Problem: Write a positive movie review.

Answer: Had I been familiar with the stage production of Guys and Dolls before seeing the movie, I might not be as fond of it as I am. Although in all fairness, I would probably still like the film production better because of my general adoration of both Brando (for his acting) and Sinatra (for his voice, although he is quite the actor as well, see The Manchurian Candidate or From Here to Eternity.)

As for some of the other reviewers' statements about the songs, I have the Broadway soundtrack and though Isabel Bingley's voice outshines that of Jean Simmons, it is not more pleasant. I find it to have a rather shrill quality. Jean Simmons' voice is much more realistic, though admittedly, that is not always a huge concern in musicals. Also the only time I particularly noticed Marlon Brando's particularly weak vocal register was during his rendition of "Luck Be A Lady" and only there because I was previously familiar with Sinatra's version. I also find Vivian Blaine's voice to be much more pleasing in the movie than it is on Broadway. And Sinatra's voice alone would be able to redeem the failings of all the others, if they indeed were in need of redemption. (They weren't) It is infinitely better than Sam Levene's, particularly in my favorite song, 'Sue Me'.

Also, the complaint that lots of songs were omitted from the movie for inferior songs, I beg to differ. 'A Bushel and a Peck' is hardly a gem and the song that replaced it, 'Pet Me Poppa" and its accompanying performance is more Hot Box material. I personally do not care for 'Marry the Man Today' at all and rejoice that it was not included in the movie. I adore 'I've Never Been In Love Before', and though it was not sung in the movie, the instrumental version can be heard when Nathan is in Adelaide's dressing room. The song 'A Woman In Love'expresses the same sentiment equally well and probably in a range that both of the stars could more capably reach. And the movie wouldn't be the same without the song 'Adelaide', not included on Broadway. In fact, if the movie soundtrack were available for sale, I'd recommend purchasing it instead of the Broadway.

Though I have not seen the original production, I cannot imagine that the acting would be superior to that of the movie's lead actors.

The important fact is that the story is as charming as ever and the acting and songs do not make it any less so.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: Horror movie??really???? i cant believe how bad this movie was,what the point of this movie??? the movie almost 1h and 30 min and the first 70 minutes of it,is just lena walking around with this stupid look on her face after she had an accident....not much talking at all,not even much actions at all.. i have to say tho,the last 20 minuets it got little tiny action.. and was still stupid....... and the end oh my god,i don't know where to begin,it also end up with this stupid look on lena face lol.. don't get me wrong i love Lena Headey,i think she is great actress,but i don't know what got into her to do this movie.. don't waste your time and watching it,because this movie has no story,has no acting ..and has no point...not to mention how slow this movie goes and it feels like you been watching it forever.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer: When I first saw a glimpse of this movie, I quickly noticed the actress who was playing the role of Lucille Ball. Rachel York's portrayal of Lucy is absolutely awful. Lucille Ball was an astounding comedian with incredible talent. To think about a legend like Lucille Ball being portrayed the way she was in the movie is horrendous. I cannot believe out of all the actresses in the world who could play a much better Lucy, the producers decided to get Rachel York. She might be a good actress in other roles but to play the role of Lucille Ball is tough. It is pretty hard to find someone who could resemble Lucille Ball, but they could at least find someone a bit similar in looks and talent. If you noticed York's portrayal of Lucy in episodes of I Love Lucy like the chocolate factory or vitavetavegamin, nothing is similar in any way-her expression, voice, or movement.

To top it all off, Danny Pino playing Desi Arnaz is horrible. Pino does not qualify to play as Ricky. He's small and skinny, his accent is unreal, and once again, his acting is unbelievable. Although Fred and Ethel were not similar either, they were not as bad as the characters of Lucy and Ricky.

Overall, extremely horrible casting and the story is badly told. If people want to understand the real life situation of Lucille Ball, I suggest watching A&E Biography of Lucy and Desi, read the book from Lucille Ball herself, or PBS' American Masters: Finding Lucy. If you want to see a docudrama, "Before the Laughter" would be a better choice. The casting of Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz in "Before the Laughter" is much better compared to this. At least, a similar aspect is shown rather than nothing.

Problem: Write a negative movie review.

Answer:
When I rented this I was hoping for what "Reign of Fire" did not deliver: a clash between modern technology and mythic beasts.

Instead I got a standard "monster hunts stupid people in remote building" flick, with bad script, bad music, bad effects, bad plot, bad acting. Bad, bad, bad.

Only reason why I did give it a 2 was that in theory there could exist worse movies. In theory.....