input: At first glance this documentary/fiction/cartoon is quite entertaining and thought provoking. Of course, when something provokes thought, it can then be scrutinized. The reality is this movie combines metaphysics with innuendo and baseless conclusions. The link that "What the Bleep..." would have you see between science and spirituality is, in fact, not rooted in science at all. The Transcendental Meditation study mentioned in the film claims that meditation by a group can reduce crime in a given area, Washington D.C. in this case. In reality the HRA (Homicides, Rapes, and Assaults) crime rate was about 30% higher in 1993 than the average crime rate between 19881992. There was absolutely no decrease in the homicide rate during the study. In fact, each and every claim that links metaphysics to science can and has been debunked.

My conclusion from this information is that this movie is either a poor attempt to indoctrinate people or a joke. Either way, I suggest that you do not waste your time.

If you are looking for a long winded movie about science that could provoke thoughts, you might consider Mindwalk (1990).

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Curiously, it is Rene Russo's eyes and mouth--not Buddy the Gorilla's-- that emerge as the focal point of "Buddy", a Jim Henson Pictures production through Francis Ford Coppola's Zoetrope. Somehow, countless close-ups of Russo's face slipped passed in the post-production stages, and she literally fills the screen so many times the poor apes are upstaged. Unintentionally funny true story adapted from Gertrude "Trudy" Davies Lint's memoirs about a wealthy doctor's wife who turns their mansion into a menagerie for pets and wild-life. The movie goes beyond good intentions...it positively drips with earnest sincerity. The movie never sparkles with the kind of "family film" magic that it needed, and before too long both the people and the animals seem distinctly programmed (nothing here feels real). About ten minutes in, two chimpanzees are goofing around in Russo's kitchen and start throwing a butcher's knife back and forth (it misses Alan Cumming's head by inches); yet, no eyebrows are raised because it's all in a day's fun. Still, when full-grown gorilla Buddy gets crazy during a thunderstorm, the cops are called--and everyone stares at Buddy through the window while he busts up the living room furniture. The furniture should be the least of anyone's worries in this flabbergasting, do-gooder failure. But, at least we know Russo was in good hands: whenever director Caroline Thompson needs a good pick-up shot, she gives unstartled Rene another extreme close-up. I wonder what the lipstick budget was on this picture? ** from ****

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I never trust the opinions of anyone regarding a film. That goes for critics as well. Sure, if it gets positive reviews that's OK and a plus, but most films that get critical rave I hate. I enjoyed this film for what it was, an entertaining film. It takes you out of your life for a couple hours and into a fictional character...that being Catherine Trammell. Sharon Stone is awesome in this role, just like she was in the first one. Anyone who says she is horrible in this film must have felt the same in the first one b/c she is back acting the same way she did in Basic Instinct 1. Catherine is hers and she plays her to perfection. Her one liners are great, much like in the first one. Who can forget in the first film when she tells the cops, "If you're gonna arrest me do it...otherwise get the f**k out of here!" Great scene, and believe me, she does it again in this one. I was captivated by her. Her outfits, the way she smoked her cigarettes, believe me, its worth the price just to see Stone's performance. I cannot wait for this film to be released on DVD, uncut, because I can only imagine how much better it is going to be. And yes, there are lots of twists, as in the first one, including the ending!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Batman and Superman. Iconic. The better part of a century old. Who doesn't know of these two? There must be countless of fans who would die to make a film about them. Sandy Collora went ahead and put together a trailer for such a film(which does not exist, and is not being created, much less by this team). Perhaps what this has most going for it is how polished it is. Throughout, the cinematography is solid. The editing is spot-on. The production values, even with the costumes looking more like their comic counterparts than the ones of the feature films featuring these character, are quite high. It looks quite "Hollywood", this trailer. The physical types fit for, as far as I can tell, every single character. The lines are reasonably written. The shots are well-thought up, nicely achieved and fairly effective. However, this does have problems, and in spite of looking good, it doesn't quite match the energy and skill of Grayson(which only had the problem of teeter-tottering too much back and forth between a short and a trailer, as well as unbridled passion leading to the inclusion of too many characters and ideas). The acting is perhaps the most evident. It's... not good. Even some of those who only have one line and/or hardly appear on-screen at all manage to fail at delivering a good performance. The actors cast in the parts seem to have been chosen more for how much they look like the characters they're playing than their talent. Then there is the writing. Really, the plot, well, what minuscule amount there is(this and this character team up, something about some evil plot...) is fine. There is a problem in the characterization. While most characters seem to fit, Two-Face is, well, about as much as a cackling lunatic(which is quite simply, as far as I've understood, not what the character is) as he was in Batman Forever(and having your work on portraying any element of the Batman universe compared to Joel Schumacher's efforts can be considered the greatest insult to a fan). Also, putting that character in this is going to cause comparisons between this trailer and that film(honestly, Collora is practically *begging* for it with such a similar initial reveal) to be made, and, let's face it, this loses in every respect. Michael Antonik most definitely does not possess the screen presence that Tommy Lee Jones does, and the make-up(which, in aforementioned reveal, is essential) isn't as strong as that of the film(whether or not it was good in the film is another matter). The sad thing is that while Fiorella(John, who created Grayson) seems to be far more into the comics, and get them, the depth of them, better(not to mention possessing more of an ability to come up with compelling plot... Grayson had enough material for half a dozen feature films, or more), Collora seems to be the one with access to funds and the one who's more likely to have contacts(on account of having non-indie credits on his filmography) to actually have a shot at making an actual feature out of his trailer. I intend to watch other of Collora's work. But Fiorella is the one of the two whose work I will most definitely be most interested in. I recommend this to fans of the characters. 7/10

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive