input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Have you ever had a cool image in your mind that you thought it would be nice to be in a movie: Like seeing a detective peeking through the cracks of a broken fence of some abandoned house? Or seeing a woman walking down a street looking cold and intense and awfully alert? Yeah. Imagine stretching that image to a whole movie, you pretty much got the idea of Broken, though there's no detectives in this movie, I'm just using it as a visual example. But, the intense looking woman is here and she filled pretty much 99% of the screen time. I got nothing to complain about that woman, she's a perfect choice for this role.

I consider myself a very open minded individual who can find enjoyment out of all kinds of artistic expressions and I can truly enjoy some really moody stuff. It would be really cool if I can frame one of the scene from this movie and hang it on the wall. Let's be honest here, the acting is superb. Some of the expressions on the actors face are what keep me watching.

Now onto the problem of this movie. Beyond the mood, there's not much anything else here. The director basically took an obsession of an idea and ran it far beyond what it was worth. I don't consider it to be a spoiler if I say the obsession is "mirror". Let's face it, this singular idea is all over the bloody place and that's all the director got to work with. Granted, there are a few twist and turn here and there. If you paid any attention, nothing is going to surprise you in the end, obvious plot holes aside.

Now, I'm not picking bones with this style of art since I enjoyed them most of the time. I still believe that we should judge an art base on the medium it uses to express whatever the artists want to express. Movie is not a piece of music, or a picture, or a painting, or even a poem, and certainly not just a cool image in your mind. It's all that plus a good story and character development. I consider the Lynch style of movie making cheating. It is irresponsible and cheap and a waste of the medium. We gave movies 2 hours running film time for a good reason. Therefore, we should judge it differently than judging a single frame of imagery such as a photograph or a painting.

This movie is not completely Lynch style, thank goodness. It has a linear development and eventually came to a conclusion. It does not have much story or character development. It presented itself rather seriously with characters composed of common folks, thus distance itself from other fantasy stuff at least from the surface. It does not offer any explanation of the fantasy element nor did it ever attempt to build a coherent world around it. The oddity came from nowhere and seems rather isolated and accidental. Maybe the coherency remains in director's head but from what I can see he did not put much effort into realizing it on the screen.

Where did he put his effort in then? It seems that he spent a lot of effort in building the mood and enhancing it with the music. The music often built up tension which eventually turn into a tease. Only in the later part of the movie the scare and tension materialized.

In the end, I felt like: OK, I know what you are trying to say here but is that the point you are trying to make by spending two hours building up all these tension? It is rather irrelevant with who the characters are and what kind of life they have. And we are given very little about who the characters are. All we have is this circumstance that just took placed. Disappointing but I guess the director did not have much material to work with and it shows.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: I have heard about this novel a long time ago, many of my friends have recommend me to read it. I searched it in every place and finally found it. This is a book that every man should read, because it is genius and because of it's vision. I enjoyed every page.

I knew about the movie and could not wait to see it. When I finally did I was very disappointed, many things that are in the book are not in the movie (I do not think that this is a spoiler) that just makes the movie not logical... Michael Radford might be a good director, but a bad writer. Especially as a book adopter. The movie is not dark at all, the writing is really bad, the only thing that is good, even great, is the acting. John Hurt is an amazing actor and the only face I myself could see as Winston Smith.

What angers me the most are the people in IMDb that called this "The Best Adaptation Ever" without even reading the book! Or knowing anything about screen writing!

You can only understand the brilliance of the story by reading the book, do not consider this as an alternative. As a fan of the book, I was very disappointed.

The points I gave for this movie goes for the acting.
....
output answer: negative

input question: Select the correct sentiment of the following review: Sometimes, Lady Luck smiles on me. I had originally made -- and copied over -- a VHS tape of this wonderful TV presentation. I was heartbroken when I realized what I had done since I had been unable to obtain a copy of it anywhere else.

Recently, I subscribed to digital cable, and while searching through upcoming movies, there to my surprise was a scheduled broadcast of the movie. This time, however, I made a copy of it to DVD so there's no chance of repeating my mistake.

I finally got to watch it again after eight years, and it was just as exciting and tense as when I first saw it. There is a little bit of prelude to this story in that my first contact with "Pandora's Clock" came with a live reading of the book on public radio. I just happened to tune in to the broadcasting station on my way home for lunch, and from the first installment, I was hooked. Each day, I waited with anticipation for the next chapter to be read.

When I learned a few months later that the book was going to be broadcast on TV as a movie, I made sure to clear my schedule for that event.

First of all, I'd like to say that the movie was very true to the book, contrary to what another reviewer had said. That, in itself, is a rare achievement for TV movies.

Secondly, I agree with others about the casting. I could not imagine a better choice for Captain Holland than Richard Dean Anderson. Literally, the movie could have crashed and burned without a proper cast for this pivotal role. Anderson has never been better, and it is a shame that we have not seen more of him. In fact, all of the cast members did a superb job.

My only complaint with the movie -- and the book -- was the interjection of the "terrorist plot" to arm a private business jet with air-to-air missiles and have its pilot stalk and shoot down the stricken plane. Basically, we are talking about less than 36 hours to orchestrate and execute a plan like this one, and folks, that is just not realistic at all given all the players involved. Also not realistic was how little the airliner was affected by having first one, then two of its engines blown off.

That beef aside, I enjoyed the building suspense and found to be very believable how the reactions of foreign governments were portrayed in the film, as well as our own.

If you have an opportunity to see this movie, do so by all means.
....
output answer:
positive