input: I remember watching this on prime time when I was about 7 years old. I was a huge comic book reader at the time, and anything relating to superheroes was anticipated heavily. The end result, however, was underwhelming.

I was aware of the "Emma Peel" Diana Prince stories, as they had only recently come to an end and Diana was returned to her Amazonian form. However, there was so little action that I was bored throughout most of the movie. The final costume was an interesting idea, but looked more like a cheerleader than a superhero.

I saw the movie again in my late teen years. It hadn't improved much. Cathy Lee Crosby was more familiar, thanks to That's Incredible, but her acting was no better. The script had a few good ideas, like the rogue Amazon, and a decent villain in Ricardo Montalban, but it just didn't come together and was still boring.

I think they should have built the back story better, and built the show into a more epic climax. It was too much like a bland spy film, crossed with a superhero story written by someone who had never seen a comic book. The Amazon elements were intriguing, but needed to be expanded.

The film did succeed in forcing producers to go back to the drawing board and come up with something more faithful, if a bit too camp and low budget. The budget was also pretty low here, and superheroes don't come cheap.

It would be nice to have the movie available on DVD, if only as a comparison and historical document. Even Superman 4 is available, and it has nothing over this film (except Chris Reeve and Gene Hackman). It's worth seeing for curiosity sake and for a bit of inspiration and caution for future versions.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I watched FIDO on some movie channel and I have to say that I've become an instant fan. The film feels like a comic book that perfectly captures the look and feel of the surreal 1950s, you know the wholesome decade when they danced to Elvis while dropping nuclear bombs in the desert just for the heck of it. People were so naive back then that it's frightening and the idea that those clean cut folks would find it normal to have zombies as pets actually works here.

Kudos to this Canadian production, the colorful crisp cinematography and the excellent cast, including Carrie Anne Moss, Billy Connolly, Henry Czerny and the kid.

It's a shame this film wasn't a bigger hit. It deserved more recognition. It's much better than the stuff from Tim Burton or the SHAUN OF THE DEAD team. Oh well. It's an instant classic nonetheless.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Don't get me wrong, the movie is beautiful, the shots are stunning, and the material is dramatic. However, it was a big disappointment and I actually left very angry at what Disney had done.

BBC's Planet Earth was all of the above and more. It was subtle. It had an overall feeling of balance and showed the full circle of life and death. There was tragedy and triumph, loss and gain. It was balanced.

Disney's edit of Earth is none of this. They tried to make it a movie us Americans would talk about. They made it DRAMATIC. They put an over the top musical score there to frighten us. They made predators evil. They made WALRUSES evil. They showed every encounter as negative. It tried to be suspenseful and succeeded, but at the expense of the lesson of balance. The movie was an hour and a half of negative portrayal and only about 10 minutes of positive.

I am all for preventing global warning, but this was over the top political and environmental junk.

That's another thing, I went to see it on the big screen, but was disappointed in the picture quality. It looked better on my TV at home.

If you want to see something like this and get the whole picture, go out and buy, rent, or borrow the BBC's Planet Earth series. It is better lessons, better sound, and (if you have Blu-Ray)better picture quality.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The cliche of the shell-shocked soldier home from the war is here given dull treatment. Pity a splendid cast, acting to the limits of their high talents, can't redeem 'The Return of the Soldier' from its stiff-collared inability to move the viewer to emotional involvement. Best moments, as another reviewer noted, come when Glenda Jackson is on screen; but even Jackson's crackling good cinematic power can't pull this film's chestnuts from its cold, never warmed hearth. Ann-Margret, she of sex-kitten repute and too often accused of lacking acting ability, finds her actual and rather profound abilities wasted here - despite her speaking with a nigh-flawless Middlesex accent. The hackneyed score, redolent of many lackluster TV miniseries' slathered-on saccharine emotionalism, is at irritating odds with the emotional remoteness of the script, blocking, and overbaked formalism of the direction; except for its score and corseted script and direction, 'The Return of the Soldier' has all the right bits but it fails to make them work together.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
negative