An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I commented on this when it first debuted and gave it a "thumbs in the middle" review, remarking that I'd give it the benefit of the doubt beyond just the first episode. I've seen a total of six episodes now up to this point in June 2006. And as a lifelong Batman fanatic, I can say without hesitation: this show is utter crap.

Everything's wrong with it. Everything. Getting past just the lousy animation and design, the stories are ridiculously convoluted and with no character development or apparent interest by the writers of this dreck to give any substance to any stories.

And for God's sake...is it just me, or is the Joker in EVERY EPISODE?? Is Gotham that much of a revolving-door justice system? Or, again, is it just a complete lack of interest in the writers to put any effort into other villains (see "no character development", above).

And to make matters worse, every single Joker tale is the same 3-part formula.

1) Joker gasses people.

2) Joker sets out to gas the whole city.

3) Batman saves the day.

Pfeh.

There was one episode I saw that wasn't a Joker story. The title escapes me, but the villain was that nefarious Cluemaster...the "Think Thank Thunk" episode with the quiz show. That was the single-worst Batman story I've ever seen, heard or read. Yes, worse than "I've Got Batman in My Basement."

I can't really say what I feel this show is because it's probably against the ToS, but it starts with "B" and rhymes with "fastardization". Thank goodness for the existence of the Timm/Dini/etc. era of Bat-entertainment, back from the Fox and Kids WB days. Stuff that good, and I should have known this, just couldn't possibly have lasted forever, unfortunately.

An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Apparently none of the previous reviewers,most of whom praise the film for its accuracy, have actually read a biography of Louis Pasteur.The most glaring inaccuracy is in the relationship between Pasteur and Napoleon III.Back in the 1930's the latter was invariably shown in a bad light.While far from an admirable character-he was an inept politician and a self-appointed "military genius" who allowed France to be dragged into a disastrous war,he was not the stupid reactionary depicted here. He had an intelligent interest in science,and like many other people in the 19th century saw a bright future because of the improvements it would bring.Far from exiling Pasteur, he was his PATRON,building him a laboratory and providing him with all the resources that he needed for his research.While the lab was under construction, Pasteur became gravely ill.A bureaucrat, deciding it was a waste of money to build a laboratory for someone who would soon be dead, ordered work halted on his own authority.When the emperor heard about this, his outrage shook the bureaucracy so that there was a flurry of buck-passing, and work promptly resumed.The Emperor personally visited Pasteur to comfort him and reassure him that he would get his lab.The emperor would often bring members of his court to admire Pasteur's projects,and it was obvious to everyone that Pasteur was one of the emperor's favorites.Pasteur's main worry concerning the Emperor was that Napoleon thought Pasteur was virtually a miracle worker who could do almost anything, and was constantly assigning him tasks outside of his previous experience.Pasteur, a very modest man, was always protesting this, but Napoleon would say that he had complete faith in him,and Pasteur despite his misgivings, always came through.They always had a close and friendly relationship,and after the Emperor was overthrown, Pasteur refused to say a bad word about him,grateful to the end of his life.

The part about his daughter having the baby, and Pasteur sacrificing his principles to get a doctor, never happened.The part about the anthrax and rabies, for which he was famous, is generally correct, but the notion that the anthrax experiment raised him from obscurity to fame is false.He was famous and respected at the time this happened.This movie is OK from a dramatic standpoint,but very distorted as biography.

An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
The dancing was probably the ONLY watchable thing about this film -- and even that was disappointing compared to some other films. My gawd!

To me, this is the worst kind of film -- one that assumes it's a work of art because it has all the trappings of film-as-art. Yes, it's beautifully photographed, but ultimately lacks the depth and tension of the dance around which the film supposedly surrounds itself. Tango is a tease, it's hot, it has drama, it's audacious -- precisely what this film is not.