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

Answer: A few weeks ago, I read the classic George Orwell novel, 1984. I was fascinated with it and thought it was one of the best books I've read recently. So when I rented the DVD, I was intrigued to see how this adaptation measured up. Unfortunately, the movie didn't even come close to creating the ambiance or developing the characters that Orwell so masterfully did in his book. The director seems to think that everyone watching the movie has read the book, because he makes no attempt to demonstrate WHY the characters act and feel the way they do. John Hurt, the main actor, is droll the entire way through, and hardly does any acting until the end. We never really find out what he does for a living, or why his love affair is forbidden, or what the political climate is and why the main character desires rebellion. This book cannot be done justice in movie form without proper narration and explanation of the political system oppressing the characters, and the fact that those are missing is the greatest shortcoming of this film. Besides that, John Hurt was a terrible casting choice, looking about 15 years older than the 39 year old Winston he was supposed to be portraying. On a more positive note, however, the rest of the cast was well chosen. It's just too bad they were put in such a horribly adapted film with the wrong lead actor. -Brian O.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: OK... this movie so far has been slated by critics and board-posters alike (although playing devil's advocate you could suggest that critics are often people who didn't make it for themselves as film-makers, and board posters are often people who didn't make it for themselves as critics) so I wanted to sit in Guy's corner with the magic sponge to perhaps reach maybe a couple of the people who've decided not to see the film based on how everybody seems to be looking down their collective nose of approval at it.

The film's biggest flaw in earning wide support is how unexpectedly complex it is. This has been described many times as as making the film "inaccessible" to the viewer. The film's chronology is relatively non-linear and the characters are used as not only a means of storytelling but as a device for showing us the subtle (or not so subtle) hints of bias we give things as we commit them to memory, IE. Ray Liotta's character brandishing a gun saying the words "fear me" is portrayed as both tragically pathetic (from Statham's POV) or interrogating and bold (from Liotta's POV). This is but one example of Ritchie's far more mature approach he has taken to film-making with Revolver, we have a storyline which is pretty archetypal (the strong but silent gritty anti-hero gets released from jail with a score to settle but gets drawn inadvertently into a world of corruption... I mean it's paint by numbers film noir here guys, all the way down to the vague poetic choice of diction and the gritty voice-overs) but then Guy has taken this framework to make a number of extremely philosophical and complex points.

Take the scene where Jason Statham's character runs afoul of a car. This throwaway sequence could have been emitted from the film and made no difference to the story whatsoever... but Ritchie is making point about how such little chance happenings such as receiving a phone call can make the difference between life and death.

So the final act of the movie is pretty mind boggling, I'd be taking the p*ss if I said I didn't spend the last 20 minutes or so of the film turning to my date going "uh... wtf?"... but that is the shoddiest reason to disregard a piece of art. It is far too easy to dislike something because you find it hard to understand. And even easier to say "well nobody else seemed to understand it so it must be a real turd of a film!". In my humble opinion, Revolver is a stylish, complex and mature piece of modern art which should be greeted with the same manner we would give the work of the Saatchi Brothers. If we choose this opportunity to collectively say "Ah sh*t, I wanted a film about a load of bleeding' cockney gangsters in-nit loll... Guy Ritchie is a tit!" then the day will come when film-makers are allowed only to make that which is expected of them by shallow, crappy people. Just because Guy made a name for himself with funny, cheeky cockney romps, doesn't mean he can't be deep without being "pretentious". Funny people can be thoughtful too.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I'm far from a Sylvester Stallone fan and I guess the only time I really appreciated his appearance was in the French movie Taxi 3, which is an almost inexistent small role. And yet I must admit that this movie was actually not that bad, even though I feared the worst.

When Gabe (Stallone) fails to rescue the girlfriend of one of his friends and she plunges to her death from a 4000 feet high mountain top, he can't possibly force himself to keep working as a mountain ranger. For almost a year he doesn't set a food in the reserve, but than he returns. Soon after he's back, they get an emergency call from a group of hikers who got trapped in a snow storm. At least, that's what the rangers believe. In reality it is a group of robbers who crashed with their airplane in the mountains after their daring plan to steal cases full of money from a flying government plane failed. The cases are spread all over the reserve and they need the help of professional climbers to retrieve them...

This is of course not one of the most intelligent movies ever, but in its genre it's an enjoyable one. I especially enjoyed John Lithgow as the evil master mind and leader of the gang of robbers. I know him best from the TV-series "3rd Rock from the Sun", but I enjoyed his performance in this movie as well. Overall the acting is OK, it had a lot of action to offer and of course also some one-liners, but it also offered a very nice decor. This movie was filmed in a magnificent natural environment. I loved the snowy mountains and valleys, the mountain rivers and the forests... Perhaps that's why I give this movie a score higher than what I normally give to an action / adventure movie of this kind. I give it a 6.5/10. If you don't expect too much, this is an enjoyable movie.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
The first thing I have to say is that I own Jake Speed. I've seen it at least 10 times. This movie is one of the most fun movies ever made. The film begins with Margaret (Karen Kopins) trying to find her sister. Her sister was kidnapped in Paris and the family has heard nothing. Along comes Jake Speed (Wayne Crawford), telling her exactly where her sister is and making an offer to find her. Jake Speed is a hero. He doesn't work for money because he just wants to help and have a good adventure. His partner (Dennis Christopher) follows him around and writes their adventures into novels. This film is a great adventure. It's hilarious, it's action-packed, it's just great. I guess it's a cult film with a very small cult following. Crawford is perfect as Jake Speed and throws out some one-liners that you'll never forget. Kopins and Christopher are also good as the girl and the sidekick, respectively. John Hurt, the guy who's stomach blew up in Alien, plays the devilish, pervertish villian which just adds to the fun. In many ways, this film is similar to Indiana Jones, in some ways it's similar to James Bond films. Maybe it should have been called Indiana Bond but whatever it's title is, it's a very enjoyable film.