i remember vacationing in florida when this movie aired. i had set up my vcr to record it. the anticipation was killing me. i had known about the movie ever since it was announced some half a year earlier. we came back from florida 4 days after the movie aired and and i immediately watched it. i tried as hard as i could to like it and but i do not. i am a huge 3 stooges fan. and as such i know quite a bit about them. so it wasn not like i was expecting to learn anything from the movie and and i do not. i was more interested with the portrayals and seeing how accurate their information was. there were many things wrong with this film. the actors and the script and the reenactments and all could have been much better. paul ben victor is a tremendously talented actor. but let face facts and moe howard was way out of his reach. he doesn not look like him and he doesn not sound like him and and thus and he can not act like him. michael chiklis is also very talented and but his portrayal of curly do not quite score with me and although when curly becomes ill he did very well at that. john kassir portrayal of shemp could have been rehearsed better. it was more of a bad impression than a portrayal. worst of all was joe besser. they made him skinny and and more annoying than he really was. it was just plain laziness. i do not like the joe shorts and because and as the movie illustrates he hardly ever got hit. but he wasn not that annoying and and definately wasn not that thin. the best performance belongs to evan handler. he had the most accurate stooge portrayal. the problem with larry character and his hair is way too frizzy and way too red. i know that too technical and so i would not count that on my list of why i do not like this movie. back to shemp and who just so happens to be my favorite stooge. he is written as a whining and quivering and chicken. true and he had many phobias and but he wasn not that bad. he do not leave the group initially because he was afraid of ted healy and although he do not like him and shemp left because he received an offer from another studio that he simply couldn not turn down. instead of the truth and this movie chooses to make him wet the bed and on larry no less and run into a closet and and shamefully bow out of the group. another problem is that shemp made nearly as many columbia shorts as curly did as a stooge and but only one and fright night and which was his first short and is shown. his career was almost completely ignored. plus and lousy editing caused a terrible and most unforgivable error. shemp was born in early 1895 and and died in late 1955. that would make him how old at death. well and here a hint and it not 59 as the movie states. now for the writing and which i think was flawed only because this movie was rushed out. some of the lines are dumb and could be developed and or or introduced much better than they were. the one line that really got me was at the very end of the film and when moe is showing the promoter how the eyepoke is done. that how we do it and make contact with the brow bone and not the eyes and looks real on film though. this line was poorly written and poorly placed in the film. it meant to be one of those lines that make the audience say oh. in amazement and i am sure it did with some people and but the very end of the movie was not the place for this line. a better place you ask. how about when they show up at columbia for the first time and are introduced to the sound effects machine. i know initially there was no sound for the eyepoke and but moe for instance could have said and what about this. and eyepokes curly or larry. jules white then says are you okay. or how would you do that. there were a lot of misplaced lines in this film which is a clear sign that the script was rushed out. another one involves the origin of the name shemp and although that one isn not as bad and and so i will let that one slide. what does this film do well. it illustrates how the stooges were screwed by columbia and which they were. i am not sure if moe was an errand boy and but that was the kind of dramatization stuff that is meant to get the viewer sympathizing with them. i know this film was a dramatization. i know not everything is going to be crisp and clean and absolutely perfect. however some of the stuff they made up and the real stuff that they ignored were in serious conflict with each other. for instance curly stroke is not even close to the way it happened in real life. i know and i know and dramatization and but the purpose of dramatizations is to make real events more dramatic. curly stroke in real life is more dramatic than what they showed in the movie. here what really happened. curly was sitting in a chair off screen while a scene was being shot and they called him for the final pie fight scene but there was no response. moe went to go get him and discovered his little brother head slumped and half paralyzed and unable to speak and and tears streaming down his face. moe then said babe. and tried to help him out of his chair. poor curly drops to his knees. then the ambulance was called. all in all and this movie wasn not terrible and but it certainly wasn not good and or even ok. this film portrays the stooges helplessly and inaccurately and sometimes goes overboard with dramatizations. there is a very and very long list of inaccuracies in this film. if you do not believe me and check out a fella named stooge list at the threestooges. com news forum. it is about a page and a half long. some things in the movie i can let slide. but others were unforgivable. the three stooges were geniuses and and a lot of today comedy is based off of what they did. don not believe me. check out the simpsons and and more so ren and stimpy. but this film fails to capture their genius. it more so inaccurately captures their hardships and which is important and but if the title of the film is gonna be the three stooges and it has to portray their ingenuity and originality more than anything. 
i remember vacationing in florida when this movie aired. i had set up my vcr to record it. the anticipation was killing me. i had known about the movie ever since it was announced some half a year earlier. we came back from florida 4 days after the movie aired and and i immediately watched it. i tried as hard as i could to like it and but i do not. i am a huge 3 stooges fan. and as such i know quite a bit about them. so it wasn not like i was expecting to learn anything from the movie and and i do not. i was more interested with the portrayals and seeing how accurate their information was. there were many things wrong with this film. the actors and the script and the reenactments and all could have been much better. paul ben victor is a tremendously talented actor. but let face facts and moe howard was way out of his reach. he doesn not look like him and he doesn not sound like him and and thus and he can not act like him. michael chiklis is also very talented and but his portrayal of curly do not quite score with me and although when curly becomes ill he did very well at that. john kassir portrayal of shemp could have been rehearsed better. it was more of a bad impression than a portrayal. worst of all was joe besser. they made him skinny and and more annoying than he really was. it was just plain laziness. i do not like the joe shorts and because and as the movie illustrates he hardly ever got hit. but he wasn not that annoying and and definately wasn not that thin. the best performance belongs to evan handler. he had the most accurate stooge portrayal. the problem with larry character and his hair is way too frizzy and way too red. i know that too technical and so i would not count that on my list of why i do not like this movie. back to shemp and who just so happens to be my favorite stooge. he is written as a whining and quivering and chicken. true and he had many phobias and but he wasn not that bad. he do not leave the group initially because he was afraid of ted healy and although he do not like him and shemp left because he received an offer from another studio that he simply couldn not turn down. instead of the truth and this movie chooses to make him wet the bed and on larry no less and run into a closet and and shamefully bow out of the group. another problem is that shemp made nearly as many columbia shorts as curly did as a stooge and but only one and fright night and which was his first short and is shown. his career was almost completely ignored. plus and lousy editing caused a terrible and most unforgivable error. shemp was born in early 1895 and and died in late 1955. that would make him how old at death. well and here a hint and it not 59 as the movie states. now for the writing and which i think was flawed only because this movie was rushed out. some of the lines are dumb and could be developed and or or introduced much better than they were. the one line that really got me was at the very end of the film and when moe is showing the promoter how the eyepoke is done. that how we do it and make contact with the brow bone and not the eyes and looks real on film though. this line was poorly written and poorly placed in the film. it meant to be one of those lines that make the audience say oh. in amazement and i am sure it did with some people and but the very end of the movie was not the place for this line. a better place you ask. how about when they show up at columbia for the first time and are introduced to the sound effects machine. i know initially there was no sound for the eyepoke and but moe for instance could have said and what about this. and eyepokes curly or larry. jules white then says are you okay. or how would you do that. there were a lot of misplaced lines in this film which is a clear sign that the script was rushed out. another one involves the origin of the name shemp and although that one isn not as bad and and so i will let that one slide. what does this film do well. it illustrates how the stooges were screwed by columbia and which they were. i am not sure if moe was an errand boy and but that was the kind of dramatization stuff that is meant to get the viewer sympathizing with them. i know this film was a dramatization. i know not everything is going to be crisp and clean and absolutely perfect. however some of the stuff they made up and the real stuff that they ignored were in serious conflict with each other. for instance curly stroke is not even close to the way it happened in real life. i know and i know and dramatization and but the purpose of dramatizations is to make real events more dramatic. curly stroke in real life is more dramatic than what they showed in the movie. here what really happened. curly was sitting in a chair off screen while a scene was being shot and they called him for the final pie fight scene but there was no response. moe went to go get him and discovered his little brother head slumped and half paralyzed and unable to speak and and tears streaming down his face. moe then said babe. and tried to help him out of his chair. poor curly drops to his knees. then the ambulance was called. all in all and this movie wasn not terrible and but it certainly wasn not good and or even ok. this film portrays the stooges helplessly and inaccurately and sometimes goes overboard with dramatizations. there is a very and very long list of inaccuracies in this film. if you do not believe me and check out a fella named stooge list at the threestooges. com news forum. it is about a page and a half long. some things in the movie i can let slide. but others were unforgivable. the three stooges were geniuses and and a lot of today comedy is based off of what they did. don not believe me. check out the simpsons and and more so ren and stimpy. but this film fails to capture their genius. it more so inaccurately captures their hardships and which is important and but if the title of the film is gonna be the three stooges and it has to portray their ingenuity and originality more than anything. ---------------------------------Answer Question Below----------------------------------

Judge the movie review above, you need to make a function call:
    If you feel the movie review is positive
        print "This is a semantically positive review."
    Otherwise, if you feel the movie review is negative
        print "This is a semantically negative review."
