Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I thoroughly enjoyed the first part of this two parter, The Impossible Planet, and was slightly worried that the second part wouldn't hold up quite so well as has been true in the past of the two parters of the past 2 Who series. But thankfully my fears were unfounded as I found myself enjoying this episode as much as the previous one. Anyway we start off with the surviving crew members on the run from the Ood, whom have become the Devil's pawn. There is also a bit of philosophizing on the Doctor's part in the episode that I quite enjoyed. Needless to say it was a good solid Doctor Who story. Might be a tad too intense for the younger viewers though.

My Grade: B+
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Opening credits: great. Music: just right for this film. Cinematography: sleazy to great effect.

Harrowing excitement in a train-wreck sort of way. This is how out of control some lives can become. "Wonderland" depicts drug-induced wildness (and its consequences) not as an aberration, but shows how it really does happen in our society. It is better than depictions of another wild group -Manson's- because all Manson films, books etc concentrate so much on Manson's insane mind rather than the overall picture of the cheap fame and randomness that is so pervasive nowadays.

If you want to see some of the best "Method-acting" on film, watch Kilmer in this movie. He shows how "The Method" can be riveting in the right role.

The filmmakers here succeed in raising "out-of-control" to the level of an art form, not just for the sake of giving us cheap thrills.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I originally reviewed this film on Amazon about 6 or 7 years ago, and blasted it. I believe I called it "wretched" and a "turkey." Okay, well, by most standards, it's still a turkey. It's got almost no production values, what little plot there is makes almost no sense, and the acting is on the level of a third-grade play. That said, this has really grown on me over the years as a sort of camp classic. In fact, all of director Todd Sheets' films have had this effect. They're almost like Ed Wood in that regard: Watch them over and over and pick out the flubbed lines, continuity errors (same zombie, two different locations!), and other flaws.

I'll say this: Sheets is a very nice guy, and while this, one of his first productions, isn't that great, he has gotten better. And I must add that the only really decent actor/actress in the film is Kasey Rousch, though I may be biased, as I attended school with her.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: After reading some quite negative views for this movie, I was not sure whether I should fork out some money to rent it. However, it was a pleasant surprise. I haven't seen the original movie, but if its better than this, I'd be in heaven.

Tom Cruise gives a strong performance as the seemingly unstable David, convincing me that he is more than a smile on legs (for only the third time in his career- the other examples were Magnolia and Born on the Fourth of July). Penelope Cruz is slightly lightweight but fills the demands for her role, as does Diaz. The only disappointment is the slightly bland Kurt Russell. In the movie, however, it is not the acting that really impresses- its the filmmaking.

Cameron Crowe excels in the director's role, providing himself with a welcome change of pace from his usual schtick. The increasing insanity of the movie is perfectly executed by Crowe (the brief sequence where Cruise walks through an empty Time Square is incredibly effective). The soundtrack (a distinguishing feature of a Crowe movie) is also sublime.

You will be shocked and challenged as a viewer. The plot does seem a little contrived but the issues explored behind it are endlessly discussable. The movie isn't perfect, but its a welcome change of pace for Cruise and Crowe and for those raised on a diet of Hollywood gloss, should be a revelation.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: It's been a long time since I last saw a movie this bad.. The acting is very average, the story is horribly boring, and I'm at a loss for words as to the execution. It was completely unoriginal. O, and this is as much a comedy as Clint Eastwood's a pregnant Schwarzenegger!

One of the first scenes (the one with the television show - where the hell are you?) got it right - the cast was 80% of let's face it - forgotten actors. If they were hoping for a career relaunch, then I think it might never happen with this on their CV! The script had the potential, but neither 80% of the actors nor the director (who's an actor and clearly should stick to being an actor) pulled it off. Fred Durst was the only one who seemed better than any of the rest.

I'm sorry, but if you ever consider watching this - I highly recommend you turn to something less traumatic, because not only it's a total loss of time, but also a weak example of what bad cinema looks like.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
A comedy gem. Lots of laugh out loud moments, the shop and pub scenes had me belly- laughing uncontrollably. The characters are recognisable and the dialogue well-observed - I know people like this! The humour is surprisingly gentle and the film (this may sound strange) puts me in mind of an Ealing Comedy. It's a quirky little film with lots of detail. It certainly takes a number of viewings. I've watched it a few times (I've been showing all my friends!) and notice something new each time - a bit of dialogue,something visual that I hadn't picked up on before. I could get really picky and find a couple of shortcomings in the film but I'm not going to because overall this is a great fun, feel-good film which is really worth a watch and which anyone with a sense of humour must enjoy. It is a film which will find it's friends and I hope there are a lot of them out there. Oh.... and It has a great soundtrack.