input: My grandmother took me and my sister out to see this movie when it came out in theaters back in 1998, and so we happily bought the tickets, the popcorn and soda, and walked right in to the theater and sat down to watch the movie. When it was over, the audience didn't applauded strongly, I remember that I heard a few people say that they didn't like it at all, I didn't like it, I thought that it was rather stupid, and not worth seeing. Eddie Murphy was hysterical in this, but apart from him, the whole movie was bad, I rarely laughed at the parts in this, I also remembered that the other people in the theater almost hardly even laughed. And what I really thought was bad was making the animals talk, because talking animals only exist in cartoons, in live action movies, they are totally a mutt! I said that apart from Eddie Murphy's hysterical twist he brings in, this movie is not worth watching, it is rather stupid.

I have seen Eddie Murphy in several of movies and I thought that he was funny in those, I have just said that he was the only funny part of this movie, I also have not seen Eddie Murphy in the really "great" movie, The Adventures of Pluto Nash. This movie is not a movie that I would really recommend that you see, because apart from Eddie Murphy, you probably are not going to like this, especially because of a lot the the talking animals in it!

I'll give this movie a rating of 3 stars out of a possible 10 stars.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This movie probably never made a blip on the radar screen, but it's got quite a bit of quality. It's pretty lifelike, yet you think "It's only a movie." Duvall and Close portray common people, and you'd never even realize they are now big-name actors. It seems that the jerk in this story is a little too old to be chasing Eugene's girlfriend, but I guess it's possible. It seems unlikely that the kid would travel from Montana to Nevada by himself, but I guess it's possible. You might think that the family troubles in this movie would never happen in your own family, but I guess it's possible. I remember Glenn Close saying something like "You think the work you do is the hardest part of your life, but it isn't."

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The film was okay, quite entertaining. The cast was pretty good, and I'll second what the comment before me mentioned - Glenn Quinn was outstanding and he alone is reason enough to watch this movie. He played the selfish "evil" friend and manager of the band brilliantly!

There are a lot of songs performed by "Beyond Gravity" in this film, but this doesn't really come as a surprise considering the film is a VH1 production. However, if the soft rock/ pop music isn't to someone's liking one might as well flash forward those scenes.

The plot of a band trying to make it to the top in L.A. but having to overcome many obstacles on the way isn't too original, but quite entertaining, with some surprising plot turns here and there.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I first heard about this film about 20 years ago when I was a kid in grade school(!), it just so happened that I was thumbing through the encyclopedias in the classroom one day, and under the entry for movies (or cinema, I don't remember), were several stills for different movies from mainstream to experimental, and one of them shown on the page was a still for OffOn. It really intrigued me, since it stood out the most on the page (it was a still from the film of the scene with the eye with other elements superimposed over it).

About 18 or so years later, the public library here where I live had available for checkout the whole 4-DVD set of "Treasures of American Film Archives" released by the National Film Preservation Foundation. So when I was reading the notes on the DVD cases for the set, I was quite pleasantly surprised to see that OffOn was on one of the discs. After all these years, I could finally see the film! After viewing it, it slightly wasn't was I was expecting it to be (it tended to be a more organic-looking film, not that that's a bad thing, but I was expecting it to have a more electronic aesthetic), but it was still an impressive film, IMHO, considering the techniques Scott Bartlett used to make the film, including hand-tinting the film itself, and using video equipment for some of the film's scenes (filmed off of a video monitor), giving it a more distressed, lo-res look.

Don't get me wrong, the techniques used in this film were quite ground-breaking for 1972. That's why it's still one of my favorite short/experimental films, and a creative inspiration for me as well...

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive