Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: What a shame that a really competent director like Andre de Toth who specialized in slippery, shifting alliances didn't get hold of this concept first. He could have helped bring out the real potential, especially with the interesting character played by William Bishop. As the movie stands, it's pretty much of a mess (as asserted by reviewer Chipe). The main problems are with the direction, cheap budget, and poor script. The strength lies in an excellent cast and an interesting general concept-- characters pulled in different directions by conflicting forces. What was needed was someone with vision enough to pull together the positive elements by reworking the script into some kind of coherent whole, instead of the sprawling, awkward mess that it is, (try to figure out the motivations and interplay if you can). Also, a bigger budget could have matched up contrasting location and studio shots, and gotten the locations out of the all-too-obvious LA outskirts. The real shame lies in a waste of an excellent cast-- Hayden, Taylor (before his teeth were capped), Dehner, Reeves, along with James Millican and William Bishop shortly before their untimely deaths. Few films illustrate the importance of an auteur-with-vision more than this lowly obscure Western, which, in the right hands, could have been so much more.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: It wasn't notable enough to be truly horrible, it was just incredibly lame. The story was not half bad, but the execution was just horrendous.

To start with, it moved too fast for us to emotionally get involved with what was going on. It was just paced badly. The dialog was so utterly un-sparkling, just flat and boring.

And the characters, cripes almightly, they made Deadpool boring. How the hell do you make Deadpool boring? He wasn't even funny. He wasn't crazy. He was just an annoying guy with a couple of swords he did not even know how to use properly.

Gambit was boring. And since when did he have telekenisis to make the cards just float and fly around, or super strength to leap hundreds of feet into the air? And what the heck was up with all the stupid helicopter moves? I mean, we know they are mutants, but they still exist within the realm of physics. A round bo staff is not a helicopter blade, you cannot fly by twirling super-duper fast. Which Gambit wouldn't be able to do anyway. Nor Deadpool, especially when using it as a replacement for real fight choreography.

And this film stands as proof that wire work should only be used by fight coordinators who know WTH they are doing, and know better than to use it in every. single. shot. as a replacement for real fight choreography.

Three of the most physical fighters in Marvel comics (Logan, Creed, and Wilson), and some of the worst fight choreography I have ever seen in recent film memory. It was as if the stunt coordinator just shrugged his shoulders and left it all up to the special effects guys.

And then you had the break out, with all these mutants who did nothing. Even mutants who had been shown in their cells to have powers (nice to see a Quicksilver nod), did f-all when they got out. Only Emma-really-lame-for-this-film-Frost and Cyclops did something.

And since when was Logan so pretty? And the stupid, "The bullet will take his memory away." Don't you think Xavier and the X-Men would have noticed the big freaking bullet holes in his adamantium skull when they X-rayed him in X1? I felt sorry for Liev Schrieber man, he actually brought in a good Sabretooth considering the script. He made one of Marvel's more simple super villains feel real. But he could not save the film from it's own epic lameness.

Seriously, this was "Daredevil" level of suck. Decent story, good actors, absolutely horrible execution.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: An anthology is always risky business and I think this endeavor should be praised. There's a lot of talent involved here. A great many talented actors, directors and writers. Unfortunately, I couldn't really enjoy this movie based on three issues I had.

First of all, the segments vary incredibly in tone and quality. And unfortunately some of them clash with the others.

Secondly, several segments feel underdeveloped to me. Like seeds of good stories that never come to fruition. I'm not talking about happy endings here (or even an ending period) but rather, they lack even basic development or even solid setups that draw you in.

Last but not least, I did not feel New-York and its inhabitants were properly portrayed.

What you're left with is high-brow short films that may still be of interest to some but will leave the average viewer unsatisfied.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: no redeeming qualities can possibly be expressed. i wish i could get my time back. nice skull face broad really smiles, bright at the camera when the disease has already wreaked enough havoc on the ill informed script. i was ((spoiler)) happy to see all the characters dead or severely incapacitated by the end, especially the party poopers that drink the tainted juice on their way to the alleged sunset. Eli Roth does shine for moments of maybe ten, putting forth the theory on how well weed smokes in the woods when others really fiend on top of beer consumption. overall, i found most of it pointless, though not without gratuitous violence and not enough nudity, happy to witness the demise of cast, in a way though, wishing that journey never happened (probably should've been getting laid instead of watching TBS late night, ugh).
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is film that was actually recommended to me by my dentist, and am I glad he did! The blend of British humor (should I say, Humour?) and the reality of a lost, middle-aged widow trying to maintain her lifestyle were a hoot. Add to that mix the reality of what it takes to actually grow pot (those plants under the bushes were NOT going to make it without the TLC they received), and it is a truly hilarious, yet touching film. I laugh every time I conjure the vision of all the bar patrons sitting in their lawn chairs with sunglasses on counting down the lights! Maybe it's just my Mendocino County blood, but the Brits definitely got this one right!! 10/10
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
The movie is about Anton Newcombe. The music and careers of the two bands are simply backdrop. It's only fair that Newcombe have the last word about the film, which at this writing you can find in the "news" section at the brianjonestownmassacre website. I'd link it here but IMDb won't permit it.

Documentarians are limited by what the camera captures, as well as by the need to assemble a cohesive narrative from the somewhat-random occasions when chance has put the camera lens on a sight-line with relevant happenstance. In Dig!, fortune smiled on the Dandy Warhols, capturing their rise to the status of pop-idol candidates, as they formed slickly-produced pop confections for mass consumption, most notably "Bohemian Like You," a song that made them global darlings thanks to a Euro cell phone ad.

No such luck for Brian Jonestown Massacre. The film captures little of what made the original BJM lineup great, with the sole exception of a single montage, lasting a minute or so, showing Newcombe creating/recording a number of brief instrumental parts, unremarkable in themselves, and concluding the sequence with a playback of the lush, shimmering sounds that had to have been in Newcombe's mind and soul before they could enter the world.

Three commentaries accompany the film; one by the filmmakers, and two by the members of the bands (the BJM track is solely former members, and without Newcombe). Both the Warhols and BJM alumni point up this montage sequence as the "best" bit in the film, and I'd agree that, given the film's focus on Anton Newcombe, it is the only part of the film that sheds proper light on his gift, and seems too brief to lend proper balance to this attempted portrait of the "tortured artist."

Interesting thing about commentaries is that, unlike film, they are recorded in real time -- one long take -- which can be more honestly revelatory than a documentary that takes shape primarily through editing.

The Dandies do not come off well in their comments. If the rock and roll world extends the experience of high school life for its denizens -- as I believe it does -- the Dandies are the popularity-obsessed preppy types, the ones who listen to rock because it's what their peers do, while the BJM crew come off as the half-rejected, half-self-exiled outsiders (to insiders like the Dandies, "losers") that are the real rock spirit. BJM's Joel Gion, who talks a LOT, nails the film's message for me when he says (paraphrasing): "You can't forget that Anton has been able to do the only thing he ever said he wanted to do. Make a lot of great music."

The Dandies, meanwhile, laugh too easily at every outrageous display in the course of Newcombe's meltdown (all the BJM footage here ends at 1997, before Newcombe quit heroin). Courtney Taylor-Taylor's discounting of Newcombe's commitment to his vision is summed up as follows: "He's 37 and still living in his car. You can download all his work at his website. He was so tired of being ripped off by everyone else, he's giving it all away. He could be making a mint." You can practically hear him shaking his head in disbelief.

The film's shortcomings can't be blamed on the filmmakers; rather it's the difficulties of the documentary form, and the loss of cooperation by the film's subject, that makes this portrait of Newcombe so fragmentary. But it's likely the best we will get, outside of his music.

I only rented disc one, which has the feature. Most of the extras are on disc two. Not renting that, as I've put in my order to buy the set.