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

Answer: You MUST be kidding!!!! Let's entertain the possibility that Parker Posey is really an actress, and not just some entry in the "quirk of the month club" of actors. Really, unless this is meant to be a tongue-in-cheek satire on David Mamet-- terse, confusing dialog delivered alternately in machine gun rapidity or monotone (think Ben Stein) blandness--or a flat out dry comedy; this film has got to be in the running for a Rotten Tomato Award---or worse.

As if the stiff and uncomfortable Posey weren't enough, we've got the stiffer and even more uncomfortable Jeff Goldblum. There's more wood in this film than a toothpick factory.

Adding to this already bizarre casting, are several other roles, all populated by forgettable actors, who look or sound like escapees from America's Next Top Model, Don Pardo, or even the kid, who pronounces the word "been" like "bean", which just brings our attention to the fact that there is so little to like about this film, we are analyzing his accent to guess if he's Canadian or not!! I think I laughed heartily in places that are supposed to be serious, and took seriously sections that are meant to be humorous. Even the soundtrack sounds like a caricature of Alarik Jans music for Mamet's "The House of Games". If taken as a spoof, the film is almost droll; if taken seriously, just a self-conscious piece of drek.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: The film begins with promise, but lingers too long in a sepia world of distance and alienation. We are left hanging, but with nothing much else save languid shots of grave and pensive male faces to savour. Certainly no rope up the wall to help us climb over. It's a shame, because the concept is not without merit.

We are left wondering why a loving couple - a father and son no less - should be so estranged from the real world that their own world is preferable when claustrophobic beyond all imagining. This loss of presence in the real world is, rather too obviously and unnecessarily, contrasted with the son having enlisted in the armed forces. Why not the circus, so we can at least appreciate some colour? We are left with a gnawing sense of loss, but sadly no enlightenment, which is bewildering given the film is apparently about some form of attainment not available to us all.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Cash (Now played by Khrystyne Haje in for Angelina Jolie) has wandered to a post apocalypse wasteland (after her protector has died from old age, said protector was played by Elias Koteas, an actual decent actor) and now she finds that people wander through the rubble looking for cyborgs to trade for scrap metal and cash. She leads a group of burned out cyborgs (That includes William Katt, Evan Lurie and a human scientist played by Zach Galligan) against bounty hunter Richard Lynch. Malcolm McDowell has two minutes of screen time as Lynch's employer. Cyborg 3 does manage to be better than the other two entries but it still is a largely dull feature. The problem this time is that the ideas with potential are never used well, the action sequences are routine and the name cast such as McDowell, Katt and Galligan are given little to do. Haje is indeed a whiny heroine and Lynch is too over the top(as usual) and the film lacks the inspiration or ambition to be as fun-bad as it's hilarious predecessor. (The one with Van Damme, the second one is just dull.) Also disappointing is the science fiction angle which almost aggressively resists any good idea it has. As an action flick this is routine and by the numbers B-movie stuff and it is competently made, that's the only thing positive I can say about it.

*1/2 out of 4-(Poor)
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I could not agree more with the quote "this is one of the best films ever made." If you think Vanilla Sky is simply a "re-make," you could not be more wrong. There is tremendous depth in this film: visually, musically, and emotionally.

Visually, because the film is soft and delicate at times (early scenes with Sofia) and at other times powerful and intense (Times Square, post-climactic scenes).

The music and sounds tie into this movie so perfectly. Without the music, the story is only half told. Nancy Wilson created an emotional, yet eclectic, score for the film which could not be more suitable for such a dream-like theme (although never released, I was able to get my hands on the original score for about $60. If you look hard, you may be able to find a copy yourself). Crowe's other musical selections, such as The Beach Boys, Josh Rouse, Spiritualized, Sigur Ros, the Monkees, etcetera etcetera, are also perfect fits for the film (Crowe has an ear for great music).

More importantly, the emotional themes in this film (i.e. love, sadness, regret) are very powerful, and are amplified tenfold by the visual and musical experience, as well as the ingenious dialogue; I admit, the elevator scene brings tears to my eyes time and time again.

The best part of this film however (as if it could get any better) is that it is so intelligently crafted such that each time you see the film, you will catch something new--so watch closely, and be prepared to think! Sure, a theme becomes obvious after the first or second watch, but there is always more to the story than you think.

This is easily Cameron Crowe's best work, and altogether a work of brilliance. Much of my film-making and musical inspiration comes from this work alone. It has honestly touched my life, as true art has a tendency of doing. It continually surprises me that there are many people that cannot appreciate this film for what it is (I guess to understand true art is an art itself).

Bottom line: Vanilla Sky is in a league of its own.