IN: Review: The scenes are fast-paced. the characters are great. I love Anne-Marie Johnson's acting. I really like the ending.

However, I was disappointed that this movie didn't delve deeper into Achilles's and Athena's relationship. It only blossomed when they kissed each other.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: A man readjusts to life alone after 45 years of marriage. He also has to solve the problem of the family milch cow, Tulip, which refuses to allow itself to be milked. Until, that is, he visualizes his wife who was the one who used to milk Tulip.

Tulip is based on a real story told in Griffith's family, of her grandparents' generation. The film is a nostalgic look back at a disappearing way of life, one where people still felt some sense of responsibility for each other, set in the lush green Victorian (the Australian state, not the era) countryside.

Writer and director Griffiths evidently has further ambitions in both areas, and this multiple award-winning 15-minute short is a fine beginning to her reel.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: I don't think I need to tell you the story. For it has been told for years and years. So I will just share my feelings. I first saw Cinderella was when I was five years old. From then on I was a Disney child in a good way. The animation now seems childish and old fashioned, but that is part of its charm now. Now, in the age of High School Musical and computer generated images, it seems like people have forgotten the genius and magical essence of early Disney movies. Thankfully I was born before that so I was introduced to this classic. And it seems no matter how old I get, I turn back into that five year old watching it on VHS. Which is the true magic of Disney.
What is this review like?
OUT: positive

IN: Review: Well, it's Robin Hood as 'geezer' all right... just as advertised! That didn't sound very hopeful, and alas, it was worse than I'd suspected.

A laddish Robin I can take; a Robin who tangles with a pert dyer's daughter I can credit; but a Robin who exchanges not-very-funny banter with his single henchman is harder to swallow, and a Robin and *entire cast* who seem to be having difficulty managing their lines is the kiss of doom. How could anyone let such laboured delivery pass without re-shooting the scenes? Again and again, Much sounds as if he's struggling with half-comprehended Shakespeare rather than letting loose with a salty quip; I hoped at the onset that it was just a failed comedy trait in a character clearly destined for the role of comedy sidekick, but then it started spreading throughout the rest of the cast.

Whatever else you say about Errol Flynn in the role, he had the knack of delivering high-flown dialogue as naturally as if he'd just thought it up on the spur of the moment... and as this production shows, that's not at all as easy as it sounds! If they were going to cast the characters as cheeky chappies, the actors in question should have been given appropriate lines: they sound as if they haven't a clue how to handle them.

I'm afraid I didn't even like the pantomime Sheriff, for a similar reason; the lines are clearly not intended to be taken seriously but delivered (and in this case written) with a nudge and a wink at the audience. They're out of place all right -- fourth-wall-busting stuff -- but really not that funny.

This much-promised production reminded me of a limping school play. The only actor and character I felt any appreciation for at all was the one playing Guy of Gisbourne, who was the sole one who appeared to have any handle on (a) credible villainy and (b) credible characterisation -- but frankly, I wouldn't have said that was a very good augury for the future of the series! As of the time of writing, I'll give it another shot in the hopes that things may improve and bed down a bit by next week, with less stilted scene-setting required and perhaps the actors more at ease with the dialogue: after all, the opening episode of "Doctor Who" wasn't exactly a show-stopper, though it was nowhere near as bad as this. But if I see no improvement after episode 2, I'm afraid the series has almost certainly lost one viewer.

Which would be a pity, because I've got a soft spot for the "Robin Hood" legend on screen, from the adventures of Douglas Fairbanks to the sturdy reliance of Richard Greene. But this Robin fails to stir my blood in the slightest.
What is this review like?
OUT:
negative