input: For the viewer who comes upon it long after its making, "Winchester '73" has something in common with "Casablanca." While you watch it, you get this feeling that you're looking at a string of cliches encountered so often in the genre; then you realise that the cliches became cliches only after being copied from this particular film, and that they were so widely copied because this film was so great. In other words, it's a seminal work.

"Winchester '73" is a joy to watch. The broad lines of the plot are somewhat predictable, but mostly because you've seen them copied so many times in later movies, and nevertheless it still contains a number of twists which surprise you. The dialogue, the pacing and Mann's direction are excellent. Stewart shines in particular, and if you're a fan this is a "must-see," but he is not alone in delivering a good performance. Remarkably, many of the most thoughtful and/or witty lines go to minor characters. Because this makes these characters (much) more than cardboard cutouts, it lent additional realism to the film.

This is a remarkably underrated film, and well worth keeping an eye out for. The DVD also contains an interview with Stewart which provides some background on the film.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: This show is unbelievable in that . . . what it represents and what it focuses on and . . . words cannot describe how insane ET is. They will report anything. If a celebrity is even remotely indirectly connected to the story ET will report on it. If a dog poop in the Tom Cruise's yard they will report on it. If a celebrity dies . . . they will talk about it for weeks on end to the point where the public envy that celebrity. If a celebrity is on trial . . . ET will report it for MONTHS on end. There is no end to what this show will reports and no time frame that dictates how long they will focus on a story. Is it even considered legitimates reporting? The reports are so dang annoying too, with harsh rambling voices and end with an unnecessary pause to convey a sense of important. I cannot watch this show without questioning humanity's existence. ET is one big reason I avoid pre-evening shows in general. I regret that IMDb can only allow a minimum of one star rating and not zero or even in the negatives. For this show deserve -10 Stars.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: As much as I love Rodney Dangerfield, this was a terrible movie. The plot was kind of a holistic rip off of various movies, but unfortunately they forgot to rip off any good jokes. In addition it was annoying and boring and that's being kind. If you're looking for a good laugh, rent a copy of Private Parts.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I can't believe that so much talent can be wasted in one movie! The Gingerbread Man starts of on the right foot, and manages to build up some great expectations for the ending. But at some point the movie turns into one of the worst stories I've ever wasted my time on. It's just so unbelievably how the bewitched Mallory Doss manages to pull Kenneth Branagh's character around by his nose. The movies climax is as uninteresting and flat as a beer, which has been left out in the sun too long. The Gingerbread Man is probably the worst Grisham-movie ever and this isn't changed by the fact that talented stars crowd the movie. Don't waste your time here!

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
negative