Q: The film really challenges your notions of identity and the society we live in. It is well made and very powerful. The persons in the film are honest and revealing about the world that exists outside of the normative ideological perspective. I believe it give great insight into a sub-culture who shakes the very ideas that the viewer has of society. It is shocking at times and more powerful because of it. Some parts were difficult to watch, as most reality is, but it is not over done. Its good the first time you watch it, but it becomes even better the second or third time around; because you have had the chance to wrap your mind around the very topics they discuss and challenge.
A: positive
Q: Chris Rock, apparently desperate for a cozy star-vehicle which would cross his appeal over to white and mainstream black audiences, updates the hit 1978 comedy "Heaven Can Wait" with an urban agenda. He plays a struggling comedian involved in a car accident who has his soul removed too soon from his body--consequently, his angels must find another body to place him in, and can only come up with that of a white businessman. Rewriting a movie as bland and sentimental as "Heaven Can Wait" only shows that Rock's eye was on the box-office (this was strictly a corporate move organized by the most mercenary of Hollywood players). Why not strive for something loftier or more memorable than a silly reincarnation comedy that culminates with an Evening at the Apollo? Terrific supporting cast (including the usually-reliable Regina King, the wonderful Mark Addy, Wanda Sykes, Eugene Levy, and terrific Frankie Faison) do what they can, but Rock seems awkward and unsure of himself throughout. *1/2 from ****
A: negative
Q: I have read all of the Love Come Softly books. Knowing full well that movies can not use all aspects of the book,but generally they at least have the main point of the book. I was highly disappointed in this movie. The only thing that they have in this movie that is in the book is that Missy's father comes to visit,(although in the book both parents come). That is all. The story line was so twisted and far fetch and yes, sad, from the book, that I just couldn't enjoy it. Even if I didn't read the book it was too sad. I do know that Pioneer life was rough,but the whole movie was a downer. The rating is for having the same family orientation of the film that makes them great.
A: negative
Q: Scooby Doo is undoubtedly one of the most simple, successful and beloved cartoon characters in the world. So, what happens when you've been everywhere and done everything with the formula? You switch it up right? Wrong. You stop production and let it rest for a decade or so and then run it again, keeping the core of its success intact. That is to say, stick with the formula for the most part but add your particular flavour to it. This to me is why "What's New Scooby Doo" worked, they want back to the classic Scooby Doo formula which had only successfully resurfaced a decade earlier in "A Pup Named Scooby Doo" but for the most part had not been tapped since the original "Scooby Doo Where Are You".

The first sign (to me) of a weak offering is the inclusion of extraneous characters; there might be a few fond memories from past iterations but generally if you think "Scooby Doo" you aren't thinking of Film-Flam, Scrappy Doo or Scooby Dum. Even worse, the exclusion of the other core members of "Mystery Inc" generally indicate a group of production people who don't understand from a kids point of view how the show works. The basic premise has always been a group of people who are diametrically opposed getting together and through their own individual, stereotyped qualities manage to surmount the tasks given at hand.

This next paragraph is just my theorizing so skip it if you want: I hope that I can explain why I think fiddling around with the basic elements of the show are detrimental with my interpretation of what the gang represents and how they contribute to the whole; Fred represents the Driver, I think in general it is the purpose of Fred to give the group direction, organization and sub-tasks. Fred isn't a happy-go-lucky teenager, he's your boss, your teacher, your dad, your authority figure. Fred moves without hesitation and is driven by tasks (problem always equals solution for Fred). In many ways Fred is the antithesis to Shaggy. Shaggy is your best friend, that guy who is just a little more afraid of things than you are, he enables you to be brave, to not be at the back of the pack. Shaggy represents emotion and is frequently showing emotional extremes from elation to fear. Velma represents rational thought, she applies logic but as we see time and again on the show she requires clues that for the most part are collected in pieces by the other members of the show. Left on her own would Velma solve a mystery? The group often finds itself in situations where truths aren't obvious and only through chance encounters do they achieve the necessary information to complete their task, chance is represented by Daphne. At one point (I think it is the first Scooby Doo series) she was known as "danger prone". Writers have used Daphne to link unrelated events together through accident. She frequently is the one who finds the secret door, collection of objects or some other detail that can help the gang link clues together. Finally Scooby himself represents us, the participant. He is always in the centre of events, capable of all the things the rest of the gang are capable of, yet handicapped because he is not human and much like us the television viewer is unable to truly participate. Scooby Doo works because all these personified elements of problem solving are immediately identifiable and entertaining.

Maybe I'm over thinking things but, in my life I've seen a lot of Scooby Doo (being a 30 year old self-proclaimed nerd, it kind of rolls with the territory). To me there is a magic with the classic "Scooby Doo" formula that should never be messed with.

As many have pointed out; Scooby Doo is not a great work of art nor is it completely trite, it falls into the category of programming that can be watched by young eyes with a hearty bowl of breakfast cereal. Messing about with the raw simplicity transforms it into something else, something lesser.
A: negative