input: I saw "Fever Pitch" sort of by accident; it was playing on the airplane going over to Europe. It actually wasn't half bad. Ben (Jimmy Fallon) is the world's #1 Red Sox fan, but his relationship with Lindsay Meeks (Drew Barrymore) may strain that. The movie is a fairly interesting look at how world events can affect peoples' relationships. It's especially eye-opening now that the Red Sox have ended their 80-odd-year losing streak. I guess that these sorts of things happen all the time and we just don't tend to notice them. Not too bad.

Another movie portraying an unusual relation to baseball is 2000's "Frequency". Check them both out.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: The original was a good movie. I bought it on tape and have watched it several times. And though I know that sequels are not usually as good as the original I certainly wasn't expecting such a bomb. The romance was flat, the sight gags old, the spoken humor just wasn't. This may not have been the worst movie I've ever seen but it comes close.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: wow! this is a good movie! The acting wasn't good at all, but if you look at some moments in the film, rewind, and watch it again, it is genius! The man in the begin of the film walks with his suitcase against a three. WOW!I never expected that. Then he puts the coke in a suitcase and runs away. I bet that smoking guy against that three was one of his mates who sold the drugs later. And the genius quotes: ''nice shades, i need a pair'' ''their yours.. if you think you can take them..''.. just Brilliant! And the fighting is the best i've seen in a while. Look at the second guy he takes down after he hit the head of the first guy against the table. WHAT A HIT! And in the middle of the film, one guy in a car shot one time, then 3 guys fall, he is really good at aiming. It costs a lot of money to hire these guys like him. The end was brilliant, it was so exciting that james cahill walks 5 minutes up and down the stairs and shoot jason peters after his distraction moves. Jason Peters falls down, and roll over again while he is dead! I can't say with more words how great this movie is!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I'm a true fan of the original Cracker series, and own all of them on DVD. Cracker had a tendency to be over-the-top on occasion, but Robbie Coltrane and the other cast members, as well as the writers, always seemed to carry it off despite themselves. I count the original Cracker among the great Brit TV crime series of that time, and there's some stiff competition: Prime Suspect, Inspector Frost, Inspector Morse, Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Homes, and a host of others. Cracker, along with Prime Suspect, was on the top of my list.

Which makes "A New Terror" all the more sad...

Ultimately, this was a very pale imitation of Cracker's former glory. I forced myself to sit through the whole thing, convinced that it couldn't actually be this bad, and that some spark would eventually ignite. I was wrong, it was bad from beginning to end.

A few criticisms: First, just to get any potential bias up-front right off: I was offended by the anti-American, anti-war screed that droned on and on throughout most of the show. The topper: the murder of two American's innocent of any crime and a British Junkie is, in Fitz's words, "understandable, but not justified". I thought "I waded through two hours of crap just to hear this disgusting bit of drivel?" So I had a negative reaction to the anti-war/American tone brought on by my beliefs... Beyond the politics, I had the distinct sense that this Cracker was merely a prop for the propaganda, and it actually helped to undermine an already terribly weak script.

Second, just how much air-time did Robbie Coltrane get? Fitz was almost a bit player in this one, as if he was an afterthought plugged into some story originally written without any thought of Fitz's role. Coltrane could have carried the show on his own broad and still suitably flabby shoulders, but the writer was apparently thinking of other things, and missed the chance, and by a wide margin.

Third: WHAT AN ABYSMAL SCRIPT! There was some sparkle, and a couple of bits of actual character development (Fitz's son ranting that Fitz couldn't stay at his house if he missed his plane to Australia, the Detective that liked to beat his poor-performers over the backs of their heads, and some of the old sparks between Fitz and his Missus) but not nearly enough to carry the tedious storyline.

Fourth, where the hell was Panhallagan? Now that would have been interesting... It was Manchester after all, and 10 years on she'd be up in the ranks. Another wasted opportunity (or perhaps the actress wasn't interested?)

Well, there's much more (that's bad) to say , but I'll close with a curiosity: at the end of the show (as it aired on BBCA), when the advertisement announced that the "Director's Cut" was available on BBC On-Demand, I thought AH-HA! The Director's cut, which, presumably, one has to pay for, might have all of the goodies I expected to see tonight but never did, like a coherent, interesting storyline. Unfortunately, after convincing myself to sit through the horrible free version of "A New Terror" with the hope of seeing something, anything, worth watching, only to be disappointed, I have no hope left to motivate me to actually pay for a second, potentially longer and more tedious version. Besides, it angered me to think that BBCA sliced and diced, and sacrificed show time to accommodate the endless (every ten minutes or so) stream of commercials, and then turned around and asked me to pay for what probably should have been version aired tonight.

To close, I quote the first paragraph of Variety's review of "A New Terror": it really says it all: "Initial excitement about Robbie Coltrane reprising his role as the BBC's flawed, boozing, womanizing criminal psychologist is snowed under by the heavy-handed political statement writer Jimmy McGovern is determined to deliver within this revival vidpic. Jolting at first in its message -- namely, that Americans are a bunch of whiny namby-pambies who didn't care a whit about terrorism before it came crashing onto our doorstep -- McGovern's chest-clearing rant overwhelms the narrative and mutes the pleasure of seeing Fitz back on the case."

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative