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

Answer: The orders fatal flaw-besides an asinine plot-is that the character's simply don't resonate or even react.

Two examples: A priest, walking through a graveyard late at night, is suddenly attacked by ghostly spirits. After fighting them off, he calmly resumes his walk when his buddy come up. "Anything wrong?" His buddy asks, having seen the attack. "Just some demonic spirits-nothing I couldn't handle." No reaction, no surprise, just like he'd changed a tire. His buddy is equally unconcerned... must be standard priest training... ["And then you put the wafer into their mouths. Any questions? Ok, moving on, Demon Spirit attacks..."]

Example two: At one point the priests need an answer to a question, and only a demon (or something, who cared by now) could provide it. How? Why, you have to ask a dying man! So the demon has some random person hung in front of the two priests so they can ask their question to the thrashing, gasping man. "Hey, don't kill him!" or maybe "That's not nice!" would have been more realistic then their response. They never ask that they let the man go or stop-in fact, the closest to reacting they get is mild annoyance. They ask their question and go.

I had to shut it off at that point-my brain was starting to atrophy.

Avoid

* / **** (one star out of four)

Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I saw this movie for 2 reasons--I like Gerard Butler and Christopher Plummer. Unfortunately, these poor men were forced to carry a pretty dumb movie. I liked the idea that Dracula is actually a reincarnation of Judas Iscariot, because it does explain his disdain for all things Christian, but there was so much camp that this idea was not realized as much as it could have been. I see this movie more as a way for the talented Gerard Butler to pay his dues before being truly recognized and a way for the legendary Christopher Plummer to remind the public (me and the 5 other people who saw this film) that he still exists. I actually enjoyed the special features on the DVD more than the movie itself.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Moon Child, starring Japanese rockers Hyde and Gackt, was a better movie then I expected. In fact, I was very impressed and it immediately became one of my favorite movies.

Set in Mallepa, the story follows a group of street orphans, Sho, Sho's brother Shinji, and Toshi who rob and murder to make a living. On one of robberies, Sho encounters Hyde's Kei vampire burning in the sunlight. Through the coarse of events Kei's true nature is shown, yet no one shuns him away.

The time passes and implies that the immortal, never-changing Kei has raised Sho, and the two have a an extremely close bond. Sho and Kei then encounter Son in an outrageous gun fight, and they become quick friends. Both Kei and Hyde fall in love with Son's sister, Yi-Che.

Time skips ahead again and shows a grown Sho, this time void of Kei. It also explains that Sho and Son have become enemies.

Through tragedy after tragedy this movie dives into the reality of life and all it's hardships, focusing on friendship and love. It is a truly touching movie that is sad yet beautiful at the same time.

As for the acting, I think Gackt did a magnificent job. Hyde did an amazing job for a first timer.

The shots were beautiful, but the movie did have it's rare and short gruesome shots.

All in all, I must say this movie is amazing, moving, and I highly recommend it.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Strange, almost all reviewers are highly positive about this movie. Is it because it's from 1975 and has Chamberlain and Curtis in it and therefore forgive the by times very bad acting and childish ways of storytelling?

Maybe it's because some people get sentimental about this film because they have read the book? (I have not read the book, but I don't think that's a problem, film makers never presume that the viewers have read the book).

Or is it because I am subconsciously irritated about the fact that English-speaking actors try to behave as their French counterparts?
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The Last Hard Men finds James Coburn an outlaw doing a long sentence breaking free from a chain gang. Do he and his friends head for the Mexican border from jail and safety. No they don't because Coburn has a mission of revenge. To kill the peace officer who brought him in and in the process killed his woman.

That peace officer is Charlton Heston who is now retired and he knows what Coburn is after. As he explains it to his daughter, Barbara Hershey, Coburn was holed up in a shack and was involved in a Waco like standoff. His Indian woman was killed in the hail of bullets fired. It's not something he's proud of, she was a collateral casualty in a manhunt.

Lest we feel sorry for Coburn he lets us know full well what an evil man he truly is. Heston is his usual stalwart hero, but the acting honors in The Last Hard Men go to James Coburn. He blows everyone else off the screen when he's on.

Coburn gets the bright idea of making sure Heston trails him by kidnapping Hershey and taking her to an Indian reservation where the white authorities can't touch him. He knows that Heston has to make it personal then.

Coburn's gang includes, Morgan Paull, Thalmus Rasulala, John Quade, Larry Wilcox, and Jorge Rivero. Heston has Chris Mitchum along who is his son-in-law to be.

The Last Hard Men is one nasty and brutal western. Andrew McLaglen directed it and I'm thinking it may have been a project originally intended for Sam Peckinpaugh. It sure shows a lot of his influence with the liberal use of slow motion to accentuate the violence. Of which there is a lot.

For a little Peckinpaugh lite, The Last Hard Men is your film.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
This is a collection of documentaries that last 11 minutes 9 seconds and 1 frame from artists all over the world. The documentaries are varied and deal with all sorts of concepts, the only thing being shared is 9/11 as a theme (very minor in some cases). Some of the segements are weak while others are very strong; some are political, some are not; some are solely about 9/11, some simply use 9/11 as a theme to touch on human feelings, emotions and tragedies that are universal; some are mainstream while others are abstract and artistic). This film has not been censored in any fashion by anyone so the thoughts that you see are very raw and powerful.

This is a very controversial film, especially for conservative Americans. I think two segments might really tick off the right wingers (one from Egypt where a dead American soldier and a dead Palestinian bomber come back as spirits; another from UK which recounts the US-backed overthrow of Chile on Sept 11, 1973, which resulted in 50,000 deaths and horrible atrocities). The segment from Mexico was the most powerful, recounting the fall of the towers and the resulting death in vivid fashion (you have to see it to believe it).

Even though the final product is uneven, with some segments being almost "pointless", I still recommend this. It's very difficult to rank this film because the segments vary all over the place (some weak, some very powerful; ). I'm giving this a rating of 9 out of 10 simply because some segments were excellent and covered issues that usually get censored (Mexico segment, UK segment, Japan segment, Egypt segment).