input: I wonder how much this movie actually has got to do with the 1984 movie "Bachelor Party", starring Tom Hanks. Is this movie even an official sequel? This movie is lacking in every department and you're obviously better off not watching it.

For a comedy this movie simply isn't good or funny enough. It relies mostly on the character's their stereotypical assessments, rather then the movie actually features some good, original and funny moments.

Of course there also is very little story present and the movie nude breast than script pages. You just keep waiting for things to finally start off. There is a main plot line in it somewhere but that one is so terribly unoriginal and gets executed so poorly in the movie that it feels more as if it's something non-existent. I guess there even is a message and moral story in it somewhere but this again is so terribly unoriginal and poorly done in the movie that it simply does not work out.

It's basically a typical teenage comedy, with lots of sex jokes and nudity, only without the teenage main characters, which makes the story all the more sad and tasteless. The movie makes some really wrong jokes, that are misplaced for any type of movie.

I regret ever watching this.

3/10

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I had a video of the thing. And I think it was my fourth attempt that I managed to watch the whole film without drifting off to sleep. It's slow-moving, and the idea of a mid-Atlantic platform, which may have been revolutionary at the time, is now just a great big yawnaroony. Apart from Conrad Veidt, the rest of the cast are pretty forgettable, and it is only in the action towards the end that things get really interesting. When the water started to spill big-time it even, on one occasion, woke me up.

But give the man his due. No one could hold a cigarette like Conrad Veidt. He doesn't wedge it between his index and middle fingers like the lesser mortals. He holds it in his fingers, while showing us the old pearly-browns. There are a few scenes in this film where the smoke drifts up to heaven against a dark background,and looks very artistically done. But it does not say much about this film if all that impresses you is the tobacco smoke.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

input: It's made in 2007 and the CG is bad for a movie made in 1998. At one part in the movie there is a stop motion shot of a dinosaur that actually looks good, but this just makes the extremely amateur work on the CG stuff look even worse.

The writing, acting, directing and everything else in this movie is just terrible. This is as bad as, if not worse than Raptor Island and 100 million BC... pure crap! Again, as with the other movies, the only scary part about this movie is that it actually got made and is now being aired on the sci-fi channel.

I still can't understand how they somehow get people who do have some acting skills to act in these movies and then somehow get them to act as terrible as everyone else in the movie.

For those of you who are unsure, the other poster is obviously being sarcastic in his review... or he is one of the people who worked on this movie.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans: negative

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?
OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive

pos/neg ans:
negative