Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: Anna Christie (1931)

On its own terms, this version of Garbo's Anna Christie, shot a year later in German with a whole new cast, is just toned down and refined enough to work better than the English version (both are American MGM productions). Garbo is if anything more commanding (or more beautiful as a screen presence) and her acting is more restrained. And she seems frankly more at ease, probably for a lot of reasons, but we can speculate that she was no longer making her first talking picture, so had adjusted quickly.

Without comparing always one film to the other, this Anna Christie is still the same O'Neill play with too many words. His themes of a woman wanting love without losing her independence are here, but it comes off as oddly old fashioned anyway. There are some scenes missing--the Coney Island section is shortened and isn't as good--but overall it's a direct echo of the first film. The director, Jacques Feyder (Belgian-French), is simply redoing what was done already, which I assume must be a frustrating experience.

It's interesting to see both films in succession because they are blocked out exactly the same way (not only the sets, but the shots, are all the same). There is an occasional scene lifted from the earlier film--some of the storm, understandably, but also a brief scene where Marie Dressler (from the English language version) is walking with her friend on a plank over a canal, drunk as can be. But they are just silhouettes, and when the next scene shows their faces, we see the German actors taking their parts. There is no replacing Dressler, for sure, but for me the German father is more believable and honest in his performance.

Clearly the themes--immigration, wayward fathers, daughters turning to prostitution, and the troubles of finding true love--have strong currents back then, especially with European threads (Garbo, appropriately, plays a Swedish young woman).
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I do find it a bit overrated. Maybe it's just because I've never seen a subtitled version (dubbing stinks!), but I just don't get into it like a lot of other people do. The finale is really great though as Jackie trashes a mall, a scene that plays in my head every time i go shopping!
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This can be one of the most enjoyable movies ever if you don't take it seriously. It is a bit dated and the effects are lame, but it is so enjoyable. There are giant crabs that attack a girl. oh, and the crabs sing Japanese. It is amazingly bad. And the ending, which has been telegraphed throughout the entire film is hideously awesome. Predictable, but seeing the final fight will leave you rolling in your seat. Don't even give this film a chance and you will love it. Susan George is fun to watch and yes, she does appear naked. Her daughter isn't quite worth putting up with, but she does get attacked by giant crabs. They are the size of large cats. This is a 2, but I love it. As a movie, my God, but for entertainment, I give it a 7. Did I mention there are giant crabs?
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I borrowed this movie because not only because its gay theme but the thought of role playing really intrigued me. I was pleasantly surprised that it was shot in San Francisco since I live near SF. And of course it was nice to see shots of the Castro district (although the castro to me really caters more to gay male than female). But other than that I can't really recommend this movie. The characters aren't really developed for me to care and when they finally started to get to the "role playing" I was already bored out of my mind. And the role playing scenes that I did see were a bit embarrassing to watch. The acting leaves something to be desired. Needless to say I didn't finish the movie. I'd skip this one.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This is the worst movie I have ever seen. I was going to get up and leave at Tape 4 but I stuck it out. I now consider myself a Masochist! Afghanistan? Come on guys! Who's the idiot who forgot to hide the Sanskrit billboards? I thought the lead actor(George Calil) was particularly inept. Apart from the bad acting and over zealous camera shake, I thought using the events of 9/11 as a reason to make "Larson the Lunatic Implodes, all over a screen near you" disgraceful and irreverent to the victims of 9/11. Using a phone call from Larson's wife, Sarah, supposedly from one of the terrorist held planes on that day, was appalling. The camera shake didn't make me feel sick, that cold hearted stunt did.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
This ABC straight-to-TV failure does absolutely no justice to the brilliant fantasy novel that is A Wrinkle in Time. Ms. Madeleine L'Engle brought children and adults alike into a magical, fantastical and original world like no author before her. This novel, the first in her 'time quartet', is a beautiful take on life, the universe, and time itself. Yet it is easy for any child or adolescent to understand. Its unwavering morals are prevalent throughout the book. This film adaptation can be seen as nothing but a mockery of Ms. L'Engle's work of art. Honestly, what were they thinking? The effects look cheap and ridiculous, the plot is mushy and uneven, the dialogue is far-fetched and just about every magical characteristic of the novel has been lost. This was a horrible attempt at bringing this book to the screen. I sincerely hope that someday an intelligent, worthy director (Guillermo del Toro, David Yates, Alfonso Cuaron) makes another attempt at bringing this book to the screen and understands it for what it truly is: a masterpiece. This adaptation can only be compared to boring, fake and cheap motel-room art which holds no ground and makes absolutely no impact on its audience.