Q: Simply, I found the TV show "Mash" trite, preachy, oh ever so "politically correct", repetitious, pretentious and biggest sin of all, and that is,? that it is (was) incredibly dull. You have Alan Alda as the main lead, "(star)", who is so in love with himself and his cleverness, that it actually made me uncomfortable to even try and sit through an episode. The original series had both McLean Stevson, and Wayne Rogers, whom I'll happily admit had a certain panache and style to their character presentation. However, Harry (Henry) Morgan, and Mike Farrell, both singularly and compositely together is like eating caviar and fresh oysters with Wonder Bread. Loretta Swit, which I also found dull, also to no fault of her own wasn't a wonder to look at, and Gary Burghoff, who was good in the movie got tired looking and acting as the show wore on. Seeing one show a year showed that to me. Jamie Farr was just low brow "comedy" and is not even worth really mentioning here at all. The reason I did not give it a (one) rating, which anyone reading this by now would be wondering, is that ratings of any sort is not only a subjective call, but a relative one. Television, except for relatively few exceptions, is such crud. That relatively speaking, Mash had some production quality, (by television standards) of that era and today, and therefore it is deserved of a two. Rob Ritter
A: negative
Q: they have sex with melons in Asia.

okay. first, i doubted that, but after seeing the wayward cloud, i changed my mind and was finally convinced that they have sex with watermelons, with people dead or alive. no safe sex of course. the (terrifyingly ugly) leading man shoots it all into the lady's mouth after he did the dead lady. never heard of HIV? guess not.

the rest of this movie is mainly boring, but also incredibly revolting. as a matter of fact, in parts it got so disgusting i couldn't take my virgin eyes off. sex with dead people! how gross is that? and what's the message behind it all? we need water, we need melons, we need to be dead to have sex? sorry, but this stinks!
A: negative
Q: *****THIS REVIEW MAY HAVE SPOILERS - but that determination would be negligible in such a classic and well-known story*****

The CINDERELLA story ranks as my favorite fairy tale. The world will never have enough of this wonderful tale.

The problem is that everyone wants to tell their own version of the tale. This cannot work if the story deviates or attempts to throw some interesting ideas together with some magical photography and scrumptious looking production designs with poor direction and editing.

This Cinderella story is more like an Ugly Duckling that never hatches or rather, is never transformed into a swan.

All the production value that money can buy, cannot purchase good cinematic timing and dramatic development - or good acting.

The entrance of Cinderella at the ball as so poorly done, there was no drama of anticipation nor excitement of discovery.

The writing made me very nervous, too. The Prince Charming was the most undesirable of memory. Why would any girl want to marry a boorish, self-absorbed prince who disliked women?

Turner's turn on the Stepmother role was an embarrassingly painful showing that demonstrated one-liners more than acting nuance.

Even the Cinderella part held little interest or sympathy.

Perhaps only one sentence will describe this attempt: So cheaply '90's,

What MUST be mentioned and mentioned in shameful excess is the glorious photography, matte work and production design. It was a pleasure to peruse the landscapes, sets and settings as the story unfolded.

For some Cinderella storytelling, go for two gems:

1) Rodgers and Hammerstein's Cinderella Musical with Lesley Ann Warren. Even with the obvious stagey TV - 60's look to the sets, this is the best version on celluloid - bar none. An all star cast makes every effort to provide the highest entertainment. Engaging, diverting and memorable writing and music. This is the classic.

2) Ever After- this Drew Barrymore gem maintains the historical perspective, alters the story line but not enough to derail the effective development of the salient points of this classic tale. The characters of the principals and of all of the supporting roles were written smartly and acted well.
A: negative
Q: There is absolutely nothing to redeem this movie. They took a sleazy story, miscast it, miswrote it, misfilmed it. It has bad dialogue badly performed in a meandering and trashy story.

As badly as it fails as art, it fails even worse as commerce. Who could have been the target market for this. What age group? What interest group?

Someone should make a movie about how and why they made this movie. That I would pay to see.

I've seen thousands of bad movies, and this ranks with "Sailor Who Fell from Grace" and "Manos" ... my choices as the three most unredeemably bad movies I've ever seen. Everybody associated with it should be forced to make conversation with VanDamme for all eternity.

I challenge you. Watch this movie and perform an academic exercise - how could you take this and make it worse? I can't think of one way.
A: negative