input: What an awful movie. I love monster flicks but I couldn't watch even half of the terrible acting, cardboard characters and abysmal special effects. There is nothing redeeming about this movie. The characters come from either an endless supply of suicidally stupid cannon fodder or else they are vacuous, uninspiring sock puppets. The plot is formulaic, cut and paste, standard science-run-amok drivel. Even the CGI is horrible. You know it's bad when you can't even depend on the movie to provide some good eye candy. No surprises here,just same old same old. This is truly one of the worst films ever made. Director Roger Corman should be hung from a lightpost so that children can use him as a pinata.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I've been watching "Dick Tracy" for years, and as a result it's become a vital part of my life - it was with me throughout childhood and I used to see it quite often. Seeing it now, as an adult, it's still a very good movie - dark, satiric and incredibly misunderstood. About the only thing that can be said is the Oscar nomination Pacino received - other than that it is rarely discussed and didn't make much of a fuss when it came out.

Pacino is over-the-top but to good effect as he's clearly having loads of fun. Beatty is great as Dick Tracy and behind the camera manages to capture the atmosphere of a film noir comic book better than any other film, possibly, I have ever seen. Just taking a look at one scene from the film is breathtaking. The lighting, velvet overtones and smog/smoke combine to create a great effect.

There are some really funny cameos including one by Dustin Hoffman as "Mumbles," and I don't think there are any flaws at all in terms of acting - even the mandatory kid-character is far better than expected.

Overall, a really fine movie that has become misunderstood over the years since its release and is incredibly underrated with only 5.7/10 average on IMDb. The critics' reviews are very positive (check out RottenTomatoes.com) and after seeing the film once again it's not hard to see why - this is a perfect example of capturing the essence of a comic book, from style to eccentricity.

Highly recommended. 4.5/5 stars.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This film is a twisted nonsense of a movie, set in Japan about a dysfunctional family who end up with a strange violent guest who just sits back and watches the 4 members of the family at their worst. Nothing is sacred in this movie, with sex drugs and violence stretched to such a limit i'm surprised it got past the censors.

Overall, i think it will appeal only to those whom we shouldn't be encouraging, rather than any supposed underlying message coming out for the rest of us to consider. A film that panders to the worst element in society and is in anyway utter gash... A disappointment from a man who made the sublime Dead or Alive and Audition movies.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I just rented and watched this movie just to see what's all the fuss about. So here's what my reactions to it are. It's easily seen that this is a low budget film with poor actors. The main plot of this movie is about a woman getting revenge on her rapists. This concept if done right could easily turn out to be a really provocative film. However, the movie doesn't shock or disturb me at all. It just bored me. This movie could be easily shortened to under 45 minutes. All lot of scenes are mainly there to fill in time, like those scenery scenes and some scenes I described below.

************Contains spoiler************ I find the rape scenes quite tame. I don't know if I have watched the cut or uncut version, if there is actually such a version. I also found many plot holes within the already badly written plot. Here's a list on top of my mind.

Why don't the rapists rape Jennifer during the night when she walked out her house to find out what those noise are. That would be an excellent time.

Why don't they just gang rape her, instead of delaying some of the rapists the pleasure and lengthening Jennifer's ordeal by such a long time. It would probably be more shocking and disturbing that way.

I found it really stupid that the rapists left her in the forest and head back to her house. Maybe to show that these rapists are really imbeciles.

These rapists should at least know that if you want to do a dirty job right, they shouldn't send a coward imbecile to do the job.

Why didn't Jennifer call the police when the rapists finally left? Which should be the first thing that pops up in most people's mind, especially for someone who is a writer.

Why didn't these rapists smell danger miles away when they saw Jennifer is alive?

I find it really amazing that a slender lady like Camille can pull a man up a tree and hang him. ************************Ends spoiler************

But hey, this movie is not without its merits, Camille Keaton is gorgeous and I get to hear one of the funniest line I have recently heard when Matthew protest of going back into the house and kills Jennifer, 'Why me? Why Me, I didn't even c^m!!!'

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative