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

Answer: In my eyes this is almost the perfect example of Hollywood ego, only beaten by the new king kong movie. Superman is the original super hero and deserves to be treated with respect even though he wears tights. Brandon Routh was the worst superman I've ever seen, from the start of the movie u just wanna shove a chunk of kryptonite down his throat. He looks just silly wearing the costume. But enough about him, Kate Bosworth was a bad choise for lois lane, she is supposed to be a hard ass reporter, but in this movie she looks more like a schoolgirl. The plot was weak and predictable (WOW, He is actually supermans son, who would have ever thought....) and the acting was horrible. This movie has one good thing going for it, and it's name is Kevin Spacey. His portrayal of Lex Luthor was brilliant but even he could not save this movie. What this movie needed was the cast of "lois and clark" (except Kevin Spacey of course) and a different story. I watched this movie after watching "the hills have eyes" and I was chocked to learn that there existed worse movies then that.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Ever since seeing this film as a child, over 30 years ago, I never tire of watching it. From the opening scenes in the horn factory, to the car motor running from the back seat of the car, to Ollie answering the phone and being accidentally pushed out the window by Stan, I think this was perhaps their best latter day film. After this they moved to 20th Century Fox, and while those films weren't terrible, they lacked the comic timing of this movie. Jimmy Finnlayson, their long time foil, in his last appearance with the boys, showing up as the Doctor is super! quote: " I said goat milk " his reply to Stan asking him how do you milk a ghost! Charlie Hall and even Ben Turpin show up! I'd say all in all one of my favorite L & H comedies.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This is a movie which attempts a retelling of Thai history, set in the ancient city of Ayutthaya. I decided to watch this film because I thought it was along the lines of many Thai films I've watched and enjoyed, one that has Thai actors speaking Thai and martial arts craziness. Well, it's none of that. This film is shot entirely in English, is chock full of Anglo actors, and has production values so terrible it is laughably bad....but not funny! Who can we blame for this rubbish? The acting, dialog, and most of the sets were quite bad. Some of the fight scenes looked like they were choreographed by the local high school drama club. The special effects were also mostly bad, but a few were just cheap animation patched onto the screen that provided an especially cheesy effect. It has one large, epic-style outdoor battle scene, where a few thousand extras get to run across a field in costume, but when we see the two armies collide in combat--HA! What a joke! The film does feature a couple of beauties. What a pity they didn't show a little more skin. At least that would have been something for the guys to appreciate. Don't bother.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: After the success of Scooby-Doo, Where are You, they decided to give Scooby and Shaggy their own show. But unfortunately, they added a new character that spoilt Scooby-Doo success forever. They invented a new show with a new title, Scooby and Scrappy-Doo. It was Scrappy-Doo that made this show a complete failure, probably for both adults and kids together. Scrappy was the stupid brave puppy that always looked ready to beat someone up. Scooby and Shaggy were getting scared of the villain, and they were also trying to stop him. Scooby-Doo doesn't need any little annoying bastard puppy nephews. If they wanted Scooby-Doo to be more successful, they should have either killed or never thought up Scrappy. This was just poor, maybe your kids will prefer it!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE TO READ MY ENTIRE REVIEW. I AM NOT KNOCKING THE FILM ITSELF - ONLY THE DVD VERSIONS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE.

***

I really wanted to give this film even two stars. I mean how could it possibly rank a mere 1 out of 10!?!

Here's how: An epic film adaptation of Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" with historically accurate battle scenes, courtesy of the Red Army, and an extremely faithful, scene-for-scene adaptation of the novel would be difficult but worth sitting through for seven hours - if that's what you were seeing.

The trouble is you can't see that film - anywhere as far as I know.

I am attempting to watch the RusCiCo DVD version - widely considered the best version available since it's letter boxed and restores the scenes that were cut from other DVD releases.

But, it is one of the worst film prints I've ever seen transfered to DVD. The picture is muddy and inconsistent, often strobing. It's almost tolerable if you crank your brightness, color and picture levels up to maximum.... but the problem doesn't end there.

The sound is also way inconsistent, blaringly loud in parts, virtually inaudible in others.

And as for languages, it's a HUGE problem for English speakers - the dubbed option has some good actors, and some really terrible ones whose performance grates, and parts of the film just aren't dubbed at all, slipping back into Russian and even French randomly.

The subtitled option isn't much better. The subtitles don't appear below the image, but right over it - obscuring some of the beauty (or what's left of it) in the scenery. Furthermore, the subtitles are often a poor translation (a shame given that the script took pains to hew so close to Tolstoy's actual words), and the subtitles too seem to just drop out in parts.

So, even if you max out the color, brightness and picture settings, and turn the volume way up, and choose subtitled *and* English dubbed, you're still going to get a film that's annoying to watch and listen to.

Can it's content overcome that? It might have been able to, but at seven hours - who can stand it for that long?

Maybe someday, someone will come along and restore this - and maybe then I will see a masterpiece - but for now, I just can't give more than one star to something I've only been able to stand watching about the first 12% of.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I wonder what audiences of the day thought when first laying eyes on Walter Jack Palance (Blackie). Certainly he looks like no one else of the time, that skull-like face, flattened nose, and elongated body-- even now he remains an unsettling presence. And what could be more appropriate than his emergence out of those dingy New Orleans slums that appear to fester like the plague Blackie is loosing on the city. I'm just sorry he didn't have more scenes.

The movie itself is very skillfully assembled the morgue's black humor, the Widmark- Douglas interplay, the un-touristy locations, the battles among officialsall are woven into a tensely realistic thriller with a menace unlike others of the time. Even Widmark's domestic scenes that put a woman (Bel Geddes) on the marquee manage not to be too disruptive. Director Kazan certainly shows his aptitude for helming a studio (Fox) product, no matter how he may have felt about the commercial aspect.

Widmark does a solid low-key job as the public health officer. But my money is on the one- and-only Zero Mostel. Was there ever a sweatier performer who could squeal louder or get pushed around more than the bulky fall guy (e.g. The Enforcer, 1950). That scene with Mostel, where Palance argues with Mostel's shrewish wife (Liswood), is a gem of frantic subservience as Mostel tries to pacify each like some berserk pinball. Too bad he lost so many years to the blacklist. (I wonder if it was the voluble Kazan who named him.)

But it's not only the professionals that add color. The locals add both character and authenticity, especially the two Asian guys interviewed by the cops. That whole scene has an improvised air, as if Kazan recognized their potential and fashioned a nifty little scene on the spot. Then too, that colorful hiring hall with all the deck hands is pure inspiration. And what about those flea-bitten coffee shops that have me running to the nearest Denny's.

Anyway, the movie is still a well-staged, riveting thriller with an apocalyptic air that oddly foreshadows many of today's mega-hits.