input: I'm sure that the folks on the Texas/Louisiana border must have had a a good laugh or two when Paramount's B picture unit inflicted this one on the war time public. Very simply the area along the Sabine River where the film opens is cotton country just like the rest of the Deep South or at least the Deep South was post Civl War. No big cattle empires there, they're much farther west in Texas, farther than Richard Dix and Preston Foster could ride to set up their empire.

The film begins with the two of them partners in a riverboat and when Leo Carrillo tries a theft of their services by not paying them for hauling his cattle, they keep the cattle. And that's the beginning of the big Ponderosa like ranch they start.

Along the way Foster marries Dix's sister played by Frances Gifford and feuds with his much smaller neighbors. They also have some further run ins with Leo Carrillo.

Anyway, us easterners who like westerns usually don't bother with geographical trifles and it's still a good western from the production mill of Harry Sherman who produced all those Hopalong Cassidy westerns for Paramount. The climax is a blazing, and I mean that literally, gun battle that should have maybe been used on an A production.

But I wouldn't have any but western fans look at it.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: "I'm a cartoon!" "You're an illustration!" what does that suppose to mean?! This plot could not be worse as a boy, who's afraid of everything, becomes very brave at the very end of the film because he went into a library. The only purpose of this waste of celluloid was to encourage American kids to read, when a cheaper, and more effective way of doing this could have been a series of adverts! Even the talents of Macaulay Culkin(as the kid), Christopher Lloyd (as the so predictable "that he's a the Page Master" librarian), could save this pointless film from the dull plot. Even the voices of Whoopi Goldberg, Patrick Stewart,(even) Leonard Nimoy, or the Hollywood God of voices, Frank Welker as the cartoon characters don't save it ever. I can only describe it as a 1990s equivalent to the even ghastly 1978 adaption of the Water Babies, because the bland animation makes the film worse, not improving the dull plot!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Let's face it, romantic comedies are considered lightweight when compared with dramatic movies (just look at the Academy Award nominations each year). But still, the good ones are truly an art form. Look at "When Harry Met Sally", "Sleepless In Seattle", and classics like "Roman Holiday" and "It Happened One Night". I like the good feeling of seeing two people destined to find happiness.

This movie attempts to construct something that resembles a romantic comedy. But no one believes the romance between the main characters, and there is nothing funny to make up for that major shortcoming. Modine is way past being a leading man - especially a romantic lead. I'm sure as Executive Producer, he had the means - but not the good sense - to cast himself. And Gershon...I see possibilities of some comedic talent, but she had no script and a poorly developed character. And whose idea was the English accent? Pointless.

Others have stated it, but I want to repeat: this story is poorly conceived, poorly executed; the actors are terribly miscast; and the characters, well, we just don't give a hoot about them.

An art form this ain't. Go rent "Moonstruck" again.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Cracking good yarn with all the actors giving great value. Michael Curtiz at his best. Lots of nice twists and turns and probably the best of the Philo Vance series. William Powell looks wonderfully relaxed and at his debonair best. A forerunner to the Thin Man series. Recommend to everyone. Did you figure it all out?

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive