Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: I loved the first Little Mermaid. I know the songs, I love the characters and I love the story. I can't say anything like that about The Little Mermaid II: Return to the Sea. It was terrible. Let's start with the story. The plot was a reversed copy of the first movie. Same situations, except in reverse! Ariel wanted to live on land, her daughter Melody (creative name) wants to live in the sea. Ariel was tricked by Ursula, Melody is tricked by Ursula's sister, Morgana. Ursula had a sister?? Not sure where that came from. Besides being a strange copy of the first movie, this movies plot seemed tired and was uninteresting compared to the first movie. Now the characters: 1. Ariel- What happened to her??!! No longer the spunky, headstrong teenager we all knew and loved from the first movie, she has now "grown up" and her personality went down the drain. Her singing voice wasn't as strong either, due to either Jodi Benson being a lot older, or the songs being so terrible that her talent was wasted. 2. Prince Eric- While he didn't have a lot of personality in the first movie, like all Disney princes, somehow his new voice and his very few lines made him even more robotic. To top it off, he just can't seem to defend himself, and Ariel becomes the tough one of the two. 3. Sebastian- Say goodbye to the lovable crustacean from the first movie, because a whiny, aggravating little crab just took his place. He also had no good songs in this movie. You can almost forget the glory he earned from singing the incredible "Under the Sea" and "Kiss the Girl" from the first movie, and it is very sad. 4. Flounder- They destroyed him!! He is not cute anymore, his voice is terrible, and he has kids now?? Who's the mother??? 5. Morgana- She appears to be Ursula's sister out for revenge against her mother, who always picked Ursula over her. So she plans to get King Triton's trident to become the new ruler of the sea. Sound familiar? Anyway, she's a very cliche villain and falls short of Ursula's greatness as a villain. She epically fails at witchcraft, she's not very tough, and not threatening at all. 6.Melody- Ariel and Eric's daughter. Ironic name because she, unlike Ariel, can't sing. Her voice is annoying, her friends (a walrus and a penguin?? Really?!) are not funny or likable, and she's exactly the same as Ariel, in reverse and not as likable. Skip this one. Don't watch any Disney sequel except for Lion King 2. This movie butchered the classic that lives in all our pleasant memories. I will look back at this movie and just laugh.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: - Bad Stuff: This movie is real crap. Bad stunts for one thing, they looked so fake I thought this was "The Twilight Zone". The flashbacks are pretty much useless. One part of the movie he thinks taking his anger out on a window will make his life better. I wanna know the casting director and if he was high because the acting, even from the adults was horrid. A kissing scene in this movie even sucked. This movie killed the book. The book was great. I highly do not recommend this movie. Not even for educational purposes.

- Good Stuff: I don't know what I can say really. There is some suspense parts that get you going, but they are quickly shot down by the bad stunt work and acting.

- My Verdict: Do not watch.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: A good film with--for its time--an intense, sprawling, rather dark story somewhat reminiscent of John Ford's "The Searchers" though not so brutal. The story starts fast and doesn't let up, with several scenes of really good dialog between (Stewart's) Jeff Webster, Ronda Castle and Sheriff Gannon. This film is in some ways reminiscent of "Bend of the River" (1952), also a Mann-Stewart work, but I found it far less sentimental and more interesting. There are a few caveats: a too-quickly wrapped up (and rather sentimental) ending; 24-year-old Corrine Calvert is not very convincing as a naive French teenager, and of course the film takes place in the Mythic West, a land of fable where the real laws of nations and physics don't apply. But these are trivial concerns. James Stewart is surprisingly good as a dark, disengaged man who thinks he cares for no one but himself, and the mountain scenery can't be beat. A fine Western costume drama.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I'm actually watching this film as I write this . . . If the following comments "prove my lack of development as a true, artistic film maker", then so be it . . .

But . . . I thought (am still thinking as I'm presently viewing) that this film . . . to put it mildly, is very, very overrated. Again, very.

It looks like a really, really bad student film done by a someone with beyond extremely limited resources . . . and who didn't pay that much attention to detail.

I don't want to go on and on regarding all the different ways that I find this film lacking, but . . . well . . . I just don't get it (rememeber, I fully admit that maybe it's ME that's the idiot here - not the film maker - for not getting this "piece of imaginative genius") . . . I rented this on a whim because the reviews were very, very outstanding . . .

Sheesh . . .
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I first saw this at a foreign film festival. It's a beautifully paced nail-biter about a plot to relieve the Estonian treasury of a billion or so in gold. It's all shot in a gritty, grainy style that Hollywood rarely uses --- but it captures the atmosphere of the newly emancipated Baltic states beautifully (note: Tallin was actually looking a lot less grim in 2003 when I was there).

There's a lot of humor and some romance, too. I don't want to spoil a number of startling yet logical surprises, so I'll just say this heist film starts from a great script, and the directing and performances are top notch. DARKNESS IN TALLIN is simply the fastest and most nerve-racking example of its genre --- I'd put it up against RAFIFI, TOPKAPI, and it's miles ahead of the new OCEAN'S 11, though (deliberately) not as glossy. RENT OR BUY IT NOW.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
It surprises me that I actually got the courage to watch the bio flick or flicks "Che: Parts 1 & 2". Why? Because if my Cuban exile parents would ever found out I saw this movie about this despicable mass murderer of the Cuban revolution, I would be grounded for life. Hey wait? I am an adult, they can't ground me no mas. Director Steven Soderbergh, and newbie commie (sorry Steven, but I had to take Soder shots here) divides the movie in two partes on Commander Ernesto "Che" Guevara's revolutionary life. "Che: Part 1" presents how Che in the mid 1950's joined Fidel Castro's guerilla crew in their revolutionary quest to overthrow Cuban President Fulgencio Batista's regime; which as we all know was a revolutionary success for them, but a gargantuan guerilla disaster to many Cubans as it revolted into Communism. "Che: Part 2" presents Che trying to revolutionize the T-Shirt industry by pitching T-Shirts with his appalling bearbado face to T-Shirt manufacturers. OK, I am che-chatting a lot of crap towards your way! I meant to say the 'Che: Part 2" focuses on Che in the late 60's trying to bring back the revolution, this time to a poverty-stricken Bolivia, but with far different results. In fact, Che ended up being dead meat enchelada when he was captured and killed by the Bolivian militia in 1967. Soderbergh does not include the in-between time of those two instances in Che's life when he commanded the despicable La Cabana Fortress Prison in Cuba, where he mass murdered many Cubans who opposed Communism. That is where I think Soderbergh executed a cinematic injustice by not showing the viewers how atrocious Guevara really was. I did decide to see "Che" in hopes that Soderbergh would not glamorize him, but instead present how disturbed he really was. Unfortunately, Soderbergh did not do the latter and sadly decided to present Guevara as a Revolutionary hero, which he was not. He was a sick man who thank God is now probably at the bottom of the devil barrel. Now, I do have to be an objectivistic reviewer and must admit that Benicio Del Toro's performance as Che was extremely commanding, and worthy of merit. And that Demian Bichir was a haunting dead-ringer as Fidel Castro in his meticulous performance. But the rest of the cast of "Che" was primarily comprised of mediocre performances of actors portraying Guerilla soldiers. And as much as I do admire Matt Damon, why did Sodebergh throw him in the revolutionary mix in a Spanish-speaking cameo performance portraying a Bolivian delegate? Soderbergh did not have to present this biopic which is mostly "too much talk and not enough action" in 4 hours and 30 minutes. We have had too much of Che already, even posthumously with those ridiculous t-shirts, so why give us too much more of him? But I guess when you have the Del Toro by the horns (as you did here Steven), I guess it is your saving grace for not totally executing "Che: Parts 1 &2". *** Average