Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Panned by critics at the time but loved by the fans, this film has now become a classic. Mixing supposedly 'surreal' footage shot at John Lennon's home among other places with live footage of Marc Bolan & T.Rex at their very best, this film is not just a must for everyone who's liked Marc Bolan but gives a fascinating insight into the era.

These were the times when Marc was hobnobbing with the likes of Ringo Starr of the Beatles [who directed it] and you can even find a brief spot from one Reg Dwight [Elton John to you] bashing the ivories in an amazing [and never officially released] version of Tutti Frutti and rocking and ballad versions of Children Of The Revolution.

There's also wonderful scenes featuring Chelita Secunda [said to have 'created glam rock' with her use of glitter etc], Mickey Finn and even the actor from Catweazle!!

The best scene for me is in the garden when Marc leaves the dining table, sits down cross-legged in front of a string section and knocks out acoustic versions of classics such as Get It On and The Slider.

Highly, highly recommended!! FIVE stars [out of five].

Rory
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Valentine is now one of my favorite slasher films. The death scenes are elaborate and the most of the acting is good. Marley Shelton did great as the female lead (much better than Jennifer Love Hewitt in the "I Know..." films). David Boreanaz, whom is the main reason I saw this movie, had a pretty small role, but he played it well. The exception to the list of good actors is Denise Richards. She was horrible in this. The only scene I was glad to see her in was *SPOILER* her death scene. All in all, it's a good movie to watch. You should definitely watch this before you watch "Scream" or "I Know..." again.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Deathtrap gives you a twist at every turn, every single turn, in fact its biggest problem is that there are so many twists that you never really get oriented in the film, and it often doesn't make any sense, although they do usually catch you by surprise. The story is very good, except for the fact that it has so many twists. The screenplay is very good with great dialogue and characters, but you can't catch all the development because of the twists. The performances particularly by Caine are amazing. The direction is very good, Sidney Lumet can direct. The visual effects are fair, but than again most are actually in a play and are fake. Twists way to much, but still works and is worth watching.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is one of those rare movies, it's lovely and compelling, dignified and quirky, a true gift. I consider it a prerequisite for any trip to Italy, or any vacation at all, because it reminds you to open yourself up to a broader experience (yup, find the magic). I especially loved Josie Lawrence, as Lottie Wilkins, but every lead and supporting actor is flawless in this film. Further the costumes, if you're drawn to fashion and costumes, are extraordinarily well done. I just wish they'd release it on DVD because I'm wearing my tape version out!

Absolutely well worth your time, just make sure to settle in to watch it, without any interruptions.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
GBS wrote his own screen adaptation of this Nobel Prize winning play but didn't live to see it produced (he had won an Oscar in 1938 for his brilliant adaptation of his 1914 play PYGMALION). When Otto Preminger mounted (produced and directed) this production in 1957, seven years after Shaw's death, he had noted British author Graham Greene do the adaptation and it was a solid choice.

Taking a cue from Shaw's own screenplay, Greene uses material from the stage Epilogue to create a framing device to meld the two acts of the play (one early and one late in Joan's story) into a unified and most satisfying whole. Where on stage the shift in tone is buffered with an intermission, here it works just as well with a return to KING Charles Balois's bedchamber (where the man Joan put on the throne is dreaming of the events which led to his current situation), and more material from Shaw's Epilogue - the introduction of the shade of John Gielgud's Warwick (the English "king maker").

The majority of the language is solid GBS, and the performances from stalwart Shauvians (like Felix Aymler's Inquisitor or Harry Andrews' de Stogumber) to relative newcomers (the film established Jean Seberg's career) are first rate. It may jar some, only familiar with Richard Widmark's many movie villains, to see him playing a frail and somewhat silly Dauphin, but the performance - oddly top billed - is professional, even if arguably miscast.

The symbolism of the opening credits and the director's choice to use the visual vocabulary of black and white filming all serve Shaw and the story well. Go in expecting quality entertainment and you won't be disappointed.