input: After watching the rather sloppy WW1 spy thriller, Madam Lili (1969)starring Julie Andrews on tv this afternoon, I suddenly thought I had seen a far superior WW1 spy thriller. All I could remember was that it was produced by Dino De Laurentis. It only took a short search on IMDB to find Fraulein Doktor. Once I recognised the title the memories came flooding back. It is, for its time, a reasonably well crafted story revolving around true events such as the death of Kitchener and the German offensives of 1918.It also has a female spy who is much more believable than Julie Andrews! As with other reviewers the first and strongest memory was of the well produced battle scenes and of men and horses in gas masks. If you have an interest in war films and particularly WW1 it is a film well worth seeing if you have the opportunity.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Some moron who read or saw some reference to angels coming to Earth, decided to disregard what he'd heard about the offspring of humans and angels being larger than normal humans. Reinventing them as mythical giants that were 40 feet tall, is beyond ridiculous. There was some historical references to housing and furniture in parts of the world, that were much larger than would be needed for standard humans. These were supposedly built on a scale that would lend itself to a 10 to 14 foot human, somewhat supporting the "David and Goliath" tale from the bible. There is no mention in any historical references to buildings or artifacts that would support the idea of a 40 foot tall being. If I was rating this movie on my own scale, it would have been a negative value instead of a one...

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: It's not like I have overwhelmingly fond memories of Verhoeven's original pants-down shocker - it always struck me as a glossy, well-made airport-novel-of-a-movie. Thrilling, sexy trash, but trash nonetheless. It was also a film that tapped into a certain sexual zeitgeist. After a decade of anti-sex AIDS-induced hysteria, a film about a wildly-sexual hotbod who thrill-kills to heighten her sexual pleasure was pretty enticing stuff. Basic Instinct 2 was always going to struggle to provide the same social relevance and immediacy, so the fact that it's desperate attempts at raunchiness are so lame can sort-of be overlooked. All it really had to provide was that thin veneer of titillation and a mildly engaging story and all would have been watchable. That it resoundingly fails on so many levels, and in such a way to be a career nadir for everyone involved, is really quite extraordinary to watch. Let's state the obvious for starters - Sharon Stone is too old for the part of sexual magnet Catherine Trammell. What was so photogenic thru Verhoeven's lens looks like mutton dressed as lamb in the hands of gun-for-hire Michael Caton-Jones, who's flat, drab colours and static camera render her undeniable beauty totally moot. I like Sharon Stone a lot, but if the first film launched her career, BI2 could kill it. She has no chemistry with stuffed-shirt David Morrissey - their only sex scene is embarrassing too watch. His dough-faced mamma's boy of a character made me yearn for the swaggering, orange-skin machismo of Michael Douglas. Supporting turns by David Thewlis and Charlotte Rampling waste these fine actors on talky exposition scenes and cliche-heavy posturing. And what of the much-touted sexual shenanigans? Poorly-lit, fleetingly-glimpsed, as utterly mainstream as an episode of Desperate Housewives - the European sensibilities that Verhoeven brought to the sexual content of the first film are sorely missed. Don't watch this film for carnal thrills - there are none and what there is is tragic. The film is, as a whole, convoluted to the point of utter confusion, boring and laughable. The last 40 minutes in particular, where you come to the realisation that the film is, in fact, not going to go anywhere of interest at all, are particularly gruelling and hilarious in equal measure. As a failed sequel, Basic Instinct 2 will come to occupy similar cinematic ground as Exorcist 2 The Heretic, Beyond The Poseidon Adventure and XXX2. As a vanity project, it rivals Battlefield Earth in its misconception. As a multi-million dollar piece of Hollywood film-making, it's a travesty that will be hard to top as the years worst.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: These two stars are the only iconic heroes/villains i know that got a good TV series, so let's compare.

Freddy - 7 movies Robocop - 3 movies

Freddy - 1 TV series, 2 seasons, about 40 episodes Robocop - 1 TV series, 1 season, about 22-23 episodes

Freddy - 2 extra films (Freddy Vs Jason, Freddy Vs Ghostbusters) Robocop - 4 extra films (Robocop: Prime Directives: Dark Justice, Meltdown, Crach & Burn, Resurrection)

Freddy - 1 upcoming film Robocop - 1 upcoming film

Who's had more screen time? Well they've both had 7 movies, 1 TV series, and 1 upcoming film. But Freddy wins it thanks to his 2 extra films (one being a fan film) & 17-18 TV episodes.

Since this is a comment for the series, between Freddy's Nightmares - ANOES: The Series & Robocop: The Series I would personally choose Robocop...

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
positive