input: After repeated listenings to the CD soundtrack, I knew I wanted this film, got it for Christmas and I was amazed. Marc Bolan had such charisma, i can't describe it. I'd heard about him in that way, but didn't understand what people were talking about until I was in the company of this footage. He was incredible. Clips from the Wembley concert are interspersed with surrealistic sketches such as nuns gorging themselves at a garden party as Marc Bolan performs some acoustic versions of Get It On, etc. (I'm still learning the song titles). George Claydon, the diminutive photographer from Magical Mystery Tour, plays a chauffeur who jumps out of a car and eats one of the side mirrors. Nothing I can say to describe it would spoil it, even though I put the spoilers disclaimer on this review, so you would just need to see this for yourselves. It evades description.

Yes, I love the Beatles and was curious about Ringo directing a rock documentary - that was 35 years ago - now, I finally find out it's been on DVD for 2 years, but it's finally in my home. It's an amazing viewing experience - even enthralling.

Now the DVD comes with hidden extras and the following is a copy and paste from another user:

There's two hidden extras on the Born To boogie double DVD release.

1.From the menu on disc one,select the bonus material and goto the extra scenes 2.On the extra scenes page goto Scene 42 take 1 and keep pressing left 3.when the cursor disappears keep pressing right until a "Star+1972" logo appears 4.Press Enter

5.From the main menu on disc two,select the sound options 6.On the sound options page goto the 90/25 (I think thats right) option and keep pressing left 7.When the cursor disappears keep pressing right until a "Star+Home video" logo appears 8.Press Enter

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: What was the worst movie of 2003? "Cat in the Hat?" "Gigli?" Mais non! I propose that it was this atrocious little film from earlier in the year. Badly written, badly edited, and (if I may be so bold) badly acted, "The Order" is the black hole of film - a movie so dense not even the slightest bit of entertainment could escape from its event horizon of suck. It isn't even accidentally funny, like (for example) "Showgirls."

You know that the producers are assuming that their audience isn't going to be very smart. They renamed the movie, originally titled "The Sin Eaters," because they figured Americans were too stupid to understand what a sin eater was, even though they go to great lengths to explain what a sin eater is in the movie. Instead, they figure an utterly generic title and a picture of Heath Ledger looking sullen are more than enough to get you in there.

And, hey, what do you know, they were right! My ex-girlfriend saw the picture of Heath and dragged me in. Congratulations, producers, you've met your target market. She also liked "Grease II," so you're in good company.

Back on topic, Heath plays a Catholic monk from a specific (you guessed it) order that is trying to investigate the murder of his mentor. He has celibacy issues, possibly because nobody in their right mind would believe that he knew the slightest thing about religion, much less be a celibate monk. The only other member of this order is a funny alcoholic fat guy. As much as I've wanted to see the return of the funny alcoholic to the big screen, his attempts at humor reminded me of all the dorks in my high school who did imitations of Monty Python, thinking that if they just said the lines like the Pythons did they would automatically be funny. You know the sort of people I'm talking about.

If I utter any more, I would be in danger of generating spoilers. Frankly, the thing that spoiled this movie for me was the fact that it was created.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I read the novel 'Jane Eyre' for the first time back in 1986. It was round that time that I saw the BBC-version with Timothy Dalton and Zelah Clarke. It was an excellent version and very much like the book. Years later, I laid eyes on this version and was horrified. William Hurt is totally miscast as Mr Rochester. Mr Rochester is a passionate character, where as William Hurt portrays him as a block of ice. The same goes for Charlotte Gainsborough. It was like watching two zombies together. This is story about love and passion, but I couldn't see it in this version. No, back to the BBC-version. A wonderful time is guaranteed.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: The first word which comes into my mind after watching this movie is "beauty". Beauty is all around, in actors' play (Andie is superb as always), in well designed shots, and in authors' red line idea - the Love.

I think the Kenny's character is the only white spot in these three womens' otherwise boring and predictable life. His interaction makes Andie's character living as entertaining as it could possibly be. When he's gone, it became obvious that we cannot really appreciate and hold to our inner believes and sacred desires.

The fact that Andie successfully recovers from this loss is nothing bad, instead it shows that life prevails in any forms, even in this small British village, which is shown perfectly.

Another reason I love this movie is that it is so British in all ways - all that houses and "fags" and accents :))). And Andie again is doing superb job! It is a shame that this movie got such low marks. 10 out of ten!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive