input: The movie is steeped in religion, so it is impossible to separate it from religion in commenting upon it. In my opinion, this movie pretends to explore deep issues, but thrives on stereotypes and prejudices; with little true insight. What the people in the movie (and therefore, the writer) failed to see was grace. They failed to understand that God is the author of beauty and He is the Creator of passion and sexual gratification in the proper context of marriage bonds. To imply that the people of the society in which the story is based believe that nudity is sinful, and both the man & the woman enjoying the act of marriage is dirty, is just an oversimplification. Such stereotypes really don't exist, for even Jewish holy writings speak clearly of the caring husband who will seek his wife's pleasure before his own. Scripture says that a man ought to love his wife as his own flesh, and that no man ever hated his own flesh, but he nourishes and cherishes it. Even if you want to ignore the New Testament, the writers & characters completely ignore that there are passages such as the Song of Solomon in the Old Testament, and the even the book of Proverbs which says, "Rejoice in the wife of thy youth, let her breasts satisfy you always"! How can that be read in any way other way than that God knows, and approves of, and smiles on, the marital union and the enjoyment thereof? Real men don't ignore the value and needs of their wives. Those that do deny a very basic teaching of the Judeo/Christian religion. God NEVER said those things. It's absurd. Sonia rebelled because of the misapplication of the teachings of the true God of Abraham. It didn't need to be so. How sad. What Sonia desperately needed was TRUTH, not tradition. In knowing, loving and obeying God, we love others more; before ourselves. That is the faith of the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob & Joseph; once for all delivered to the Saints; bought & paid for by Jesus Christ, the Righteous. But alright, ignore all this and abandon ancient, holy Scripture and turn to the wisdom of homeless people & ghosts. That's a good plan. I would never recommend this movie; partly because the sexual content is unnecessarily graphic, but also because it really doesn't offer any valuable insight. Check out "Yentl" if you want to see a much more useful treatment of Jewish tradition at odds with society.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The story idea behind THE LOST MISSILE isn't bad at all, but unfortunately the story does get a bit dull towards the middle and the overuse of stock footage as well as poor special effects sink this film to the sub-par level.

The film begins with a missile heading towards the Earth. In a panic because it's about to strike the Earth, the Soviets manage to deflect the object. This isn't necessarily good, however, as this seemingly unmanned craft has a vapor trail that destroys everything in its path AND the ship is now in a low orbit over the planet. In other words, with each pass it makes, a swath of death follows--one that could potentially kill us all!! So, it's up to the good scientists of the US (led by a very young and hardly recognizable Robert Loggia) to formulate and plan to save us--and especially save New York that is in its immediate flight path! Unfortunately, they aren't able to save Ottawa (I've never been there, so I can't say whether or not this is a big loss) but thanks to good old American know-how, they are able to eventually destroy this harbinger of destruction!!

So, as you can see, the story idea isn't bad and rather original. But, so many old clips of fighter planes and guys manning radar scopes gets a bit old and it seemed like padding. Overall, a decent but hardly inspired film that extreme fans of the genre may like--all others, see it at your own risk.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Having developed a critical eye for film, and a love for good cinema, I went to see Antwone Fisher with my breath symbolically held. While I am an unabashed fan of Denzel Washington - both of his skill as an actor and of his public persona; I am an honest enough fan to admit the (very few) times when he hasn't quite hit the mark in a film or two. And I could be wrong about those - after all, I am not an actor. But this was different - Denzel would pour his career's experience into, and guide, a film handling one of the most sensitive topics known to man - the abuse of a child. As his directorial debut, no less. And develop the film to point that it would successfully present the triumph of a man. I didn't want to be disappointed.

And I wasn't.

What I did see is a film full of promise that connected diverse audiences, and gave the inexperienced viewer a brief, but truthful eye into the life of a young man whose childhood was a living hell, but who triumphed despite it all. This film did it - and nary a dry eye of any color in the theatre proved it. It takes someone to know the topics in this film to know when truth is presented. It takes a talented filmmaker to tell you the story convincingly when you haven't experienced it. And if he can further draw an audience in, and cause an audience to emotionally respond, without pity, the filmmaker has done his job. In any film. Black, white, purple or polka dotted. That is what makes good cinema. Bravo, Denzel Washington, Derek Luke, Joy Bryant and most of all, Antwone Fisher - you have indeed won.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive