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

Answer: Having seen men Behind the Sun I guess I hoped for an evolution in style & technique to match the larger scale of this movie. I was also quite interested to see someone make a hard-hitting fact-based fictionalised account of what happened during this most notorious of Japanese atrocities, but this is not it. This plays like a bottom-to-mid tier European Nazi exploitation movie from the 70s - e.g. SS Experiment Camp etc (perhaps more like Deported Women of the Special Section actually). Granted it has a greater scope and more people running around, but it resorts to the same cheap and cheerless device of lots of hapless non-actors limply falling over to the sound of ridiculously fake gunshots, spiced up with the occasional poorly executed 'shock' sequence. The admittedly horrible documentary footage is roughly spliced in between scenes so hackneyed that even these real images are robbed of much of their power. Watch channel 4's 'The Holocaust' (aired recently (still running?), as of 1 No 2006) for a genuinely disturbing documentary on the evils of war (featuring excellent in-context use of actual footage). This is the type of treatment the horror of Nanjing deserves, not this hackneyed exploitation garbage (a better executed exploitation movie minus the disrespectful use of stock footage would have been fine, but again this is not even a very good exploitation movie). Rating: 3 (5 as exploitation, 1 as a treatment of the subject).
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: As if the film were not of value in itself, this is an excellent way to get an overview of the novel as a preface to reading it. In the summer of 1968 I saw the film in NYC; that fall in graduate school, I read the book for the first time. Some of the pleasure in reading the novel was my memory of the scrupulously detailed film. And for better or worse--and I've now read and taught the novel for over three decades--Milo O'Shea is still Leopold Bloom.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I can barely find the words to express how utterly utterly awful this film is. I was sold on the promise of action, with Segal and stealth aircraft, which normally make for an entertaining action movie. I can honestly say I'd rather gouge my eyes out with a cocktail stick than have to see this film again. The acting was so awful that it was almost funny. The story was insanely weak, with plot holes so cavernously wide you could fly an F117 through them. The script was so poor, if I found out that a 10 year old wrote it I shouldn't be in the least surprised. The direction and production is so amateur, I wouldn't even hire these people to shoot my worst enemies wedding video. Utter Utter drivel. Those responsible for making this movie have cheapened the art, and they should be ashamed of themselves. Steven Segal should never ever show his face in public again, I can't imagine what made him agree to star in this, the worst film I have seen in my entire life.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I can just about understand why some people might wish to stress this film's link with the Eighties but I really wouldn't say it's an accurate depiction of most peoples' lives in that era - even on the poorest Bradford estates. It is however typical of the blunt agitprop rubbish the dear old Royal Court Theatre was churning out at that time. Plenty of 'right-on' artistry for small, small audiences but enough well-connected backslapping to ensure future commissions for turgid playrights. IThe simple fact is that if you want to reflect upon truer common experience you'll find millions more nodding in knowing agreement to love and live as depicted in 'Gregory's Girl'.

I would be tempted to call this a 'kitchen sink' drama but that would be doing a great disservice to the plumbing industry. However, as far as having a decent script is concerned, this film is indeed all washed up. For some reason it has accrued an odd following amongst Guardian reading film-goers - I can only assume they get a visual frisson out of pretending to slum it. Steer clear my friends. It is a poor film with a poor script that likes to think it is breaking boundaries by adding humorous insights into grim life on the estates. it isn't..but it is grim. Do the washing up instead.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Well, well....Roeg touched a bit of a nerve there, didn't he? He was a genius while he was cataloguing his various characters' descents into psychosis for a couple of decades, but as soon as he has the bad taste to suggest that redemption (or even some good advice) might be found in the bad old Catholic church, the hipper-than-thou alternative movie crowd gets extra vicious. Worse still, Theresa Russell's character - faced with experiences that nothing in her avowedly rationalist outlook has an explanation for, is unwillingly forced to deal with those experiences on another level - that of the spiritual. You know, the realm of the ignorant and superstitious, the sort of thing that the art-house cinephiles are supposed to be above. Oh, the horror... So she finds her marriage - the idea that it might be a uniquely important commitment - affirmed by what seems uncomfortably like divine intervention. People who find this idea prima facie offensive could maybe ask themselves why they instinctively jump into attack mode at being challenged to take seriously the idea of a spiritual dimension to their lives. But they probably won't. Sure, this film has some problems, notably Talia Shire's delirious hamwork as the overwrought nun, 1950s-style attire and all. And the dialogue between Marie Davenport and the young priest in their last scene is straight out of the Spellbound School of Glib Interpretations (though Hitchcock's movie escaped similar charges due to the source of wisdom having impeccably secular credentials as a Freudian psychoanalyst). But, sadly, Nicolas Roeg appears to have copped a critical mauling as much for even asking the question as for the possible answers this film presents.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
In the aftermath of Watergate, a number of conspiracy movies appeared, such as this one, written by the late Adam Kennedy ( based on his novel ).

Gene Hackman plays ex-Vietnam veteran 'Roy Tucker', a loser who has wound up in prison. He receives visits from Marvin Tagge ( Richard Widmark ), who claims to represent an organisation designed to assist the wrongly convicted. They offer him freedom, and despite distrusting Tagge he accepts. But he brings along a fellow cell mate by the name of Spiventa ( Mickey Rooney ). Exactly why is hard to see, as Spiventa is an irritating little man who drives Tucker mad with persistent talk of sex, not what you want to hear when you are behind bars.

Tagge's benefactors kill Spiventa before Tucker's astonished eyes. Reunited with wife Ellie ( Candice Bergen ), and given a new identity ( strangely, he does not attempt to change his appearance. Shaving off that cheesy moustache would have been a start ), he settles down, but finds there is a catch - Tagge wants Tucker to do no less than assassinate the President of the United States. He refuses, so Tagge has Ellie abducted...

I will leave the synopsis here, but I am sure you can guess the rest for yourself. The script has enough plot holes to make you want to read the book ( neat trick that! ). The people Tagge represents are never revealed. The allusions to J.F.K.'s killing are unmistakable. Despite the findings of The Warren Commission, the doubt as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone persists to this day.

This was Stanley Kramer's first movie in years, and while no turkey, it lacks the grip of say John Frankenheimer's 'The Manchurian Candidate' or Alan J.Pakula's 'The Parallax View'. Being a left-wing conspiracy movie, it tends to skirt around its subject matter instead of getting to grips with it. I prefer right-wing ones myself - they are funnier! 'Domino' has the look and feel of a made-for-T.V. movie, and boasts what must be the easiest prison escape in movie history not to mention an ending copped from the Michael Caine classic 'Get Carter'.

What makes it watchable are Gene Hackman and Richard Widmark. The latter, who sadly passed away earlier this year, is superb as the mysterious Tagge, who initially appears to be behind the operation until he too is ruthlessly eliminated, beginning a chain of deaths designed to remove all trace of evidence as one by one the perpetrators of this evil plot fall - just like dominoes. As Tucker, the innocent pawn, Hackman is marvellous. You have to wonder though why he chose to hide out in such an obvious place. In his shoes, I'd have fled to the other side of the world, anywhere to get away from these fanatics. Hackman's love scenes with Bergen slow the plot down, and it is almost a relief when she gets snatched. Presumably the producers thought so too, which explains why it opens with a bizarre prologue setting out the film's entire premise - voiced by British actor Patrick Allen - warning the audience that 'they' are out there, and that 'they' are out to get us. Comedian Les Dawson later spoofed this opening in his B.B.C. show 'The Dawson Watch'.

Mickey Rooney had earlier worked with Kramer on 'Its A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World'. His 'death' scene here resembles like an outtake from that picture, with the actor looking as though he has been stung by a wasp rather than shot dead.

Conspiracy movies used to be only made by the left, but now the right are getting in on the act too. Last year, 'Taking Liberties', an absurd concoction of lies and half-truths about Tony Blair's Government turned out to be Britain's answer to 'Reefer Madness'. At least, 'Domino' had lovely Candice Bergen. The best Chris Atkins' film could offer was Anne Widdecombe!

Surprisingly, 'The Domino Principle' was made by Sir Lew Grade, the legendary British television mogul behind 'The Saint', 'Jesus Of Nazareth' and 'The Muppet Show'. He worked with Adam Kennedy again in 1980 on 'Raise The Titanic!', whose failure was so great it sank Grade's ambitions of being the new Louis B.Meyer. Being somewhat open-minded, I would not rule out the possibility of a conspiracy.