An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: "Wisecracker," the biography of actor William Haines, offers a gratifying anecdote about the former star when he was past 70 and long retired from making movies. The old gent was not sentimental and rarely watched his own films, but in 1972 he was persuaded to attend a Los Angeles museum screening of SHOW PEOPLE, the late silent feature in which he co-starred with Marion Davies. Beforehand, Haines was worried that this comedy would provoke the wrong kind of laughter, but he was pleasantly surprised (and no doubt relieved) at how well it held up and how much the young audience enjoyed it. Watch the film today and you can see why: SHOW PEOPLE is a delightful Hollywood satire that retains its charm because it lampoons its targets with wit and flair, yet without malice. It's still funny and its satirical points still resonate. Needless to say, the technology of movie-making has changed vastly since the silent days, but the pretensions and follies of the filmmakers themselves haven't changed all that much.

SHOW PEOPLE also stands as the best surviving work of Marion Davies, a first-rate comic performer who deserves a prominent place in the pantheon of great comediennes. Where her career was concerned Davies was both blessed and cursed by the patronage of her paramour, the newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. It's well known that Hearst exerted enormous influence over Davies' choice of roles, and well known too that, despite her gift for comedy, he preferred to see her play dignified heroines in period costume dramas. By the late '20s, for whatever reason, Marion was permitted to strut her stuff in several exuberant light comedies (including THE RED MILL and THE PATSY), but SHOW PEOPLE, directed by the great King Vidor, stands as her most enjoyable showcase. William Haines gives an engaging, likable performance as her boyfriend and co-star Billy Boone, but this is the leading lady's show all the way.

Marion plays Southern belle Peggy Pepper, an aspiring actress who storms Hollywood accompanied by her father, determined to become a movie star. (Her dad Colonel Pepper is played by actor/director Dell Henderson, a veteran of Griffith's Biograph dramas whocoincidentally?resembled Hearst!) One of Marion's funniest bits, often excerpted elsewhere, is her audition at the Comet Studio casting office. While Dad helpfully suggests emotions to portray ("Sorrow! . . . Joy!") and drops a handkerchief across her face, Peggy assumes the appropriate expression and posture. She's hired, only to discover that Comet makes low-brow comedies, the kind of comedies where people squirt each other with seltzer and inept cops tumble over each other racing to the rescue. Of course, Comet is intended as a take-off of Mack Sennett's Keystone, but the true nature of the satire becomes clear as the story unfolds. As Peggy Pepper rises in the movie star hierarchy she leaves Comet for the more prestigious High Art Studio, assuming the name "Patricia Peppoire" as more befitting her new station in life as a serious actress. At some point it may occur to us (as it surely did to viewers in 1928) that Davies' rival Gloria Swanson started out in Keystone comedies before rising to prominence in serious dramas for Cecil B. DeMille. And as Miss Peppoire takes herself more and more seriously, giving the high-hat treatment to former colleagues such as lowly comic Billy Boone, Davies' performance takes on an element of wicked parody seemingly aimed squarely at Swanson herself. This is especially notable during an interview sequence, when Miss Peppoire's spokesman spouts pretentious nonsense while the star delivers a spot-on impersonation of Swanson. I suppose this was intended as a friendly spoof, but I have to wonder how friendly relations were between Gloria and Marion after this movie was released.

In any event, SHOW PEOPLE is a delicious treat for buffs, who will relish the parade of star cameos throughout. Charlie Chaplin contributes a nice bit, sans makeup and looking quite distinguished, eagerly seeking Patricia Peppoire's autograph! (And in a show of good sportsmanship Marion Davies herself puts in a self-mocking cameo appearance, evening the score for poking fun at Swanson by poking fun at herself.) This is a silent film that viewers not especially attuned to silents might appreciate, at least those viewers with a taste for movies about the movie business. SHOW PEOPLE surely belongs in the company of such classics as SUNSET BOULEVARD and SINGIN' IN THE RAIN, among Hollywood's most expertly produced, enjoyable exercises in amused self-examination.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is a superb movie, suitable for all but the very youngest, though accessibility for younger people was marred (at least in the print which I saw) by the use of some unfortunate choice of English sub-titling! For much of the film it is almost impossible to guess in which time-period it is set - there is no modern technology shown, not even the ubiquitous Chinese bicycle, just a drab, almost monochrome, everyday life, against which is contrasted the dazzling display of the Sezuan Opera and of celebratory fireworks. Even when a group of soldiers refer to their imminent departure for a theatre of war, this could still be any time in the past 150 years.

But then we briefly see a motor car - late 30s, early 40s style - and we realise that we are watching a China on the verge of huge upheavals, and that much of the world we are seeing is about to be swept away in the cataclysm of World War 2 and the Communist revolution.

Which makes the central character's desire to adhere to old customs and traditions all the more poignant.

But the film also raises issues which are of vital importance even today, both within China and in other parts of the world: the inequality between boys and girls, men and women; the trade, for various purposes, in young children; corruption in society; injustice; the importance of friendship.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this film; but I don't think so! I also think that it is a scandal that films of this calibre are often not shown in the United Kingdom, whilst dross is passed off as quality material.

But don't get me started on that...
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
I've noticed over the years that when a rock star makes his final album before his death, that album, if it's not his best, is usually prolific in some way and worthy of a listen at least. The album is usually good enough to cement a legacy. However, when it comes to comedians, especially mainstream comics who star in their own vehicles, their final movie is usually God awful. John Belushi had "Neighbors", John Candy had "Wagon's East", Chris Farley had "Almost Heroes", Phil Hartman had "Small Soldiers", and Rodney Dangerfield had this movie.

"Back By Midnight", although it may not have been Dangerfield's very last film, is weak in every sense of the word. It wrapped filming in 2002 according to this website, and it's safe to say that it would have stayed on the shelves if Dangerfield was still alive. I have been a big fan of Dangerfield's since I was in my early teens, and it pains me to see how rotten this film was.

What amazes me the most is that a number of other talented people took part in a movie with a very weak premise to begin with. Dangerfield, a great comedian who usually played his comic persona on film, is a prison warden who houses a close knit group of inmates. When the owner of the prison, Colonel-Tom-Parker-meets-Sam-Walton billionaire Eli Rockwood (Randy Quaid), cuts funding for the prison, the warden sends a group of inmates to break out of prison, rob Rockwood's eponymous convenience stores of consumer goods, and break back into prison with the loot. By taking what's in the convenience stores, they are (I guess) taking what they believe Rockwood owes them.

With this flimsy premise, the movie sputters and stalls frequently. On top of that, the jokes that you think would be this movie's salvation are not even close to funny, not even from Mr. No Respect himself. That is incredibly disappointing too, because you'd expect a movie with Oscar-nominated (!!!) Randy Quaid, Kirstie Alley, Gilbert Gottfried, Ed Begley Jr., Yeardley Smith, and others to be at least a little bit funny. Instead, Quaid plays a character we've seen before in countless other comedies, Alley plays a British heiress with an awful British accent (could this movie not afford an actual British person!?!), and every joke was poorly set up and poorly timed by virtually every member of this ensemble. It was just not a good comedy in any sense of the word.

"Back By Midnight" was rated R mainly for language (and one scene of nudity). The irony in this fact is that many of the jokes are so audience insulting that even kids (if you edit out the language) would walk out of this film. The physical gags are also incredibly predictable, especially when Alley's pet monkey torments Quaid's character. When the monkey grabs a pair of scissors and jumps on Quaid's couch, who wouldn't know where that gag was going?

Being a direct-to-video comedy, of course I didn't expect any Oscar-winning material on here. The truth is, though, Dangerfield has made some great, timeless comedies before. "Easy Money" and "Back To School" are hilarious still, and were definitely not Oscar-worthy in the slightest. However, there's a difference between making a dumb comedy that's funny, and making a dumb comedy. With the latter kind of comedy, it seems like the filmmakers don't even try, which is precisely the case with this lame excuse for a wasted 90 minutes. Rest in Peace, Rodney, but add this film to your batch of forgettable comedies like "Meet Wally Sparks" (1997) and "The Godson" (1999). This film, dare I say it, is not even worth seeing.