Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This movie could only originate in the 1970's!! It's a bizarre action movie set in a small California workers town. Some sort of mill or plant is closing down, so suddenly, rampant bad behavior is occurring in the streets! The townsfolk's are fed up! So Ben Arnold (Jan Michael Vincent), goes to another town to recruit his brother, Aaron, played by Kris Kristofferson. Aaron is a Vietnam Vet who looks and acts a littleoff balance. He hangs out with a bunch of other surly Vietnam vet's. They come into town to clean it up (they become deputized), but underneath their good deeds, they are actually running gambling houses, asking for protection money, etc.!!! It takes a while for people to catch on, and in a biblical Cain and Abel showdown, Vincent has to take on his older brother. There's an interesting blue-collar sleaze atmosphere to this movie, which makes it interesting (note the cock-fighting scene!). Vincent is almost too angelic in this role he thinks so highly of his brother, he cannot conceive of him committing the evil deeds he's accused of. He finally comes to his senses his girlfriend, Victoria Principal, is brutally shot in the back & he himself is beaten up in his home. Kris Kristofferson is creepily effective as Aaron. He coolly denies any wrong-doing, and even gently coos and talks to Vincent's young daughter (she refers to him as 'Uncle Aaron') even while he's threatening her father's life, all the while smiling! Vincent and Kristofferson have good contrasting chemistry with each other. Bernadette Peters makes an interesting appearance as a 'saloon' girl who attracts Aaron's attention. This is a good 70's action movie, if you can find it!! It is NOT available on DVD yet
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: In my line of work, I occasionally get contacted by independent filmmakers who are trying to publicize their film. When I can, I take a look at these low-budget films and often they make me think that the future of Hollywood is going to the dogs. Once in a while, though, there is a film that is born of pure passion and desire, as if created for the purpose of reminding the film industry that good movies are still possible. The short film B R O K E N, directed by Alex Ferrari, is a genuine surprise and worth a second look.

Clocking in at a scant 20 minutes, B R O K E N tries to tell a compelling (but surreal) story with almost no back story. The audience is plopped down in the middle of the action with no clue as to what is happening. A young woman (Samantha Jane Polay) awakens from a dream to hear a gunshot and is subsequently abducted from her home. When she awakes, she is surrounded by a group of mercenary thugs that look like they would be at home in a comic book. These nasty guys and girls are larger than life. They are all guns and knives. There is no way out.

The kicker here is that, despite being a low budget film it doesn't play like one. From the very beginning, the feeling is that B R O K E N has been shot, edited, and produced by professionals. It looks like something Quentin Tarantino might have done on his day off when he was jamming with the Wachowski brothers. The film is sharp and cool, it looks good and it feels like something big.

The acting is much better than I usually see in these smaller films. Polay and Paul Gordon (who plays the head killer, Duncan) were well chosen. As two of the few speaking roles in the film, it is up to them to carry the film. No special effects, no matter how good, would have saved this film from bad acting. Thankfully, Polay manages to convey true fear and Gordon manages to come off as a real psycho. Some of the more limited roles seem to be filled by lesser talent, but it hardly shows.

The downside to B R O K E N is that it's only 20 minutes long. The story ends with a Twilight Zone twist that seems a bit contrived and is hardly subtle. Watching it, I felt like I was supposed to have some epiphany, but there was only a feeling that it was much more mundane than I had hoped it would be. The film tries hard to be one of those puzzles that leaves audiences talking for hours at the local coffee shop, but it comes off as unsatisfying. I keep thinking that this is the first 20 minutes of a longer film.

MY RATING: 8 out of 10.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This is one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time. The story was boring, the dialogue was atrocious and the acting hammy. I'm not sure if this movie was the result of a film school homework project, but it certainly played like one. It is not even particularly successful in its central conceit of trying to appear as a single continuous take. The whooshing horizontal camera pans are a cheap and unoriginal way of hiding cuts.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I look around in the video store still in shock how Steven Seagal with his track record of Bad action movies can still have 3 movies hit the shelves in less than a Year.Attack force being the 3rd no less promised the first-time entrance into the Sci Fi Genre for our ever widening Seagal.Visions of bad movie entertainment flashed before my gullible eyes.Sadly this is not the case one bit with no entertainment and a movie as bad as they come.

Seagal rebounded a tiny bit with the Trashy-but enjoyable Shadow Man last time we saw him.However Attack force has to be his absolute worst movie ever!Don't argue for out for a Kill,Ticker,or even Black Dawn folks.This is the bottom of the Septic tank here.

Anyone who says this is Steven Seagal's return to form should be forced to write a 100 page essay on the word Taste.

Seagal is yet another agent/I'm a supreme bad-ass yet again named Lawson wants revenge for the killing of his Team that leads him to a nefarious plot to distribute a really bad drug to the unsuspecting public.Not to mention the dealers are not from around here.

The whole Production from Directing to the acting is poor.Was this movie shot in the Dark?Its gotta be the most poorly lighted movie since Howling 2.The action is terrible and very badly done.

The Producers have also unwisely decided to do what the fans hate the most:throw in stunt double after stunt double and horribly dubbed Steven Seagal.Who seems to show little enthusiasm here.Can ya blame him?

While it has been said that Attack Force was not the movie Stevie signed on for(originally Harvester)and surely has to be better than Attack force.The post-production tampering has not made it more coherent and made Seagal look worse.I feel bad for Directer Michael Keusch and writer Joe Halpin as they are gonna be judged forever for the ill-advised production re-shoots.

So Now This leaves Seagal in the impossible position to come up with something to atone for this mess.But after seeing how bad Attack Force has turned out do we really want him to make another movie?
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
An underrated addition to the Graham Greene cinematic canon - its perceived faults can now be seen as virtues. Director Shumlin, theatrical director, frames his action with an oppressive rigidity appropriate to the material, and the seemingly inept compositions compellingly suggest unease. Both a dark thriller and a story of moral regeneration (for the female character! In a 40s thriller!), the film has an upright hero who turns mad and murderous (and possibly paedophiliac), brilliantly brings the faraway ideologies of the Spanish Civil War into jolting dangerous reality, has one horrific murder, an astonishing insights into class and capitalism, clever theatrical metaphors, a rare approximation of Greene's God, and an ending that is only happy if you know nothing about history.