Q: Non existent plot, tons of poorly directed / super-cheesy scenes (Snipers / world famous sharpshooters who can't even hit their targets a few feet away? plus what's up with the ending?---> a bunch of law enforcers vandalizing a carnival's shooting gallery? WTH?), technical mistakes (how many bullets can you fit into a magazine of a glock? 100+? These people fire their guns without the need of reloading). The movie is so bad that even senior Hollywood actor like Michael Biehn (Aliens, terminator) can't save this junk.

DO not watch this movie (I realized that I wasted some good 100 minutes of my precious life on this one). Hopefully the director would either stop making movies, or learn more for his next movie.
A: negative
Q: Gung Ho was a good idea, however it is to much to ask Americans viewers to understand the dynamics of American jobs and foreign competition.In this movie the main character Hunt Stevenson(Michael Keaton) goes to Japan and convinces a Japanese auto company to come to America and help his dying Pennslyvania town. Two things come at you.First why would a Japanese company come to America to make cars when they do so ,and so well at that? Secondly can anyone understand that American companies of all types go to third world nations to have their products made to escape American labor costs? It makes the film's premise then that the Number one maker of cars in the world would go to one of its' top competitors(aside from Germany)and put a plant there as unrealistic. Keaton was still in his comedy mode by this time. But he gives a credible performance all the same as he could prove that he could go from comedy to drama in a matter of seconds and still not embarrass himself but Director Ron Howard can't keep this from becoming a TV movie which it ends up being anyway because they have to give the unlikely story a happy ending the politics and problems of Japanese and American relations not withstanding. Gung Ho has a Happy Days and Laverne and Shirley feel to it as the producers of both TV shows made the film and then made the TV version of this movie as well which gives the film its' lightweight feel.The Japanese manager gets to love his American workers and feels he and other Japanese people can learnfrom Americans.His No.2 man Saito who supposedly doesn't like Americans all that much doesn't think so.I would have prefered all the Japanese characters been like Saito than the soft goofball characters they made the Japanese out to be.It would have made the film more interesting.
A: negative
Q: In my opinion this has to be one of Barbara Stanwyck's best performances. She was one of only a handful of actors, then and now, who could say more with a single look than an entire page of dialogue. And I was lucky enough to see the original and uncensored movie, with the extra 4 minutes of additional footage. Too bad the movie is so short. Lily is a young woman barely holding it together working for her father in his illegal speakeasy. Her only link to anything is her good friend, Chico, played wonderfully by Theresa Harris. Though Chico is African American (and having a white woman be best friends with a black woman back in the 30s was as controversial as the subject matter of this movie), and Lily is not, they have a special bond. And it is not sexual. Just 2 women stuck, or shoved, into a situation beyond their control. After Lily's father dies, and she does not know what she will do, she is told that she has the power to get out and to get what she wants. Yes, it's immoral, but that's the entire point of this movie. Then "they" had to go and ruin the last few minutes. So, up until the last few minutes of the movie, it's a superb film and worth watching. The "lesson" of the movie is still as valid today as it was back then, and I'm sure will be a 100 years from now. Women, it's awful what Lily does in order to get what she wants, but it works. Men, take note.
A: positive
Q: First, let me state that I am a big fan of Ashley Judd; that's why I was curious to check out this, her debut role. No argument that her talent is apparent and her performance excellent. I guess I can also see how the professional critics liked the aesthetic content of the story. However, I like to think that movies are meant to entertain us and that is where this movie fails.

By the halfway point, I found myself thinking, "How much longer do we have to watch a bored shop girl, idly standing around a deserted souvenir shop, rearranging the merchandise?" It seemed to go on forever!

Then, I thought, maybe this is one of those movies where the director tries to lull the audience into a relaxed state before hitting them with some dynamic event. No such luck. The movie continues it's bland, boring, uneventful story all the way to the end.

I'm not saying this because I'm an action-junkie. I like all kinds of movies, especially romantic-comedies. But I expect to be entertained.

Add the fact that the cinematography and sound quality are comparable to your neighbor's bad home movies. Depressing!

I just don't get how anyone could like this movie. Zero-entertainment value. The longest 114 minutes of my life.
A: negative