input: The spoiler warning is for those people who want to see for themselves what animals and landscapes pass before their eyes, although I don't mention it in great detail.

"Earth" is an approx. 90 minute cinema version based on "Planet earth" which I watched all on BBC TV.The TV version was narrated by David Attenborough, a captivating commentator, who I had wished had also done it for "Earth" but it is Patrick Stewart, Star Trek's Captain Picard. There are regularly shots of the Earth from space so that's may be appropriate. In any case he has a nice enough and calm voice for it. There are 12 chapters in which we follow animal life on earth from North Pole to Antarctica. 3 animal families, polar bear, elephant and whale, appear in more than one of these parts. Each "chapter" starts with an indication how far from north pole or equator it is. We see something of each kind of animal, but only mammals and birds, and some fish, and some beautiful shots of vegetation, mountains, waterfalls, deserts and jungle, a near perfect presentation of the variety of life and landscapes and climates on earth. You get the impression that our planet is only inhabited by animals: people or villages or cities aren't in the film, so it's a typical nature documentary, but breathtakingly shot and accompanied by delightful music. When the film opened I already knew it would end far too soon for me. It is a family film, so no brutal killings of any animals. When one is caught by his hunter the shot ends and in other cases where we see the prey being caught it's shot in slow-motion which makes it less violent and watchable for young children (age limit 6 in The Netherlands). No blood is shed. Some scenes (newly born animals) are really cute and will be adored by kids. It looks like an ordinary nature film but when you know how many shooting days it took (4000) and how much money it has cost it becomes an even more astonishing piece of beauty. It had it's Dutch premiere yesterday, a month before the actual release, in a cinema of 500 seats, of which 15 were taken. True beauty is rarely interesting for cinema goers, it seems. As I knew the TV-series I was of course very curious if my favourite scenes would make it into this movie. Some didn't, but the most impressive shots (big waterfalls) did, luckily. It was the first time I ever cried in a nature film.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: Shazbot, is this embarrassing. In fact, here's a list of 100 that makes up the embarrassment: 1.) a failed comeback for Christopher Lloyd. 2.) Jeff Daniels basically playing the same role he played in the live 101 Dalmatians remake which wasn't too juicy to begin with. He sure has a funny way of promoting his Purple Rose Theatre... 3.) Disnefluff. 4.) another disappointing reminder that Wallace Shawn is to Disney what Jet Li was to Bob Hoskins in Unleashed. 5.) Ray Walston, the original martian from the TV series, played a bit part (read "cameo") in this flick and died two years later of lupus. Coincidence? 6.) awful special effects. Seriously - awful. 7.-100.) that damn talking, farting suit voiced to an annoying degree by Wayne Knight ("Newman!"). My favorite scene? HA! HA ha, ha! Ha ha ha ha ha... Whew!... Good one. You - You're a joker. Okay, let's wrap up this review with a moment of silence for this franchise's agonizing death, and if you would like, you can say a quick prayer that Disney doesn't forget this travesty and do something silly like a movie adaptation of "Mork and Mindy" starring Tim Allen.........................................................

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I agree with all the accolades, I went through a box of tissues watching this film. It had a gritty authenticity and rang true in every way.

The question I'm about to raise represents a current sensibility regarding the treatment of animals. I had a very difficult time with the beginning slaughter of sheep and goats, and the dying deer with its pulsing neck and pooling blood as its life drained away was hideous.

This is the age of "no animals were hurt in the production of this move." Iphigenia was made in the late 70's before the advent of computer simulation. Was it possible to fake these animal deaths? Or were these animals slaughtered for art?

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: "Mad Dog Time"..."Trigger Happy" whatever you wanna call it...simply doesn't hit the mark. Maybe its just me, maybe i just don't like Gangster comedies ( as i thought Oscar , Johney Dangerously and Mafia also sucked ) It's probably more "witty sharp wordplay" than all out Comedy, only its not as witty and sharp as it ( or the other reviewers )Make it out to be.

The Rick , Mick , Vic Thing was old to begin with making it a running gag was at times painful to watch.

There wasn't enough Changes of Location or Feel for the period they were supposed to be in. The Majority of the film was either set in "Dreyfus's Club" or a variety of Offices /dim rooms... ( what was with that Sit down Gun stand off thing Goldblum kept winning ?)

The supporting cast was... on Paper excellent ( great to see Silva & Drago)but characters were killed off before they had time to develop. and Richard Pryors cameo was a Joke ! The Romance and Love element of the film also bogged it down.

4/10 I don't think i'll return to it anytime soon.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative