Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The film begins with a bunch of kids in reform school and focuses on a kid named 'Gabe', who has apparently worked hard to earn his parole. Gabe and his sister move to a new neighborhood to make a fresh start and soon Gabe meets up with the Dead End Kids. The Kids in this film are little punks, but they are much less antisocial than they'd been in other previous films and down deep, they are well-meaning punks. However, in this neighborhood there are also some criminals who are perpetrating insurance fraud through arson and see Gabe as a convenient scapegoat--after all, he'd been to reform school and no one would believe he was innocent once he was framed. So, when Gabe is about ready to be sent back to "The Big House", it's up to the rest of the gang to save him and expose the real crooks.

The "Dead End Kids" appeared in several Warner Brothers films in the late 1930s and the films were generally very good (particularly ANGELS WITH DIRTY FACES). However, after the boys' contracts expired, they went on to Monogram Studios and the films, to put it charitably, were very weak and formulaic--with Huntz Hall and Leo Gorcey being pretty much the whole show and the group being renamed "The Bowery Boys". Because ANGELS WASH THEIR FACES had the excellent writing and production values AND Hall and Gorcey were not constantly mugging for the camera, it's a pretty good film--and almost earns a score of 7 (it's REAL close). In fact, while this isn't a great film aesthetically, it's sure a lot of fun to watch, so I will give it a 7! Sure, it was a tad hokey-particularly towards the end when the kids take the law into their own hands and Reagan ignores the Bill of Rights--but it was also quite entertaining. The Dead End Kids are doing their best performances and Ronald Reagan and Ann Sheridan provided excellent support. Sure, this part of the film was illogical and impossible but somehow it was still funny and rather charming--so if you can suspend disbelief, it works well.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: How can someone NOT like this movie??? This movie is so good, that the first week I saw it on the shelf at the video store it was stolen....BEST Horror Movie Ever!!!....I mean he took the Carrot and he...well you know HAHAHA..How is that NOT funny? The only movie that comes close to touching this is Bride of Chucky and that was just great!!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This movie draws you in and gets you hooked on keeping your eyes on the screen. The writer/director is brilliant with the narrative parts and the use of creative and interesting camera angles and perspectives which all add to the gripping hold it will have on you. Insomniac's Nightmare is original and refreshingly different from any other movie you have seen. Is it a dream or reality? This indie will have you discussing the twists and turns it takes through the conscious and subconscious. It has an eery feel with it's dark interpretations of illusions. Dominic Monaghan really became the insomniac. He is a great actor who is not hard on the eyes either! He really poured his whole being into this role. From the storyline to the way it is shot makes this indie one of my favorites. I recommend it highly and eagerly await to see more from this innovative, creative writer/director/cinematographer!!!
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This film does not fail to engage and move, even in 2008 to an audience only familiar with modern over-produced sound and computer enhanced techniques.

The experience of the movie goer in 1922 who could only see this in a cinema with others on their big screen must have been truly profound and a thoroughly satisfying experience.

One has to ask could a film maker today make a two hour silent movie and make it interesting and achieve the same structure tempo and balance as this movie has. Silent film making was pure art, it had to hold the attention through its structure, direction and acting - there was no padding out with more words or computer generated distractions. A poorly made or uninteresting silent movie is unwatchable.

This film needs to be put into context for those who might be disconcerted with the mention of Christian themes. This is not a 'Christiany' film, it is not selling anything. These themes along with reference to current moral standards often appear in this era - also church going on Sundays was a national past time, Christianity was a given in most households thus the film is only depicting normal life as it was then. The themes would have rung true and deep at the time.

It is most odd given the strong support to good Christian thinking of this particular movie (and it is not preaching religion to anyone, only highlighting the difference between hypocrites and the honest)that in 1922 a Pastor in an open debate with a representative from the film industry with a large crowd denounced Pickford as an example of immorality, along with some other individuals he named. NY Times 1922.

Maybe they should have watched this movie that also came out in 1922 and, learned some lessons.

The Pastor complained that since the film industry had started church attendance had dropped 500,000. The film representative in the debate however made the following observations; that saloon attendance had also dropped, that there were far more pastors in prison than actors (fact) and that selecting a few examples from among the many was not representative of the whole.

Thus there was an ongoing battle between church and the film industry during the early days of film.

This is a wonderful film about being honest and true to family friends and to be willing to make sacrifices. Mary Pickford, naive, honest, feisty, full of happiness and joy, faithful, humorous and silently sacrificing - though poor and uneducated she represented the perfect character. This however is not thrust down our throat but revealed bit by bit through the film.

This is reminiscent of some modern Chinese films where characters are slowly, languidly revealed over the course of a film and it is this tempo that creates a stronger connection with the character.

It has a smooth even tempo for the first half that builds all the elements for the last section. The last 30 minutes are great film making and it has to be appreciated it was achieved without the benefit of sound, running dialog - it was achieved through deft acting and great directing. It is sometimes surprising to realize that at the end of the film you haven't hear a word spoken, but it feels like you have heard everything.

The supporting cast put in great performances especially Gloria Hope, Jean Hersholt and Lloyd Hughes.

The final few minutes are typical Pickford understated humor as she goes outside under the pretext of sweeping the snow, a near perfect balance and ending. This is a special type of touching humor that should not be underestimated. Chaplin used this device often and copied some of from Pickford.

Another special observation to be made about Silent films and especially Pickford films is that the star often has to hold the camera for much of the movie without the audience becoming jaded or bored, with the actors over-exposure. That Pickford is usually thoroughly the center of attention through most of her movies but the people still couldn't get enough of her is a testament to her fine acting ability.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This movie is about a cop (Ching Wan Lau) trying to catch a super-clever thief (Ekin Cheng) who blackmails an insurance company headed by a Kelly Lin. Basically, whatever plans the cop tries the thief somehow knows them beforehand. This movie, covered by handsome lead actors, beautiful lead actress and good camera shots of Hong Kong scenes, really has no substance at all. It's all flash, and the flash quickly becomes dull too. I lost all interests a third of the way into the movie, and there is no redeeming quality after that, except for the cinematography, which looks good. Only consider seeing this movie if you can do so for free. Also, consider stopping watching the movie 20 minutes into the movie because it's all the same to the end: BORING. 6/10