input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I almost made a fool of myself when I was going to start this review by saying " This movie reminded me of BILLY ELLIOT " but then I looked up the resume of screenwriter Lee Hall only to find out that he was the guy who wrote BILLY ELLIOT so it's Mr Hall who's making a fool of himself not me

Am I being a bit cruel on him ? No because Lee has something most other aspiring screenwriters from Britain don't have - He has his foot in the door , he has previously written a successful British movie that won awards and made money at the box office and what does he do next ? He gives the audience more of the same

Young Jimmy Spud lives on some kitchen sink estate . He is bullied at school and no one loves him . The only thing keeping him going is that he has aspirations to be a ballet dancer . No actually he has aspirations to be an angel but considering his household he may as well be a ballet dancer . He has a macho waster of a father who thinks " Ballet dancers are a bunch of poofs while his granddad says " Ballet dancers are as tough as any man you could meet . I remember seeing the Bolshoi ballet ... " Yup Ballet is a main talking point on a run down British council estate those days - NOT . Come to think of it neither is left wing politics which seems to be the sole preserve of middle class do gooders who live in nice big houses , so right away everything about this set up feels ridiculously false

Another major criticism is that this is a film that has no clue who it's trying to appeal to . I have often criticised Channel 4 for broadcasting movies at totally inappropriate times ( THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT at 6 am for example ) but they showed this at 2 am and for once they've got it spot on . Considering the story involves politics , ballet dancing ( Gawd I hate it ) lung cancer and poverty there's no way this can be deemed suitable for a family audience but since the main protagonist is an 11 year old child and features angels and ballet dancers ( Don't blame me if I seem obsessed with the subject - there was no need to refer to them ) there's not much here for an intelligent adult audience either .

Of course if Lee Hall had been told at the script development stage by the producers that he should write a story featuring a schoolboy and an angel and had flatly refused saying that he wanted to write about other themes and stories then I will apologise but throughout the movie you do get the feeling that once the film was completed it was going to be marketed to the exact same audience who enjoyed BILLY ELLIOT
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I was very interested to see this movie when it first came out in the theaters, however, I wasn't able to get around to it. So, finally, it hit the shelves, and I picked it up. Not knowing exactly what to expect, I plopped the dvd in the player, settled in the for an evening of murder, and pressed play. What followed was one of the more engaging flicks I've seen in the last couple years.

*SOME SPOILERS*

This is the story of the Wonderland murders, which led to the seediest parts of LA and straight to the biggest porn start of the 70's, John Holmes (Val Kilmer).

I was hooked from the beginning, and the feel of the movie held me all the way until the very bloody end. I was surprised to find that the movie focused less on the actual murders and more on the events before and the investigation after. Aside from a few blood splattered walls in the beginning, and the actual showing of the murders towards the end, the movie was more or less an engaging show of great dialoge and great acting. Val Kilmer all but sells me as a junkie porn star, and even the "beautiful but that's it" Bosworth was a joy to watch (and just for her looks, mind you)

I personally felt the best aspect of the movie was, as I mentioned, its lack of outright showing the murders. It was shown in a very dark atmosphere, so you couldn't completely see the brutal bludgeoning bestowed apon the sleeping foursome. Furthermore, the sound effects of said murders were more than enough to whet my appetite. They were being beating with lead pipes, there's not much more that needs to be said.

My only real problem was Carrie Fisher's brief appearence. Her portrayal of the overly-religious figure was, I think, a bit too cliche of her appearence. Maybe that person was actually part of the story, maybe not, but I wasn't sold, and for some reason, Fisher seemed a bit too "akward" in her portrayal.

Overall, an excellent movie worth the watch, even if once!

***8/10***
....
output answer: positive

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Madhur Bhandarkar has given it all raw. But the best part is he hasn't forgotten to give the ingredients. It has come short and crisp to the viewer and it is the audience to make the choice now. Page 3 is a revelation of the naked truth irrespective of the crudeness attached to it.

Madhavi (Konkan Sharma) is a journalist and enjoys her work. A simple and peaceful life adores her with a caring boyfriend and a nice roommate Pearl. She covers the Page 3 (Celebrity Page) of Nation Today, where she has a very supportive editor Deepak Suri (Boman Irani.) But life takes turn for her as she hits the first bump and takes herself away from Page 3 and goes into Crime bit. Omigosh! a whole new world was waiting for her there. She is shocked, excited, stunned with the revelation. Her reaction has resulted in losing the job. At the end she is back to Page 3. Now when she meets any celebrity in a party, she knows the actual looks of each, hidden under the illusive face.

The movie has a message and it is crude. The audience needs to get it in their own color. The theme and the screenplay was fantastic. There are some very good thoughts applied to prepare the audiences. Like the foreplay-club is shown before the pedophiliac exhibition, the short suspense before gay-actions in bathroom. The dialogs are strong and the actors are really good at delivering it. Charu Mohanty's 2 words speaks volumes and he is very successful in uttering those two words with such ingenuity, it leaves an impact. The set selections could have been better. The songs don't stand anywhere; but they were needed in the background. Atul Kulkarni has a small role with high-impact. There were a few flaws visible. Atul Kulkarni explaining Konkan Sharma that honesty should be tagged along with intelligence. There could have been a better dialog as this sounds like a preach. The meeting between Thapar and his daughter doesn't call for acting. That scene looks very unprofessional.

Overall it is a must-watch movie with selective options before the pedophilia incident. That may spoil your mood.
....
output answer:
positive