input: This film deserves another bad review. Consider one reviewer extolling the film's virtues that include 'no sex, violence or gore.' Uh, excuse me. The very set-up of the film has us watching as Cody's young comrade, with love of life and who has everything to live for is blown to bits leaving Cody holding his lifeless, bloody body. And, given the nature of war we know that Cody has seen horror on almost a daily basis. So much for those viewing this film with such rose glasses that the violence which defines Cody's persona is erased from viewer memory.

Sans any family of his own Cody, like John Rambo, roams the country on his bike making the long trek to hometown USA in the guise of some place called Nevada City. No mention, no realization of the clear fact that Cody is damaged goods. We know this since his CO practically declares him so as he order Cody to 'get some rest' away from the death and destruction of war. This explains, as none seem to notice or care, Cody's obvious 'flat' effect. It is not bad acting. It is the flat effect of post traumatic stress disorder. Not guessing here, remember his CO ordered him off the battle field.

How about that 'accidental' kiss as noted by another review. The fall was an accident, the kiss was not. How exactly was Cody 'respecting' Faith by hitting on her knowing full well she was spoken for? Now that was a non-family value moment. A moment which is then announced to the immediate universe as if posted on YouTube. Of course faith's lapse of fidelity as well as Cody's 'coming on' to a woman who plans to marry another is received in the spirit of the Xmas season, all CHEERING their cheaten' hearts and lips.

We know little about Faith's fiance except that she professes her love for him, she takes no longer than a nano second to accept his proposal (could have waited if any second thoughts), he is generous, he loves her to death, the family has nothing really against him, he believes marriage is based on compromises and the two have never discussed post marriage plans. No evil doers here.

Asner is a fine actor given over the hill dialogue like 'we love you son....' 'You are part of our family' literally days after they have met a stranger named Cody. And the 'band of brothers' speech where the phrase was above all never intended to apply to virtual strangers off the battle field.

Bottom line: This film is cotton candy Xmas fluff that betrays itself in major ways. Most grossly when it applauds Cody's disrespect for Faith by physically hitting on her knowing full well she is spoken for. By re-defining family as we know it to wit: accepting a virtual stranger as a full fledged loving member of the family because we all 'love you.' How many of you have done that or know anyone who has done that. NOT.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I saw this movie being a Jane Austen addicted and always feeling doubtful about cinematographic rendering of the complexity of her novels: well, this transposition is simply accurate, intelligent, delicate, careful, tactful, respectful, intense, in a word, perfect!

"Emma" is one of Austen's most delightful and funny novels, thanks to overall irony pervading situations and characters. The movie respected this subtle irony, not disregarding the comic element (Miss Bates above all). What engaged me in the novel, and the movie renders it clearly, is the deep knowledge of human life shown by the English novelist, and the modern look with which women, men, and their relation are handled, and it is astounding if we think how a woman novelist of the 18th century, who lived almost a secluded life, could grasp such depth and truth about life as she did: that most and still fascinates me. We can feel this modernity throughout the movie: just replace costumes, and use a more current language but the situations, the feelings, the ideas would be extremely modern. I think of the morbid interest in other people's lives, or that insinuating envy which now as ever rule women's relations, and still the difficulty in revealing, and giving expression to one's feelings, especially love: every situation gets a universal and out-of-time value.

The cast is really talented and offer very good and extremely brilliant performances: a young Gwyneth Paltrow is particularly suitable for this role (nowadays she would be probably too mature for it), Toni Colette is simply great. And how I envied them for the wonderful dresses they could wear! And then, the breathtaking English countryside, where every situation gets such a magic and dream-like dimension... a really enjoyable and deserving movie.

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Perhaps I couldn't find the DVD menu selection for PLOT: ON OFF. Clearly, the default is OFF. When the end credits began to roll, I couldn't believe that was it. Like our poor, but beautiful protagonist, I felt used, dirty, cheap....

The characters were drawn in very broad strokes and the writer's disdain for wealthy Thatcherites was all to apparent. I consider myself a "Roosevelt Democrat", but would appreciate a bit more subtlety.

Of course, the problem could be with me. I see that many others seem to find some meaning or message in this picture. Alas, not I.

The only thing that kept me from giving this a "1" was the nice scenery, human and plant.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I really hope that Concorde/New Horizons wasn't trying to make a serious horror, or even action movie when they made Carnosaur 3. The movie is flat-out silly from start to finish. Even the humor in C3 is funny because it's bad. Definitely a high water mark in the 'So Bad it's Good' genre. If you enjoy the very worst of the worst, this is for you.

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

pos/neg ans:
negative