input: Since the Little Mermaid was one of my favorite Disney movies when I was little, I was curious about its sequel.

The Little Mermaid(one) is a classic animated feature with top quality everything, a grand music score, and targets a general audience. In contrast, the Little Mermaid 2 is targeted primarily at young children, because it is spontaneous, reflects a child's self perspective, the music is bouncier and less dramatic, and the ending feels like recess.

The Little Mermaid 2 starts out when baby Melody is presented to Ariel's side of the family. Abruptly without any visual cues to aid the drama, a giant tentacle grabs the baby. I laughed, wait a minute it's not funny, the baby's being attacked! Okay, I'll stop laughing. Morgana's crime in broad daylight and her spontaneity, takes away potential drama since it happened so quickly.

Throughout the feature, Melody seems superhuman, which I defend is how most children envision themselves. This quality in Melody's character is clearly brought out toward the end when she fights Morgana without an inch of fear on her face.

Like the first movie, Melody has a lot of Ariel's problems, except the reverse. Queen Ariel turns out to be like her father by restricting her from the ocean, whereas King Triton restricted Ariel from the surface. Ariel and Melody both rebel against their parent.

The music is more emotionally moving in the first. This sequel has a bunch of songs, but not as much orchestral work went into it. It's great for little ones, because it doesn't take an orchestra to impress them.

The ending in the first movie was strong and uplifting. The sequel ends with a bouncy song and everyone playing in the water. It's definitely more targeted at kids, because instead of the ending being solemn and leaving you blown away, this ending leaves you thinking, "It's time for recess!" Ultimately, this movie is fun for kids, so we should let them have fun.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Seeing this movie was the most fun I've had at the cinema in a long time. However, I am not able to say whether this is a good or a bad film, because such simple qualifications simply cannot be applied. This picture has everything any movie could ever have. It has characteristics of a romantic comedy, a political commentary, a thriller, a drama, an action movie, a musical, and an absurdist self-conscious art film. It's all in there, adding up to a myth.

The basic premise is about an Indian couple, Nandini (Karishma Kapoor) and Shekhar (Sanjay Kapoor), happily living in Canada, who rush to India to visit the husband's parents after a disturbing news report. The rest of the story takes place in India, where the couple find themselves in the midst of a plot of fratricidal violence. At one point, the story borrows from "Not without my baby," but to call Shakti a remake of anything would be an injustice.

The ostensible story line takes a backseat to a number of astonishing interruptions, including Shah Rukh Khan's dream of Aishwarya Rai which comes as if out of another movie. In fact, the two stars are on all the posters, but they appear really late in the film, and only Shah Rukh ends up being a real character. Yet he makes up for it with a spirited and truly unexpected performance.

Karishma Kapoor is the one with most work to do in this film, and she does an admirable job, having to link up the film's twists and turns with a show of believable emotion. Another notable presence is Nana Patekar, who plays Narsimha, the tyrannical father of the husband Shekhar. Nana Patekar dominates every scene he's in with a scary but nuanced character.

The movie is not without its share of realism. Violence is rampant, but truly disturbing in the abuse received by most of the female characters, with Karishma getting soundly beaten on a number of occasions. At times, this violence is clearly disturbing but ultimately it becomes surreal as every dramatic sequence is usually followed by such comic and spectacular turns that the overall effect is nothing but cathartic.

I have seen a share of Bollywood releases, and the mixing of genres and incredible plot resolutions are certainly their norm. But "Shakti" raises the bar by absorbing an even greater masala without becoming ridiculous. It is a film that achieves the grandeur of a Shakespearian tragedy, where the audience of the rabble and royalty is equally entertained. It is pure, gratuitous cinema, and the director Krishna Vamsi must have had a dream of a good time by throwing in every trick in the book. Perhaps, the all-important message of violence begetting violence and the inspiring extents of motherly love were not the thoughts on my mind, but I came out of watching "Shakti" exhilarated. Making movies can be the most fun in the world!

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I must admit that I was very sceptical about this documentary. I was expecting it to be the kind of All American Propaganda that we here in Europe dislike so much. I was wrong. This is NOT propaganda, in fact it is hardly political at all.

It depicts the events of 9/11 through the eyes of the firefighters called to the scene just after the planes crashed. It is an amazing coinsidence that this documentary was filmed at all! This film was initially shot as a documnetary about a rookie NY firefighter becoming "a man". We can only thank the film makers that they continued their work during the terrible ordeal that faced them.

A great piece of work. Absolutely stunning material. Highly recommended.

Regards,

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: When a small hobbit named Frodo Baggins inherits a magic ring from his uncle, the wizard Gandalf investigates and discovers that the ring is an ancient creation of an evil dark lord. Should the ring end up back in his hands, he will regain his power and destroy Middle Earth. Frodo and his loyal friends set out on a a quest to destroy the ring with a band of warriors. This is an underrated adaption of the classic novels as it only covers the first half of the story. Regardless, this is an epic and wonderfully animated film.

The animation is superbly done with rotoscope, which is tracing over live action footage. Ralph Bakshi worked well with the low budget he was given. The film also boasts a grand music score by Leonard Rosenman that fits every scene. There are a few plot holes with the script, but that has to be excused, considering the original deal was to make the book trilogy into two films, much had to crammed in the first one. My biggest gripe is some of the character design, Samwise was a bit too goofy, while the other hobbits act completely normal. The other characters are actually well written for the screen, and the voice actors do a great job, I was pleased that Legolas is actually a bit more helpful to the plot. The rotoscoped orcs are more comical than frightening, while the ringwraiths are eerie and nightmarish.

Another problem is that the evil wizard Saruman is called Aruman, thanks to the writers. Overall, I think a little more money and better writers would have done this a lot of justice, but there is something charming about it. Ralph Bakshi made a valiant effort of making screen adaption of these classic stories. The film suffers terribly from being overshadowed by the live action films, but it's still a great movie for animation lovers of all ages.

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

pos/neg ans:
positive