input: This started out to be a movie about the street culture of the Bronx in New York. What it accomplished was to give birth to a new culture and way of life, for American youth. What other movie has done this except Rebel Without A Cause? One of the most important movies of all time. The elements are simple yet fascinating. The story is timeless, young people try to succeed against all odds. Yet the story is always believable and never depressing. The characters are so realistic, a city dweller, would recognize them as neighbors. The story is entertaining, and comes to a satisfying ending. Buy this one for your permanent collection. It is a piece of American history.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Ridiculous. This movie is actually a vehicle for the Ramtha School of Enlightenment. If you are wondering who the *bleep* Ramtha is: "Ramtha is a 35,000 year-old spirit-warrior who appeared in J.Z. Knight's kitchen in Tacoma, Washington in 1977. Knight claims that she is Ramtha's channel. She also owns the copyright to Ramtha and conducts sessions in which she pretends to go into a trance and speaks Hollywood's version of Elizabethan English in a guttural, husky voice. She has thousands of followers and has made millions of dollars performing as Ramtha at seminars ($1,000 a crack) and at her Ramtha School of Enlightenment, and from the sales of tapes, books, and accessories (Clark and Gallo 1993). She must have hypnotic powers. Searching for self-fulfillment, otherwise normal people obey her command to spend hours blindfolded in a cold, muddy, doorless maze." John Wheeler, one of America's finest theoretical physicists, would roll his eyes about this movie. He has in the recent past criticized parapsychologists for their misuse and misinterpretations of quantum theory. This movie does the same thing as those fools.

There is a great review of this movie at Skeptico. I recommend anyone considering watching this movie read it first before contributing to a cult's coffers.

http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/04/what_the_bleep_.html I noticed one reviewer here at IMDb say to take this movie with a grain of salt. It will take enough salt to kill a horse to wade through the garbage-thinking of this movie.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I only watched this because it starred Josie Lawrence, who I knew

from Whose Line is it Anyway?, the wacky British improvisational

comedy show. I was very pleasantly surprised by this heartwarming and magical gem. It is uplifting, touching, and

romantic without being sappy or sentimental. The characters are

all real people, with real foibles, fears and needs. See it.!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Hollywood's misguided obsession with sequels has resulted in more misfires than hits. For every "Godfather II," there are dozens of "More American Graffiti's," "Stayin' Alives," and "Grease 2's." While the original "Grease" is not a great film, the 1977 adaptation of the long-running Broadway hit does have songs evocative of the 1960's, energetic choreography, and an appealing cast. When Paramount began work on a follow-up, the producers came up nearly empty on every aspect that made the original a blockbuster.

Fortunately for moviegoers, Michelle Pfeiffer survived this experience and evidently learned to read scripts before signing contracts. Her talent and beauty were already evident herein, and Pfeiffer does seem to express embarrassment at the humiliating dance routines and tuneless songs that she is forced to perform. Maxwell Caulfield, however, lacks even the skill to express embarrassment, and his emotions run the gamut from numb to catatonic. What romantic interest, beyond hormones, could the cool sassy Pfeiffer have in the deadpan Caulfield? That dull mystery will linger long after the ludicrous luau finale fades into a bad memory. Only cameos by veterans such as Eve Arden, Connie Stevens, and Sid Caesar have any wit, although Lorna Luft does rise slightly above the lame material.

Reviewers have complained that, because "Grease 2" is always compared to the original, the movie comes up lacking. However, even taken on its own terms, the film is a clunker. After a frenetic opening number, which evidently exhausted the entire cast, the energy dissipates. With few exceptions, the original songs bear little resemblance to the early 1960's, and the only nostalgia evoked is for "Our Miss Brooks" and "Sid Caesar's Comedy Hour." The jokes fall flat, and the choreography in a film directed by choreographer Patricia Birch is clumsy to be polite. However, worse films have been inflicted on audiences, and inept sequels will be made as long as producers seek to milk a quick buck from rehashing blockbusters. Unfortunately, "Grease 2" is not even unintentionally funny. Instead, the film holds the viewer's attention like a bad train wreck. Just when all the bodies seem to have been recovered, the next scene plunges into even worse carnage.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative