Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: What I expected: A rather lame overly-stereotypical portrayal of a sports-mad guy and an equally lame stereotypical portrayal of the gal who likes him yet suffers while being second banana to his overly zealous support for his favorite sports team.

What I got: An even-handed story where both guy and gal end up admitting -- to themselves and each other -- that they each have passions in their lives yet each can forgive the other to save the love they share.

Sounds sappy but with the nonstop humor and terrific performances this story works! Barrymore is classic Barrymore: that perfect blend of sweet, strong, and adorable. We expect that from her and she delivered.

But Fallon is the nice surprise in this film. He brings to the role the perfect blend of sports nut combined with the appreciation for the normal things in life, like caring about kids and his girlfriend. Fallon delivers his lines with subtle perfection. He can be caring ("You just ran across the field for me!") and in the same breath be obliviously blinded by his love for the Red Sox ("How did the grass feel? Kinda spongy?") at the same time. Fallon's portrayal "made" the movie. Hopefully, this movie marks the beginning of a better film career for Fallon, something beyond the over-the-top sophomoric humor typical of SNL alums (i.e. Will Ferrell).

In short, a movie that could have fallen victim to stereotypical male vs. female characters rose above that limitation and provided nonstop spot-on humorous lines, most delivered with brilliant subtlety by Fallon.

Hey, I saw this with my wife -- not a baseball fan -- and she loved it as much as I did. It's neither a "Guy Flick" nor a "Chick Flick". It's a terrific make-you-laugh flick. Go see it!
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: How did this become a blockbuster? Dear God I don't know where to start why this movie sucked too much. The movie was predictable & there was no originality. The only thing I can admire is the acting of some characters. The movie was too bright, they should have done something with the lighting, eg. making the environment more darker. The make up on certain dead characters made this movie look like a 1970 horror flick. This is 2006! People don't get scared by other people wearing heavy make up. Most of the horror scenes we're taken from other Hollywood or Asian horror movies. Total rip off! This is why I don't watch tagalog movies. The only reason why so many people "screamed" while watching this movie is because of conformity. How many times do we have to copy scenes from The Ring and improvise it that instead of the girl coming out of the TV, its now coming from the window next door? No matter how you put it, ITS STILL A RIP OFF. If you want a good horror movie, go watch the 50 best horror movie listed on this website.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: The performances were superb, the costumes delivered a unique feeling for the period and being a Victorian Living Historian, I was impressed with the accuracy of weaponry and attention to detail.

I wouldn't say you need any knowledge of the Kelly saga to stay with the flow of this movie but to comprehend the happenings and attitudes of the time you will require a bit of basic historical knowledge. Do not expect, as some rather silly people do, any of the characters to have the Auzzie accent as we know it, it was, at that time, a country during infancy.

OK, the story had some elements of fiction but these are required for a wider following of the film. Gregor Jordan said in the extra feature on the DVD that he wanted his movie to 'inspire an interest', and that is exactly what happened with me so this movie gets the thumbs up here.

See it and you WILL NOT be sorry
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I hate to even waste the time it takes to write 10 lines on this atrocity. Hyung-Rae Shim is lucky that bad film-making isn't a capital crime or he'd be put to death twice for writing and directing this disaster. I'm amazed that this film had a $75m budget, but actually glad in the sense that it was such a tremendous flop, that Shim will hopefully, never get to make another movie the rest of the life and, therefore, not waste any more of filmgoers time. I would think the actors would have gotten together and lynched him by now.

With the effects resources available to them, a great film could have been made with this budget. As usual, the failure should have been spotted at the very beginning with the terrible script and story. "Transformers" was another visual feast with a weak script, but this makes it look like "Citizen Kane".
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: The thought of Sarah Silverman having her own show worried me at first. The films she has appeared in were not very funny and her humor is a bit off. However, I was very surprised to see her true colors shine in this Comedy Central gem. I could possibly put her on par with the likes of Amy Sedaris in Strangers with Candy -- Sarah's character is a true sociopath, very comparable to Sedaris' Jerri Blank.

The one downfall of this show is its supporting cast. Her sister's character is good; Funny at times, but ultimately meant not to steal Sarah's show. However, the rest of the cast is extremely sub-par in comparison.

I'm glad, though, that Comedy Central has given Sarah a chance to show her unique and crazy sense of self and humor.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
This movie (and yes, it's a movie - it was shot as a two-parter, but the two parts together come down to slightly more than 2 hours) is one of the unsung masterpieces of world cinema. A very well-mannered, and yet at the same time absolutely savage denunciation of the Soviet regime and the type of person who flourished under it, the film is a faithful adaptation of the long-banned eponymous book by Mikhail Bulgakov. The sets are flawless, and the director made the brilliant decision to film in monochrome sepia, adding a feel of authenticity where a late-80s washed-out color incarnation would have all but ruined the film. I won't say much about the plot, which deserves to be discovered by the viewer himself, but the performances are true Oscar material; special mentions go out to E. Evstigneev, who plays the old professor with such presence, gravitas and kind wisdom that with barely a word or a gesture, he ends up stealing every scene he's in. The second, of course, is Creature/Sharikov, who, played to horrifying perfection by V. Tolokonnikov, is by far more frightening a character than Hannibal Lecter, because not only does he exist in real life - entire countries have been ran by men like him throughout history, with all that ensues.

While it's a socio political allegory, it is worth mentioning that the movie is also brimming with humor, albeit dark - there are many outright comedies which haven't made me laugh as much as this film. What's more, when laughing at this movie, the feeling is not only one of hilarity but of understanding and agreement, which is always a plus.

There is hardly a complaint I have with this movie - the only slight flaw is the tone of intellectual/bourgeois snobbery I caught at times from the "enlightened" characters. But that's a minor quibble.

Sadly, this film appears to have been bypassed by Western licensing companies. It's a crying shame that one of the all-round best movies out there is languishing unrestored and untranslated (which shouldn't be incredibly hard - though all the cultural references and the revolutionary terminology will necessarily fade in translation, the film's main themes should be accessible to all). While we're waiting with our fingers crossed for the Criterion edition, I'm considering creating English subtitles myself. Will see how that works out.