Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Okay the promos promised a comedy and people(few) went to watch it Being the first release of 2006 is not a bad thing, or for that matter of any year, because the first and last films mostly flop except GHAJINI and some more

Okay coming to JAWANI DIWANI

Review in short The film is about Emraan Hashmi doing his usual stuff sadly it's annoying this time after repetitions It has an irritating Hrishita Bhatt and a flop Celina Jaitley

Cringeworthy dialogues, comedy scenes and badly handled drama and lots of loopholes

Direction is bad Emraan Hashmi is annoying here, luckily now he is coming of age But post FOOTPATH and MURDER and some decent work in some more films the actor in him took a backseat and directors focused on his kisses and womaniser image which sadly lost it's touch after repetitions Hrishita and Celina are bad Mahesh is horrible
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: It was simple and yet so nice. I think the whole sense of sex segregation in society, which can be bitter, was shown very delicately. It had a bitter kind of hummer in it. The fact that most of the actors were not professionals, made the movie more tangible and more realistic. There was a "documentary" side to the movie too. The best scenes were those that all the girls, banned from watching, were listening passionately to the soldier, who is supposed to keep an eye on them, broadcasting the game. If you are an Iranian, the familiar cheering and dancing in the streets after a game won, fills you up with National pride!! If you are not Iranian, you'll still love it all the same!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Why did I go to see this film? Honestly, because Jim Carrey was in it and in the past he has made hilarious movies that have made me cry with laughter, so do you really blame me for expecting that again? Additionally, the premise, the funny trailer, his co-star Jennifer Aniston's involvement, and the fact it was a massive hit stateside encouraged me.

However, as my "one line Summary" suggests, I was Disappointed. For various reasons;

Reason 1: It wasn't funny. In a 2hour movie, I laughed for about 5-10minutes...all together, the rest of the time I sat thinking "I really should have got some ice-cream". I admit that maybe it is wrong to judge Jim Carrey on his previous films, but what does he really expect when he makes Gem's such as 'The Truman Show' , 'Liar Liar' , 'Me, Myself and Irene' , 'Dumb and Dumber' , 'The Mask', and the 'Ace Ventura' films then produces, in Bruce Nolan's own words, such a mediocre film?

Reason 2: Jennifer Aniston's role was criminally underwritten. I mean hello! She's been around in the public eye for about ten years now, and in this film she gets about four lines to say. Wrong.

Reason 3: One word - Cliche

Reason 4: A casual deployment of specifically American References - Jimmy Hoffa, Walter Cronkite 'sweeps week' - is a clue to the film's specifically home-grown appeal. "A teenager says no to drugs and yes to an Education - that's a miracle! Want to see a miracle soon? Be the miracle!" God tells Bruce, a heavy handed sentiment that seems to have gone down a treat in the US, but might face tougher resistance in markets that retain an inkling for subtlety. Additionally, I still go to school, and that statement suggests me and all of my friend's are miracles...or maybe it just means we have brains?

In this film there are enough funny Carrey moments to make you chuckle and prevent Bruce Almighty from being a total calamity, but you are advised to start revising your expectations downwards.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Wow, this film was just bloody horrid. SO bad in fact that even though I didn't pay to see it, I still wanted my money back.

The film is about nothing intelligible. It's a mish-mash of sci-fi cliche's that were done better by much more skilled film makers. The performances, especially by the leads were over the top in a less endearing Ed Wood sort of way. Speaking of Ed Wood, he'd be proud of the character's dialogue. It's just too taciturn with no hint of irony or sense of humor. On top of that, it doesn't make sense, nor does the plot, or lackthereof.

The visual effects are okay, but not enough to go "oh wow, that's cool" and they just seem to be thrown in to "be cool" rather than be a good plot device.

The soundtrack was another mishmash of stuff that really never set any sort of mood. Again, it seemed as if the director was just throwing in songs in the film in an effort to "be cool".

Which brings me to my final point. Perhaps if the director actually worried more about plot, story and dialogue instead of trying to "be cool", he wouldn't have made such a dorky cliche' of a short film.

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Walter Matthau and George Burns just work so well together. The acidity of Willy with the perplexed amnesic Al is a mixture made in heaven. The scene when they meet again in Willy's flat is a gem and the final scene rounds up the film to perfection. Walter Matthau gives a superb performance as the irascible semi-retired comedian as only he can, the intonation in the voice and the exaggerated dramatics coupled with his general misunderstanding of what is going on form a great characterization. George Burns timing is legendary and nowhere was it better than in this film, his calm aplomb with desert dry replies are memorable. Watch for the scene near the end when Al and his daughter ask something of the Spanish caretaker, and Al's reaction - priceless.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
After reading some quite negative views for this movie, I was not sure whether I should fork out some money to rent it. However, it was a pleasant surprise. I haven't seen the original movie, but if its better than this, I'd be in heaven.

Tom Cruise gives a strong performance as the seemingly unstable David, convincing me that he is more than a smile on legs (for only the third time in his career- the other examples were Magnolia and Born on the Fourth of July). Penelope Cruz is slightly lightweight but fills the demands for her role, as does Diaz. The only disappointment is the slightly bland Kurt Russell. In the movie, however, it is not the acting that really impresses- its the filmmaking.

Cameron Crowe excels in the director's role, providing himself with a welcome change of pace from his usual schtick. The increasing insanity of the movie is perfectly executed by Crowe (the brief sequence where Cruise walks through an empty Time Square is incredibly effective). The soundtrack (a distinguishing feature of a Crowe movie) is also sublime.

You will be shocked and challenged as a viewer. The plot does seem a little contrived but the issues explored behind it are endlessly discussable. The movie isn't perfect, but its a welcome change of pace for Cruise and Crowe and for those raised on a diet of Hollywood gloss, should be a revelation.