input: In this installment of the series, Edmund Blackadder is stuck in the Regency period in Britain (during the later portion of George III's rule). This time, Blackadder's prospects are much poorer--as instead of royalty, he's a servant to the very, very thick George IV (the price regent). Unlike the historical accounts of George IV, this one is about as bright as a tomato and as a result, Blackadder's able to take advantage of him and scheme to his heart's content. The only major difference in style between this one and earlier ones is that the series ends on a very, very, very different note--you just have to see it to believe it. Other than that, all the usual story elements are there and the show is hilarious. The only reservation I have (as always) is that this show is not appropriate for the kids due to its crude language and adult situations.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This is one of my favorite movies of all time. I loved Rain Man with Dustin Hoffman and Tom Cruise. This movie is in some ways similar, but makes Rain Man seem artificial, shallow, unemotional, and trivial by comparison.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: what ends up killing this movie is its self-consciousness, among other things. here's a short list: 1. irreverent behavior. when the beatles came over and injected their brand of "quirky, irreverent" behavior/humor, it was greeted as fresh. that was over 4 decades ago. get over it.

2. false sophistication. spewing out base, quasi-socio-political-isms is hard ground to make work comically. ask woody allen.

3. the post-modern "i'm hard on this phony world and yes, i recognize it in myself" snake eating itself - used as illustration with another animal in the film itself! - is such a retread.

4. smarmy, smug drollness.

5. amateurish writing, acting, direction... ever seen student films? a victim of itself, about the only thing i can say positive is that it at least has a sense of itself, and sheesh, now i'm getting caught up in the self-reflexive thing that it posits as worthwhile, of value.

but towards... what? ultimately, it just rings as hollow as any other pretentious piece - hey, ever see woody allen's take on bergman, ie: "Interiors"??? well, this just does it more amateurishly.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: When i first saw this film i thought it was going to be a good sasquatch film. Usually when you have these types of movies there's generally ONE sasquatch, but in this one there is like what? 7 or 10 of them?. Acting was good, plot was OK, i liked the scenes where the sasquatch is killing the first few victims, very good camera work. I was expecting it to be a gory film but it was very little. This movie was way better than Sasquatch. The SCI-FI channel really needs to make more sasquatch films, i mean i really liked Sasquatch Mountain, Abominibal was not good, the one i'm reviewing is OK, but the movie Sasquatch was not, but I'm not reviewing that so let me get back on track. This movie is good for a rainy Saterday afternoon, but for any other occasions, no.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative