hi,

I have to identify implicit aspects or sentiments in the review text written by critics. However, these critical reviews are much different and difficult then product or user reviews. for instance:

"If a major religion decides to sink nearly an hundred million dollars into a movie version of a scifi novel, couldn't they at least have picked a decent author?

I must confess, I don't really know anything about Scientology, and although I've seen the book Dianetics on the night table of various roommates in college, I've never read it and have absolutely no idea what's in it. I walked past the bright yellow Scientology sign in downtown Portland without ever having the urge to find out more about it. I'm dimly aware that there is some controversy surrounding the funding of the film, but don't feel qualified to talk about it.

But God, what a movie. I do not mean that in a positive way. How do movies like this get made?

Before I start, I'd like to say that I absolutely do not believe, as reported by other reviewers, that Scientologists have been assigned to break the kneecaps of anyone giving a less-than-favorable review of this turkey. From what I've read so far, they'd have to take out practically every professional film critic, a move that surely would have been reported in the popular media.

Nor do I believe the story that "hollow-eyed Scientologists are passing out free tickets on streetcorners so that the movie will have a good opening weekend". First of all, I haven't seen anyone doing any such thing, and secondly, all three of the screens in which it was playing Saturday May 13 at the multiplex in Hillsborough, Oregon were barren. (I know this because I didn't catch the theater number at the ticket counter and had to ferry the family's popcorn and drinks through each one until I found them.) If they *are* passing out free tickets, they've been profoundly unsuccessful at it. And if Regal Cinemas thought Battlefield Earth would have the kind of opening as, for instance, Gladiator, they're now profoundly disappointed.

There's no decent way to say it. This movie sucks. There really is absolutely no reason why a reasonable person would waste his time seeing it. Really horrible dialog, laughable makeup, surprisingly un-special effects for the purported $90 million cost of the film, and a plot that leaves all thinking beings going "Hunh?"

My daughter was bored out of her skull, and kept asking "is the movie about over?" Now, to put this in perspective, she *liked* Supernova. She saw Batman and Robin *twice*. She sat thorough all 3 hours of Titanic and wanted to see it again. But about 20 minutes into Battlefield Earth she was done. I don't know how many times I'll have to sit through Dinosaur to make it up to her.

John Travolta puts in the performance of his life. I mean that literally. He seemed to be determined to put every ounce of his not inconsiderable talent into single-handedly saving this film from being the most expensive direct-to-video release ever. If you absolutely must see this film, (as I did -- my wife, a rabid "saturday night fever" fan, forced me) watch the scenes with Travolta and snore through the rest.

But this is not unusual for Travolta, post-comeback. His performance was the best, make that the only, thing watchable about "Broken Arrow". You have to give him this -- he plays larger-than-life villains to absolute perfection, and his "Terl" is a masterpiece. But just as a masterful performance by Tim Curry in Legend couldn't save that film, Travolta has been given too great a task to pull Battlefield Earth out of the muck.

How can I say this? It was a horrible experience. If the theater had paid *us* eight bucks a seat to sit through this piece of crap, I would still feel cheated.

My wife owes me big time. And on the day before Mother's Day. Ouch."

my question is that how I can implicit sentiments from this kind of reviews?