Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...

Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.

Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.

The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poire tries to avoid... and fails.

Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valerie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poire doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.

Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.

The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old.

Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: The highlight of this movie for me was without doubt Tom Hanks. As Mike Sullivan, he was definitely cast against type and showed that he can handle an untraditional (for him) role. Hanks is usually the good guy in a movie - the one you like, admire and root for. Sullivan was definitely not a good guy. It's true that in the context of this movie he came across as somewhat noble - his purpose being to avenge the murders of his wife and youngest son. Even so, he was already a gangster and murderer before those killings. So Hanks took a role I wouldn't have expected him in, and he pulled it off well.

Hanks' good performance aside, though, I certainly couldn't call this an enjoyable movie. After an opening that I would best describe as enigmatic (it wasn't entirely clear to me for a while where this was going) it turns into a very sombre movie, about the complicated relationships Sullivan has developed as a gangster - largely raised by Rooney (Paul Newman), who's a sort of mob boss, and trying to raise his own two sons and to keep them "clean" so to speak; isolated from his business. After the older son witnesses a murder, the gang tries to kill him to keep him quiet, gets the wrong son (and the mother), and leaves Sullivan and his older son (Mike, Jr.) on the run. It becomes a weird sort of father/son bonding movie.

Although it ends on a somewhat hopeful note (at least in the overall context of the story) it's really very dark throughout, that mood being reinforced with many of the scenes being shot in darkness and torrential rainfall. I have to confess that while I appreciated Hanks' performance, the movie as a whole just didn't pull me in. 4/10

Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: Season after season, the players or characters in this show appear to be people who you'd absolutely love to hate. Is this show rigged to be that or were they chosen for the same? Each episode vilifies one single person specifically and he ends up getting killed off. You enjoy seeing them get screwed although its totally wrong and sick. You enjoy seeing them screwing others, getting screwed themselves, playing dirty, getting it back, escaping and finally getting kicked out by Trump. The amount of tears also seems to be increasing by the season.

The rewards which attempt to compensate for past humiliation and suffering are also heavily reduced. In the newer seasons, its like "You get to meet xyx who'll lecture you about uvw"..like who freaking cares? The characters are so hateable, collectively and individually, that you wonder if they're paid actors? The only sane one gets to win.

Watch with caution and maintain a conscience. Those are your fellow human beings in the firing line.

Problem: Write a positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer:
I attended Camp Chesapeake. It was located at the head of the Chesapeake bay on the North East River in MD. It was a similar type summer camp with cabins. It was established by the Coatesville, PA YMCA. I started out as a young camper and later became a Junior, Senior counselor and later, the Waterfront director. If the camp had continued, I would have done anything within my power to become the camp director. Alas the powers of the YMCA decided to close down the camp and sell it to the state of MD. I visited the former camp some years later by boat and was dismayed by the neglect of the state of MD and natural destruction by mother nature. The 350 acre site served so many with all the benefits of contact with natures offerings. A black man by the name of Curtis Ford, and his family were residents and caretakers of the property. Mr Curtis was my friend and mentor. I idolized his every being. Even as he could not swim he was a waterman. If I asked him where the fish were biting, he would designate the spot, and I would have a ball. Ther was also a Family camp at the end of the summer. These memories will be with me for eternity.