input: Welcome back Kiefer Sutherland. it's been too long since you've appeared in a movie,, and what a movie this was, was it 24 no,, but very intriguing, especially with a pro like Michael Douglas in the lead as the embattled Secret Service Agent. Kiefer's character is the one chasing Michael Douglas the whole movie,, Kiefer's partner,, is Eva Longoria,, the Desperate houswife. wow she can actually act besides flirt all day and look good,, i wish though that Kim Bassinger had a bigger role,, but other than that, i really think the whole movie was a blast from start to finish. This movie is what i consider to b e a political thriller, everybody played their part to the hilt. nothing was revealed to sooon in the movie,, so as to keep you guessing at all times. and i really think that Kiefer did one heck of a job here in this movie,, but in my opinion Michael Douglas had the besxt performance of the day,, thumbs up.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I just caught an episode about Brad, the crack cocaine addict who turned to a drug addicted life on the streets after his bicycle racing career went to shambles as fast as it started. I have to say that the story about his biking career was more heart-breaking than his drug addiction. Here's this young guy who is winning bike races left and right and is invited to train with an Olympic training team for two weeks, and immediately upon arriving he insults Lance Armstrong, one of the greatest athletes who ever lived, and is generally callous and unfriendly to everyone in general. Understandably, he is soon asked to leave. Most of the show is about his struggle with addiction and how he got his life back, but what I wanted to know was what was wrong with him in the first place to make his act like such an ass?

At any rate, I was confused about how the show was put together, since it shows Brad at the height of his addiction. We see footage of him pan-handling and sleeping in gutters and ditches and even smoking crack cocaine. I didn't even know that was legal to show, but why would a camera crew just follow him around and film that? Do they do that in hopes that this guy will turn his life around and give them some material for a good TV episode?

At any rate, it is an enlightening show, because it shows the effects of various addictions and the total control that they can take over people's lives. Sometimes it's hard to watch because you really see how badly the families and friends suffer in the face of the addict's indifference, although I have to admit that at the end it all seems a little too clean-cut. There are times during the episodes when terrible things happen and everything seems lost, but still, and maybe I should warn about spoilers here, everything has a little too much of a happily-ever-after feel at the end, and I have a feeling that that is a very uncommon occurrence in real life. But still, it's a show about people trying to help other people, and you can never complain too much about something like that

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Poorly-made "blaxploitation" crime-drama aimed squarely at the black urban market of the early 1970s. Pam Grier stars in the title role, that of a nurse who becomes a one-woman vigilante after drug-dealing thugs make Coffy's little sister a junkie. Violent nonsense plods along doggedly, with canned energy and excitement; only Grier's flaring temper gives the narrative a jolt (she's not much of an actress here, but she connects with the audience in a primal way). Not much different from what Charles Bronson was doing at this time, the film was marketed and advertised as crass exploitation yet still managed to find a sizable inner-city audience. Today however, it's merely a footnote in '70s film history, and lacks the wide-range appeal of other movies in this genre. *1/2 from ****

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The film is a bit tedious. It's mostly a silent film, with the bulk o the story provided through a series of voice-overs. While making a silent film like this is not such a bad idea, this is one of those films where the lack of dialog and the repetitive early scenes make it simply tedious. You don't understand the reason for the tedium until well into the picture, and by then it's too late. The first 40 minutes of film is something of a slow piece of Mexican soft porn, and unimaginative soft porn at that. Later in the film the style of the first 40 minutes starts to makes sense, but it's too late, because by then the audience is lost. There is some nice location shooting at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. I've often wondered why more films aren't shot there. The campus is built on the edge of lava fields that lend the campus a very otherworldly feel. My biggest problem with the film is that the director/writer has made the film the way he wanted to see it without regard for how a viewer who doesn't know the story will view it. You can't ignore the audience when you tell a story.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative