IN: Review: almost every review of this movie I'd seen was pretty bad. It's not pretty bad, it's actually pretty good, though not great. The Judy Garland character could have gotten annoying, but she didn't allow it to. Somewhere along the line, i've become a fan of brooding, overbearing, overacting Van Heflin, at least in the early 40's. Judy's singing is great, but the film missed a great chance by not showing more of their relationship. I gave it a 7.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I like movies about morally corrupt characters, but this was too much. The acting wasn't great, but that wasn't the real problem. The issue was the sinking feeling I got in the pit of my stomach about 20 minutes into the film. These characters were hollow. They had almost no depth, and what little they did have was devoted to the cruelty they displayed to each other in the guise of friendship. Exploring the darker sides of a set of characters can be fascinating, but you have to give those characters actual personalities or they are just cardboard cutouts. These characters were cardboard and the picture they gave was just ugly.
What is this review like?
OUT: negative

IN: Review: Not sure why it doesn't play in Peoria, apparently, but this is a very funny, clever British comedy. It's set at the end of the "swinging sixties". Peter Sellars is fantastic as the rich, forty-something serial womaniser. The perfectly delectable Goldie Hawn, playing a 19 year American girl in London, is, initially, Sellars' "catch of the day". But the urbane TV food critic can't stop himself from falling for the dizzy American blond.

Humour, pathos, great script, strong performances from the leads and supporting caste.

It's a great film, and the best gag is the very last line.

Try it, you'll like it.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: This is one of the silliest movies I have ever had the misfortune to watch! I should have expected it, after seeing the first two, but I keep getting suckered into these types of movies with the idea of "Maybe they did it right this time". Nope - not even close.

Where do I begin? How about with the special effects... To give you an idea of what passes for SFX in this movie, at one point a soldier is shooting at a "Raptor" as it runs down a hallway. Even with less than a second of screen time, the viewer can easily see that it is just a man with a tail apparently taped to him running around. Bad bad bad bad.

How about the acting? If that's what you can call it. There is one character who, I suppose, is supposed to be from the south. However, after living in the south for six years now, I have never heard this way of talking. Perhaps he has some sort of weird disability - the inability to talk normally. I find it fascinating that the character does nothing that requires him to have that accent - therefore there was no reason for the actor to try to do one.

How about the plot? It's pretty basic - Raptors escape, people with guns must hunt them down. I'm starting to wonder why the dinosaurs in these movies always seem to run into the nearest system of tunnels... wouldn't they stay outside to hunt prey? Oh well, at least they have the good sense to appear very very little in the movie which supposedly revolves around them.

Other things - Let's say you are in a building and you know that there are man eating raptors running around in it. Would you decide to take time out to have an argument about who is better - Army or Marine? And then decide to have an arm wrestling contest to settle it? How about the idiotic idea that they have to track down the raptors - Split up into groups of two. Didn't they ever watch any horror movies (Or at least an episode of Scooby Doo)? In short, this is one of the dumber movies out there. Miss it unless you want to groan your way through a movie.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative