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

Answer: When plague breaks out in New Orleans, it's Richard Widmark to the rescue in "Panic in the Streets," one of the lesser-celebrated films of the great Elia Kazan. Kazan keeps the pace brisk, and there are lots of marvelous touches - the scenes between Widmark and Barbara Bel Geddes, who plays his wife and the scene in the police station show family life and work life and the relationships of average citizens, which is in sharp contrast to the lives and relationships of the low-lifes, portrayed by a menacing Jack Palance, his weak yes man, Zero Mostel, Tommy Cook, and Louis Charles. There are also some interesting visuals - Palance has a couple of scenes with actors who seem to come up to his knees in height.

The acting is marvelous and the dialogue sharp if the story isn't quite up to the direction and performances. It has a few questionable aspects which will be spotted by the viewer quite easily. That aside, it's well worth viewing. Kazan was a masterful director.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I consider this movie a masterpiece, but it took me at least 4 o 5 times to see it, so as to realize what a great movie it was. First, it describes a face of WW2 that we don't usually see in Hollywood movies. In particular, German soldiers, army and the Nazi government are shown more "humanized". One of the facts that impressed me most was the mention, by the end of the movie, of a murder that took place in a forest in the last 20's... that forest is the place where the final chapters of Berlin Alexanderplatz take place: those are the woods where Reinhold kills Mieze. Another clue for those who like the details, is the representation of doors. Fassbinder is obsessed with the changes in people each time they walk across a door, or a door is opened. Many doors are shown in the screen, opened and closed. And the characters change in their personality, their acts, etc any time that happens. Have you noticed that?
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: The comparison to Sleuth, the earlier stage-play-turned-film, is obvious and upon my first viewing I too thought Sleuth was better, but Deathtrap has, at least for me, many more repeat viewings in it than Sleuth.

I purchased Deathrap in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart, figuring that it had Caine and the underrated Reeve and was worth the 6 bucks. It was one of the finest DVD purchases I could've picked up.

It's one of those best-kept-secrets that movie buffs always are always delighted to discover. And it's totally worth repeat viewings.

Though Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine turned in bravado performances in Sleuth, I was doubly impressed with Christopher Reeve as Clifford Anderson. Reeve, rightfully associated with his now legendary portrayal of Superman, stole the show in what should've been an Oscar worthy performance. I've always felt Reeve was a type-cast actor who didn't get much of a chance to shine outside of the Superman films and a few other flawed but entertaining films like Somewhere in Time, but this film shows that his potential was truly tapped and put to use, thank goodness.

I absolutely relished Michael Caine's performance. He was glib, deliciously manipulative and sadistic. And watching him work with Reeve and Dyan Cannon was an absolute pleasure. In fact, it was thanks to this movie that I got into a "Michael Caine phase" and started renting as much of his stuff as humanly possible.

As for Deathtrap, there's enough juicy dialogue in here to fill up its "memorable quotes" section. (Unfortunately, much of the dialogue would inherently spoil the immensely entertaining plot).

It's really, really hard to talk about the movie without spoiling important plot points that are infinitely more fun to discover on your own. Needless to say, it's a must-see. But for me, it was the greatest and most rewarding blind purchase of all time.

Repeat viewings are a must.

And it deserves to sit alongside Sleuth on your DVD shelf.

I'll leave you with this beautifully written quote from the film: "I wonder if it wouldn't be...well...just a trifle starry-eyed of me to enter into such a risky and exciting collaboration...where I could count on no sense of moral obligation...whatsoever."
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I've read one comment which labeled this film "trash" and "a waste

of time." I think this person got their political undies tugged a bit

too much.

I just rented the new Criterion DVD's of both Yellow and Blue.

These films--although hardly great--have at least become of

historical interest as to the so-called "radical student

political-social movement"of the late '60s.

I hadn't seen either picture and from their notorious reputation, I

was expecting some real porn (there isn't any.) There is frontal

nudity (including the still verboten frontal male nudity (automatic

NC-17--the Orwellian-X) in the U.S. But I wasn't expecting the films

in-your-face democratic socialist message.

Though it tends to the simplistic , I thought it occassionally made

its points well. Both films occassionally had me laughing out loud

and the director's commentary made it clear there was plenty of

parody in the film. Especially the supposedly "pornographic" sex

scenes. The first such scene is very realistic. The lead couple is

clumsy, inept, funny and endearing in their first copulation scene.

The second--which caused the most complaints--has faked

cunnilingus and fellatio. And the last is the end of an angry fight,

that is believable.

The extras include an informative introduction to the film, an

interview with the original American distributor and his attorney,

excerpts from trial testimony in the U.S. and a "diary" commentary

by the director on some scenes.

This is the film that "blue noses" wouldn't let alone and led to the

pivotal "prurient interest with no social redeeming value" standard

that, thankfully, still stands.

Those with an interest in the quirks of history will find this a must

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

Answer: Oh dear. I was so disappointed that this movie was just a rip-off of Japan's Ringu. Well, I guess the U.S. made their version of it as well, but at least it was an outright remake. So, so sad. I very much enjoy watching Filipino movies and know some great things can come out of such a little country, so I can't believe this had to happen. Claudine and Kris are such big names there, surprised they would be affiliated with plagiarism. To any aspiring movie makers out there in the Philippines: You do not have to stoop this low to make money. There are many movie buffs that are watching the movies Filipinos put out and enjoying them!
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
Anyone who has seen 'Shine',Scott Hicks film of the heartbreaking yet ultimately joyful life of the pianist David Helfgotts; will I am sure realise that 'The SOLOIST' is very poor in comparison.It is as slow as a lullaby( I took five breaks answering emails just to wake up). The depiction of the homeless area way over the top and extremely self indulgent, on a par I fear with the awful beach battle depiction in Joe Wrights other disaster Attonment. .J Fox performance was an extremely poor example of acting and lacked credibility from the offset.Downey on the other hand; although struggling with a badly paced film, still manages to charm,9Is it me or is he turning into George Clooney in more ways than one?). Comparing both these well known so called 'STAR'actors though is unnecessary as the light that shines brightest as far as acting is concerned must be that of 'shine's' Geoeffry Rush who's brilliant performance definitely SHONE far brighter in my sky. With both 'Attonment' and 'The Soloist' the written word wins far more prizes for empathy of subject. Read the book and articles or wait for the DVD its bound to be in the bargain basement soon.