input: Having seen the short a number of times at horror movie marathons, I believe it to be a humorous parody that slices to the main point of its reference.

Though the themes are crusty and stale to today's viewers, it is by no means a crumby waste of time.

Though being a student film gives little rise to an excuse, the proof is that it appears crafted with care on a budget of little to no dough.

As noted by another reviewer, it is less than ten minutes which is plenty of time to cleanse the viewing palate with a toast of joy, sit back and loaf idly through the film.

I think this short-bread of a film should be enjoyed as an appetizer for the title reference and the viewer should relax and roll with it.

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This show was laughably bad. The writing sucked, the dialog sucked. The guy who played Craig couldn't act his way out of a paper sack. Being it was on Thursday night, this was definitely great to watch with some beers. Cool music, bad acting, poor writing, all came together for my entertainment.

It was a drama/unintentional comedy. I don't care what happened to any of the characters, they were all boring and stupid. The first five episodes were the worst, since they couldn't reveal who the victim was, they had to write the dialog around it, which was terrible. I mean, the eulogy at the funeral was ridiculous. Actually, all the scenes that occurred in the present were utterly horrible.

So, let's review. Everything happening in present time sucked. The flashback scenes, only the writing, dialog and Craig's acting sucked. The music ruled though.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I enjoyed the feel of the opening few minutes, but 20-minutes in I was liberally applying the fast-forward button. Far too many shots of Stewart (Michael Zelniker) walking from room to room, down hallways, through doors and down the street, and as many shots of him looking pensive and confused. Gave me the impression that the story had originally been meant as a short (20-30 minutes), and then stretched into a feature as a labour of love between director Grieve and star Zelniker (they co-wrote the screenplay).

It might have been more entertaining if any of the characters had anything to say that I hadn't heard said in many other films before, or if the ending wasn't - disappointingly - the one I had predicted three minutes into the film (atypical for an independent/smaller studio film). At least its heart was in the right place - it wasn't your standard formulaic Hollywood manipulative nonsense.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: If you lived through the 60s, this film can be at times painful and other times quite joyous. It's all there but the small print in the counter culture tabloids prevalent at the time. These are the roots of a social revolution that is still playing out: "don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin, for the times they are a-changin'". While the film focuses on the revolutionary nature of LSD and it's dissemination at the time, that alone played a tremendous hand in the evolution of the intelligentsia, influencing engineers, scientists and aiding in the hyper-development of computer related activities. A salute to the filmmakers from one who was there - you've captured the era better than I've seen before.

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

pos/neg ans:
positive