Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: A bondage, humiliation, S&M show, and not much else. The plot is flat, really just a banal setup for the stylishly depraved set-pieces. The host of the aforementioned show, a silly little man who spouts drivel while prancing around the stage in dresses, was almost as painfully distracting as the attempts at artful editing. The dream-like ending felt tacked on. To the film's credit though, Aya Sugimoto was fairly convincing as the tortured lead. Flower and Snake has been compared with Eyes Wide Shut but aside from some minor surface similarities, Kubrick's is easily the more layered, artistic, and atmospheric picture.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I got all excited when I saw the ads for this movie because I recently read the book and really enjoyed it. The movie, however, did not meet my expectations. Having read the book recently prepared me for big let down as often happens when stories are translated into movies. The characters didn't seem to fit very well with the book. The direction was weak. I had a hard time getting into the characters. There wasn't a real connection with the viewer about what was going on. The dialog didn't explain adequately what was happening. It just seemed slapped together and rushed through. All in all I was very disappointed with the movie. I suppose if you haven't read the book, it might be ok by itself. At the very least, it might entice you to read the book, which you'll probably enjoy more.

Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I am a huge Stooges fan but the one and only redeeming quality this movie has is that Curley is in it. Done long before he started drinking heavily he is his classic self in this (and Larry's not bad either). Moe's character is a straight part (mostly) and this movie would be better named "The Curley and Larry Movie". Not that any of the Stooges movies were very good (in my opinion), but as one commenter here said, how sad it is that this movie had real potential. The casting was good, it was well directed, filmed, and edited, but the story line tried to be about something serious with just some Stooges antics and musical numbers (which I guess were good back then) thrown in. The best thing you can do for yourself during this movie should you actually believe that it has to be better than mowing the lawn and taking out the trash (which is subject to debate) is to wait for Curley/Larry scenes and sleep or find something in the kitchen to eat during the rest of it.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: There are two movie experiences I will always cherish. The first was seeing "Star Wars" for the first time at the age of 10 with my little brother. A close second is sneaking into Halloween at the Tripple Plex with my good friend, Trevor, in late October 1978. Halloween left me breathless, speechless, and downright scared. Everyone knows the story. Young Michael Myers decides to kill his sister on Halloween 1963. He escapes a mental hospital 15 years later to return to Haddofield to wreck havoc once again. He spots Laurie (Jamie Lee Curtis), a shy senior who enjoys babysitting, and begins stalking her. Her partying friends across the street are killed, one-by-one as Michael sets his plot to get her. Ironically, the young boy she tends on Halloween is afraid of the "Boogeman," and can see him outside. During the murder spree, Dr. Sam Loomis (Donald Pleasance) works hard to find Michael before he unleashes his fury. He has no proof, no evidence, just a hunch he has to sell to Sheriff Bracket (Charles Cyphers). As the plot unfolds, you have a suspense-driven movie instead of a cheap thrill scare. Alfred Hitchcock once said, "You can have four men at a table playing cards and they don't know there is a bomb and it goes off. That is a cheap thrill. However, put four men at a table who discover a bomb and discuss what to do about it--then it doesn't go off, then you have suspense." Director John Carpenter takes that advice to the hilt in Halloween. The audience will see glimpses of him outside, watching, stalking his victims. We gasp. Will he kill her? When will he kill her? Then, Michael disappears. Carpenter also uses the suspense in lieu of special effects that usually highlight the gore. This movie has little blood, but still provides good scares. One of the best scenes is Michael lifting Bob off the ground. He rears the knife back as it glints off the moonlight, then he drives it. All you hear is a loud thud, then the audience sees Bob's feet drop lifelessly. Carpenter was the first to use a vantage point from the scene of the killer. This also peaks our audience. What will he do? What's going on inside his mind? Finally, Carpenter's hauntingly masterful score adds to the tension. Moreover, the tandem screen writing he did with Debra Hill gives us a story which develops characters we care about. The teens are not "party mad," but merely going through the rebellious angst of teenage wasteland. Finally, there is some decent acting in this "B," low-budget thriller. Nick Castle who plays "the Shape" (Michael) adds something to the mindless killer. It is cold, merciless, and without any pathology. Moreover, the personality does everything the same way. He kills only when trapped, or to set up a trap. He splits the victims apart. He also relies on brute strength. And that mask used (a bleached William Shatner mask) gives an impression of something that has no soul or emotion. While Pleasance is melodramatic in his deadpan monologues, he comes across as someone scared, desperate, and determined. It made me wonder if he represented modernism's fading attempt to explain evil. The crown jewel, though, is Jamie Lee Curtis' debut. She plays the Laurie character as someone scared, but also determined and strong who fights back. The end is one that left me speechless. This was the first concept of an indestructible serial killer who could not be stopped. Movies like Star Wars have the advantage that it can be enjoyed numerous times. Halloween, and other scary movies, though, do not have that advantage. So if we could erase our minds of the first time we see a movie to experience it again as fresh and new, Halloween would be the movie I would choose.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I knew absolutely nothing about Chocolat before my viewing of it. I didn't know anything about the story, the cast, the director, or anything about the film's history. All I knew was it was a highly-acclaimed French film. Had I known more, I probably wouldn't have viewed the picture with an open mind. On paper, the premise doesn't sound interesting to me. Had I known what Chocolat was about ahead of time, my interest while watching would have been limited. However, not knowing about the story helped me enjoy it. Throughout, I had no clue has to where the story would go, what the characters would do, and what the end result would be. It was, if nothing else, not a predictable film. Indeed, it could have been as the story is told in flashbacks. Telling a story in flashbacks is often a risky move on the part of the filmmakers. Since the lead character is seen in present day, the audience knows she will remain alive. By using the flashback technique, director Claire Denis is able to ensure the audience that the young girl makes it to adulthood without any serious physical damage, giving the viewer the sense that Chocolat is a story more about emotions than what is on the outside. A lesser filmmaker would give France a haggard-looking face, one that screams of a confused and unusual childhood. Instead, Denis presents France as a beautiful girl, someone who looks fine on the outside.

It could be argued that Chocolat is more about France's mother since she is given far more screen time, though I believe it is ultimately about France. To me, what Chocolat is really about is how a mother's actions affect her daughter. It is about how parents' behavior stays with their offspring. France is not ruined by her mother's actions in the story, yet her mother's actions clearly made an impression on France. Had France not been affected at all by her mother's actions, the flashback aspect would be irrelevant.

For a movie that deals with two time periods, the past and the present, Chocolat was a very well paced, there were no scene of excess fat. None of the scenes felt gratuitous or out of the place. The film had nice rhythm, the editing crisp, leaving only what was necessary to tell the story. With a well told story, solid editing, and organized directing, Chocolat is one of the better French films I have seen. It was responsible for launching Claire Denis' career and with good reason: it's an incredible directorial debut.