input: hi.. I consider Just Cause one of my favorite Sean Connery's movies, it is a tense psychological thriller with excellent performances from the Cast, especially Connery..it also has one of the best lines i have seen in movies, so the dialog is pretty good in this one.. It also has one of the best scenes in movies ever, when Sean interviews Ed Harris's character in prison is just fantastic..i enjoyed this one a lot and i can not recommend this enough, really do not miss this one ! Do not pay attention to the negative reviews stating that the last 30 minutes suck, it was as intense as the rest of the movie, i really find Just Cause a very entertaining movie..

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: First of all, let me say that this is not the movie for people looking to watch something spirited and joyous for the holidays. This movie is cold, brutal, and just downright depressing. Mary Steenburgen plays a grinchy mom who is down on Christmas because her husband has lost his job, they are losing their house, can't buy Christmas presents for the kids, etc. You get the idea, happy stuff for the holidays. So along comes Harry Dean Stanton as Gideon the Christmas angel, who in his dark hat and long overcoat comes off more like a pedophile who hangs around children all day observing them. What better way to instill the spirit of Christmas in Mary Steenburgen than to kill off her family and then offer to bring them back if she believes in Christmas again. Santa Claus is a blackmailer and his Christmas workshop looks more like a haven for refugee Nazis on the lam. The movie lays everything on so thick that you don't care about the happy ending when it comes because the rest of the movie is so bitter and unbelievable. I'm sure this film wanted to be something Capra-like, but it left out the joy and sentiment on what a holiday film should be.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Outside the household is a different world and the family struggle to tread the line between Dads authority and their hopes and dreams.

The period is captured; The bakelite light swithes, the Georgian floorpan, the picture rails, the wall paper, the short skirts, the cheeky lads, the Mini van, shiny modern mangles....

The location is captured; A wind lashed glacier hewn rocky landscape, walls of local stone, community, freedom.

But there is much much more; Childhood, happiness, sensuality, pride, values, freedom, authority, rebellion, violence (in the deepest sense), love, struggle, puberty, naivety, morality, trust, faith, deceit, machismo, manners, maturity, loss, poverty, sacrifice, horror, acceptence, revelation, comedy and parenthood are all there. (And in no particular order!).

This film is a richly woven expression of family tensions that are as relevent today as ever. The fact that some of these aren't tackled directly is testament in itself to the attitudes of the day but the fact that they are all here is a testament to the acting skill, the story and the direction.

If there's anything bad about this film, it's that all this deeply entrenched and wonderfully enacted tension is swept away a little too lightly towards the end. Maybe I missunderstand - the doom and gloom felt by many teenagers really does disappear if they deal with it (**) - maybe the film is trying to send even that message too - well worth doing.

What is the film trying to say? Kids: Parents were young too, parents struggle too, everyone makes mistakes, everyone learns, things change, struggle can end happily. Parents: Don't try too hard! Try to remember that your support is the key to their well being.

It sounds simplistic doesn't it? Sometimes the film feels like that too but it's then that you notice how much is being being challenged and uncovered.

The film is a classic.

(**) - Not the problems themsleves.

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I actually intended to see this movie in the theatre. It was actually sold out. I actually went to see Solaris instead, which actually was the worst movie to be released in 2002.

Victor Rosa (John Leguizamo), a tough, streetwise 'street pharmacist', freaks out when he sees a kid get shot, so he decides to go clean and invest all of his money with Jack (Peter Sarsgaard). Things seem to be going pretty well until Jack skips town with his girlfriend Trish (Denise Richards). This happened very late in the movie, so had they not revealed this in the preview, it might have been an interesting twist. But they did, so it's not.

In fact, there's not a single interesting thing about this movie; everything is given away in the preview. If you saw even one preview, you saw the whole movie, so you might just want to think really hard to fill in the gaps. Go to the website, download the preview, save yourself $3.99. There is not a single surprise or twist in the entire film, other than how terrible the soundtrack is.

I hope that whoever was in charge of writing the soundtrack was fired. Twice. Most of it is what music would be like if the only songs allowed to be released were Ricky Martin and Gloria Estefan duets, and (I may shatter the fabric of the space-time continuum with a concept as mind-numbing as this) they both had less talent and musical ability.

The acting is at best poor, the script is at best a crime against humanity, and Denise Richards is at best 67% styrofoam and 33% ziploc bag. You know things are bad when John Leguizamo (he was in The Pest!) upstages the rest of the cast with his acting abilities.

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

pos/neg ans:
negative