input: I honestly had somewhat high expectations when I first began to watch this movie, but it turned out to be probably one of the most boring films I have ever seen!

First of all, the pace is incredibly slow, so it seems much longer than it is (and it's not short).I'm sure when Jane Austen wrote the book, she made it several pages long, filled it with description, and didn't intend for people to read in in one day, or it might drag and lose it's appeal, which "Emma" most certainly did. Now "Sense and Sensibility" had this flaw of a slow pace, but at least it had lively lines to make up for it, as well as some good performances!

That brings me to flaw #2, which is of course, the acting. While I don't happen to care for basically anybody involved in this film, I am sure they are capable of good work, but I didn't see much of it in this movie. It was like people were trying too hard to be witty, too hard to be "upper-class", too hard to be British (well, some of them), so they all just came off as a bunch of actors and not as people.

#3. The cast, as I said, seemed only like actors, and not actually like the people they were playing. Maybe that's a good thing, because the people they played really weren't all that nice. Why did everybody like Emma, for example? Sure, she was nice to the rich, handsome people in front of them, but she was an awful gossip behind their backs. If her friends were "ugly", then she didn't even bother to go behind their backs. So, why is this girl so great? Why do people have to tell stories, "just to make her laugh?" Of course the snob couldn't even do that right. I have enough problems with Gwyneth Paltrow as Gwyneth Paltrow, and her "Emma" did not exactly change my opinion.

Well, it's easy to see that I did not care for this one. I'm sure it's a lovely book and all, but some books are really not meant to be made for the big screen, and "Emma" is one of them.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: this is an honest attempt to make a bewitchingly sweet love story. the obvious inspiration behind the successful TV series "Bewitched," this lovely sweet rom-com is a timeless treasure. the comparisons are obvious. jimmy stewart plays a hapless but stolid "straight." kim novac plays a voluptuous blond witch who captures him through the use of a love spell. but when that spell is broken by a stronger witch, she contents herself with the duties of running her own shop and takes comfort in the fact that her beloved pyewacket (her feline familiar) is being cared for by her beloved aunt. you'll recognize the aunt from "Murder by Death." this movie is fun and touchingly sweet, bearing some spectacular wit and a nice witchy feel. worth a look.

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...

Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.

Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.

The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poire tries to avoid... and fails.

Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valerie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poire doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.

Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.

The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: "Happenstance" is the most New York-feeling Parisian film I've seen since "When the Cat's Away (Chacun cherche son chat). "

A film from last year released now to capitalize on the attention Audrey Tatou is getting for "Amelie," its French title is more apt: "Le Battement d'ailes du papillon (The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings)" as in summarizing chaos theory as a controlling element in our lives.

Tatou's gamine-ness is less annoying here because she only occasionally flashes that dazzling smile amidst her hapless adventures, and because she's part of a large, multi-ethnic ensemble, so large that it took me a long time to sort out the characters, especially as some of the cute guys and older women looked alike to me, and some of the characters fantasize what they should do such that I wasn't sure if they were doing that or not.

But I loved how urban the coincidences were, from immigrants to love nests to crowded subway cars to hanging around cafes.

The subtitles quite annoyingly gave both parts of a dialog at once.

(originally written 12/8/2001)

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

pos/neg ans:
positive