Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Saw this movie in an early preview, and I cannot stress enough how bad I thought this film was. From the very beginning, the audience was groaning over Pacino's awful southern accent. Poor Al looked really, really haggard, and I can't decide whether this was purposely part of his role as a drug addicted publicist, or perhaps he just didn't get any sleep before coming to the set. Much worse than Pacino's close ups, however, is the wretched excuse for a plot. Early in the film we are given indications that Pacino's character is gay, and I suspect that is what the screenwriter had originally intended. Later, however, we are supposed to suspend our incredulity and believe that both Tea Leoni and Kim Basinger (both of whom are sleepwalking through lame roles) lust after this elderly, half dead looking, effeminate man with the ridiculous accent. The worst part overall was the main plot thread, which had to do with some corporate espionage that is never fully explained and we never, ever care about in the slightest. Because this was a preview I will reserve my final judgment, because of the possibility of re-shoots and editing, but you can bet I will not pay a cent to see this in theaters.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I saw this on TV so long ago that I can't remember when it was, but it still stands out as one of the scariest, most unnerving films I've ever seen. There is a simultaneously subtle but intense dread induced by the woman in black lurking at the edge of the frame, not quite clearly visible, so that you feel (like the solicitor hero), unsure whether its just imagination or not. It is also one of the few films which has really made me fearful to keep watching. "Production values" be hanged, good films are about a director's ability to create atmosphere using film, actors, locations/sets, music, attention to detail, and ...imagination. A real gem.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I know the film snobs are snorting. But if you're looking for a surprisingly fun ride through the B-movie jungle, try "Jake Speed".

A little thin at times, but its one-liners and the location more then make up for this. John Hurt(God love him), seems to be having fun doing his role as the ultra evil white slaver. The nemesis of Crawfords, Jake Speed. He adds a dimension to the film that only a pro like Hurt could provide. Crawford and Dennis Christopher( Jakes sidekick) are a good team,although you do wonder why they both put up with each other.However ,together both Crawford and Christopher portray a team that is just so much fun that, if you can get over yourself for a moment, you may find yourself acting like a kid again at the situations and the inherent suspense they provide.The delicious Karen Kopins does a great job as the damsel in distress that is more concerned about the motives of her rescuer then her tormentor.

I have yet to find a movie that is as much fun without getting preachy,or bogging down the movie by trying too hard. Not every movie has to be the latest "Citizen Kane". And trust me,Wells was an original. So lets remember that sometimes, movies are for fun.Not social commentary or attempting to sway an audience politically. But just for the sheer fun of being alive and living in a time when our hero's live in a celluloid dimension.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Spoiler warning.

When the main character's sister is pushed down the stairs, the killer breaks a glass of vodka next to her, to make it appear that she's been drinking. But right before she is killed, tells her sister's business partner (Teri Garr) on the phone that she hasn't had a drink in 4 days. Yet the police never mention the results of a toxicology report! And, the characters talk about her being drunk when she fell down the stairs. Huh? Really bad mistake in this movie, which is pretty awful, overall.

Surprisingly bad, considering the great cast. Some faults: the writing isn't very good, the music is made-for-TV bad, and there is no tension at all because we already know the answer to the mystery from the first scene in the movie.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This 1934 adaptation of Somerset Maugham's novel put Bette Davis on the map as a movie actress. She might have won an Academy Award for her performance but the films was made on loan, so her studio didn't push for her. Her acting in this one doesn't come off well by today's standards. As the heartless waitress who jerks Philip, a sensitive medical student, around and nearly ruins his life, Davis is way too shrill, almost demonic. Director John Cromwell, who usually elicited good performances from his actresses, was perhaps overwhelmed by this one. Davis is watchable, for sure, but so strident and predatory as to seem scarcely human. I imagine the character of Millie as quieter, less feminine than Davis, with maybe a touch of the tomboy. Davis is such a strong, immediate presence that's there's no air of mystery to her, which makes Philip's attraction to her seem more overtly masochistic than it should be.

As Philip, Leslie Howard is excellent. His wan, somewhat wilted good looks are perfect for this failed aesthete. Nor does he impose a personal interpretation on the part, as, say, Dirk Bogarde might have done, which gives his work a rare clarity. He seems completely in control here, as he should be, playing a man with a rational intellect who is in the grip of irrational emotions he cannot manage or even fully satisfy, as the object of his affections moves him in ways he cannot understand. Howard was a fine actor, too often cast in standard romantic parts which compelled him to fall back on charm, which he doesn't use here.

It's been so long since I've read the book I don't feel comfortable commenting on the movie's faithfulness to it. I think it captures the spirit of the story well enough, and that it has in Howard a perfect Philip Carey. The sexual undercurrents are muted, and at times Philip behaves so masochistically that in the absence of strong sex feelings makes one wonder about the character's sanity, surely not Mr. Maugham's intention. Thanks to Howard's performance, Philip remains firmly in focus, as one can see in his various responses to and yearnings for Millie the extremes to which a reasonable intellect will go to understand the irrational, in himself and in others.

Overall, a very good film, a little stilted at times, due to its age, it evokes London nicely, and is well acted for the most part.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
...am i missing something here??? "unexpected plot developments"? "plot twisting with subversive glee"? are these viewers watching the same Arquette vehicle to which i just subjected myself (in an now-obvious sub(un)conscious bout of sadomasochism)...I just joined this site simply to make sure that no one else ever rents this stinker...this movie was an embarrassment to every single person involved...quick question: did Sir Stevie read the script before he gave the thumbs-up to Kate C.? if so, then it must be the same Spielberg who greenlighted "howard the duck"...don't give me that, "it was a hit play" crap--i'm guessing Mssr. Reddin ain't too pleased ...the DVD cover promised "surprising corners" and a "twisted story..." Story!!Story?? It's crap like this that make old Bobby McKee and his wandering band of Structuralists sound like geniuses...Sundance??Berlin??Toronto?? I have a home video of my cat farting that evokes more interest than Arquette's negatively-dimensional portrayal of anguished loss...and, talk about deux ex machina for Mr. Stanley T.; thank god, just in the nick o time he thought to have Dave call the cops! and thank shiva that the cops had just caught the true killer...what!!! up until the credits i was still waiting for it to be some kind of grift against Arquette and his "hidden millions"...no, Mrs. Spielberg, you don't escape unscathed: what the hell was that kitchen scene with the "athlete's foot in my crotch" gag??? are you worse in this or "just cause"?? i dunno...hey film lovers: why don't you make it a blockbuster night and rent this along with "jersey girl" and "white chicks" and then commit sepukka (or is it seppuka)...and take E. Dunsky with you....