input: As someone who has read the book, I can say that this is vastly inferior to the big American version starring Gwyneth Paltrow. There are various reasons for this. Firstly, Emma is too unpleasant. Yes, she has faults, and isn't the easiest person to like - but the viewer shouldn't downright start to despise her. Secondly, Mr Knightly is miscast. His brooding and melancholy in this version are better suited to a Bronte or Gaskell adaptation than Austen, and throw the mood of the whole affair "off". Thirdly, Samantha Morton is too strong an actress to be relegated to the role of Harriet; and why was she made to look so sickly? Harriet is supposed to be blonde and blooming - not to look as if she's going to be carried off by consumption in the next scene. Fourthly, the structure has been mucked up and scenes cut. At the end, when Emma decides she loves Mr Knightly, it comes across as utterly baffling because this narrative hasn't been adequately shown and carried along throughout the film. Fifthly, what was going on, exactly, with Mrs Elton's accent? She went from sounding like an American actress trying to suppress her own accent at the beginning, to all out American half-way through, and then back to English at the end. Finally, this dragged at the end. The book and the big film version end with the wedding of Emma and Mr Knightly. This version drags on confusingly after the announcement of the wedding without actually showing us the ceremony.

All in all, a rather haphazard attempt. Read the book or rent the Paltrow version instead

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: negative

input: I recently rented the animated version of The Lord of the Rings on video after seeing the FANTASTIC 2001 live action version of the film. The Lord of the Rings live action trilogy directed by Peter Jackson will undoubtably be far better than George Lucas' Star Wars "prequel" trilogy (Episodes 1-3) will ever be as the real fantasy film series of the 21st century!

I remember seeing the animated version as a child, and I didn't quite understand the depth of the film at that time. Now that I have read the books, I understand what the whole storyline is all about. To be sure, some of the characters are quite silly, (Samwise Gangee is particularly annoying, almost as much as Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars Episode One, (AWFUL!)) but, I have to say it follows the book rather closely, and it goes into part of book two, The Two Towers. The good things are that the action is somewhat interesting and some of the animation is quite remarkable for it's time. The bad things are that it ends upruptly halfway through The Two Towers without any result of Frodo's quest to destroy the one ring, and the animation looks quite dated compared to today's standards.

Overall, not AS bad as many say it is. BUT, the 2001 live action version is the new hallmark of The Lord of the Rings! At least Ralph Bakshi took the script seriously! Peter Jackson has said that the animated version inspired him to read the books, which in turn caused him to create one of the greatest fantasy series ever put on film, so we can at least thank Ralph Bakshi for that matter! I'll take the animated version of Lord of the Rings over the live version of Harry Potter anyday!

A 7 out of a scale of 1-10, far LESS violent than the 2001 live action version, but NOWHERE near as good! For diehard fans of the books and film versions of The Lord of the Rings.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: I started to watch this movie expecting nothing, just another movie to watch, but since the first twenty minutes, the artwork and main character, who is enigmatic, doesn't talk much, really got me in this movie.

I really liked this movie, it was dark, beautifully acted and really touching. It's a bit slow but the immersion was complete. The directing was awesome by letting us know bits by bits the story leading to the conviction of Joey and his life behind bars. The music was really great and very well incorporated into the scenes. The ending was unexpected with a twist I didn't see coming. It's not the kind of movie we see often.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans: positive

input: As part of our late 1950s vocabulary, we well knew the Ponderosa, Little Joe, Hoss, Ben Cartwright,etc. on that great show "Bonanza."

It came Saturday night and everyone was glued to the television set. This was a real show depicting family values. There may have been a weekly crisis, but it was the strong family atmosphere that pulled everyone together.

Lorne Greene was dominant as the patriarch of the family. His words depicted wisdom. We often were left to wonder that Ben Cartwright, a widower, must have been the best of husbands to that poor wife of his who had died. He reared wonderful sons.

Naturally, we all wondered why Pernell Roberts left the show. The show was a gold mine and Roberts surrendered loads of money when he departed. His career never took off as he was associated as a Cartwright son. He should have tried to get back into the series. He certainly lost a bonanza by dropping out.

Is the sentiment of this review positive or negative?

pos/neg ans:
positive