Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: OK, plain and simple, if you are a fan of the other Tomb Raider games (yes, even AOD) KEEP AWAY FROM LEGEND.

It is, without doubt, the most disappointing TR game yet. It looks very nice, it sounds very nice, but it is totally unplayable and I've given up. I feel like I've been robbed by Eidos.

It's very simple. TR was a PC game before anything else. You control Lara using the keyboard. In 6 Tomb Raider games the controls were standard. In AOD they were 'tacky', but still the same general control sequences. In Legend they have changed her movement and control methods completely and she is totally uncontrollable.

I have seen comments elsewhere from people who say 'Use the mouse'. No, why should I? Others say 'Use a gamepad'. No, why should I? Others say 'But this has been the standard for 3rd person controls for years' Well, I don't care, it is not the standard for any other TR game so why mess with it. Oh, I know, because they couldn't care less about their original, loyal fan base, they want to cash in on the new kids who hadn't even heard of the series until the movies came out and make lots more money. Pathetic.

My advice to any serious TR fan is keep away from this game, and if you do buy it complain to Eidos. I have seen masses of other posts, mainly on the Eidos forums, from people telling them how rubbish it is, perhaps they will listen.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: By my "Kool-Aid drinkers" remark, I mean that these are such devoted fans of the man Pavarotti that they make no attempt to objectively rate this film. Giving this a 10 is akin to giving Wally Cox the award for Mr. Universe or putting a velvet Elvis painting in the Louvre!!! When this film debuted, I remember the savage reviews with headlines such as "No, Giorgio" and some said it was among the worst films ever made. This is definitely overstating it as well. While bad and far from a great work of art, there was a lot to like about the film and the movie's biggest deficit was not the acting of Pavarotti nor his girth.

Believe it or not, the brunt of the blame rests solely on the shoulders of the writers (who, I believe, were chimps). It is rare to see a movie with such cliched dialog or goofy scenes like the food fight, but even they aren't the heart of the problem. The problem is that the writers intend for the audience to care about a "romance" that consists of a horny married middle-aged man and a seemingly desperate lady. Perhaps European audiences might be more forgiving of this, but in the United States in 1982 or today, such a romance seems sleazy and selfish--especially when Pavarotti tells Harrold that he loves his wife and "this is just fun". Wow, talk about romantic dialog!! Sadly, if they had just changed the script a little bit and made Pavarotti a widower or perhaps had his wife be like the wife from a couple classic Hollywood films, such as from ALL THIS AND HEAVEN, TOO or THE SUSPECT (where the wife was so vile and unlikable you could forgive the husband having an affair or even killing her). Instead, she's the loving mother of two kids who waits patiently at home while her egotistical hubby beds tarts right and left--as Pavarotti admits to having had many affairs before meeting Harrold.

Sadly, even the gorgeous music of Pavarotti couldn't save this film. Towards the end of the film, there are some amazing scenes in New York where the set is just incredible and Pavarotti's singing transcendent. For that reason, I think the movie at least deserves a 3. I really wanted to like the film more, but it was a truly bad film--though not quite as rotten as you might have heard.

Sadly, from what I have read, this film might be a case of art imitating life, as Pavarotti's own life later had some parallels to this film, though this isn't exactly the forum to discuss this in detail.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: Not a movie, but a lip synched collection of performances from acts that were part of the British Invasion, that followed the dynamic entrance of the Beatles to the music world. Some of these acts did not make a big splash on this side of the pond, but a lot of them did. Featured are: Herman's Hermits, Billy J. Kramer and the Dakotas, Peter and Gordon, Honeycombs, Nashville Teens, Animals, and of course,the Beatles.

It is so much fun watching these young acts before they honed and polished their acts.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: In spite of having some exciting (and daring) sequences, NBTN just never gets going. There are exploding boats, hat pin murders, mass suicides, pathologists with body parts, and all sorts of classic mystery/horror scenes, but they're interspersed with extended periods of pure exposition. Everybody in the movie looks bored. This is a shame because many of the sequences would be considered daring at the time this was filmed.

Add to this the "too-proper" Brit characters and you feel like you've drifted into a Sherlock Holmes movie.

Finally, the cinematography is very ordinary. There are lots of opportunities for beautiful shots of of the countryside, or complex shots of someone being pulled into a huge bonfire, but the whole thing is unimaginative and dull.

Definitely only for Lee and Cushing fans.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I have seen the freebird movie and think its great! its laid back fun, about time the British film industry came through with something entertaining!! its good how the guy who met them at the service station gets mentioned way into the film in the news agents, nice touch. The acting was convincing (i am a biker) they reminded me of some good times i have had in the bike scene. It was good to see the film director getting in on the acting, well done jon ! At the end a new crop gets mentioned, in Ireland is this the foundation for a 2nd film? hope so keep them coming. Great film , well written, realistic characters !
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
When it first came out, this work by the Meysels brothers was much criticized and even judged to be exploitation. Luckily, it is now hailed as a masterpiece of documentary cinema, especially now that society has been exposed to real exploitation in what is reality television, and the bad evolution of most direct cinema.

Really, at first, we must say that this isn't really direct cinema, it is more cinema verite. The difference between the two is very slight, but it mainly is the fact that in this documentary, we are made to feel the presence of the Meysels brothers, and they do interact with the characters filmed. This as well makes it clear that it is not exploitation. The Meysels have been allowed in the house, and they are included in what is a very eccentric situation of a very eccentric household. And both Edith and Edie just love the idea of being filmed.

It would have been very disappointing had very been shown only a voice of God narration and shallow interviews. Here, we are given a full portrait of the madness of the house, a madness that does seem to go down well with both Edie and her mother Edith. Their house is a mess, litter and animals everywhere, faded colors and furniture all over the house, and the constant fights that are constant interactions of reality. These two people have lived with each other their whole life, and are not fighting in front of the camera because they want the attention, but rather because they can't help talking to each other this way. They know each other too well to hide their inner feelings, there is no need. In the end, though, even as they blame each other for their lives, they really love each other deeply. Edie says she doesn't want her mother to die, because she loves her very much, and Edith says that she doesn't want Edie to leave her because she doesn't want to be alone.

But the most interesting aspect of the film is that regardless of their old age, the two women can't help be girls. They cannot help being one the singer, the other the dancer. Exhibit all their artistic skills in front of their camera. When Edie asks David Meysels rhetorically "Where have you been all my life?" she is really very happy that she finally gets to show the whole world herself and her wonderful showgirls skills. A beautiful portrait of stylistic importance and a charm that is highly unlikely to be ever seen again, the way only the Meysels and few others could do.