Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: It is not every film's job to stimulate you superficially. I will take an ambitious failure over a mass-market hit any day. While this really can't be described as a failure, the sum of its parts remains ambiguous. That indecipherable quality tantalizes me into watching it again and again. This is a challenging, provocative movie that does not wrap things up neatly. The problem with the movie is in its structure. Its inpenetrable plot seems to be winding up, just as a second ending is tacked on. Though everything is technically dazzling, the movie is exactly too long by that unit. The long-delayed climax of Leo's awakening comes about 20 minutes late.

Great cinematography often comes at the expense of a decent script, but here the innovative camera technique offers a wealth of visual ideas. The compositing artifice is provocative and engaging; A character is rear-projected but his own hand in the foreground isn't. The world depicted is deliberate, treacherous and absurd. Keep your eyes peeled for a memorable, technically astonishing assassination that will make your jaw drop.

The compositions are stunning. Whomever chose to release the (out of print) videotape in the pan & scan format must have never seen it. Where is the DVD?

It is unfathomable how anyone could give this much originality a bad review. You should see it at least once. You get the sense that von Trier bit off more than he could chew, but this movie ends up being richer for it. I suspect he is familiar with Hitchcock's Foreign Correspondent in which devious Europeans also manipulate an American dupe and several Welles movies that take delirious joy in technique as much as he does. All von Trier movies explore the plight of the naif amidst unforgiving societies. After Zentropa, von Trier moved away from this type of audacious technical experiment towards dreary, over-rated, un-nuanced sap like Breaking the Waves and Dancer in the Dark.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Loopy, but shrewd and formidable mob boss Vic (an excellent performance by Richard Dreyfuss) gets released from a mental hospital. Several of Vic's fellow criminal cohorts who include volatile henchman "Brass Balls" Ben London (a gloriously manic and over-the-top hammy portrayal by Gabriel Byrne), the smarmy Jake Parker (a perfectly smug Kyle MacLachlan), and vicious rival "Wacky" Jacky Jackson (a neat turn by Burt Reynolds) all try to bump Vic off. Meanwhile, laid-back and self-assured hit-man Mickey Holliday (nicely played with low-key confidence by Jeff Goldblum) finds himself caught in the middle of all this deadly lunacy. Writer/director Larry Bishop brings a supremely hip, quirky, and original idiosyncratic sensibility to this deliciously dark and deadpan pitch-black comedy about betrayal, loyalty, and ruthless ambition run dangerously amok. The bang-up cast have a field day with the colorfully grotesque rogues' gallery of blithely amoral and treacherous hoodlums: Ellen Barkin as tough, sultry moll Rita Everly, Henry Silva as Vic's reliable right-hand man Sleepy Joe Carisle, Gregory Hines as philosophical smoothie Jules Flamingo, Diane Lane as Vic's sweet, perky mistress Grace, Billy Drago as the slimy Wells, and Christopher Jones as brutish rub-out artist Nicholas Falco. Bishop makes the most of his juicy secondary role as lethal and laconic ace assassin Nick. Popping up in nifty bits are Billy Idol as a blustery thug, Michael J. Pollard as the ill-fated Red, Joey Bishop as mortician Mr. Gottlieb, Rob Reiner as a jolly chauffeur, and Richard Pryor as Jimmy the Gravedigger. Byrne's delightfully insane duet with singer Paul Anka on "My Way" rates as a definite sidesplitting highlight. A tense and amusing climactic Mexican stand-off likewise tickles the funny bone something hysterical. Frank Byers' slick cinematography, the outrageously nutty dialogue, Earl Rose's jazzy cocktail lounge score, and a choice soundtrack of vintage swinging golden oldies all further enhance the engagingly peculiar charm of this immensely entertaining one-of-a-kind curio.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I mean, really... either i suddenly lost my sense of humor or this is just a really bad movie. It's stupid, ridiculous and just not funny AT ALL.

Since i saw the preview i knew it wasn't going to be a great movie, i just didn't think it was gonna be that bad...

What happened to the good old times when you could find clever funny lines at any movie? When the actors didn't have to play ridiculous roles in attempt to be funny?. Now we find ourselves with movies like this one, Borat, Little Men, Scary Movie 4 where i could not find the funny parts!!

Just skip this piece of garbage

P.S. (sorry for my English)
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I'm not sure under what circumstances director Visconti decided to film James Cain's novel "The Postman Always Rings Twice" (I'm not even sure if Viscounti acquired the book's rights), but the resulting movie is definitely interesting. It is not the best version of Cain's story (I like the 1981 version best), but thanks to Visconti's excellent direction and the casting of Clara Calamai and Massimo Girotti (a very sensual couple), it is a must for noir fans. Visconti mixes neorealism with noir sensibilities to great effect. The film is not perfect, though. My main complaint is that the film is a little too long for its own good; the story moves at a very slow pace (I don't think Visconti was very good at editing his films). I think film noir works better with a short running time. Fortunately, Calamai and Girotti are magnetic actors that keep the viewer interested. Anyhow, as much as I like this film and the remakes, I think no one has made the definitive version of Cain's much-praised book.