input: "A Family Affair" takes us back to a less complicated time in America. It's sobering to see how different everything was back then. It was a more innocent era in our country and we watch a 'functional' family dealing in things together. The film also marks the beginning of the series featuring the Hardy family.

The film, directed by George Seitz, is based on a successful play. Judge James Hardy, and his wife Emmily, are facing a domestic crisis that must be dealt with. Married daughter Joan comes home after she has committed a social blunder and her husband holds her responsible. At the same time, another daughter, Marion, brings home a beau, who is clear will clash with her father. The happy teen ager Andy, seems to be the only one without a problem until his mother makes him escort Polly to the dance, something he is reluctant to do.

Needless to say, Judge Hardy will prove why he knows best as he puts a plan into action to get everyone together again. After all, he is a man that understands, not only the law, but how to deal with those outside forces that threatens his standing in the community and what will make his family happy.

Lionel Barrymore plays Judge Hardy with conviction. He is the glue that holds everything together. Spring Byington is seen as Emily, the mother. Mickey Rooney has a small part in this film, but he is as always, fun to watch. Cecilia Parker and Julie Haydon appeared as the daughters, Marion and Joan. Sara Hayden and Margaret Marquis are also featured in the film as Aunt Milly and Polly, the girl that surprises Andy with her beauty.

"A Family Affair" is a good way to observe our past through the positive image painted of an American family.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: (this may be a bit on the spoilerish side) I would like to start by saying I did not watch the entire movie, nor could I because it was evident from the first hour that I was going to be incredibly disappointed. That of course is the problem with taking, what many believe to be an amazing book, and turning it into a Disney Made-for-TV movie.

A Wrinkle in Time should have been made into an amazing movie a long time ago. It's got a great storyline that could hook children and adults. Plus it's got built in quality sequels. But Disney-fying was not the way to go. The problem with the movie is that all the things they changed to turn it into a visual story dumbed down what was so great about the book. It is a complicated and emotional story for kids. There was no reason to make Charles Wallace purely "psychic", because that was the easiest way of explaining it. There was no reason to write a fight between the three Mrs. W's as added tension, there is enough tension in the story without that. There was no reason to remove Meg's glasses... that deprived us of what could've been a very sweet scene between Calvin and Meg that happens in the book.

I could nitpick for days about little things, but I also think larger things, like the art direction was a off. Take for instance the way they made Camazotz look, with its strangely darkened skies. The creepiness that comes across in the book is that Camazotz could be Earth. It looks like earth. It has people on it that look like humans. The skies are blue, the grass is green, and there are children playing. But something is a little bit off. The directors chose to make Camazotz a complete other instead of taking the lesson in the book and applying it to the overall direction of the movie. The lesson of course is that Camazotz could very well be Earth, that is if we forget how to love. It would've been much creepier to have a beautiful afternoon as they're walking down the street with the kids bouncing the balls in the same rhythm.

I unfortunately did not watch the end. Maybe someone can tell me how Disney messed up the end as well.

Overall an artistic disappointment.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: A young girl surviving as a prostitute.

A cheap hustler who wants to get the big score.

They meet each other in Thailand. You may think by the opening titles it's going to be a violent movie but it is also a story of love with two persons in their own struggle to get the money for a better way of life. This film feels like an essay sometimes because of its changes of images, but still refreshing. This story is also about Eros and Thanatos. "It's not an original joke but it is well told" says a character and that also applies to this one: We've seen the story but this way we see it. Thailand appears in hot tones, the photograph going from one colored to a multicolored place. And it captures the city as the cage of this imperfect persons. There is also a good use of the music to dot the actions.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This film is stale, and misses the mark. It is far off compared to the 89 Batman that it tries to coppy. That women singer whats her name can not act, and we see why her film carrier died. Notice how this film died in the box office no one see this film on tv either. My uncle and dad were expecting Batman, and the films impression is more like Cop Rock. Not worth renting 3/10

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative