input: This film is hilarious, original, & beautifully directed. I have become a BIG BAD SWIM groupie, tracking it to film festivals whenever & wherever I can. I've seen it about half a dozen times now, & each time, enthusiastic audience response has confirmed my feeling that this is one of the best films to come out in years. At nearly every festival it has screened, it has either sold out, or won the Audience Favorite award. It's clear that people love this film, & even clearer why they do. The cinematography is superb, the characterization & acting brilliant, the ending fantastic, & the direction filled with compassion, wisdom & the art of perfect timing. It's hard to believe this is Ishai Setton's first film. I hope it will be released soon so everyone can see it.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Skullduggery is a strange, strange film based on the novel "Ye Shall Know Them" by Vercors. To unleash criticism at the film feels really unkind, since it is a movie that deals with earnest themes like humanity, and pleas for upright moral standards and tolerance. But in spite of its honourable intentions and its well-meaning tone, Skullduggery simply isn't a very good film. For me, the main problem is the terribly disjointed narrative which can't make its mind up how best to convey its message. The first half of the movie is like watching a standard jungle expedition flick of the Tarzan ilk; later it teeters into sci-fi fable; by the end it slips into courtroom melodramatics. The differences in tone between each section of the movie are too great, too jarring, to overlook. They stick out like a sore thumb and remind you constantly that you're watching a muddled, disorganised movie.

An archaeological expedition into the jungles of New Guinea is led by adventurer Douglas Temple (Burt Reynolds). One of the main archaeologists involved in the excursion is attractive lady scientist Dr Sybil Greame (Susan Clark). After an arduous trek they stumble upon a tribe of strange ape-like creatures. These primitive, long-lost people are covered in hair and have survived for centuries without being in any way touched or influenced by the developments of modern man. There is some evidence that they may the ancestors of early man the "missing link" in the evolution of apes into humans. Or perhaps a race of humans who simply look and behave differently from usual? Or even a race of animals that have begun to develop human characteristics? The archaeologists call the tribe "the Tropi" and are initially thrilled by the implications of their discovery. But things take a devastating turn when nasty opportunist Vancruysen (Paul Hubschmid) declares his intention to exploit the tribe and their idyll on behalf of developers. He questions whether the Tropi are truly "human" and takes his argument to the courts, where he hopes to be granted legal backing so that his own greedy ambitions can be continued.

This was a very early film in Reynolds' career, and he actually unbalances this movie by acting like he's in a comedy while the rest of the cast take it all very seriously. Not that Reynolds can be blamed he has an impossible role, asked to play a charming adventurer who really belongs in a Tarzan flick. His character and the film are not relevant to each other. Clark fares much better as the earnest lady archaeologist, and there are nice supporting roles for British actors Edward Fox, Alexander Knox and Wilfrid Hyde-White. A major shortcoming in Skullduggery is the lame and ineffective make-up used to give the Tropi their strange hairy appearance. Rather than making the actors look like believable hominoids, the stuck-on hair merely makes them look unintentionally comical. and that's just not the right idea. We're meant to feel great sympathy for these creatures, but that's awfully hard when they look so unconvincing. Skullduggery is a failed attempt to tell a story that could have been poignant, philosophical and stimulating. The honourable intentions are there for all to see, but the end result doesn't do them justice. A worthy failure it might be but a failure nonetheless.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: His choice of films, the basic 'conceit' of the production (which places him in the sets or simulacra of the films he is commenting on ) and his delivery are brilliant! But if you want Freud, be aware that you're getting Zizek's version of Lacan, which should not be confused with Lacan himself. As usual, Zizek delivers complex ideas with gusto and in a convincing manner. The rub is he is also quite mercurial and so there may be more in his gusto than in actual content. Cinematically, it is a gem. Psychologically, this will have people of all persuasions (Freudians, Lacanians and Jungians) scratching their heads but reaching for the popcorn all the same. Zizek is a phenomenon and pop icon unto himself.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The Road Rovers was a great show about canine superheroes chosen by the Master to fight crime around the world. The show was hilarious to say the least. Simple and complex jokes that could appeal to all ages. Running jokes throughout the series that could spawn a drinking game. The action was mesmerizing, and cleverly set up. The characters were very original, each with a very different personality. But what made me enjoy the show the most was the depth of the characters. Each of them have struggles and emotional difficulties that are never expressed, but implied in subtext. Hopefully, one day, there'll be some way to watch the Rovers in action again.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive