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

Answer: This 30 minute documentary Bunuel made in the early 1930's about one of Spain's poorest regions is, in my opinion, one of his weakest films. First, let's admit that 70 years later, Spain is much richer than it was then (and when I say this, I fully admit that wealth can bring problems of its own, like excessive individualism and consumerism, though all in all wealth it's a far better condition than the extreme poverty portrayed here). And if poverty receded in Spain it was not exactly with the sort of socialism that Bunuel favored, but with Western European style capitalism. But one of the most shocking things about the movie is this: in one scene, the narrator chides that in school, children are taught the value of Pi. Teaching math to poor people, the horror!. Bunuel shortsightedness is at its most glaring here, not realizing that it is access to the latest knowledge and technology what will help the poor overcome their situation. What is he proposing? That children are taught exactly what at school? Doesn't Bunuel understand that it is the lack of modern technology that has made them poor in comparison with other people?
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Brokedown Palace is truly a one of a kind. It's an amazing story, showing two girl's plight for freedom against the Thailand justice system. They soon find themselves placing faith into a system they know nothing about.

Alice Morano (Claire Danes) and Darlene Davis (Kate Beckinsale), are two best friends, strait out of high school. They suddenly change their vacation plans from Hawaii to Thailand, and are immediately captivated by a young man, Nick Parks. He flirts with them both, and suggests that the three of them go to Hong Kong for the weekend.

When the two arrive at the airport, they are immediately searched for drugs. Someone tipped off customs, and in an instant, their life is changed forever. In the mix of the confusion of settling into their new life, they learn about a highly respected lawyer, named Hank Green (Bill Pullman).

An American who knows the Thai justice system, he fights for the girl to be free. But they soon find out, when they leave or go is all up to them.

If you're looking for a great movie that'll stay with you for years - Brokedown Palace is definitely the way to go.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I had several problems with the movie:

(1) The screenplay -- specifically, Kim Basinger's voice over: Movies are not books; they should *show* the action rather than have a voice over *tell* us what's happening. Occasionally I find a movie with a voice over that works, but here it seemed more of a lazy way of writing the script. In fact, it sounded to me as if she was practically reading excerpts from the novel in her voice over.

(2) I felt no emotion in the relationship between Jessie and Brother Thomas and also felt that Alex Carter's acting was pretty bad. That's a significant failure for me in defining Jessie's and Thomas' characters -- with no connection between them, it seemed to me as if she just wanted a stud and that for him it was a matter of being sex-deprived. If it had been properly done, the relationship between them would have given much more context to the story.

(3) With the book, I understood Jessie's mid-life crisis. In the movie, it seemed more like just plain boredom.

On the plus side, I didn't think the movie was so bad as for me to turn off the TV . . . though that thought did occur to me.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I saw this movie literally directly after finishing the book, and maybe that was a neutral idea or a very stupid one. I think it was the latter. First of all, it was inaccurate in many small, yet important details. One of the first things I noticed was, during Winston's day to day life in his work, his conversations, eating in the cafeteria, etc. he feels free to look unhappy and make suggestive glances at people without immense fear. One of the most important parts of the book, was that even in small activities it was virtually impossible to safely show even a hint of his true emotions on his face AT ANY MOMENT. This is also shown in the scenes on the streets of the proletarions. In the book Winston knew that this was a huge risk to wander around there and was skeptical and frightened at every trip. While in the movie, he does it so often and without fear, that you lose the important feeling of heavy surveillance and risk right off the bat.

Other minor inaccuracies included Winston hiding his diary in the wall, yes a very small change, but it begs the question, what's the point? There was also the most annoying thing a director can do with a book, and that is morphing characters.

The large inaccuracies were far more disturbing, however. First of all, one of the important pieces of the book is that Big Brother is a government based on an intelligent, yet crude philosophy. In the movie, they skip that and go straight to making you think that the government is run by Hitler with technology. Which is true, in a sense, when directed with its facism, but if that's all you get out of Big Brother, you really missed the point of the book. The terrifying thing about Big Brother is that, in a way, it has some points behind its philosophy. When O'Brien is picking at Winstons mind in the Ministry of Love, he is LISTENING to everything Winston says against Big Brother. The fact that he listens, and advances forward in his philosophy, is in effect what is most creepy and intriguing. In the end, (careful SPOILER ahead) when Winston says he loves Big Brother, the terrifying thing is that you are not sure whether it was souly the beating and torture that caused this, or the actual power behind the philosophy. I am in no way saying that the Big Brother's philosophy has points that appeal to me, but its intelligence and depth is what makes this book incredibly disturbing.

Also, how could anyone feel any connection between Julia and Winston in the film? It was awful, no connection whatsoever.

And where was O'Brien before he gave Winston his address? One of the things that carried the book was Winstons thoughts about O'Brien BEFORE he made contact with him. In the movie, they just jump the gun.

But that about sums up why this movie was a terrible adaption: because its impossible NOT to jump the gun and morph characters in less than two hours. How could anyone think this movie was watchable if it was under two hours? At the very least, the movie demands 3 hours to be able to capture some of the important moods and connections. Anything less is just pointless.

If you loved the book, and I mean TRULY adored it, you will not approve of this movie, and chances are, you already knew you wouldn't. Because the book is unfilmable, and this movie just proves how impossible it is cram something decent into a small reel of film.

Two stars out of ten
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This movie is why I found this website. I couldn't find this movie anywhere else! I am so glad we found it here! We have seen it on TV before and wanted desperately to find it and buy and have several friends interested in buying it. One other poster commented that it is was boring, though I must say that it is NOT. Especially if you are a horse person, you will love this movie. The horses are awesome, well trained and the movie is well done. It is certainly one we will be purchasing for our home DVD library. We will be recommending it to our friends. The bond made between man and horse in this film was so inspiring and made you want to spend more time with your horses. This is certainly a movie that we will watch several times.