Determine the sentiment:

Peaceful rancher Robert Sterling is on the losing side of a range war with his ruthless neighbors, that is until notorious outlaw Robert Preston shows up out of the blue to level the playing field. Soon he begins to go too far, feeding a growing sense of unease in Sterling, especially when his son begins to idolize the wily criminal.

The Sundowners is a tightly-paced, gritty, and surprisingly tough little picture with a great performance by Preston. Here, he comes across as an evil version of Shane, that is until the real nature of the rancher and the outlaw's relationship is revealed. Most movie guides and video boxes spoil the surprise!

Rounding out the cast is Chill Wills, Jack Elam, and the debut of John Drew Barrymore, who became more famous for his offspring than his acting.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


This is an excellent film!Tom Hanks and Paul Newman performed great!I was really surprised when Newman was beating on his son!That was a great scene and the shooting scenes were staged good.I was very surprised about the end.Rent this film today as it is one of Tom Hanks' best!


This film is terrible. I was really looking forward to it, as I thought "Lantana" was great.

The following review may contain *spoilers*

*****

First, the good things: it looks great, some of the performances are OK. The bad things are everything else about it.

The story, as you possibly know, is about some blokes who go fishing and discover a body, with the twist that they find it on Friday but continue fishing and finally report it on Sunday when they get back into mobile (cell phone) range. However the film takes it's time (boy does it take its time) getting to this central event.

Of the ensemble of characters (about a dozen), not one seems to like another one (which is, I suppose, consistent, because they are all unlikable). I was extremely frustrated by the failure to adequately explain how the characters are related, and it was not until near the end of the movie that I could vaguely construct the family tree.

It's hard to think of a film us unrelentingly grim, which is a failure in the structure of the story, as the character's lives seem just as bad before the fishing trip as after. Once you've set the bar so high, it's hard to up-it short of everyone committing suicide.

There are silly lapses in logic. The killer dumps the body in the lake, and then it somehow drifts miles upstream into the mountains. The fishermen walk out Sunday morning, but for some reason Byrne gets home late at night after his wife has gone to bed. Then first thing the next morning the cops bang on the door to get him to come down to the station. Um, they haven't heard of the telephone? Down at the station, the media know the whole story, less than 24 hours after they reported the body?

Totally missing from the story is the debate the blokes surely had after they find the body. This is a mystery - everyone asks them "how could you do that?" and the audience is asking the same question. (The debate about what to do with the body is the key scene in "Deliverance"). I know exactly what I'd do in their situation. Someone needs to walk out to the car, drive to mobile range, call the cops, wait, and them guide them back to the location. If the others wait at camp and fish, who cares?

A lot of all this just seems false. The only thing that rung true was that, as the girl was black, the local aboriginals seized on the fishermen's actions as racist - "wouldn't have done it if it was a white girl."

Throughout there is a curious indifference to who might have killed the girl (I think the subject is mentioned once), and there is no mystery, as the audience sees the killer in the opening scene.

So I'm sitting there simultaneously bored and confused, when there's a twist - not in the plot, but the theme. Suddenly it becomes about the quiet dignity of the bereaved aboriginals leading to a ludicrous ending with some incoherent stuff about black-white reconciliation. Huh?

This is Australian film "at its finest", according to The Age.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


The first was good and original. I was a not bad horror/comedy movie. So I heard a second one was made and I had to watch it.

What really makes this movie work is Judd Nelson's character and the sometimes clever script. A pretty good script for a person who wrote the Final Destination films and the direction was okay. Sometimes there's scenes where it looks like it was filmed using a home video camera with a grainy-look.

Great made-for-TV movie. It was worth the rental and probably worth buying just to get that nice eerie feeling and watch Judd Nelson's Stanley doing what he does best.

I suggest newcomers to watch the first one before watching the sequel, just so you'll have an idea what Stanley is like and get a little history background.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I saw this movie way back at the first theatrical release, in a justifiably empty theater. Believe it or not, after decades of watching movies, this one still sticks clearly in my mind as the worst movie of all time; or at least the worst that I would allow myself to watch.

The acting is far beneath the standard set by any random group of drunken high-school students yanked off the street and forced to learn their lines in 5 minutes or less.

After the first shock of disbelief, we laughed for a while as each scene hit new lows. But after a while, even that dubious pleasure wore off and it just got to be really sad.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


Shiner, directed by Christian Calson, centers around three "couples" and their relationships with obsession and violence. Pretty good start as far as I'm concerned. Interesting. The couples break down into a heterosexual couple, two heterosexual male friends and a straight guy being "harmlessly" stalked by a gay man.

The "het" couple really don't have much of a role in the film. There are some scenes that show how they like to be aggressive when having sex or playing around with each other, but seem to have no real purpose since the are so marginalized. My assumption is that they represent a more day to day illustration of how sex/violence are integrated in a couples life. The couple aren't very aggressive and it's not even shot in any kind of erotic way. As characters, they don't add much to the theme or plot.

The two male friends make up the bulk of the plot. They engage in some gay bashing of sorts by convincing a homosexual man to have sex with them in an alley. This escalates into violence. And the violence changes them. It becomes a means of sexual gratification. And their need for violence t release grows as the film progresses. The main problem I had is the violence is not convincing. Never once does it seem that any of the characters is in any real danger. It just doesn't work. Given that the whole theme of the film is about the characters' relationships with violence, this is a major problem. Unfortunately, the make-up doesn't help either. Sometimes, it's okay, other times it is very bad. In one scene, I really wondered why one of the characters had rouge smeared on his face. Confusing.

The more interesting pair of the characters is the "stalker couple." Here Calson seemed to have more to say and was able to develop a more coherent storyline. Perhaps it is because the characters seem to develop more and have resolution at the end. Shiner may well have been much better if it had stuck with these two.

I appreciate that Calson wanted to achieve a lot with this film. It is admirable. Most low budget flicks don't aspire to much. I don't think Calson achieved want he was aiming for. Myself, I found nothing particularly controversial or unsettling. Shiner was unconvincing. This doesn't mean, however, that the director can't achieve something with his next film.

He seems to have something to say.


This movie is one of my favourites. It is a genre-mixture with ingredients of the Action-/Horror-/Romantic-/Comedygenre. Some of the special effects may seem outdated compared to modern standards. This minor flaw is easily ignored. There is so much to discover in this story. The romantic relation between the two main characters is so beautiful that it hurts. The visuals are beautiful too. The action is great which is no surprise, it is originating from Honkong, birthplace of the world's best action movies. The humour sometimes seems a little bit silly but in a good way. Somehow this movie is being able to balance the different moods and keeps being good. Absolutely recommended.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

Unless somebody enlightens me, I really have no idea what this movie is about. It looks like a picture with a message but it´s far from it. This movie tells pointless story of a New York press agent and about his problems. And, that´s basically all. When that agent is played by Pacino, one must think that it must be something important. But it takes no hard thinking to figure out how meaningless and dull this movie is. To one of the best actors in the world, Al Pacino, this is the second movie of the year (the other is "Simone") that deserves the title "the most boring and the most pointless motion picture of the year". So, what´s going on, Al?


Just plain good old stupid.

I mean really stupid, not the good stupid like Killer Tomatoes, or Ed Wood movies, this is probably the most stupid movie I ever have seen. To give this movie an golden Turkey is an insult to turkeys. To call this movie dumb is offensive even to dumb people.

If this is the future of American cinema and art we are better off to really start world war 3 and 4 at the same time and let the cockroaches run the show after.

Now I have to get drunk to wash this insult to my single braincell off....

This is a really good movie if you are suicidal.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


A lot of people seemed to have liked the film, so I feel somewhat bad giving it a bad review. But after sitting through 96 minutes of it, I feel I have to do so. Where the heck is the plot in this film?! I must have missed it, I was waiting for the storyline to unfold and nothing happened. Sure the ending was "somewhat shocking" but they didn't build up to it. I forgot who was who half of the time, so they didn't really develop the characters. The acting was so-so, most of the time it was believable, but I was able to see through it most of the time. So... without giving anything away, I must say that unless you like the actors in the film, there is no real reason to watch this movie. I could be mistaken, but I just didn't understand why there was so little, or too much of the film. I can't decide which one that would be, so I say judge for yourselves. I don't even know if renting it would be a good idea, the cost and all...

Plot: 0/10 Characters: 1/10 Acting: 2/10 Overall: 3/10 I feel like that's too high really, I am staying with my vote up at the top.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


I am very unpolitically correct guy, so when I say sexist I really mean it reduced the female guest lead, Dr Miranda Jones played by Diana Muldar. in spite of all her supposed brilliance and self control, to nothing more inside but a big, jealous unreasonable baby You prolly got the plot by now, after her technical sidekick Marvik, also a spurned lover, flips out when he tried to kill the Medusan, Ambassador Kollos, out of a jealous rage, but glimpsed first it instead. (You think he could have just walked in to the room with his eyes shut and phasered the box, too easy) he takes the Enterprise into un-navigable space outside the galaxy before the boys could subdue him. Well, the ship is stuck in limbo, at that point they could have gone to the good lady doctor-liaison and discussed it. "Spock has to make a mind meld with the Medusan so we can get home. I mean like beetch do you want to stay adrift until we run out of supplies and die?" But the lady in true Star Trek fashion is a jealous monsters who whines and wails when the idea is broached, even when her Medusan idol told her to shut up & go along with them. So the beetch out of spite messes with the melded Spock causing him to forget to put on his visor which makes Spock go insane. Kirk, naturally, figured out what a total twit she was and shamed her into fixing Spock up with her superior telepathic powers. Of course, at the end the Lady and Medusan leave and all is forgiven. You almost wish the President from Battle Star Galactica showed up to jettison the witch out of an airlock for her destructive stunt. But in Star Trek land, ladies are permitted to be totally unreasonable and cruel, yet at the same time supposedly there is sexual equality. This is what I mean by sexist.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

i realize this review will get me bashed by the expert film critics patrolling this site, but i will defend this film.

The Dentist is actually a really good film. The acting isn't always top notch, but the thrills are good and the story's good. Plus you see Linda Hoffman's boobies. Not that I'm an expert in this field, but the direction seems good and the plot makes sense. Corbin makes a great creepy dentist. It does to dentists what Jaws does to sharks...ish. It obviously had a fairly limited budget, but they did well with it what they could, and developed the characters well (those that count).

the end.


Production line collection of fart jokes that pretends 'Babe' was never made; the writers clearly hoped that the gimmick of seeing animals talk would be enough to keep the movie going. It's not. Eddie Murphy sells out yet again as a doctor who rediscovers his forgotten childhood gift for understanding the incessant and witless chatter of guinea pigs, tigers, rats, dogs and pigeons. The voice cast is impressive (Albert Brooks, Julie Kavner, Reni Santoni, John Leguizamo, Garry Shandling, Ellen DeGeneres, Paul Reubens, Brian Doyle-Murray) but the script is so unimaginative, charmless and depressingly unfunny that the whole thing rattles down the bin chute pretty quickly.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


Whatever the merits of the film, it is poorly researched. As others have pointed out, the movie shows locals in Iran speaking in Arabic, rather than Persian. That is enough to lose credibility for anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the area or the country. The landscape could not be more different from the actual.

Other factual errors: A train is shown to be operating in Afghanistan, while Afghanistan does not have railways. The Turkish ambassador is wearing a Fez (the red hat), whereas the Fez was banned by Turkey much before the time in which the movie is set. The Turkish ambassador's daughter is actually dressed as an Indian, and Indian classical music is playing in the background in many scenes. I suppose the filmmakers meant to show an exotic woman, and sari was what they decided would make her exotic.


This movie is very good. The screenplay is enchanting. But Meryl Streep is most impressive. Her performance is excellent. She brings me to go into the heart of her role.

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


Good films cannot solely be based on a beautiful garden and a hill top. Surprised to see it has won two awards. Extremely overrated. I first saw that kind of films from China, visually stunning BUT also with really something captivating to say, well, more than 10 years ago and I'm sure there are still more coming up. This is not one of them, I'm afraid.


"Cement" is a bad movie about a bad cop (Penn) with a bad attitude and a bad disposition who has a bad guy in a bad way up to his cajones in fast drying concrete. While we're waiting for the cement to dry and the film to figure out what it's about, we're periodically jerked back in time without rhyme or reason so we can watch events leading up to the cement thing. A boring junk flick overall, "Cement" suffers from lack of a story, a clumsy execution, and that most ubiquitous of filmdom's faults; no reason to care. A time killer for the needy couch potato at best. (D+)


Determine the sentiment:

What the heck was this. Somebody obviously read Stephen King and Sartre in the same semester. We get existential angst mixed in with cheap horror. There were moments that were disturbing but each one was canceled out by horrible music, CGI, or acting.

The problem with weird narratives like this is that it feels lazy. Even David Lynch's work feels like that at times, and just like his interesting shows and movies it runs far far too long. And sadly this is only 98 minutes.

The cast was attractive, and that is about the limit to this. I suppose it touches on feelings of adolescents and the fear of loneliness we all have, but just doesn't make the characters likable enough for us to care about their fates...whatever they were. The final scene leaves the whole thing ambiguous.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


I watched this movie when I was almost quite a kid, and, naturally, was moved to tears by this story of a fox family. The fantastic scenery at Hokkaidô, the excellent storytelling and last not least the wonderful soundtrack provide a rare intimacy with the protagonists. I am still searching for some copy of the gorgeous soundtrack. To German viewers it might be useful to know that the DEFA-dubbing is the only one worth listening to. I taped both (DEFA and BR) but I keep viewing the first one only.
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


OK...this one's a weirdy....Honestly, I can't tell you all the inner plot-points of THE BEAST, cuz I started losing interest when nothing happened during the first 45 or more minutes - but just wait, it definitely does "pick up"...

The plot involves something about a monster in the woods that some French aristocrat chick screwed back in the day. Eventually you see "THE BEAST", which looks like a guy dressed in a giant rat-bear costume with a horse cock attached to it. The scene takes place with the aristocrat woman running around the forest looking for a lost sheep. The sheep ends up dead and the woman gets scared. THE BEAST pops up, rapes the chick and shoots 400 gallons of spunk all over her. Eventually the chick starts to enjoy the beast's "attention" which results in some pretty novel simulated sex scenes, including an unnervingly erotic foot masturbation scene where the woman jerks the beast off with her feet while the monster shoots more huge loads everywhere (yeah, I've got a twisted foot-fetish - so sue me....)...The whole film is told in flashbacks and long-winded dialog scenes that tended to be a bit tedious. A "shocking" but predictable ending concludes this extremely strange film...

THE BEAST is a film that I find kind of hard to rate. The cinematography itself is quite eye-catching and the sets, costumes and locations are elaborate. The plot is a little convoluted and seems to take it self awfully seriously for what ends up being such an unintentionally hilarious film about a chick boning a rat-bear. A good bit of tits, ass, and hairy 70's French bushes to help make up for the dull first half of the film. I have to honestly say, that if it weren't for the graphic scenes of the BEAST spackling all over the willing maiden, this film would have been a real bore - that is unless you like dull dialog and some graphic horse sex (the beginning has a VERY up-close and personal scene of two horses boning, including a pulsating and spunk covered female horse vagina...YUM!!!). But the BEAST sex scene is so strange and such a refreshing change from the rest of the film, that I have to say that those scenes alone make up for what otherwise would have been a real snoozer. I have to recommend this one to anyone who thinks they've seen it all - the BEAST rape really is out-there and something to be witnessed. Also recommended to any fans of 70's/80's sleaze films - this one ranks pretty high with them. Worth a look for you sick rat-bear beastiality lovers out there (like me)...8/10

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


I never heard of the book, nor care to read it, but the movie I will probably see many times.

This film is unforgettable with perhaps the richest imagery I have ever seen in a movie. It was as if I was looking at paintings many times, which I think was the idea.

Terrific movie, story, actors, and cinematography. Full of profound emotions from every angle. Although I am not particularly fond of romance movies, I loved this and was deeply moved by Winona Ryder's plea to her father toward the end.

Mr. Irons deserved an award for his performance and Close was never better.


Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: ...was so that I could, in good conscience, tell everyone how horrible this movie is. I barely made it through twenty minutes before I started thinking to myself,"Wow, this is pretty bad.". And, to be honest, I would've given this movie 1 star if it wasn't for Esai Morales (though he had very little screen time). He's the movie's only well-acted role, which is a shame because I really like Gil Bellows...or at least I thought I did.

While watching this I started thinking back to his part in "Shawshank Redemption" and realized it wasn't as good as I thought it was. Problem: his jail-house/tough guy act seems like it's just that, an act; his dialogue sounded like he was doing a very poor impression. Has he ever met someone who speaks like his character was SUPPOSED to? I doubt it, but maybe he should have.

And, to make matters worse, they've managed to inject a little jail-house philosophy and make it seem nothing short of contrived, especially when you consider that the rhetoric was being spouted by a "rasta" who's accent was so strong that it seemed unnatural.

I wouldn't normally slam a movie like this, but when I saw the movie it had a fairly favorable review. I felt like I was cheated and lied to, and I thought I should try to save someone the misery of having to watch this movie.

I say BOOOOOOOO.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


The idea was awesome, the actors were incredible, the story could of been very scary, but the writing was poor and there was no depth. I couldn't really get into this movie. I couldn't feel for the characters, there were a lot of cliffhangers, and the movie just ends very weirdly. Was it a happy ending? I don't know. Was it a sad ending? Again, I don't know. You leave the theater feeling unsatisfied. The movie had so much to give, but couldn't. Just because you can edit, doesn't mean you should, right? I wouldn't really recommend this movie because you just can't say that you left the movie feeling like it was completed. You'll just be confused. Trust me, you will probably thank me if you don't watch this movie.

3/10
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


This movie was made in Hungary i think. anyway,the countryside is gorgeous,the people who play the farming folks were totally fascinating. their horsemanship is awesome. I got more into the native people, the farm life, and how heroic they were trying to hide Brady from the evil Nazis who where looking for these parachutists. They even sacrificed their life in several instances. the young orphan lad that Brady befriends was a sweet kid. you will marvel at the riding i think, and the action of trying to evade the Nazis. it is entertaining and comic in some spots and very tragic in others. Ladies have hankies handy, as you will be devastated at the end. i own it, and have watched it several times. in other words, not just a one time around flick. its a keeper....


Determine the sentiment:

I saw this movie once as a kid on the late-late show and fell in love with it.

It took 30+ years, but I recently did find it on DVD - it wasn't cheap, either - in a catalog that specialized in war movies. We watched it last night for the first time. The audio was good, however it was grainy and had the trailers between reels. Even so, it was better than I remembered it. I was also impressed at how true it was to the play.

The catalog is around here someplace. If you're sincere in finding it, fire me a missive and I'll see if I can get you the info. cartwrightbride@yahoo.com
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


I can give you four reasons to see this movie:

1. Four of the best filmmakers in the contemporary Mexican cinema.

2. Four good stories, related into a big scheme.

3. A surprisingly good cast.

4. A bitter reflexion about the biggest trouble in this country (and many others).

(POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

Alejandro Gamboa opens this movie with a good story in a comedic mood about the authority practicing the extortion against regular people and still expecting to be appreciated by its efforts.

Then Antonio Serrano gets more dramatic in the second piece with a story heir to the Italian neorealism with a "Peter and the wolf"-like anecdote.

In the third story, the one that seems more independent from this series even in the context, Carlos Carrera tells us the story of a man being at the wrong place in the wrong moment. But after the recent lynching at Tlahuac and the tradition in this awful matter at the State of Mexico, this story couldn't be more updated.

And at the end, Fernando Sariñana returns to the dark humor in the "grand finale" in which he puts together the most of the characters from the past sequences in one of the better comedy pieces ever filmed. Reprising the center scene from one of his previous films "Todo el poder", Sariñana gives the final lesson of the theme. And by the way, give us the scene that steals the movie with Anna Ciochetti making a brief striptease.

Once the movie has ended, you get a bittersweet feeling about having looked at a good movie (and maybe enjoyed it) with a very painful subject. They say that in Mexico people laugh at their own disgrace and this is the best example. This film is a testimony of how Mexicans have learn to live in the middle of a crime state(and perhaps accepted it), between two fires: The criminals and the so-called authorities full of corruption. Even this movie is a wishful thinking because almost all the good people have been a victim of crime and they don't get this unhurt. If you had an assault without a scratch then you're lucky. Meanwhile, don't lose the chance to see this movie, highly recommended.

And it's a beautiful life in Mexico...

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


Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: I saw an early screening of this film in New York and I, along with my friends and pretty much the entire audience, were vastly disappointed. The movie wasn't even so bad it was good; it was as lifeless as a snake-bite victim. Samual L. Jackson looked surprisingly tired through most of it and the snake effects were lame. It reminded me of one of those cheesy SciFi movies, except the cheesiness of this movie was not funny or even campy. It all seemed worn, flat, and overtly formulaic. I'm shocked to say I actually think Anaconda was more fun. It's easy to understand that SOAP realizes it's a piece of s*it and plays along with it, but what the film fails to embark on is a script that has any scares of suspense. It's the worst kind of lame movie: it's joyless.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


The championship game is only a couple of days away, but things in New Orleans aren't as they should be. From players with marital problems to drug overdoses to gambling problems to a killer on the loose, life is getting in the way of what should be a memorable, wonderful time. Can things be put back into order and a killer stopped before the big game is ruined?

Despite what you might think when you first read about Superdome, this is not a football movie. In fact football is nothing more than a plot device and an after thought. Instead, Superdome is another of those lousy soap opera-ish 70s made-for-TV movies populated with Hollywood has beens and those that never will be. The cast sleepwalks its way through the thing with no one really looking good. The best (or worst) example is Van Johnson in a very small role looking generally lost as to why he's there. The plot is dull, uninteresting, and unbelievable. Donna Mills as a hit"man"? Yeah, right! It's about as believable as the affair she has with the liquor soaked David Jansen. The movie also lacks any pace. Trying to get all four or five story lines into the film zaps whatever flow Superdome might have had. With no drama or suspense in sight, Superdome ends up being a very poor example of a 70s made-for-TV movie. The lone highlight for me was the voice-over work from the late Charlie Jones - a sportscaster I miss listening to. The eloquent way he overstates the intrigue and over-hypes the atmosphere in New Orleans is pure cheese at its finest.

Like most others who have seen Superdome, I also did so courtesy of Mystery Science Theater 3000. It may be one of the KTMA public access episodes, but it's one of the best examples of the shows early start. So even though I've only rated Superdome a 2/10, I'll give this episode a generous 3/5 on my MST3K rating scale.


There aren't many overcoming-the-odds stories quite like that of Christy Brown. Born with cerebral palsy in 1930s Dublin, his parents thought his handicap was mental as well as physical. Though eventually properly diagnosed, Brown, in a lower working-class family with nearly 20 children, had to push himself just to be appreciated by his family. Through the use of his only fully-functioning limb, his left leg, he taught himself to write and paint, both skills he developed expertly.

But what makes the film version of Brown's autobiography "My Left Foot" such a great retelling is its humility. Both director/writer Jim Sheridan and star Daniel Day-Lewis have managed to tell this story in a way that doesn't scream for attention and resort to melodrama. Cheesy struggles and scenes of frustration as well as glorious moments of minute victory are easy pitfalls of a story so miraculous, yet "My Left Foot" stays real and intrinsically inspired.

Day-Lewis is the easiest to highlight. Playing anyone with such serious physical impairments has to be a demanding task. Not only does Day-Lewis give us a very complete picture of Christy, but he also manages to chronicle the growth, improvement and inner change of the character in different stages of his life. He plays Christy at 17 when he had limited language capability and was emotionally volatile just as crisply as he does the intellectually learned Christy who struggles to cope with why he can't find non-platonic love. The latter theme is the film's strongest and it would've been nice for Sheridan and co-adapter Shane Connaughton to really flesh that out. Regardless, Day-Lewis gets us to understand and sympathize with all those elements, giving a performance that's so believable you often don't have time to think "wow, he's such a great actor." Those are the most commendable performances.

Equally important but through more subtle means is Sheridan's work on the film. This story is about day-to-day life and struggles. Although Christy has such a unique set of circumstances hampering his life, his struggles are not unlike our own and Sheridan grasps that concept completely. Christy struggles with love, parental attention, questions of self- worth and capability. His struggles are just more physically manifested (literally and figuratively) than ours.

Sheridan gives us moments that capture the spirit of the large Brown family and Christy's unique place in it. The drama evolves naturally when tensions are highest and the humor comes in much the same way. The dinner scene when Christy learns that his doctor/teacher -- the woman he loves -- is going to marry his brother Peter is the film's finest example of both Day-Lewis and Sheridan's efforts. It's built up to so well by Sheridan that it comes out when we're ready and Day-Lewis takes us from there with his stunning work.

The other strong component of the film is Brenda Fricker as Mrs. Brown. I did not know she'd won the Oscar, but there was something about her performances as Christy's loving and wise mother that just screamed Oscar-worthy. Her love for Christy and constant fighting for him just seems so convincing and heartfelt and she earns a lot of sympathy given her situation.

The emotional punch of the film given the story is surprisingly minimal. Perhaps that was part of the sacrifice of trying to create a film that feels organically human. The two should be reconcilable, but I imagine it's challenging to tell a story that feels true-to-life and one that provides enough dramatic moments to take our emotions on a roller coaster. The choice to downplay the latter was definitely the wise one for "My Left Foot." Brown's circumstances speak for themselves -- they don't need to be squeezed for weightier dramatic impact.

~Steven C

Visit my site moviemusereviews.com for more


ANTWONE FISHER is the story of a young emotionally troubled U.S. Navy seaman. His problems lead him to Jerome Davenport, a psychiatrist who helps him realize that his troubles stem from his childhood upbringing.

Get ready to shed a tear or two. The movie could thaw the coldest heart. I loved the story, which turns from something so very awful to happen to anyone into a positive ending. ANTWONE FISHER is a powerful movie, most importantly about forgiveness. Other important issues that get you thinking are child abuse, adoption, and foster care.

Oscar winner, Denzel Washington does an impressive job in his directorial debut. There were many scenes which I enjoyed watching. They included the beginning (dreams of a little boy  check out the gigantic-sized pancakes!) and the ending (dreams turned into reality), which beautifully tied the story together.

Another wonderful scene occurred when the doctor encouraged Antwone to search for his family to find answers to his questions about his family that abandoned him.

My favorite scene happened when the young man finally confronted his mother and her reaction towards him. Priceless.

All the actors represented their parts well.

In addition to directorial responsibilities, Mr. Washington continues to show why he won an Oscar award and is successful in all his acting roles. He had a strong presence in this movie.

Actor, Derek Luke demonstrated why he was so right for the part of Antwone Fisher. He portrayed very real and heart-tugging work.

Joy Bryant who played the part of Cheryl, Antwone's love interest, resembled a ray of sunshine on the screen. The chemistry flowed well between the romantic characters.

Novella Nelson who played the part of Mrs. Tate, a despicable character, deserves special mention.

Although we only see her for a few minutes, the actress who played Fisher's mother gave an outstanding performance.

Everyone should see ANTWONE FISHER.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


THE VAN is a simple teensploitation picture made especially for the drive in that goes out of it's way to make you feel comfortable, providing many opportunities to laugh and cry with your friends. Danny Devito has a small yet plentiful role as the manager of a car wash and almost steals the show! All the leads are well acted, the characters complex and the directing quite competent for this type of picture. A Crown International Release.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


Determine the sentiment:

Towards the end of the movie, I felt it was too technical. I felt like I was in a classroom watching how our Navy performs rescues at sea. I liked seeing that the engines have fire extinguishers. I guess I should have figured that out before, but I never thought about it. Using a 747 to transport valuable old paintings with very little security is odd and not realistic. The acting was pretty good, since they're mostly seasoned professionals, but if you're going to stretch so far from what would most likely happen, it should be more like a fantasy, comical, etc. Everything was taken too seriously. At least the movie had Felix Ungar as pilot, with Buck Rogers, the night stalker, and Dracula also on board. The movie was filled with well known faces. I understand that Hollywood has to exaggerate a bit for drama, but it does hurt the quality of a movie when a serious subject is made into a caricature. That's why I said it should have been more comical. My pet peeve with movies about airline travel is that everybody just casually moves about. They walk around with drinks, setting them down and picking them up 5 minutes later, just as if they're in a building or something, and acting as if turbulence just doesn't exist. Also, I know it's a disaster movie, but suspense doesn't have to include a 30 second crash after hitting something. Anyway, the skilled actors and actresses keep this weak script from having been made into a movie that got canned after it's first screening. I like Lee Grant, but it was fun to watch a psychotic person get decked...:)
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


Somebody could probably make a great documentary about the Jerry Springer Show, but this fictionalized version merely succeeds in draining anything authentic and interesting out of the trash-TV phenomenon. There are dozens of famously bad movies (e.g. "Manos: The Hands of Fate") that show more creativity and spirit than this dreary, witless waste of film.

Seriously, why not a documentary about the Jerry Springer Show, that would begin to answer some of the real questions like: Who are these people? What happens to their lives after they appear on this show? How did the mayor of Cincinatti find himself here?

One good line: During an "orientation" session for guests: "People, I can't emphasize this enough: NO WEAPONS!"
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


I remember a certain Tuesday, the morning of 18/6/02 to be exact. I was dozed off, trying to convince myself to get out of bed when a horrific explosion was heard. I went to the kitchen where I have a view of several neighborhoods in the southern Jerusalem and saw a pillar of smoke rising from a distant point, the sight of the smoke was followed a minute later by the waling of sirens. I remember rushing to my bedroom, taking out my binoculars, racing back to the kitchen and spotting the image of a glass shattered bus. The bus was still near the pick up station where a terrorist boarded on it and with a single click on a TNT device, murdered 25 passengers, many of whom were on their way to school. The wife of a good friend of mine, sat on the bus at the back row, a seemingly arbitrary and meaningless decision that saved her life.

I'm sure that every Israeli has at least one terror-related memory he wishes he never would have had and it was only a matter of time before someone made a film about it. As it turned out, the movie was about to become a repressed memory of its own.

The film is about a play-write on a dry run, Haim Buzaglo (portrayed by, hmmm, Haim Buzaglo who also wrote and directed the film) that spends the better part of his day conducting staring contests with his blank word processor page. In the meantime, his girlfriend, a field reporter for the Israeli commercial channel, decides to make a piece about a debt ridden ex-army officer. Buzaglo, bored and a bit paranoid due what is medically known as the "what on earth this hot babe is dating me" syndrome, asks a private eye to conduct a stakeout on his girlfriend.

As the detective progresses in his investigation, his observations are permeating into the play and later on, to the lives of its actors. In the meantime, the play metamorphoses from a comic play into an indictment against the aloofness of the Israeli society. As for the movie, well, the movie becomes an exercise in frenzy editing, ensconced in its petty cardboard characters and unreliable dialogs while drifting miles away from the subject it was supposed to deal with in the first place.

When I say "cardboard characters" I refer to the characters that under the writer/director's obsession for a "meaningful" film, were devoid of any genuine dialogs and any shred of reliability. I won't elaborate too much about it. Suffice to say that I'm sure that homeless barefoot male prostitutes rarely go the theater. With the intention to see a play, that is.

This movie, according to Haim Buzaglo himself is the first part of a current agenda trilogy. I sincerely hope that the other two films will be derived from the experiences like the one I wrote about in the beginning of my review as opposed to the secluded world of characters that are anything but existent and a plot that is anything but compelling.

4 out of 10 in my FilmOmeter.

P.S. This movie was a landmark in austerity. It was shot in ten days, all the cast worked for free and the entire cost of the film was about 12,000$ (no, I didn't omit a zero or two, twelve thousand dollars). Makes you wonder why it took 34,000$ to complete Blair witch project.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


Shot into car from through the windscreen, someone is playing someone else their latest song, someone else didn't react, according to the voice-over. I just wonder how that came to be made. There were too many scenes in this movie that I wondered about how come a camera was there. If the scenes shot where the Warhols descended on a BJM post-party are true then that was inexcusable exploitation to the max, if not, then it was a total fabrication, either way it made me uncomfortable, if that was the purpose? All the way thru this movie I kept wondering how the footage came about. Taken at face value, a nice portrait of the (tortured) genius we all believe ourselves to be.


Gotta start with Ed Furlong on this one. You gotta. God bless this kid. $5 bucks says the character he plays in this film is what he's really like in real life. He has a one-liner or two that made me almost blow snot because of the subtle humor in the script. You know all the trials this guy has gone through in recent years and it doesn't even seem like Furlong is even acting. Maybe that's why his performance was good. Same with Madsen. You keep thinking, "I bet this guy is really like this in real life." Does Madsen even have to act? Just natural. Vosloo has obviously moved on from the type-casted Mummy guy. I think the biggest surprise to this film was Jordana Spiro's performance. Her reactions are spot-on in this film. I battled if she was hot or not, but realized I would just like to see more of her.

Not a big fan of shoot 'em out/hostage type films. But what I am a fan of are films with lots of twists and turns to try and keep you guessing. It's not just your standard robbers take over a bank, they kill hostages, and the good guys win in the end type of film. The twists keep on coming...and coming.

The café scenes work best with the hand-held cams to show what it's really like in there. Not glossed over a bit. Think like Bourne Ultimatum "lite" style on some scenes in the café.

And for those Bo Bice fanatics out there - actor Curtis Wayne (who plays Karl) will make you do a double take. These guys are twins.

As I watched I wondered why some of the actors had foreign accents and what were they doing in this small town. Made sense in the end that these people smuggled stuff to other countries/states so they might have these accents. But more is revealed in the bonus features of how some of the producers wanted to make this film for International audiences with some of their stars we might not have heard of. And some of them are smoking hot. Moncia Dean? Need I say more.


Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Yes, MTV there really is a way to market Daria. What started as a clever teenage angst-"comment on everything that sucks and make the viewer feel better about their sucky teenage life" sitcom now mutated into a "how you should deal with your problems"-charade. I used to watch Daria all the time and loved it. Now, sitting here after watching the so called "movie" I can only wonder what the point of this all was. Daria tells us how to lead out life in college? Excuse me? didn't the point Daria made every episode that what you like to do is ok, as long as it is ok with yourself no matter what the rest of the sick sad world thinks of it? This entire thing reminded me of the scene in "Reality Bites" the movie channel shows the documentry for the first time.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


This had a great cast with big-name stars like Tyrone Power, Henry Fonda, Randolph Scott, Nancy Kelly, Henry Hull and Brian Donlevey and a bunch more lesser-but-known names with shorter roles. It also had Technicolor, one of the few movies made with it in 1939.

Now the bad news.......regrettably, I can't say much positive for the story. It portrayed the James boys in a totally positive light....and Hollywood has done that ever since. Why these criminals are always shown to be the "good guys" is beyond me. This film glamorizes them and made their enemies - the railroad people - into vicious human beings. The latter was exaggerated so much it was preposterous. Well, that's the film world for you: evil is good; good is bad.

Hey Hollywood: here's a news flash - The James boys were criminals! Really - look it up!


You'll notice by the stars I've given this GREAT film that '...before you see it the first time,' is implied. I had never before heard of this film and happened across it just because this week (and last) was a very slow rental experience (not much great coming in). I'm not sure how this movie slipped past me -I love Lucy Liu and Jeremy Northam is great too. Still, it did.

This movie is an awesome example of what to do if you don't have a large budget. It had just the right amount of plot and dialog to make it very interesting and keep the viewer in the dark; just enough. The entire film is you (the viewer) trying to figure out the plots many twists and turns. I would have given this film 10/10, however some of the shots were pretty fake looking. I don't hold that against this film too much, but I don't think it deserves a perfect score.

Lucy Liu is beautiful and mysterious (as always). I think she's pretty underrated as a serious talent. Nevermind her beauty (which is difficult), she really takes her roles seriously and doesn't rest on her appearance to drive her through scenes of sophisticated emotion. And she can seem cold and even lifeless if needed, as well.

Jeremy Northam does really well, at first, as quite a geeky corporate rat, willing to run through any maze to prove himself. However, as he changes throughout the film, it's like night and day. I know some fans of Clive Owen, Jude Law, or other hopefuls to become the next James Bond will hate me for this, but Northam would/could/should fit that bill. He's suave and cultured. He's got a great Bond posture and voice. I think he too can be cold if the situation calls for it, and rather down-to-Earth, as well.

Great film and definitely this movie-buff recommends it to be seen at least once if you like corporate espionage films.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


There should be a rule that states quite clearly that movies like Resident Evil are supposed to be made in the spirit of the game, not in the spirit of blowing up everything possible. RE was a survival horror game, and a damn effective one at that, yet Paul WS Anderson managed to make it like any other video game movie to come along. Alone in the Dark is essentially the same kind of a spirit as Resident Evil, so of course, there is the slight hope the director will manage to have some piece of a brain enough to make a horror movie and not an action movie. Instead, Alone in the Dark just proves that there is no longer hope for video games becoming movies.

The plot, despite the fact that it obviously isn't supposed to matter, is the largest of many problems with the movie. The movie starts with what can only be described as five minutes of scrolling text that may or may not be important, as after a minute passes, the audience stops caring and just sits through the rest hitting the object closest to them. Then there's something about an orphanage, some artefacts, an ancient tribe, some bureaucracy and some demons, all of which get so jumbled together that the viewers really can't follow with what is going on. Characters move in and out of the plot like candy, some having huge build-ups for meaningless deaths. Basically, what I can understand is that some demons got released, and Edward Carnby (Slater) has some link to them thanks to some operation given to children in his orphanage which has failed on him. He finds an artefact involving the demons and brings it to an ex-girlfriend anthropologist (Reid), who of course he manages to have sex with right away for no good reason. Then, out of nowhere, all hell breaks loose, and the pair end up with a military team led by some asshole commander (Dorff), who apparently has a mutual hatred for Carnby.

It's all ridiculous, and the reason I don't really understand it isn't just because it's complicated and jumbled, but it leaves no room for anyone to really care. Instead, I highly recommend that, if you must see this film, bring a tennis ball or something to occupy yourself when the plot manages to bore you into confusion.

The action scenes in a movie with a plot as terrible as this should at least bring it up a little, right? Too bad, this movie is like any other ruined crap ever made, with enough quick cuts to behead a coop of chickens. Considering that this is based on a horror game, not an action game, it is especially annoying.

The first action scene involving a man chasing Cranby from a taxi is among the worst I have ever had to witness, and the rest isn't all that great either. The demons look somewhat cool, though the fact that they turn into powder when killed takes away all that effect. Scenes involving lots of guns which should be cool to watch instead involve the muzzle fire as the only source of light and the camera zooming and panning faster than the head of a crack addict. It's all the kind of seizure inducing crap that keeps children in bed at night.

The acting is what I like to call taking actors and making them do nothing. Slater does nothing but sound important for the whole movie, though he does seem to have more talent than he is letting on. The same is true of Dorff, who gets a thankless role despite actually having some talent (something that has happened to him a lot). Reid is pretty much exactly what she should be, background sex appeal, as whenever she tries to act it is a disaster (as is the incredibly bad scientist look she has in the beginning).

In all, this is the type of movie that worries me about future video game movies. If they keep ruining the spirit like this, it's only a matter of time before Samus Aran is killing Middle-Easterns with an AK-47 and Tommy Vercetti is fighting a squadron of aliens. Unlike Resident Evil, however, this one doesn't deserve a second chance, as I don't think anything could possibly help me forget just how terrible this movie is. It's bland, uninteresting and unexciting. This is the movie equivalent of diarrhea; it's all thrown together, nothing really fits and, in the end, you're just glad it's over.

TOTAL: 4%

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


With the exception of the sound none of the above are really criticisms for this type of no budget, (truly) independent horror film. Make up effects and gore are very good and the lead actor was effective, the lead actress although attractive needs some coaching as she was particularly poor.

The major problem with Frightworld is it's length, at 108 minutes its half an hour too long to be effective as a slasher movie, plot wise only about ten minute of the first fifty are relevant.

In places it is visually engaging and sometimes the lack of lighting works in the films favour. However when this is combined with the poor sound as is the case with most of the film large sections are difficult to watch.

This could certainly be an entertaining if unoriginal "serial killer back from the dead" movie with some judicious and ruthless editing, in its current form it plays like an unfinished rough cut.


Please tell me the sentiment of the following review: Italian horror/suspense film about a wealthy English lord who cruises pubs and taverns for girls with red hair just like his recently deceased wife Evelyn. You know he must have really loved his wife, because he brings them to his home - a huge, rotting castle - and makes them disrobe and then tortures them, whips them, and kills them. The most bizarre aspect of this film for me was that somehow by the film's end, we see this guy played by Antonio De Teffe as the HERO of the film. Anyway, soon, under the advice of his playboy uncle Roberto Maldera, De Teffe settles down with a girl he meets at his uncle's party. She moves in and strange things begin to happen to De Teffe's fragile state of mind. He begins to see and hear his dead wife and finally, well, just look at the title if you are still curious. Also, family members and friends begin to die in the most brutal fashions. Poor Aunt Agatha(she looks like she might even be younger than De Teffe and they have her in a wheelchair and trying to look old) meets her fate in a foxy fashion. Another man is injected and then buried alive. And of course, there is a whole explanation as to why/how Evelyn did what she did. Director Emilio Miraglia does do some things fairly well: the settings in the film are well-suited for this film though trying to make us believe it is England is ludicrous at best. None of the actors look English. Many having dark black hair and Mediterranean complexions and wearing clothes an Englishman wouldn't be caught dead in. The cars drive on their wrong side of the road. But all that notwithstanding, the crypt scene was effectively shot and I liked the cheesy resolution too. And of course any film with the sultry, red-headed Erika Blanc is always a plus. There is a streak of sexual perversion; however, which I found somewhat appalling with the idea that torturing women was quite alright and healthy in order to relieve one of his mental demons. C'mon.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


The performance by Om Puri, Smita Patil, and Sadashiv Amrapurkar and the whole chemistry comes off nicely, along with the minimalist approach to story telling and direction by Govind Nihlani. The dialogues by Vijay Tendulkar is also great.

I have not seen another movie like this. It is one whole, each piece so nicely fit in the plot. You cannot not be impressed by this movie.

Amrish Puri comes off as the bossy husband and 'baap' of Om Puri. Om Puri is the young man caught between his sense of duty and his inability to fight the system. Sadhashiv as Rama Shetty gives just about the right touch to the movie with his smiling and soft speaking villain. The first meeting of Anand Velankar with Rama Shetty's at Sadhashiv's place is absoulely stunning. Smita Patil does not play a main role, but her part is also not distracting from the main plot.

And to add to this all Kafi Inamdar plays the role of a cop who has come to terms with the system and its workings. Saying right things in the right places and knowing how to keep himself away from trouble. He is also the 'guru' of Om Puri and helps him whenever he gets into trouble.

The movie not only brings to focus the difficulties faced by a police officer trying to do his duty but also the other side of brutalities in police custody. Om Puri captures hopelessness and the burning desire to break free in this exceptional performance in Ardh Satya.

A treat to all avid fans of Indian cinema.
What is the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


Director Raoul Walsh was like the Michael Bay of the '40's and years before that. And I mean that in a positive way, since I'm definitely ain't no Bay-hater. His movies are just simple high quality entertainment, just like the Raoul Walsh movies were in his days.

"Gentleman Jim" is fine quality entertainment. Besides a first class director, it also features a first grade cast, with Raoul Walsh's regular leading man Errol Flynn in the main part.

What surprised me was how well the boxing matches were brought to the screen. They used some very dynamic camera-work, which also really made the boxing matches uplifting and exciting to watch, with the end championship fight against John L. Sullivan as the ultimate highlight.

Biopics of the '40's and earlier on were obviously still very much different from biographies being made this present day. Modern biographies often glorify its main subject and show his/her life from basically birth till death and everything, mostly emotional aspects, in between. 'Old' biopics were just made the same as movies that weren't based on actual real life persons, which also means that the film-makers would often use a use amount of creative liberty with the main character's personality and events that happened in his/her life. This movie is also not just a biography about a boxing legend but also forms a nice portrayal from the period when illegal bare knuckle fighting entered the modern era of boxing.

Errol Flynn does a great job portraying the real life famous boxer James J. Corbett aka Gentleman Jim. Not too many people known it but Flynn did some real good acting jobs in the '40's, of which this movie is one. Fysicaly he also looks in top-shape. He also looks quite different by the way without his trademark small mustache in this movie. The movie also features some fine supporting actors and some fine acting throughout.

A great and entertaining movie that also still truly holds up real well today.

8/10
How would you describe the sentiment of this review?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


This movie was a brilliant concept. It was original, cleverly written and of high appeal to those of us who aren't really 'conformist' movie pickers. Don't get me wrong - there are some great movies that have wide appeal, but when you move into watching a movie based on "everyone else is watching it" - you know you're either a tween or don't really have an opinion. This had a lovely subtle humor - despite most people probably looking only at the obvious. The actors portrayed their characters with aplomb and I thought there was a lot more "personal" personality in this film. Has appeal for kids, as well as adults. Esp. nice to find a good movie that's not filled with sexual references and drug innuendos! A great film, not to be overlooked based on public consumption. This one is a must buy.

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


Generate a movie review with negative sentiment.

If you enjoy seeing what must have started as a 2 hour movie in unconnected bursts of unwatchability, you'll love this film. Otherwise, you'll just wonder how they could have made such a film from something so simple to translate to the big screen as Inspector Gadget.

In the previews for the film, many scenes were shown which were not in the film, and within the film, some scenes just don't make sense. While the movie is slightly less than 1 hour and a half, I can only think of one truly memorable moment, and that is just before or during the credits!


Generate a movie review with positive sentiment.

Time has not been kind to this movie. Once controversial adaptation of Jeffrey Konvitz' best-seller, now this film looks like a mere mainstream version of your typical spookfest. Gruesome touches aside (particularly that crazy, over the top finale), this is essentially a glossy horror movie for those people that do not care much for the genre. It has an extraordinary cast in small roles (Jose Ferrer, Ava Gardner, Eli Wallach, Burgess Meredith, Christopher Walken, and many others), but something tells me that the producers wanted such an expensive cast in order to convince the audience that this is not your average lowbrow movie (producers of '70s disaster movies had a similar idea). I kind liked to see the familiar faces, but the story is very silly, and no matter how high class the film pretends to be, it operates at the level of your average '70s exploitation movie (not an entirely bad thing, though). Still, it is an enjoyable movie, especially for those viewers who enjoy stargazing. As usual, Albert Whitlock's matte work is outstanding. Overall, pretty entertaining.


With Goldie Hawn and Peter Sellers in a movie you figure this one won't go wrong. But what can I say? This was a horrible misfire. The movie is about Peter Sellers as an older gentleman who suddenly finds himself in a relationship with a really strange young not to mention attractive hippie in Goldie Hawn. The movie is incredibly disjointed and I did not understand anything about it. Peter Sellers and Goldie Hawn are very funny people but this movie does not prove it.

That song about arabella Cinderella' is pretty cool, but that is it. I only recommend this movie to people that like to watch an extreme novelty movie, this is almost the definition of one. I guess this movie more than anything else is a sign of the times, in terms of it's definite experimentalism and all around unconventionality, the problem is the quality is completely shot and the writing, not to mention the direction is just so out there.

Peter Sellers in particular is very hit and miss, he will go from Dr. Strangelove and Being There throughout his career, to dumb movies like this and the Magic Christian, which was very similar to this one in context and style, but that movie did have a few funny moments. This one is senseless, and I am sad that someone as great as Peter Sellers was in this movie. Not recommended for anyone.
Would you say this review is positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


After being forced to sit through some real stinkers (Racing Stripes, Shark Boy and Lava Girl) -- I truly enjoyed watching "Fried Worms". For once, I did not guess the ending! It was funny and entertaining and didn't resort to a ton of gross-out humor, despite the title. My boys (6 and 10) both LOVED it too -- oh and my 45 year old "boy" had a smile on his face the whole time. This is a family movie that is not just tolerable for the parents. The relationship with the little brother is so close to real life. "He is not stopping singing just to annoy me!!" Also, the way the new kid tries to make friends and how those friendships actually form is right-on with the way kids behave. Of course the parents have to act a little goofy -- but my favorite scenes involved the Dad getting used to his new job. Have fun!

Did this review think positively or negatively of the movie?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive


Determine the sentiment:

Cliffhanger is what appears to be Slyvester Stallone's last action movie before he became such an underrated actor. It's about a mountain climber that must help his friend after being held hostage by mercenaries that want them to find three suitcases carrying money over 100 million dollars. It has great action sequence's, edge of your seat fun and a great time at the movies.
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive