Negative Positive
Title: Single-handedly setting the cinema back 100 years
Review: Seriously. Charlie Chaplin was more sophisticated than The Hangover.Lame. Un-funny. This movie is the equivalent a child with a booger on the end of his finger sticking it out at you and expecting you to laugh. Funny to him, not to me.In addition, this film is proof Roger Ebert can no longer be trusted. The blurb on the back of the box quotes Ebert as rating this three and a half stars, with this assessment: "Now this is what I'm talkin' about. A funny movie, flat out, all the way through."There's nothing wrong with dumbness and wackiness. Laurel and Hardy. I rest my case. But that was inspired dumbness. Seinfeld was inspired wackiness. This is recycled, clumsy, cheap, easy, obvious dumbness. Seinfeld without the inspiration.
Is the review positive or negative? 