input: This is one of the worst-written movies I've ever had to sit through.

The story's nothing new -- but it's a cartoon, so who cares, as long as it's pretty and fun?

I'm not going to go as deep as the characterisations, or I'll be here all day (except to say that there aren't any; the characters change personality whenever it's convenient to the plot), but whoever wrote the script and visual direction should be forbidden access to so much as pencil and paper. Thumbs down? I'd vote to cut their thumbs off.

"Narrow in on an object/prop. Cut back to character close-up. Character gives a knowing look, which the audience will not even remotely understand. Repeat that several times, with different objects/props."

"Make the characters pay no attention at all the huge lumps of rock are floating around, crashing into each other, generally raining destruction all over, and which could kill them all at any moment -- but make them stop and gasp in fear when they see a harmless-looking, almost pastoral green rock in the distance."

The whole thing is a long succession of events, actions, and behaviour that are only there for the convenience of the writer, to save him having to think or make any effort at all to write the story properly.

This is the Plan 9 of CG cartoons, except that it doesn't have Ed Wood groan factor to make it fun to watch.

Do yourselves a favour: spend your cartoon budget on Pixar movies.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: "What happens when you give a homeless man $100,000?" As if by asking that question they are somehow morally absolved of what is eventually going to happen. The creators of "Reversal of Fortune" try to get their voyeuristic giggles while disguising their antics as some kind of responsible social experiment.

They take Ted, a homeless man in Pasadena, and give him $100,000 to see if he will turn his life around. Then, with only the most cursory guidance and counseling, they let him go on his merry way.

What are they trying to say? "Money can't buy you happiness?" "The homeless are homeless because they deserve to be?" Or how about, "Lift a man up - it's more fun to watch him fall from a greater altitude." They took a man with nothing to lose, gave him something to lose, and then watched him dump it all down the drain. That's supposed to be entertainment? They dress this sow up with some gloomy music and dramatic camera shots, but in the end it has all the moral high ground of car crash videos - only this time they engineered the car crashes and asked, "What happens when you take down a stop sign?"

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: In the third entry of the Phantasm series, Mike and Reggie continue chasing the Tall Man, assisted by a trigger-happy 9 year old, a black G.I. Jane and the spirit of Mike's deceased brother (he died in the original Phantasm). Number 3 is a rather disappointing sequel, since the gore and black comedy is a lot less inspired and exciting as it was in Phantasm II. I got the feeling the stress was merely laid on Reggie's incompetence as a lover and his talent as stand-up comedian. The humor in the previous film was a lot more dry and oppressed, which fits a story like this better. Also, the settings aren't as macabre here, plus the constant presence of the Tall Man (Agnus Schrim) isn't as obvious There still is plenty of gore but not half as satisfying this time. By the way, beware for the severely cut version as it shows most delightful killings off-screen. The entire Phantasm series is the lifetime achievement of Don Coscarelli, who wrote and directed 4 episodes so farthe fifth being in production. The first one is a semi-cult classic, the second is a horror-feast of gore and violence and the rest can easily be skipped. A. Michael Baldwin returns as Mike, even though James LeGros portrayed his character a lot better in Phantasm II.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative