input: This is a strong movie from a historical and epic perspective. While the story is simple it is pure and straightforward. In truth, it is the standard story of a simple, honorable man whose honor comes into conflict with the more educated and wealthier men of the period.

Poor vs. Rich, honorable vs. dishonorable, a classic but well-told tale without much of the glitz of hollywood stinking up the screen.

Extra points just because you can almost smell the people on the screen. :)

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I have read the whole 'A wrinkle in time' book and then saw the movie. The movie contained all the elements in the book but since the book was 190 pages and the film was 2 hours it felt really crammed in with too many effects and bad acting.

A wrinkle in time is about a girl named Meg, Charles Wallace, and Calvin must team together to find Meg's father and get off the island Camazotz.

The beginning of the film is really a stinker. The acting is awful, the direction is laughable, and so far the situations aren't necessary. I really was crushed to see the same person Madeleine Engle that wrote the book and created the movie, made a great book, and a terrible film. The acting is worse than any straight-to-video acting. Yes, I got to admit there was cool effects. But seriously they were all done terribly and not serial in any way possible. If you read the book you will be crushed by the movie. I wish could give it a 0 but sadly I can only give it 1. A half could have been useful.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I passed this one on the shelf a few times, looking at the myriad of huge positive quotes (with tiny names) on the front and wondering if I was missing something. The other night it was on one of the movie channels, and I tuned in. I missed nothing.

I must admit that I only watched the first 30 minutes. Perhaps the movie becomes comedy gold after that. Given the slow, plodding pace and complete lack of laughter in the first 30, I seriously doubt it.

The lead character starts the movie in classic "I don't know how to start my movie" style, with a long, tiresome monologue about how he doesn't want to get sued. It's not funny. It's not even remotely funny. Others have commented on the "San Franclisco" bit; ok, a small chuckle the first time he says it. Then he grinds it into the ground, smiling at the camera like it's the funniest thing ever written. Get over yourself. In fact, I think the talking to the camera bit was the reason I instantly disliked the film. Don't assume familiarity with your audience. Familiarity is _earned_, much like respect.

From there you basically have a fat whiny guy talking in a very effeminate way about his dull life as a temp. I didn't realize he's Jewish; it's a discredit to Jewish comedians to call this "Jewish humor". It's just unfunny humor. Just because you're Jewish doesn't mean you have a knack for the comedy. A WASP, Spalding Gray, does a better job of self-analytical humor than this guy, so obviously it's not about ethnicity.

If one of the bits I had seen had worked, I might have stuck around. But some schlub going on about how much he loves the names of the women he works with, then listing them for five long minutes, doesn't make a great movie.

This is an obvious attempt to capitalize on the popularity of "Office Space". Don't let yourself become a victim of target marketing. Just say no to "Haiku Tunnel".

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I thought it was a New-York located movie: wrong! It's a little British countryside setting.

I thought it was a comedy: wrong! It's a drama.... Well, up to the last third, because after the story becomes totally "abracadabrantesque", the symbolic word for a French presidential mandate. It means, close to nonsense even it the motives would like to bring a sincere feeling.

What Do I have left? Maybe, a good duo of actress: Yes, I know, they are 3 friends, but the redhead policewoman is a bit invisible for me. The tall doctoress surprises by her punch, and McDowell delivers a fine acting as usual, all in delicate, soft and almost mute attitude. This gentleness puzzles me, because as other fine artists or directors, the same pattern is repeating over and over. In her case, it's like, whatever the movie, it's always the same character defined by her feelings, her values, who lives infinite different stories. I still don't know how to set the limit (or the fusion) between the artists and the works.

Another positive side of this movie is its feminine touch & the interesting different points of view. The women have each their own way of living, even if they are all single. It brings a lot of tolerance and learning to witness how a same and unique reality can be perceived in as many ways as people.

Finally, the movie is quite viewable, but the great final cuts the desire of a next vision.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative