input: Perhaps one of the most overrated so-called horror classics ever made, Halloween does feature the memorable Michael Myers and some great acting by Jamie Lee Curtis.

However, its rewatchability factor is very close to zero, as there is an unforgivable amount of time spent on dullness/culmination to the actual events.

This is the sort of movie you can walk away from to microwave popcorn and not miss anything at all.

How it spawned so many sequels, I will never comprehend.

Thank God Rob Zombie is remaking this. And generally, I hate remakes.

Surely he will more than compensate for all the random time-filling gaps with some quirky points of interest that the original severely lacks.

This is a movie we feel we have to like, much like the way we're taught that we SHOULD enjoy Dickens.

Don't assume this is a classic.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: William H. Macy is at his most sympathetic and compelling here as a hit-man and loving father who wants to step out of the family business without angering his overbearing parents. Treads much of the same territory as TV's "The Sopranos" in terms of the mid-life crisis of a criminal theme (here too he visits a shrink) but is still worth watching thanks to some taut direction from Brommel (I look forward to what this guy directs next), an excellent script, and all around great performances. Macy is excellent as always. This is probably his best role since "Fargo." Donald Sutherland is at his creepy best as the domineering father. Tracy Ullman gives a surprisingly riveting dramatic turn as Macy's wife. Young David Dorfman is excellent as Macy's bright and sensitive son (many of his lines sound ad-libbed and are wonderful). Even Neve Campell (who I usually find abhorrent) is compelling as the troubled young woman who captures Macy's eye. All of this is punctuated by a moving score and crisp pace that lead up to a predictable but still powerful climax and meaningful and touching aftermath. This film deserved a much wider release, as I suspect it would have connected with audiences.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I liked the first movie, but this is a textbook example of a sequel that would have been better of left on the drawing board. The general idea in the first movie was, if not great, then at least very interesting. This sequel tries to build upon the idea and the characters from the first movie, and though Christopher Walken is still good as Gabriel, the whole idea suddenly gets a bit ridiculous. If you haven't seen any of these movies, then get the first movie and forget about the sequels, they can take away all of the joy from the original.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Pearl S.Buck was a brilliant author that was a first American lady won Nobel prize in literature in 1938 and received her prize with Enrico Fermi an Italian Physit.

She wrote this romance in 1931 which was a second one after her first novel (East wind and West wind) in 1930 and her beginning in literature was fantastic upon her premier novels.

she won in 1935 (Pulitzer prize) in literature on her eternal novel (The good earth) which made a brilliant panorama on the life of Chinese peasant (Wung Lung) and his wife (O-Lane) and their efforts to face the hardness of hard positions in their earth to reach for their big fortune by their shoulders.

Paul Muni succeeded in this role as Chinese peasant that he prepared himself in this role upon his sittings with Chinese people in San Francisco in their town to be Chinese exactly as a real and true.

Shara Reiner succeeded in her role as (O-Lane) by this brilliant evidence that she won An Academy Awarded as a best actress in 1937.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive