input: The opening shot was the best thing about this movie, because it gave you hope that you would be seeing a passionate, well-crafted independent film. Damn that opening shot for filling me hope. As the "film" progressed in a slow, plodding manner, my thoughts were varied in relation to this "film": Was there too much butter in my popcorn? Did the actors have to PAY the director to be in this "film"? Did I get my ticket validated at the Box Office? Yes, dear reader. I saw this film in the Theatre! This would be the only exception I will make about seeing a film at home over a Movie Theatre, because at home you can TURN IT OFF. Were there any redeeming values? Peter Lemongelli as the standard college "nerd" had his moments, especially in a dog collar. Other than that this "film" went from trying to be a comedy, to a family drama to a spiritual uplifter. It succeeded on none of these fronts. Oh, and the girlfriend was realllllllllly bad. Her performance was the only comedy I found.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This film is about a group of five friends who rent a cabin in the woods. One of the friends catches a horrifying flesh-eating virus. Suddenly, the friends turn on one another in a desperate attempt to keep from contracting the disease themselves.

"Cabin Fever" is a horrible film. For one, it tries to be many genres at once. Is it supposed to be a homage, a slasher, a black comedy, or a scary movie with unintentional comedy? Nobody can tell. There's a serious scene at first and a second alter, it turns funny. When the film tries to be funny, the humor is quite bland, excluding the ending. I liked the ending a lot.

But apart from the ending, I was pretty disappointed and disgusted. The violence is cringe-worthy, more looking away from the screen than being scared. The tone changes within each scene, sometimes funny, sometimes scary, and sometimes quite random. In fact, you see a girl doing karate in slo-motion. What are we supposed to get from that? This same girl would bite one of the characters. Was that supposed to be funny? I don't know.

Some of the performances were decent, and many were quite amateurish. I didn't care for most of the characters. I liked the plot but the execution was done horribly. As a horror film, I didn't know what it was trying to be. I didn't find it funny, tense, nor scary. By the end, you're left indifferent, thinking, "What have I just been through?" Unfortunately, you'll never know the answer to that question.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: At first glance, this film looks like the Keifer Sutherland series 24 for the big screen. With the focus on a plot to assassinate the President of the United States, a race against time, and plenty of Secret Service agents, the agency under the spotlight in The Sentinel.

But wait, the protagonist turns out to be Michael Douglas' character Pete Garrison instead, a veteran Secret Service agent famed for taking the bullet for Reagan in 1981. The SS agents are specially trained to "take the bullet", which is what makes them special - who in the right mind will put themselves in the line of a bullet and a target? But Garrison gets implicated in the assassination plot, and has to run for his life while at the same time doing his bit of investigations into the plot. All this because of his failure in a polygraph test, due to his adulterous banging of the First Lady (Kim Basinger). Tsk.

There are shades of Clint Eastwood's In the Line of Fire. Both featured aging actors, and aging veteran has-been heroes with a bit of a historical reference, who took the bullet in their respective tours of duty. While Eastwood's movie has a more enigmatic villain in John Malkovich, The Sentinel suffered from its lack of a central strong villain, preferring to share the assassination responsibility amongst many forgettable ex-KGB villains, and the mole within the Presidential Detail. With Douglas on the run from the law, he becomes similar to Dr. Richard Kimble of The Fugitive, hunting the proverbial one-armed man while at the same time, relying on his smarts to outwit fellow agents, which turned out to be quite interesting to watch - despite slick processes, it still boils down to the performance and gullibility of individual agents.

Keifer Sutherland and Eva Longoria, top TV stars of today from 24 and Desperate Housewives, get relegated into support roles as the Secret Service investigators who are looking into Garrison's probable involvement in the assassination plot, and at times seem to have lept off the pages of CSI with their forensics skills. The beautiful couple had chemistry that could have resembled X-Files' Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, but alas these two had very little to do here. We know the reason why they're in the movie, and that is to get their fans into the theatres. Also, Longoria's role seemed unable to shake off her sexy-mama Gabrielle, and here, has her in fairly low cut blouses (Sutherland actually tells her to cover up) and tight pants (ogle-fest for fellow agents).

Nonetheless, it's still a pretty interesting look into the lives of probably the most highly charged and tense protection detail in the world, and the typical threats that they face daily, including the following up on every nutcase's threat on the life of the most powerful man in the world. It's a decent suspense and investigative thriller, with enough subplots to keep you entertained. But one thing though, like most ending action sequences, this one has a big enough loophole for you to fly a jumbo jet through.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive