Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I loved the way EARTH is made. Its photography is unbelievable, editing it must have been an interesting challenge and Patrick Stewart's voice over is PERFECT. In addition its music and sound editing make watching EARTH a profound experience you don't want to miss. You really are on a journey to where you would probably never-ever end up by yourself.

And although, at first, I was quite surprised by the laughter of the audience as we see animals in their daily fight for survival, I could not help laughing myself sometimes. Nature simply seems too impressive to comprehend.

But, rather than the need to laugh, I left the cinema with a profound question:"Howcome 200 years of industrial revolution can destroy natural systems that have been here for thousands and thousands of years?"

With this question in mind, you'll understand how I felt somewhat bitter and powerless after seeing EARTH. I felt the immediate need to change the world, to help all these animals in their struggle, to undo the changes we have gone through the last centuries and to stop the global heating at once (all that not being a NGO activist at all!)...

So I immediately visited the website mentioned at the end of the film to see what I could do to save our -still- fantastic planet (and the polar bear) from its depressing fate... (www.loveearth.com)

I was a little disappointed to find no direct answers to my questions there. Yet it was very interesting to find out more about the film and the struggle its crew went through.

I hope that cutting on my energy-use will do. I don't know how else to shorten the distance polar bears have to swim to reach land before they drown or attack animals they cannot beat in their exhausted state...

An inspiring film it is, but I didn't leave the cinema feeling very happy.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: When I saw the film for the first time in the early 1970s, I was in awe of this film. Visually it was stunning and the events on campuses in Europe and USA made you relate with what Antonioni was trying to say so well visually in the final 15 minutes of the movie: blowing up in your mind the "tyrannical" establishments and big business interests. The repeated blowing up of the beautiful house in the middle of a desert, the lead female character enjoying the natural stream of cold water, painting a plane in psychedelic designs (even the staid British Airways did it a few years ago) are some of the images that were copied by advertising personnel all over the world for decades. Even Pink Floyd increased their fan following after the film was released.

You see this film some 30 years later and you begin to wonder why the same film has lost its appeal. Today anti-establishment films have more substance--facts, documentation, fine performances, and superb screenplays. Antonioni seems to be out-of-date; a flawed genius. Even viewing Antonioni's "Blow Up" today gives you the similar feeling that he is passe.

"Zabriski Point" has to be evaluated for what it was when it was released. It was a great film if you were to see it on a wide Panavision screen as opposed to the dwarfed TV screens. The visual and aural (Mick Jagger, Kieth Richards, Pink Floyd, et al.) allure of the film still remains. The lead pair were not great actors but they were cute and natural. One of them (Mark Frechette) died in prison in USA extending the reality of the non-conformist values he personified in the film.

Today, Antonioni seems out of "sync." But watch carefully and you will appreciate the muted sounds of the regular actors--Rod Taylor, G.D. Spradling, the ladies at the swimming pool, the cops at the air-strip. The real sounds in contrast are from the non-conformists. Antonioni was relevant 30 years ago but his grasp of the medium cannot be questioned even today. He knew what he was doing.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This Hamlet made for one of the boringest MST3000 episodes ever. I am not a Shakespear fan, but I do not believe he ever intended his works to be this slow paced and drab. It is also one of the hardest movies to find because there are so many Hamlets listed. Like I said though this one is quite boring. It is in black and white, the pacing is slow, and there is minimal scenery. The actors are all dubbed too so that doesn't help. This is the one MST 3000 I can't watch in one sitting cause the way the guy playing Hamlet says his lines can put anyone to sleep.
Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This movie is one of my very favorites. It's hard to explain why. Maybe it's the innocence of Corin Nemec and his awkwardness paired with the boldness of Cheryl Pollak, but it definitely has something to do with the soundtrack. Also, some of the characters have little lines or movements or moments that are amusing in and of themselves. Finally, the story is one that always tugs at my heartstrings, and the last scene is so bittersweet. All in all, I love this movie; it's perfect for a gooey, sentimental girls' night.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: This is a straight-to-video movie, so it should go without saying that it's not going to rival the first Lion King, but that said, this was downright good.

My kids loved this, but that's a given, they love anything that's a cartoon. The big shock was that *I* liked it too, it was laugh out loud funny at some parts (even the fart jokes*), had lots of rather creative tie-ins with the first movie, and even some jokes that you had to be older to understand (but without being risque like in Shrek ["do you think he's compensating for something?"]).

A special note on the fart jokes, I was surprised to find that none of the jokes were just toilet noises (in fact there were almost no noises/imagery at all, the references were actually rather subtle), they actually had a setup/punchline/etc, and were almost in good taste. I'd like my kids to think that there's more to humor than going to the bathroom, and this movie is fine in those regards.

Hmm what else? The music was so-so, not nearly as creative as in the first or second movie, but plenty of fun for the kids. No painfully corny moments, which was a blessing for me. A little action but nothing too scary (the Secret of NIMH gave my kids nightmares, not sure a G rating was appropriate for that one...)

All in all I'd say this is a great movie for kids of any age, one that's 100% safe to let them watch (I try not to be overly sensitive but I've had to jump up and turn off the TV during a few movies that were less kid-appropriate than expected) - but you're safe to leave the room during this one. I'd say stick around anyway though, you might find that you enjoy it too :)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
'Presque rien' is a story of two young boys falling in love during summer stay by the seaside. I don't want to tell the plot, because it's not what's most important about this film (but you can be sure that it's interesting and original). The best part of this movie is the cinematography. The visual side of 'Presque rien' is so amazing it deserves highest note. It leaves you charmed with its beauty.

As for the plot, it is shown in uneven, rather complicated way. There is no simple chronology nor there are answers to all the questions the film brings. But this is what makes 'Presque rien' even more interesting. I recommend this movie to all the people for whom the artistic side of films is very important and they will not be disappointed.