Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The way this story played out and the interaction between the 2 lead characters may lead me to believe that if the X-Files continues without Mulder and Scully, these would be a pretty good replacement duo.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: An utterly beautiful film, one of a handful of I saw when young that entranced me then and still do, in Thief's case the impression actually seems to get better with the passing of time. By the '90's my daughter and I had seen it many times on TV but still went to the pictures when it came to the local art-house cinema when it had finished we came out starry eyed with heads full of poetry and Miklos Rozsa's stirring music wishing it could have lasted a couple of hours longer and thinking what a beautiful world it suddenly was again.

Idealistic Prince Ahmad wants to slum it amongst his people for a while to check things out, but evil Vizier Jaffar takes his chance to imprison him and seize the throne. After escaping with a little thief played by Sabu, Ahmad spots a Princess and they fall blindingly in love along the way they have many adventures (although apparently not enough for Sabu!) and Love not only conquers but annihilates everything. The special effects must have been mesmerising in 1940, but Time has taken its toll and lessened their impact especially since digital cartoonery has taken over even live action but they still hold up well compared against films like Superman from 40 years later. Anyway, if I'm requested to suspend disbelief in gargantuan guffawing genies, flying horses and carpets I also suspend disbelief in perfect special effects! Favourite bits: the dreamy scene in the sunlit garden when Ahmad reveals himself and Adelaide Hall's suitably romantic song; the stunning colours in the tent in the Land Of Legend in fact, the stunning colours throughout; Sabu and Rozsa's triumphant but still wistful finale. Conrad Veidt played the baddie in two of the most incredible movie romances ever, this and Casablanca, and then died. John Justin and June Duprez were great in the leading roles of lovers, both of them slightly and refreshingly stilted, but the parts didn't call for a huge range of emotions: only pure love mattered.

There's a couple of mildly violent images in it, but rest assured this is a glorious feelgood experience with a 100% positive message, it's only a pity that nowadays little kids don't watch this instead of the porn they prefer. One of my Top 10 film favourites, I can't recommend this too much may it be shown to the end of Time.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: In this satire of the commercialization and 'lightheartedness' of war, John Cusack plays Brand Hauser, an assassin sent to to 'Turaqistan' to take out Omar Sharif, who is doing some oil business that will spell trouble for the former Vice President of the US's own company. In addition to this, Hauser must juggle his fake position as a trade show producer, a wedding for pop princess Yonica (Hillary Duff), and a nosy Liberal journalist, Natalie (Marisa Tomei).

Assessing the technical aspects:

- The acting (by the main characters,at least) was good, as was to be expected. Some of John Cusack's dialogue was quite obviously not written for him as he often seemed uncomfortable saying it. . . maybe unrealistic is more accurate. Joan put forth a great, and often hilarious, performance. Marisa Tomei, while I've never been a big fan of hers, was more than suitable for the role and worked well. Hillary Duff, however, was pretty terrible. They needed an attractive Middle Eastern (or Russian, or whatever that accent was supposed to be) pop-star. Unfortunately, they went 0 for 3 with her.

- Like I said above, the writing seemed a little stiff and mismatched at points, especially John Cusack's dialogue. Not much of it, mind, but some. The story also got a bit ludicrous at points, which is fine for a satire to a point, but it took it to a whole new level here. Luckily, the Cusacks and Tomei keep a relatively cool, calm demeanor throughout, and that makes a nice even mix of the craziness of the film and the levelheadedness of the actors.

- Joshua Seftel, who previously had a drought of real credits to his name, did a fine job with a rather wide-spectrum film. He handled the small ($10 million) budget very well, stretching it to make it appear to be much more. Seftel also managed to nicely blend the humour of the story. . . with the painful and hard-to-watch parts of the real war (including slaughter of civilians, etc.).

- As far as the general satire goes, its exaggerated look on the commercializing of war is very well done, especially the 'Golden Palace Poker' ads on the U.S. tanks. At points, it becomes a little too much, but, in the end, it still accurate portrays what it's going for an a young 'Mel Brooks'-type of style.

Overall, the film is very well made for the meager budget and it's definitely worthy of a look. It won't go down as one of the great satires of cinema, but it's certainly not the worst.

7/10.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Revolution is a terrible movie, I don't care if you're a history teacher, news writer, Al Pacino fan, there's no way this movie can possibly earn a legitimate '10'.

The key point to the plot is Tom Dobb (Al) trying to get money from a note he got for radical patriots taking his boat. Everything revolves around that note. Tom's son joins the army to make up for the note, making Tom join the army as well, they go on an adventure trying to get out of the army, years later the war is over and they can finally turn in the note for their boat. The End.

It had a few battle scenes, and they were pretty mediocre at best. Transistions between scenes used "five months later" and magically put the characters in some famous historical battle. The love story is a joke, and the movie as a whole is just hard to follow. So save your "Notes" and watch the Patriot instead.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I grew up with scooby(kinda the re-runs of where are you)I hate scrappy, love Daphne, and feel its not complete with out the whole gang. But this is sad, scooby doo is mystery solving comedy-not bad totally spy's jap anime. i like "whats new", they had to give danger-prone Daphne a makeover sometime :( and try to lose the *sex *drug jokes of many a generation, but this "get a clue" is flat out crap and should not have the Scooby name attached. They even tried to do some lame punk thing with the theme song. now i'm gonna go watch my DVD of scooby doo where are you to wash the filth of this new series off my eyes
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
This is a run-of-the-mill nature porn movie. By porn, I don't mean sex. I mean gratuitous images of (for example) thousands of birds together, or hundreds of walruses, or a giant waterfall or iceberg. Several of the shots in the film seem to exist solely to make their way into the trailer, to get people into theatres to see it for all of ten seconds before it disappears never to be seen again for the rest of the film.

There is almost no plot in this film. Told to expect a story of three animal families, "better than March of the Penguins", the movie simply doesn't deliver. The blame rests in three key areas: (1) the writers who gave James Earl Jones some of the worst lines to narrate in nature film history, (2) the music team who over-dramatized everything to tell you what you should be feeling, even when the film fails to motivate, and lastly but most importantly (3) the editors who had the story jump from place to place with no rhyme or reason, no continuity, no flow, sucking the life out of the entire film -- a film about life. When we got to the whales halfway through the film, I sunk back in my seat with dread, hoping against hope that the film was more than halfway through, and that I'd be able to survive the long endurance test along with the animals on screen.

There was also almost no science in the film at all. They attributed hot and cold (all of it, not just the seasons) solely to the Earth's tilt, ignoring the fact that we'd have even greater extremes from location to location if there was no tilt because the poles would never warm. And it would be worst if we had no rotation (relative to revolution) like Mercury, because half the planet would bake and the other half would freeze. Then near the end they used the phrase "humans and animals", as if humans are not animals, somehow exempt from the laws of nature. So much for science.

I must credit the camera work, however, and again that is why I call this nature porn. Everything from super-slow-motion to what appears to be a finely-tuned mechanically-controlled time-lapse photography, was put to use to provide some (and I caution, only "some") stunning moments that do raise the bar compared to other nature films. That said, I am not convinced that it was all nature on the screen. Some of the shots showing the great watering hole in Africa, as it changed from season to season seemed like CGI to me. A director might have expected such suspicion and built in other shots to demonstrate that it's all natural, but they didn't do that.

For a film about Earth, I had expected a lot more of Earth to be shown. What we saw was pristine. We had to take the narrator's word for it that some species are at risk due to climate changes. They didn't show us evidence of it. They didn't show us Alberta's poisonous tailing ponds visible from space. They didn't show us the great Pacific trash whorl. They didn't show us a nighttime picture of human light pollution around the planet. These are as much Earth as anything else. Why cover it up for a feel-good whitewash?

My last criticism of the content is of predation. Any time a predator was shown on the screen actually hunting prey, the music turned almost into that Mt Doom scene from Lord of the Rings, with the predator portrayed as some kind of Sauron ultimate-evil character. But predators aren't evil. They perform a necessary service, ensuring that the best members of the prey species survive. We are predators ourselves. Any time the predator caught the prey, we immediately cut away to something else, to sort of pretend that death and eating don't really happen. The final insult was the "dad" polar bear being left to die after he dared to try to eat. "Bad bear! Bad!", you can almost hear them say.

On to the presentation itself. My theatre may be in part to blame for this, but maybe not. I had expected to see something with greater clarity than I could see on my own HDTV LCD at home. But the picture was blurry, and was presented in the same 16:9 ratio I could get at home, instead of the wider ratio many films come in these days. And during one action-packed scene near the end, the film (I can't imagine this happening digitally, from how it looked) was damaged, and we lost several of the colors, eventually blacking out completely. That repeated about three times.

If they actually do plant a tree on my behalf, it will have been worth it. But how will I know?