input: I saw this movie literally directly after finishing the book, and maybe that was a neutral idea or a very stupid one. I think it was the latter. First of all, it was inaccurate in many small, yet important details. One of the first things I noticed was, during Winston's day to day life in his work, his conversations, eating in the cafeteria, etc. he feels free to look unhappy and make suggestive glances at people without immense fear. One of the most important parts of the book, was that even in small activities it was virtually impossible to safely show even a hint of his true emotions on his face AT ANY MOMENT. This is also shown in the scenes on the streets of the proletarions. In the book Winston knew that this was a huge risk to wander around there and was skeptical and frightened at every trip. While in the movie, he does it so often and without fear, that you lose the important feeling of heavy surveillance and risk right off the bat.

Other minor inaccuracies included Winston hiding his diary in the wall, yes a very small change, but it begs the question, what's the point? There was also the most annoying thing a director can do with a book, and that is morphing characters.

The large inaccuracies were far more disturbing, however. First of all, one of the important pieces of the book is that Big Brother is a government based on an intelligent, yet crude philosophy. In the movie, they skip that and go straight to making you think that the government is run by Hitler with technology. Which is true, in a sense, when directed with its facism, but if that's all you get out of Big Brother, you really missed the point of the book. The terrifying thing about Big Brother is that, in a way, it has some points behind its philosophy. When O'Brien is picking at Winstons mind in the Ministry of Love, he is LISTENING to everything Winston says against Big Brother. The fact that he listens, and advances forward in his philosophy, is in effect what is most creepy and intriguing. In the end, (careful SPOILER ahead) when Winston says he loves Big Brother, the terrifying thing is that you are not sure whether it was souly the beating and torture that caused this, or the actual power behind the philosophy. I am in no way saying that the Big Brother's philosophy has points that appeal to me, but its intelligence and depth is what makes this book incredibly disturbing.

Also, how could anyone feel any connection between Julia and Winston in the film? It was awful, no connection whatsoever.

And where was O'Brien before he gave Winston his address? One of the things that carried the book was Winstons thoughts about O'Brien BEFORE he made contact with him. In the movie, they just jump the gun.

But that about sums up why this movie was a terrible adaption: because its impossible NOT to jump the gun and morph characters in less than two hours. How could anyone think this movie was watchable if it was under two hours? At the very least, the movie demands 3 hours to be able to capture some of the important moods and connections. Anything less is just pointless.

If you loved the book, and I mean TRULY adored it, you will not approve of this movie, and chances are, you already knew you wouldn't. Because the book is unfilmable, and this movie just proves how impossible it is cram something decent into a small reel of film.

Two stars out of ten

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: "Shore Leave" is mostly an average Star Trek adventure. Nothing wrong with the episode, though. I simply think that this is not the best representation of what the show had to offer to fans. It is lightweight entertaining, nothing more. However, I'm glad to see that a TV show of this type had enough good sense to take a break from serious intergalactic conflicts. In this episode, Kirk decides to grant his crew some time off, and a landing party is beamed down to a planet that looks like the perfect place for a vacation. As usual, the planet is not as peaceful as it appears to be. There are some action and tense moments, but most of the story is played for laughs. Good, but unexceptional.

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: St. Elmo's Fire has no bearing on life after university at all (for the majority of us common folk anyway). Why was this garbage even made? Who can really relate to this? Who lives like these characters? I truly feel sorry for the actors having to deal with such a terrible script. There are some talented young actors in this "film" that have done a good job elsewhere. It must have just been one whole joke to them on set.

I actually found this "film" insulting to my intelligence. The only joy I got from this is hoping that Sir John Hughes had a good ol' laugh when he saw a screening of this the same year his masterpiece of The Breakfast Club was released.

Don't make the same mistake I did of watching this because you enjoy 80's films. It really is that offensive to the genre.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Enchanted April is a tone poem, an impressionist painting, a masterpiece of conveying a message with few words. It has been one of my 10 favorite films since it came out. I continue to wait, albeit less patiently, for the film to come out in DVD format. Apparently, I am not alone.

If parent company Amazon's listings are correct, there are many people who want this title in DVD format. Many people want to go to Italy with this cast and this script. Many people want to keep a permanent copy of this film in their libraries. The cast is spectacular, the cinematography and direction impeccable. The film is a definite keeper. Many have already asked. Please add our names to the list.

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

pos/neg ans:
positive