input: I am not a huge fan of camp kitsch and the "so bad it's good" type of viewing. However, I really like this film for its fun factor and - believe it or not - it's innovation.

The whole thing has a ring of John Waters and is boundlessly enthusiastic, but with some superb actors and considered direction making the most of the slapstick and styalised movements. Billy Zane moves with incredible expression (see the scene on the bus for a text-book lesson in how to use movement) and is framed by some unexpected stars.

You may not like this film, you may not enjoy it, but if you get the chance to watch it, then spare the time because chances are you will end the film with a confused smile on your face, and a new perspective on the sense of humour of some big stars. Highly reccomended.

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I've just watch 2 films of Pang brothers, The Eye and One take only. When I watched The Eye, I was kind of disappointed about this two guys, who I had heard good words about them before. That film (The Eye) has a really bad script, especially the ending (childish,cliche and too coincident in my opinion) , but its still good in photography and experimental images. So I decided to see One take only and I didn't disappointed again. Still great photography, stunning image, MTV-style editing, cool music and this time,the story has a lot of indie spirit,logical and beautiful, you'll see some tiny plot holes, but it doesn't cause any trouble with the storyline. The only problem about this film is I get a bad DVD.

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: A definite no. A resounding NO. This movie is an absolute dud.

Having been recommended to me by a friend very much into "that sort of thing," I watched this movie with some anticipation of being informed, changed, moved, altered, uplifted, and all the other positive mystical things that could happen to me when I suddenly see The Truth. Now this may sound like someone who is already predisposed to poo-pooing anything dealing with the metaphysical, the metaphysical/physical boundaries of existence. Believe me, I am not such a person. I try to be open about any presentation and then decide accordingly.

In terms of content, the only thing I found mildly interesting and informative, was the bit about peptides, emotions, addiction, and cellular receptors. That was the only "unifying" element I could find in the documentary part of this film. The rest of the documentary rambled around several topics and never seemed to unify and cohere, try to tie up and conclude to a point. And what was all that stuff about native Americans not being able to see the ships that Columbus came in? Who told the "authorities" in this film that that was what happened in 1492? Where they there too? Had they compared this to scientific work being done in visual cognition (the famous gorilla video, for example, visit the Visual Cognition Lab at the University of Illinois site) there may have been a more convincing point made. Here, however, it seemed like unsupported mystical mumbo-jumbo.

As a film: this wasn't one film, it was two. I found the documentary part mildly interesting, just to hear the people talking about what they were talking about (I was annoyed that their credentials weren't presented at the bottom of the screen when they spoke, at least initially!) But I found the "story" part of the movie with Matlin in it annoying, disjointed, intrusive, non-related and downright stupid. That bit about the Polish wedding with that dance was not in the least bit funny. It was laughable, ludicrous, sophomoric, and stupid. And I found the use of the word "Pollack" offensive. It just seemed so out of place and wrong. Is such usage okay because a member of the group uses a pejorative term to refer to the group because he or she is a member of the group? That may be okay to make a point, but it didn't seem to be used that way here. And in any case, I don't care what the reason, it offended me, a Pole. I never call myself or refer to my ethnic background as "Pollack." And I certainly don't like like it when others do. Can I watch or listen to a bigoted conversation in which this term is used? You betcha! But again this didn't seem to be the case here. It just seemed so out of place. Unprovocked, unmitigated.

The acting was abysmal. Elaine Hendrix's performance was totally unbelievable. At times, it seemed like she was just reading her lines that had just been given to her. Marlee Matlin for the most part seemed to be sleep walking through this whole thing. Perhaps she was baffled by the material. I know I was. If she was supposed to be portraying a disillusioned drugged-up anxiety-prone malcontent, it just didn't seem to click. But by far, the world's worst was Hendrix! All in all, I found this a disjointed, poorly acted piece of clap-trap.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This inferior sequel based by the characters created by David Selzer and Harvey Bernhard(also producer) concern on a matrimony named Gene(Michael Woods) and Karen York(Faye Grant). They adopt a little girl named Delia from a convent. Gene York about re-elect for congressman and he presides the financing committee. Meanwhile, Delia seems to be around when inexplicable deaths happen. She creates wreak havoc when goes a metaphysical fair, as stores of numerology, therapy, counselling heal,yoga, tarots, among others are destroyed. Karen York hires an eye private(Michael Lerner) to investigate the weird and bizarre events.

This TV sequel displays thrills, chills, creepy events and gory killing. Delia such as Damien seems to dispatch new eerie murder every few minutes of film, happening horrible killings . The chief excitement lies in watching what new and innocent victim can be made by the middling special effects. Furthermore, mediocre protagonists, Faye Grant and Michael Woods, however nice cast secondary, such as Michael Lerner,Madison Mason, Duncan Fraser and the recently deceased Don S Davis, he was an Army captain turned into acting. As always , excellent musical score taken from Omen I and III by the great Jerry Goldsmith. The movie is exclusively for hardcore followers Omen saga. The motion picture is badly directed by Jorge Montesi and Dominique Othenin Girard. Previous and much better versions are the following : The immensely superior original 'Omen'(Gregory Peck, Lee Remick)by Richard Donner; 'Damien'(William Holden, Lee Grant) by Don Taylor; 'Final conflict'(Sam Neil and Tisa Harrow) by Grahame Baker. Rating : Below average.

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

pos/neg ans:
negative