input: I thought the whole movie played out beautifully with fresh images and interesting cinematography the whole way through it. The actors were on top of their character's backs in nearly perfect timing and looked great. The music was lush and well-thought-out. It even had a decent twist of an ending. So what's with everyone voting it down? The story wasn't entirely fresh (felt like a remnant of "Running Man" with the whole television show idea), but the attitude towards Christianity and Judaism about how the public picks their Messiah certainly sounded true enough. It made sense to follow this one man who was put before a modern crowd and to put him on a pedestal because of his opportunity.

It's possible that Christians or other religious people pick this up because the movie has the word "God" in it, but that shows what the filmmakers were trying to do is to teach a possibility to people who maybe never saw the world like this, especially in the modern world where Christianity has been more and more accepted and forgotten about by some.

I gave it a 7/10 stars here on IMDb. I thought every ounce of the movie was entertaining and original, for the most-part. Check it out if you're not too offended to see an entertaining film from Madrid, Spain, about possibilities of the coming modern Messiah to a TV near you.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Stalker is right! Girl sees guy, girl wants guy, girl contrives mundane ways to keep bumping into him, girl won't leave him alone, girl pretends to be a patient, girl can't stop talking about him, girl pretends to love another guy (or two), he doesn't pay attention to her because she's annoying, girl STILL won't leave him alone. Played right, Drake's character could have been charming but she's completely, wholly, unrelenting in her pursuit of Cary Grant's character, her girlfriend-in-cahoots is dull, and sadly, Drake's attempt at playing, "charmingly screwball" comes off as, "disturbingly demented." Grant is himself, as usual, which is fine for Cary but it's as close to a phoned-in performance as I've ever seen from him. The direction is lackluster and the dialog is just plain dim.

Screwball comedy is very difficult to do successfully and when it fails, like in this stubbed-out butt of an attempt, it just stinks. Worse still, Drake spends the entire film in need of a lot of Valium and a restraining order. She ruins any humor to be found in this drier than mummy dust relic.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I saw this film on the History Channel today (in 2006). First of all, I realize that this is not a documentary -- that it is a drama. But, one might hope that at least the critical "facts" that the story turns on might be based on actual events. Reagan was shot and the other characters were real people. The movie got that right. From there on, reliance on facts rapidly decays. I had never heard of this movie before seeing it. Having been a TV reporter at the time of these events, I was stunned that I had never heard anything about the bizarre behavior of Secretary Haig as portrayed by Richard Dreyfuss. The whole nation had heard the "I am in control...", etc., but Dreufuss' Haig is bullying a cowered cabinet and totally out of control personally. Having watched the film, I began researching the subject on the Internet and quickly found actual audio tapes and transcripts of most of the Situation Room conversations that this film pretends to reenact. Incredibly, many the the principal "facts" of the film meant to show a White House, Secret Service etc. in total chaos -- and the nation's leadership behaving irrationally and driving the world near the brink of nuclear war -- are demonstrably incorrect. They didn't happen! There is internal conflict, to be sure. Haig makes missteps, his press room performance is historically regrettable and he is "difficult". But there is nothing approaching the scenes depicted in the film. There are too many gross errors to list, but any fair comparison of the recorded and written record and the fantasy of this film begs the question as to what the producers were really trying to accomplish. Enlighten? Inform? Entertain? I believe they failed on all three fronts. It is difficult to ascribe motives to others, but one must seriously question what was behind such shameless invention. And, as for my beloved History Channel's "Reel to Real" follow-on documentary, there was almost no mention of the issues that were the central focus of the film -- namely the events within the Administration on the day of the shooting. So, the viewer was left to research those without much -- if any -- help from the network.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This movie is definately one of my favorite movies in it's kind. The interaction between respectable and morally strong characters is an ode to chivalry and the honor code amongst thieves and policemen. It treats themes like duty, guilt, word, manipulation and trust like few films have done and, unfortunately, none that I can recall since the death of the 'policial' in the late seventies. The sequence is delicious, down to the essential, living nothing out and thus leading the spectator into a masterful plot right and wrong without accessory eye catching and spectacular scenes that are often needed in lesser specimens of the genre in order to keep the audience awake. No such scenes are present or needed. The argument is sand honest to the spectator; An important asset in a genre that too often achieve suspense through the deception of the audience. No, this is not miss Marble... A note of congratulations for the music is in order A film to watch and savor every minute, not just to see.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive