input: Jared Diamond made a point in the first episode that other peoples of the world didn't have animals to domesticate but Europeans did, and that accounts for why we were able to make steel and invent complex machines.

But then in the third episode he says that when the Europeans in South Africa got too far north they ran into Zulu people and other tribes that *herded cattle and planted crops*. So what explains their lack of technological, economic, and artistic achievement if they had the key things the author claims are needed for success?

Diamond also claims germs in the form of smallpox (brought to North America by black slaves) were our biggest weapon. Well, if 150 Europeans can defeat 20,000 native warriors and 400 non-military South Africans can defeat 10,000 Zulus *without a single casualty* in either case, then I think you have to conclude that germs are irrelevant. With or without germs, we were going to succeed.

He says Malaria stopped Europeans from colonizing further North, killing "thousands" of Europeans while not affecting Africans. (I'd like to know real numbers but he doesn't say.) Then at the end he says today Malaria is killing thousands of Africans and that is why they can't catch up with us. So which is it, Jared? Did Malaria help the Africans by halting Eurpeans or hurt them? And how come Europe did okay despite massive plagues throughout our history?

He also seems far too eager to say that the reasons Europeans succeeded was because of dumb luck. At times when the evidence threatens to overwhelm his rickety theories he's reluctant to admit that maybe Europeans were successful because they worked for it. It's sad watch this obvious neo-Marxist contort reality to try to prove his point.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Having heard so much about the 1990s Cracker series without seeing any of them, I looked forward to this eagerly. Surely the combination of Jimmie McGovern and Robbie Coltrane could not go wrong. How wrong I was!

The polemics, backed by frequent, repetitive and violent flashbacks, were overpowering. The production tried to be super-modern, but the flashing boxes and even the childish font irritated. Robbie Coltrane sleep-walked through the two hours, coming up with unexplained and unlikely "insights", and the police were portrayed as one-dimensional bumbling idiots. As a result, the tension never built up and the next-to-final scene (no details for fear of spoilers) was as laughably bad a piece of TV drama as I have seen for a long time.

No, I don't want to see any more of these, but I will go back to the DVDs of the 1990s series to see if they match their reputation.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: This movie is all ultra-lightweight fluff, predictable from beginning to end. As a Don Knotts vehicle, "The Incredible Mr. Limpet" was much better, with Knott's character there not nearly as incompetent or ignorant. His performance there was toned down, with none of his trademark goggle-eyed stare, although that may have something to do with him being replaced for most of the movie by a cartoon fish. Knotts made a living of playing the likable imbecile, much as Bob Denver did. Neither really seemed to be able to break out to other types of roles, assuming they were simply typecast. It was probably because of the slouch, the wild stare and the high-pitched voice. John Ritter, whom Knotts worked with in "Three's Company," was able to transcend his genre, branching out successfully into dramatic roles like "The Dreamer of Oz," but the closest Knotts ever got was a small role in "Pleasantville." Even Leslie Nielsen was a bad fit here, uncomfortably neither straight dramatic actor as he was at the time nor deadpan comedic actor as he later became in "Airplane!" and "Police Squad."

There's also no way the then-43 year-old Knotts could pass for a 35 year-old, as his character insisted he was. It was as ludicrously unbelievable as Tom Hanks at 38 playing the college-age Forrest Gump.

The film was clearly made on a shoestring budget, very much looking like a hastily-filmed TV episode. It's especially evident in the "exterior" scenes of the "town" where Roy goes after he's fired. It's unlikely even a pre-schooler would be fooled by the Mayberry-like soundstage artificiality.

Even viewing this strictly as a children's movie, it's very disappointing. It's not because it lacks action or special effects, although it does. The pace is much too slow, the situations repetitive. How many times can you watch Roy getting onto a bus? A comedy for kids should at least sometimes be madcap, with breakneck gags, otherwise you risk boring them (and any adults in the theater as well). Movies, even kid's movies, have improved quite a bit in the intervening decades. Even many contemporary comedies were better filmed and written. Disney's "The Love Bug," for instance, at least had some interesting race action.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: Ever since I was eight years old I have been a big wrestling fan. It didn't matter what federation I watched. WWE,WCW,USWA. To me the action is all I watched it for.

May 23rd 1999. That was my 19 birthday. I ordered Over the Edge and I was just expecting another pay per view. But this time. I was wrong. Instead that was the night one of the best wrestlers to come out of Canada a true human being fell to his death due to a stunt gone wrong. Not much you can do to change the situation. But what happened affter Owens death made me very mad.

Rather then ending the pay per view and doing the right thing as human beings the WWE decided to protect what comes first and that was the money by keeping the pay per view going as if Owens death never happened.

I gotta tell you. Vince Mchmaon has made some stupid decisions in his life but this was by far the stupidest decision he ever made.

And this crap with saying Owen would have wanted the pay pew view to keep going. Give me a break. When someone dies on a pay pew view its comon sense to stop it. Thats like a police officer shooting a robber or a mugger with a run and then just leaving the man to die so he can go home and call it a day as if the mans life never mattered.

But no matter what happens. Owen will be missed and thanks for the memories for all the times you gave us.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative