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

Answer: "The Gingerbread Man is the first thriller I've ever done!" Robert Altman

In 1955 Charles Laughton directed "The Night of the Hunter", a spooky slice of Southern Gothic in which Robert Mitchum plays a scary serial killer. One of the film's more famous sequences consists of two kids escaping from Mitchum on a rowboat, the kids frantically paddling whilst Mitchum wades after them like a monster.

Seven years later Mitchum played an equally spooky killer in "Cape Fear", another film set in the American South. That film featured a local attorney trying to protect his family and likewise ended with Mitchum terrorising folks on a boat. In 1991 Martin Scorsese, trying to branch out and tackle something more mainstream, remade "Cape Fear", boat scene and all.

Now we have Robert Altman's "The Gingerbread Man", another slice of small town Southern Gothic. Altman says he consulted "The Night of the Hunter" for inspiration and tackled such a mainstream film purely because he wanted to "spread his wings and try a popcorn picture", but what he's secretly attempting to do here is deconstruct the canonical films of the Southern Gothic genre.

So instead of a showdown on small boat, we get a showdown on a giant ship. Instead of two kids being kidnapped, we get two kids being safely returned to the police. Instead of money being hidden, we have money being readily given via a last will and testament. Instead of the righteous attorney of the 1961 film and the deplorable attorney of the 1991 remake, we get a rather three-dimensional lawyer in Kenneth Branagh. Instead of the monster chasing the family we get the hero chasing the bad guys. Instead of the monster breaking into the family's house boat, we have the hero hunting the monster on board the monster's "house ship". Similarly, instead of a murderous serial killer we get an innocent weirdo played by Robert Duvall. . .etc etc etc.

Altman goes on and on, reversing everything just a little slightly, pulling at the edges and doing his own thing. His touch is most apparent during the film's first half-hour, the film existing in an uneasy space between conventional plot-driven movie storytelling and Altman's fondness for overlapping dialogue, casual narratives, prowling camera movement and the way that characters aren't so much introduced as they are simply part of what's going on.

Still, despite Altman's best intentions, the film never rises above mediocrity. Altman's too bound to the conventions of the "thriller format" to do much damage, his style is too lethargic to generate tension and the film is simply not radical enough to counterpoint other canonical films in the genre. "Gingerbread Man" is thus too mainstream to work as a more pure Altman film and too Altman to work as a mainstream thriller.

The film's not a complete waste, though. Robert Downey Junior, Kenneth Branagh and the usually intolerable Daryl Hannah, all turn in juicy performances. The film also has a nice atmosphere, set against a approaching hurricane, and the final act contains some interesting twists and turns. While it's not the complete disaster that Scorsese's "Cape Fear" was, the film still never amounts to anything special.

7/10 In the late 90s Altman made 3 successive films set in the American South: "Kansas City", "Gingerbread Man" and "Cookie's Fortune". Unlike "Gingerbread Man", both "Kansas City" and "Cookie's Fortune" tackle the genre on the broader, more looser canvases that Altman was most comfortable with.

"Kansas City" is the more important of these two films, its hierarchies of class, politics and crime, and its desire to break radically away from typical gangster genre frameworks, would prove influential on all serious 21st century film crime writers (see, for example, "The Wire"). That said, "Cookie's Fortune", while a much slighter tale, is perhaps the better picture.

Note: Altman claims that this is his first thriller, but he directed "Images", an art house thriller, in 1972.

Worth one viewing.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I just recently watched this on the Sundance channel. The idea for the film was to bring many filmmakers, illustrious in their own country, to make short films, eleven of them, all in one film, concentrating on just one subject: September 11.

From wacthing this movie I could tell why these filmmakers were great in their country because it had all elements of a great film.

The movie starts off with a film from Iran in which a teacher struggles to teach the students about what had happened with September 11 which they fail to realize until later.

The Second Film from France involves a deaf women who writes a letter to her lover angrily while she is unaware of what is going as the T.V plays.

The next film from Egypt involves the filmmaker himself talking with a dead soldier about recent events not only about terrorists of 9/11 but bombings in other places.

The next comes from Bolivia in which a girl learns about the events of September 11 and believes they must march for them.

The next from a country in Africa in which a group of boys follow a man whom they believe to be Bin Ladin.

The next comes from Mexico in which nothing is shown but the sounds of that day.

The next from Israel involving a reporter at the scene of a bomb trying to get a report but is frequently told about the attacks.

There are other films that I can't remember at the moment but all of them are powerful. It will bring back your emotions from that day.

10/10
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Never cast models and Playboy bunnies in your films! Bob Fosse's "Star 80" about Dorothy Stratten, of whom Bogdanovich was obsessed enough to have married her SISTER after her murder at the hands of her low-life husband, is a zillion times more interesting than Dorothy herself on the silver screen. Patty Hansen is no actress either..I expected to see some sort of lost masterpiece a la Orson Welles but instead got Audrey Hepburn cavorting in jeans and a god-awful "poodlesque" hair-do....Very disappointing...."Paper Moon" and "The Last Picture Show" I could watch again and again. This clunker I could barely sit through once. This movie was reputedly not released because of the brouhaha surrounding Ms. Stratten's tawdry death; I think the real reason was because it was so bad!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: From start to finish, I laughed real hard throughout the whole movie. It's amazing that "The Groove Tube" is possibly the granddaddy, yet raunchiest, of all comedic skit movies.This is the way I enjoy watching TV without being bored at flipping channels only to suffer from insomnia! For 73 minutes, the weird, strange humor never stops! Just think of how all this nonsense laughing can help you enjoy life easier! It's way, WAY better than Comedy Central or any prime time show! Do yourself a favor and trash all those soft, lame romantic comedy movies into the wastebasket! Better yet, tell your box office manager you want "The Groove Tube" back on the big screen!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Brilliant actor as he is, Al Pacino completely derails Revolution his Method acting approach is totally ill-suited to the role of an illiterate trapper caught up in the American War of Independence. Much of the blame should be attributed to director Hugh Hudson (yes, the man who made Chariots Of Fire just a couple of years earlier talk about a come-down!!). One of the many jobs of a director is to marshal the actors, coaxing believable performances from them, but in this case Hudson has allowed Pacino to run amok without asking for restraint of any kind. It's not just Al's career-low performance that hinders the film though: there are numerous other flaws with Revolution, more of which will be said later.

Illiterate trapper Tom Dobb (Al Pacino) lives in the north-eastern region of America with his son Ned (Sid Owen/Dexter Fletcher). He leads a simple life living off the land, raising his son, surviving against the elements. The country is lorded over by the English colonialists, but during an eight year period (1775-83) a revolution takes place which ends with the British being defeated and the independent American nation being born. Dobb gets caught up in the events when his boat and his son are conscripted by the Continental Army swept away by events they can barely understand, the Dobbs finds themselves fighting for their lives and freedom in one bloody engagement after another. Tom also falls in love with Daisy McConnahay (Natassja Kinski), a beautiful and fiery woman of British aristocratic ancestry. Their forbidden love is played out against the larger historical context of the fighting.

Where to start with the film's flaws? Most key actors are miscast Pacino has been criticised enough already, but Kinski fares little better as the renegade aristocrat while Donald Sutherland is hopelessly lost as a ruthless English soldier with a wobbly Yorkshire accent. Robert Dillon's script is muddled in its attempts to bring massive historical events down to a personal level. At no point does anyone seem to have decided whether this is meant to be an intimate character study with the American Revolution as a backdrop, or an epic war film with a handful of sharply drawn characters used to carry the story along. As a result, the narrative falls into no man's land, flitting from "grand spectacle" to "small story" indiscriminately and meaninglessly. John Corigliano's score is quite ghastly, and is poured over the proceedings with neither thought nor subtlety. Hugh Hudson's direction is clumsy throughout, both in his mismanagement of Pacino and the other key actors, and in the decision to use irritatingly shaky camera work during the action sequences. The idea of the hand-held camera is to create immediacy that feeling of "being there" in the confusion of battle and musket fire. Like so many other things in the film, it doesn't work. The one department where the film regains a modicum of respectability is the period detail, with costumes, sets and weaponry that look consistently accurate. But if it's period detail you're interested in a trip to the museum would be a better way to spend your time, because as a rousing cinematic experience Revolution doesn't even begin to make the grade. Nothing more than a 18,000,000 mega-bomb that the ailing British film industry could ill afford in the mid-1980s.