Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Lois Weber, self proclaimed missionary via the cinema, wrote, directed and produced other films on controversial subjects, but this may be the first to get wide viewing, thanks to TCM. This film is her indictment of abortion, but she cleverly muddles the issue by bringing in eugenics and birth control, leaving the impression that they are somehow equivalent to abortion. Her talent in writing and the other cinematic skills are well displayed here, but one may be forgiven for wishing she had used them less didactically. If you have wondered what Tyrone Power, Jr.'s "famous father" looked like, here is your chance. 1916 fashions and automobiles are also on display to add to the interest of this museum piece. It's enjoyable even if you don't appreciate the propaganda.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: This film is a very good movie.The way how the everybody portrayed their roles was great.The story is nice.It tells us about Raj who is in love with Priya.They get married.She later becomes pregnant.But shortly their is a problem.Sadly they wont get the child.Raj later meets Madhu.He bribes her.She later becomes pregnant but she is not married to him.The movie is very good.The dialogues are wonderful.The songs are melodious to listen.The picturisations are good.The wedding song is very colourful.Salman,Rani,Preity were excellent. .The cinematography is excellent.The film is beautifully pictured in Swiztertland.The cast makes the movie great to watch.Worth the money and time.. Rating-8/10
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I saw this film as it was the second feature on a disc containing the previously banned Video Nasty 'Blood Rites'. As Blood Rites was entirely awful, I really wasn't expecting much from this film; but actually, it would seem that trash director Andy Milligan has outdone himself this time as Seeds of Sin tops Blood Rites in style and stands tall as a more than adequate slice of sick sixties sexploitation. The plot is actually quite similar to Blood Rites, as we focus on a dysfunctional family unit, and of course; there is an inheritance at stake. The film is shot in black and white, and the look and feel of it reminded me a lot of the trash classic 'The Curious Dr Humpp'. There's barely any gore on display, and the director seems keener to focus on sex, with themes of incest and hatred seeping through. The acting is typically trashy, but most of the women get to appear nude at some point and despite a poor reputation, director Andy Milligan actually seems to have an eye for this sort of thing, as many of the sequences in this film are actually quite beautiful. The plot is paper thin, and most of the film is filler; but the music is catchy, and the director also does a surprisingly good job with the sex scenes themselves, as most are somewhat erotic. Overall, this is not a great film; but it's likely to appeal to the cult fan, and gets a much higher recommendation than the better known and lower quality 'Blood Rites'.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I am still trying to determine whether the previous installment was worse than this one, or vice versa. Being that it is nearly fifteen years since I saw this film, the fact that I remember so little about it does not bode well. Perhaps it is simply because I only watched it once or twice, but I doubt it. If there was anything worth remembering about this film, you can rest assured I would remember it.

At the time this film was released, the franchise was still entering its dying phase, so a lot of media coverage was allotted to it. It's never a good sign when teenie pop magazines contain explanations of the plot basics. One such article had to explain that Freddy was left too weak to infest the dreams of grown humans, so he decides to go after Alice's unborn son. So far, so good, but this is the job of the writer or the director to explain to the audience. It should not be left to some unrelated publication.

Making use of the trivia given in part three about Freddy's conception, one could half expect scenes that would lift this joke out of the "horror for infants" category, but alas, that was not to be. It goes to show the sheer idiocy of the American ratings system that a piece of B'harni-esque garbage like this could get the same rating as a genuinely frightening piece like the original.

By this time, the franchise could not attract anyone with an active career. Fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, Lisa Wilcox was there to provide a quotient of competent acting. Or perhaps she just looks competent by comparison to the rest of the cast. Either way, given that her last role was in something called The All New Adventures of Chastity Blade, I doubt she really had anything else going for her. Even poor old Robert Englund has been in better productions than that in the past fifteen years.

Given that box office returns were in a steady decline, and not just for this franchise, at the time, one would have thought that the studios would realize neutering their films does not make them more saleable. In fact, this particular film, like its immediate predecessor, was so neutered that not only did it fail to attract a new audience, both succeeded in alienating the core audience that originally supported the franchise. Despite this, part five must be given some credit for not having the bright, luminescent feeling that made part four so insulting to look at.

I gave A Nightmare On Elm Street Part Five a one out of ten. By trying to appeal to everyone, or the MPAA's idea of everyone, it succeeds in appealing to noone. Like parts two and four, one could erase it from the continuity entirely, and nobody would notice the difference.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: Although I can see the potentially redeeming qualities in this film by way of it's intrigue, I most certainly thought that the painfully long nature in the way the scene structure played out was too much to ask of most viewers. Enormous holes in the screenplay such as the never explained "your father died today" comment by the mother made it even harder to try to make sense of these characters.

This won first place at Cannes in 2001 which is a shock considering. Perhaps the French had been starved for film noir that year and were desperate for something as sadistic as this film. I understood the long scenes as a device to keep the viewer as uncomfortable as possible but when matched with the inability to relate to the main character it went too far for me and kept me at arms distance from the story altogether.

This is a film for only the most dedicated fan of film noir and one who expects no gratification from having watched a film once it's over. I LOVED movies such as "Trainspotting" or "Requiem for a Dream" - which were far more disturbing but at least gave the viewer something in the way of editing and pacing. To watch this teachers slow and painful silence scene after scene just became so redundant that I found it tedious - and I really wanted to like this film at every turn.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
To grasp where this 1976 version of A STAR IS BORN is coming from consider this: Its final number is sung by Barbra Streisand in a seven minute and forty second close-up, followed by another two-and-half-minute freeze frame of Ms. Streisand -- striking a Christ-like pose -- behind the closing credits. Over ten uninterrupted minutes of Barbra's distinctive visage dead center, filling the big screen with uncompromising ego. That just might be some sort of cinematic record.

Or think about this: The plot of this musical revolves around a love affair between two musical superstars, yet, while Streisand's songs are performed in their entirety -- including the interminable finale -- her costar Kris Kristofferson isn't allowed to complete even one single song he performs. Nor, though she does allow him to contribute a little back up to a couple of her ditties, do they actually sing a duet.

Or consider this: Streisand's name appears in the credits at least six times, including taking credit for "musical concepts" and her wardrobe (from her closet) -- and she also allegedly wanted, but failed to get co-directing credit as well. One of her credits was as executive producer, with a producer credit going to her then-boyfriend and former hairdresser, Jon Peters. As such, Streisand controlled the final cut of the film, which explains why it is so obsessed with skewing the film in her direction. What it doesn't explain is how come, given every opportunity to make The Great Diva look good, their efforts only make Streisand look bad. Even though this was one of Streisand's greatest box office hits, it is arguably her worst film and contains her worst performance.

Anyway, moving the melodrama from Hollywood to the world of sex-drugs-and-rock'n'roll, Streisand plays Esther Hoffman, a pop singer on the road to stardom, who shares the fast lane for a while with Kristofferson's John Norman Howard, a hard rocker heading for the off ramp to Has-beenville. In the previous incarnations of the story, "Norman Maine" sacrifices his leading man career to help newcomer "Vicky Lester" achieve her success. In the feminist seventies, Streisand & Co. want to make it clear that their heroine owes nothing to a man, so the trajectory is skewed; she'll succeed with or without him and he is pretty much near bottom from scene one; he's a burden she must endure in the name of love. As such, there is an obvious effort to make the leading lady not just tougher, but almost ruthless, while her paramour comes off as a henpecked twit.

Kristofferson schleps through the film with a credible indifference to the material; making little attempt to give much of a performance, and oddly it serves his aimless, listless character well. Streisand, on the other hand, exhibits not one moment of honesty in her entire time on screen. Everything she does seems, if not too rehearsed, at least too controlled. Even her apparent ad libs seem awkwardly premeditated and her moments of supposed hysteria coldly mechanical. The two have no chemistry, making the central love affair totally unbelievable. You might presume that his character sees in her a symbol of his fading youth and innocence, though at age 34, Streisand doesn't seem particularly young or naive. The only conceivable attraction he might offer to her is that she can exploit him as a faster route to stardom. And, indeed, had the film had the guts to actually play the material that way, to make Streisand's character openly play an exploitive villain, the film might have had a spark and maybe a reason to exist.

But I guess the filmmakers actually see Esther as a sympathetic victim; they don't seem to be aware just how cold-blooded and self absorbed she is. But sensitivity is not one of the film's strong points: note the petty joke of giving Barbra two African American back up singers just so the film can indulge in the lame racism of calling the trio The Oreos. And the film makes a big deal of pointing out that Esther retains her ethnic identity by using her given name of Hoffman, yet the filmmakers have changed the character's name of the previous films from "Esther Blodgett" so that Streisand won't be burdened with a name that is too Jewish or too unattractive. So much for ethnic pride.

The backstage back stabbing and backbiting that proceeded the film's release is near legendary, so the fact that the film ended up looking so polished is remarkable. Nominal director Frank Pierson seems to have delivered the raw material for a good movie, with considerable help from ace cinematographer Robert Surtees. And the film did serve its purpose, producing a soundtrack album of decent pop tunes (including the Oscar-winning "Evergreen" by Paul Williams and Streisand). But overall the film turned out to be the one thing Streisand reportedly claimed she didn't want it to be, a vanity project.