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

Answer: I saw this recently and I must say, I was moved by the factual basis of the story. However, "Holly" as a movie did not quite work. I am however, looking forward to watching the documentary which the producers who organised this project had made because I think that would be a much more compelling work than this film.

The international cast was composed of B-class actors but their acting was appropriate, and I must give a special mention for the young actress who played Holly. This was her first movie role and she did a very nice job, considering hers is the most challenging part.

Ron Livingston was adequate but bland as Patrick, the American whose quest is to "save" Holly, but Chris Penn was good in this, his final role. Unfortunately, despite my mostly favourable opinion of Virginie Ledoyen and Udo Kier, both of these actors were very much forgettable and did not do their best work in this film.

I believe in the film's message and intention, but I have to be fair, so I rate "Holly" 3 stars based on its shortcomings as a movie. But I think the subject matter deserves serious consideration and I am pleased that the people behind this movie have made a documentary as well which I hope will have its debut on BBC and other TV networks.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This must be one of the most overrated Spanish films in history. Its lack of subtlety and complexity and its total political correction make it really childish, with only good/bad characters. The world is just not like this, and good movies show complex characters with opposite impulses, dilemmas, etc. However, what I HATE most about this film is Bola's friend's father. The director tries to teach us a good lesson: tattoo artists with shaved heads are not always bad guys, in fact they can be better than the average looking dad (wow, this is like... philosophy, or something). Thank you, Achero. I'll propose you for the Nobel prize of literature.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I had to stop watching this film (a pseudo-intellectual product for pretentious film viewers) twenty minutes into it because it was mediocre and dull enough to inspire yawns, not to mention that I was soon near tears over the $3.99 I had wasted at Blockbuster. Joanna Pacula's acting and her awfully rendered Slavic accent are sufficiently terrible to set one to gritting one's teeth. I knew that two hours of her would be two hours too many. Both Breuer and Nietzsche are played by unremarkable actors of strikingly few talents. While we're on the topic of talent, Breuer's supercilious assistant appears to have been pulled out of a local acting troupe. She clearly has not learned her craft. In fact, she's really quite awful. All the public scenes looked staged, with the extras walking mechanically about in their Sunday best. Turning this film off was far more satisfying than turning it on. Don't rent this terrible movie. You will be sorry you spent your money.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Long time inmate Twitch (Kurupt) gets himself transfered to a tougher prison than the re-opened Alcatraz. He claims it's to be closer to his lady but his real motives are a bit more grandiose. There he crosses paths with Burke (Bill Goldberg) a bulky prisoner who can take care of himself. Twitch, despite being less muscular, is just as mouthy and is pretty much the same. But there is a gang war brewing between the black and hispanic inmates that explodes into a hostile takeover of the prison when the black's gang leader is shot dead and the finger points at Burke. But the sh!t really hits the fan when the real killer and leader of the hispanics, Cortez (Robert Madrid) takes Twitch's girlfriend and Burke's daughter hostage.

Steven Seagal doesn't do sequels (reportedly very opposed to the idea of Under Siege 2 and only agreeing to do it on the condition the film company he was with at the time let direct his own movie) so despite this being a DVD sequel, the lead role this time round goes to Bill Golberg (Steve doesn't even appear in some of the stock footage from the first film that appears towards the end.) But there's a reason he hasn't done much work since Universal Soldier 2 and that's because he's not much of an actor, and not much of an action star either, managing a character that begins as very dark and brooding but unsubtly turns into a standard action hero awkwardly quipping off dull one-liners. Support wise, veterans from the first film, Kurupt and Tony Plana, have merely jumped at the chance of extra work.

This is a film that's tried to copy the style of the original quite well, with the dim lighting, dark shadows and rap music playing over a lot of it. It does this quite well, unfortunately it can't contend with an unengaging hero, an equally cardboard villain and an apathetic story that the makers do very much seem to have made up as they went along. **
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This movie has the made for TV stink all over it. Though, it started out with great intentions, featuring great looking sets and authentic props and costumes. The film quickly degenerated into horrible on the nose cheesy dialogue, and rushed TV sappy melodramatic acting. The characters were so sappy that at times I thought that they are about to degenerate into a bilious puddle of goo, and the action was so convoluted and poorly cut that it looked as it the soldiers were merely standing around and taking turns shooting at one another. The Germans were so unrealistically depicted that it was painful to watch. The only thing that the German officers talked about was how wonderful the Americans are. Please take my word for this. I am a huge fan of the war genre, and this movie is crap. Nevertheless, this DVD does have an excellent extra feature, covering letters from the WWI front lines, thus making this rental not a total waste of my time.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I enjoyed this film far more than anything had led me to anticipate; from reading other comments here, I suspect it benefits enormously from being seen on a full-size screen in the cinema, in the company of a cheerful and enthusiastic audience. I was lucky enough to have that experience, borne up on ripples of laughter from all around, and had an immensely good time with this undemanding comedy.

For it is as a comedy that it shines, if it shines anywhere at all. The music is nothing special -- in fact, I hadn't realised it *was* a musical, and was very surprised when the assembled ancestors burst into half-spoken lyric -- but I do have to admit that the half-threat, half-promise of 'Oh, what I'll do...' has proved far more catchy than it ever seemed at the time, as it's still going round and round in my head!

The plot, such as it is, largely pivots around the past history of the eponymous Francesca, a sixteenth-century portrait sporting a distinctly anachronistic hairstyle and fur-coat. Her idea on the sanctity of marriage don't quite jibe with those of her distant descendant, the Countess Angelina, and one can almost hear the storyline creaking at the seams under the strain of the Production Code in order to ensure that the heroine arrives unsullied in her much-delayed marriage-bed with the right man...

The romance is scarcely earth-shattering, and in fact the first few scenes, played pretty well straight, verge on the tedious. But where script and film really come to life is in the battle of the sexes that follows. The impudence of Douglas Fairbanks Jr's courtship of Betty Grable's married Angelina is equalled only by Betty-Grable-as-Francesca's pursuit of him in turn, culminating in complete role-reversal in the hilarious fantasy sequence where she -- literally -- sweeps him off his feet. This is probably the comic climax of the plot, although the consequences of the Colonel's understandable confusion are worked out with a deft touch in the remaining two 'acts' of the operetta-structure, and the spectacle of Fairbanks' blissful, bemused awakening is more or less worth the price of admission on its own.

Grable is entirely convincing in establishing her two contrasting characters, wisely gets almost all the (limited) singing opportunities, and shares the honours where the swathes of quotable dialogue in the various verbal duels are concerned. But in the field of unspoken reaction she is really outclassed by her male supporting leads; Fairbanks in particular is an absolute treat in a number of wordless sequences whose set-up and humour is worthy of the silent screen.

This film is too uneven in style to be a classic, varying from sparkling repartee to hackneyed tedium. But at its best it is quite honestly very funny indeed, and brought a round of spontaneous applause and laughter across the auditorium at the end as the lights went up. Out of tune with its times, it may have failed to draw contemporary audiences -- but, on this showing, really didn't deserve to be disowned by both Grable and Preminger, the (uncredited) director. This is no masterpiece, but a thoroughly entertaining minor work, and I for one found myself grinning in remembrance all the way home.