input: That's right! Under 9 on average, but maybe under 12s for some others! I was 11 when I originally saw this on video and at such youth I wasn't able to notice the shoddy cartoon-quality or the fact that those classic characters we have all grown to love are Not the same or as good to see. Just about everything is so 2D here! Belle is, I'll agree, not even beautiful but just a plain-looking woman with tinted skin, she wears the same bright blue dress all the way through with not one glamorous dress on, Wardrobe is to say the Least, annoying - my ears may bleed if I had to listen to her everyday! Lumiere, in both the original and the Christmas edition was suave and elegant, but here he is a womanizing, unfunny twit! Cogsworth, despite being the no-nonsense housekeeper he is famous for, is a complete sh-t and the most insufferable character I'd say! He always seems to find shutting that unbearably grating pie-hole of his very difficult in this one and whose clock face should really have been used for turning back in time to the unforgettable two film in this series! Poor, poor Mrs Potts was not brought to life by Angela Lansbury (one of my favourite classic actresses) but by Anne Rogers who captured none of Mrs Potts' character, no offence to her! Not if she did her best! When the beast roars it sounds so horrifically fake with clearly no additional roars, snarls or growls by a microphone. I am aware that this is only a third feature following two other films so of course it wouldn't be as good but I'm sure that more of a contribution wouldn't have hurt the Disney artists who, indeed, have achieved such remarkable styles of animation over the years. It's alright, I guess, and I do watch it sometimes though only when it suits me. It's quite difficult to make a recommendation for you reading this because it depends on how old you are but remember this will not at all be what you may expect following the earlier spectacular movies! And to think that on my video of it the text on the back cover said "boasting brilliant animation"! It's a nice little flick but for one thing it's also highly poor and, for another, those 3 words ought to have been saved for the next re-release of the original!

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Too many secondary plot lines without a primary one. Too many hot buttons are pushed without any reason, they managed to stuff this boring film, that does not say anything, with every drama element that is out there: death, divorce, money issues, parenting problems, suicide, psychological problems, drug abuse, adoption, rejected love, traveling problems, sex, generations misunderstandings, robbery, legal issues, guns, medical ethics, "deep real love" You would think that it would make for an interesting movie, but hell no all these events are secondary to something primary which is not there. Boring. Not to mention that the "super-deep" (and super-long) lecture to the child at the end of the film is a total nonsense. Pity.

Oh, forgot to mention: the actors, all of them, are quite good. That's what kept me from turning it off. To bad their talents went to waste, The film is well shot, too: the light, the motion etc. of every episode -- that's all in place. It's just the meaning that's missing.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I actually saw China O'Brien II before I ever saw the original China O'Brien. And I have to say that the first incarnation is actually worse. But: worse = funnier! And funnier = better. If you're a bad movie fan like I am, this is great material. If, however, you are looking for any sort of meaningful plot, acting ability, or movie-making skill, this is best avoided. The best part is how they filmed all the fighting sequences in stuttering fast-forward. Hilariously bad. See it for a laugh, see it for mindless entertainment, but whatever you do, see it for free on TV.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: THE SUNSHINE BOYS was the hilarious 1975 screen adaptation of Neil Simon's play about a retired vaudevillian team, played by Walter Matthau and George Burns, who had a very bitter breakup and have been asked to reunite one more time for a television special or something like that. The problem is that the two still hate each other and want nothing to do with each other. Richard Benjamin appears as Matthau's nephew, a theatrical agent who has been given the monumental responsibility of making this reunion a reality. This warm and winning comedy is a lovely valentine to a forgotten form of entertainment...vaudeville and it works mainly thanks to one of Neil Simon's better screenplays and outstanding work by Matthau, Burns, and Benjamin. Burns won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for this, but I think Matthau walks away with this film with his flawlessly hilarious performance as Willy Clark. Matthau was nominated for Best Actor but didn't stand a chance against Nicholson for ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST; however, in another year, this was an Oscar-worthy performance. Matthau commands the screen and there is not a false note in this beautifully timed performance. The scene where he is auditioning for a potato chip commercial and can't get the name of the product right is a classic. THE SUNSHINE BOYS is a warm and winning Neil Simon comedy which shines thanks to unbeatable chemistry between Matthau and Burns.

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

pos/neg ans:
positive