input: Hugh (Ed Harris) is a hotshot, bachelor senator determined to run for president. One day, however, he happens upon an old high school classmate named Aggie. Aggie (Diane Keaton) is an accomplished and award-winning author with a lovely face and an independent spirit. Hugh is smitten. He convinces Aggie to become his fiance. But, will Aggie have to sacrifice her principles of honesty in the world of politics, where things are not always what they seem to be? And, will she be able to withstand the rigors of a harsh media blitz? This is, mostly, a nice romance for those who adore tales of affection. Hugh and Aggie are absolutely in love and their banter and conversation are a good view. However, although the movie tries to show the political life in its reality, it doesn't completely succeed. Nevermind. The production values are high and the script is very elegantly written. With these advantages and the handsome personages of Keaton and Harris, those who sit down to the film will find it to be good entertainment.

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I actually quite enjoyed this show. Even as a youngster I was interested in all sports and that included horse racing. It was always going to be difficult to make a series based on racing corruption and at the same time get permission from the race tracks to record filming about this controversial subject. One episode I particularly remember centred around a horse expected to win a big race that looked a bit off colour. A syringe was found on the stable floor and everyone thought it had been drugged but nothing showed up in the blood tests. All too late they realised the horse hadnt been doped but had had its knee cartilage removed. Like running a car with no oil and the engine seizing up, the horse broke down with tragic consequences.

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

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Oh god, what a horrible, horrible film. Meant to be a comment on the state of society, it's just a reflection of the worst of the worst in reality TV. Interstitials hosted by Jason Jones and Don McKellar are the most obnoxious part, written in a tone that is perhaps meant to be reflexive and insightful. Rather, these moments are mind numbing as they speak to the camera with dialogue written by someone with a love for insulting, condescending speech that shoves the "meaning" of the film down the viewer's throat.

Also, a point to would-be filmmakers: Long takes and quiet scenes do not equal art. Neither do extreme angles or logic stretched to the point of absurdity.

If anyone out there is interested in watching this film, please don't. Seriously. Please. You have better things to do.

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

pos/neg ans: negative

input: In the third entry of the Phantasm series, Mike and Reggie continue chasing the Tall Man, assisted by a trigger-happy 9 year old, a black G.I. Jane and the spirit of Mike's deceased brother (he died in the original Phantasm). Number 3 is a rather disappointing sequel, since the gore and black comedy is a lot less inspired and exciting as it was in Phantasm II. I got the feeling the stress was merely laid on Reggie's incompetence as a lover and his talent as stand-up comedian. The humor in the previous film was a lot more dry and oppressed, which fits a story like this better. Also, the settings aren't as macabre here, plus the constant presence of the Tall Man (Agnus Schrim) isn't as obvious There still is plenty of gore but not half as satisfying this time. By the way, beware for the severely cut version as it shows most delightful killings off-screen. The entire Phantasm series is the lifetime achievement of Don Coscarelli, who wrote and directed 4 episodes so farthe fifth being in production. The first one is a semi-cult classic, the second is a horror-feast of gore and violence and the rest can easily be skipped. A. Michael Baldwin returns as Mike, even though James LeGros portrayed his character a lot better in Phantasm II.

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

pos/neg ans:
negative