often falters, especially with the incomplete, ridiculous explanation of everything that happened in the end. There's also a needless, and way too long, dream sequence at the end, in which they had the audacity to shoot someone's foot for what seemed minutes at a time. This was an up and down experience; one scene would catch me by the heart and mind with enticement, and the next would make me squirm and ask why. At more than 100 minutes this could have been under 90 and been a better film.

Scary movie fans should like this. It still stands as a better film than most of today's slasher flicks. Maybe it was a better film in it's time, but having just seen it recently I can say I enjoy it, and it is worth watching for my three favorite scenes alone.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive