Q: Before seeing this movie, I was expecting a fictional drama based loosely on ideas from the book; instead, it's the book, interrupted with dramatic scenes illustrating the different "illnesses." That didn't bother me much, but it hindered my enjoyment of the film. One story or even two or three long stories with excerpts from the book interspersed through the movie would have been preferable, in my opinion. If you're going to base a movie on a psychology text, you've got to find a more interesting (and preferably accurate) text than this one. The film drags during parts where it's little more than a video encyclopedia of 19th century sexual psychology and would be utterly intolerable if it weren't sexual in nature (because "sex = interesting" for most of us, even me). Luckily, there are several stories with actual character development that pull us in.

But, disappointingly, Krafft-Ebing's theories of sexuality went unchallenged, for the most part. I was hoping it would use stories to show how the imperfections of his archaic view of psychology which is still held by many to this day.

So, in the end, what do you have? A detailed catalog of a few fetishes and orientations, with some mildly interesting stories showing the trials and tribulations of a few "sexual deviants" before they are cured. For most of the film, the film moves with the crawling speed (and mood) of a wake. And, as an obviously low budget film, the cinematography and acting are not exactly top tier. Although I *was* pleased with the music, costume and interior design.

I felt this film's subject was right up my alley, and I still feel it's a below average film. It deserves a 3/10; a 4/10 if I were feeling extremely generous. I can't imagine anyone enjoying this if they didn't already have an interest in sexual fetishism. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: I saw this movie in sixth grade around Christmas Time, and I was really excited about seeing it, and when I heard that George C. Scott was in it, I was really excited, because I really love George C. Scott! When me and my class were watching this movie, I was really into it, and when it was over, I was really impressed, I thought that it was totally fabulous! This is the best version of Charles Dickens' classic novel that I have seen so far! George C. Scott's performance as Scrooge is something else, I thought that he was the perfect choice, he was Scrooge, he is the definitive Scrooge! I've seen two different versions of A Christmas Carol, the other is the one with Patrick Stewart, but this is the better one!

What it really great about this is the acting, I thought that the actors were fabulous, everyone was, the spirits, Tiny Tim, Bob Cratchit, everyone, they could not have found anyone better than the ones they had doing the parts! But the best part of the movie was George C. Scott! When I saw him, I thought that he was the absolute best! He is the definitive Ebenezer Scrooge, I do not think that they could have found someone better! I don't think that they could have found anyone better to replace anyone in the movie!

This movie is probably the definitive movie adaption of the classic by Charles Dickens, and I really think that you will agree, you will think that this movie is fabulous! I am probably going to have to buy this movie on DVD, because I thought that it was totally fabulous! I totally recommend that you see this masterpiece! This is the best version of A Christmas Carol, period.

10/10 OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive
Q: I really, really wanted to like Julian Po. I think that Slater is underrated as an actor, and that many of the supporting players here are better than they are given a chance to demonstrate in this film. I realize this is based on a short story which I have not read. So, I do not know if what I see as the film's faults originated with the story, or were imposed on it by the director/screenwriter. The premise is wonderful, and I loved the voiceover, confessional tone the opening narration strikes. But then...? Nothing! Several of the cliched local characters ask Julian pointblank to explain his intention to commit suicide. One could argue that he doesn't answer, because it's none of their business. But Julian is the one who, under only token pressure, blurted out his intentions in public. Then neither Julian nor the director/writer, despite the fact that the Julian character is keeping a tape recorded journal for God's sake, seem inclined to provide anything beyond the scant initial information on Julian's life. He says he was a bookkeeper. He says his family moved around when he was a child, due to his father's job. So what? There are several interactions with the locals which seem designed to illuminate Julian's purpose. But none of them go anywhere, because Julian seems to regard all these dopey locals as if they were aliens from another planet, as if he were the ultimate (and only) sane one among them. This might work as an allegory, if Julian Po had any defining characteristics or anything approaching wisdom to impart. The closest he comes to revealing anything about himself is in the scene in which he purposely humiliates the naive, religious wife of the mechanic. And what this scene reveals is not anything that would inspire empathy for Julian. I can only see the Julian character --as rendered--as selfish, petty, and totally condescending. Sort of matches the attitude of the director of this half-baked, contrived film. And poor Michael Parks, an actor who once had so much promise, is given nothing to work with here. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: negative
Q: There are too many new styles of the sitcom but the one that works best is the old fashioned way with an audience and indoor set. That 70's Show is a great example. When the show came on the air, nobody really heard of Kurtwood Smith and Debra Jo Rupp much less the adolescents played wonderfully by Topher Grace and Ashton Kushton (both of them are leaving the show this year to pursue other interests) I wish Topher would stay around because the show began about his character, Eric, and his close circle of friends. Ashton is already the John Travolta of our time. Remember when John was in love with Diana Hyland from Eight Is Enough, think of Ashton with Demi Moore. The cast of actors were never known to us which is a good thing because a celebrity cast member can spoil it. I miss Mo Gaffney who played Don's girlfriend Joanne. I miss Lisa Robin Kelly as the original Laurie, the replacement could not match her and I am sorry about that. I liked the casting of Tommy Chong as the wasted but beloved father figure to Steven Hyde. I loved watching Tanya Roberts besides Charlie's Angels. I loved Brooke Shields playing Jackie's mom. She really showed her acting talent before heading to Broadway. This show has been a delight with many surprises. I hope this show lasts longer even though 2 of their cast members are leaving but I hope they don't stay too far away too long. I wish the show's creators, Bonnie and Terry Turner, who also created my other favorite show, Third Rock from The Sun, is more successful on Fox than they were on NBC which sabotaged their show. The Turners are not dummies and I hope they create more shows like this in the future. OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive
A: positive