input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: The "Wrinkle in Time" book series is my favorite series from childhood. I have read and re-read them more times than I can count over the last 35+ years. The characters, with all their virtues and flaws, are near and dear to my heart. This adaptation contained very little of the wonderful, magical, spiritual story that I love so much. To say I was disappointed with this film would be a great understatement.

If you have never read the book(s) I imagine you will enjoy the movie. The acting is passable, the special effects are well done for a made for TV movie, and the story is interesting. However, if you love the books, avoid this movie at all costs.

I found this statement at the Wikipedia page of the novel: "In an interview with Newsweek, L'Engle said of the film, 'I expected it to be bad, and it is.'"

I, like another reviewer here, feel the need to read the book again to dispel this movie from my mind.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Okay, let's start off by saying this film is not an exact rendition of the crimes and legal pursuit of Andrei Chikatilo. While it may have been "official policy" in the Politburo that the USSR had no serial killers, in actuality the legal system had handled others, and "Killer X" (as he was actually called) was already being sought when Fetisov brought Burakov onto the case. In fact, as soon as it was realized they had multiple murders on their hands, the authorities assigned a task force of dozens of officers to track down and end the killing spree of a man that did not fit into what is perceived as normal serial killer parameters. It's good the director and writers consistently remind the viewer that the story is only "based upon actual events," for a docudrama this ain't.

***SPOILERS FOLLOW****

That said, this is a damn good example of a fast-paced Hollywood-style thriller that still gets across the basics of what happened. It is easy to follow and has just enough truth behind its version of events to make for compelling viewing. Yes, Chikatilo raped and murdered both children and adults, both male and female. Yes, shoddy lab-work set him free to continue killing for years. Yes, innocent men were accused of the murders and "confessed" to their crimes at police urging. Yes, the gay community was harassed while the crimes were being committed (albeit with Burakov's committed assistance). And yes, Chikatilo was brought to confession not by the haranguing of the special prosecutor, Gorbunov, but by the gentle understanding of a psychiatrist named Bukhanovsky (though Gorbunov was really nowhere near the egotistical martinet portrayed in this film). Quibbles about truth and veracity aside, all of these events are dramatized in a manner that consistently tightens the tension and fear.

It doesn't hurt that director and co-writer Chris Gerolmo has a pitch perfect cast. Stephen Rea's growing emotional involvement in the killings and developing expertise in detecting clues, Donald Sutherland's snarky manipulation of the Soviet party hacks and subtle spine that becomes evident when it is needed, Jeffrey DeMunn's seething undercurrent of rage hidden by a fear-filled demeanor, Max Von Sydow's boyish excitement at being part of a criminal investigation all enhance the sharp dialog and crisp editing in ways that cannot be underestimated.

Taken for what it is, "Citizen X" is almost pitch perfect (the "almost" due to one moment of self-congratulation at the end that just does NOT fit). Highly recommended as fiction well-told, not fact being presented...but considering the junky "serial killer" movies that Hollywood usually spits out, that's good enough for me.
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Without question, this film has to be one of the greatest ........ in cinematic history. I have it watched too many times to remember, and each time it is like I am seeing the film for the first time.

Where does one begin?

Meena Kumari's central performance is undoubtedly one of the finest of her career, followed closely by Sahib Bibi aur Ghulam and Phool aur Pathar. Each movement and nuance of her performance, makes any other Bollywood heroine pale into significance. Her masterly interpretation of Kathak coupled with her grace, tragic vulnerability and poetic delivery of Urdhu, is like nothing ever seen on the bollywood screen.

Pakeezah is perhaps the most stylised interpretation of the human condition; the photography, sumptuous cinematography and mise en scene, are so charged with symbolism and meaning, that the viewer is left breathless.

Naushads music, is unsurpassed, his knowledge of the music of the courtesan gharanas is incredible, and the way in which he punctuates the narrative with dark atmospheric motifs and overwhelming romantic melodies is indeed remarkable.

My only advice to anyone who seriously enjoys the spectacle of total cinema, should watch this epic mediation on life and art.
....
output answer:
positive