input: By 1941 Columbia was a full-fledged major studio and could produce a movie with the same technical polish as MGM, Paramount or Warners. That's the best thing that could be said about "Adam Had Four Sons," a leaden soap opera with almost terminally bland performances by Ingrid Bergman (top-billed for the first time in an American film) and Warner Baxter. Bergman plays a Frenchwoman (this was the era in which Hollywood thought one foreign accent was as good as another) hired as governess to Baxter's four sons and staying on (with one interruption caused by the stock-market crash of 1907) until the boys are grown men serving in World War I. Just about everyone in the movie is so goody-good it's a relief when Susan Hayward as the villainess enters midway through she's about the only watchable person in the movie even though she's clearly channeling Bette Davis and Vivien Leigh; it's also the first in her long succession of alcoholic roles but the script remains saccharine and the ending is utterly preposterous. No wonder Bergman turned down the similarly plotted "The Valley of Decision" four years later.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Stortebeker is truly one of the worst TV mini-series ever made on this planet.

The acting is unbearable and the historic background is mostly nonsense: Just two examples: Visby was shown as a village of three houses. Instead, it was a major city at this time, it's best days already passed by. Secondly, Hamburg would have never been the city taking care of pirates in the Baltic Sea. Hamburg had no access to the Baltic Sea, the major town at that time was Lubeck.

But worse than all that: The directing! How can a dilettante like this guy be allowed to direct a movie like this? Impossible! There was not a single believable scene it, the fights were ridiculous and I could not suppress laughter at most stern scenes.

I can't understand at all how a major television station could be so incompetent.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Grand Canyon is a very strange bird. It's a completely unique urban piece, where relating the entire plot would fail to convey much.

It's central theme seems to be the inherent uncertainty life holds for people of every race, background and station. But to proclaim that THE theme of the film would be to horribly understate its scope. Similarly, to pigeonhole it in a particular genre is futile.

The film has volumes to say, though likely different volumes for every viewer, and says it all in such a non-preachy way from so many angles, that in the end, i can't even define its central message for myself.

Nevertheless, it does it's business with such laser precision; every prop, line of dialog, and bar of background music contributing to it's pervasive mood and powerful message, that i'm pleasantly surprised, and come away very thoughtful after every viewing. Still it doesn't feel at all stuffy. A sparkling film with a great cast and everything working.

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: An annoying experience. Improvised dialogue, handheld cameras for no effect, directionless plot, contrived romance, ick! to the whole mess. Ron Silver was the only real actor. Gretta Sacchi was TERRIBLE! Henry Jaglom did better with Eating which suited his style much more.

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

pos/neg ans:
negative