Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: As far as I can understand, TIW WATCHER is the first work of a young director. My doubt is if this is the work of a regular guy who happens to love films or if this is the work of a cinema student, since there is a reference to Oporto School of Arts in the final credits.

Nevertheless, director Ricardo Pinho demonstrates with this movie a total unawareness of some basic notions about cinema. What is a movie? How to tell a story? It doesn't matter, for the novice director. One of the first things you learn in school when you're studying cinema is how to tell a story. You learn that, just like in novels, in movies you should also construct your story in three acts: the introduction, the development and the conclusion. You learn that your story should have a protagonist and an antagonist and that there should be a climax. You learn this is valid for a 3-hour-epic, for the regular movie, for a short film and even, believe it or not, for a 30-second commercial. You also learn there can be levels of subtleness in your approach to the academic structure and that, ultimately, you can even deconstruct it.

In rough terms, TIM WATCHER introduces us its main character and then, the movie ends - the whole movie sounds like the introduction of the characters in Jeunet's AMELIE. There are no second or third acts in TIM WATCHER. This is not a parody or an art film, thus you can't even try to justify the disrespect for the academic structure. You are expecting to be told a story, and it doesn't happen. Worst than that, TIM WATCHER defines itself as a warning; and one with no real purpose. It doesn't make a point, or at least, not a valid one. Its point is childish, with a sense of vengeance. The situations portrayed are utterly simple and its approach is Manichaean.

I was expecting a lot more from this short. The movie opens with a rather good-looking credits sequence and you quickly realize you are watching something with better production values than the regular Portuguese short film. I don't know the budget for this movie, but judging for the thanks-list in the end credits, merit must go to the production team for such good connections in a country where's difficult to have doors opened to young filmmakers.

TIM WATCHER seems to be an exercise in style, color and carefully chosen plans, combined with a fine score. That's all. There's nothing else. There's no plot. And that's a shame because it feels like a waste of production values. Hardly, you can see in the regular Portuguese short such diversity of locations and so many available extras to enrich a story.

As absurd as the comparison may sound, I must refer the BMW shorts as a fine example of how you can tell a good story in a very short film severely conditioned to product placement and over-the-top stylish cinematography.
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: I don't care how many bad reviews purple rain gets, this movie rocks! Excellent movie, has it all, great music(Prince of coarse!), romance, and drama.

This is really a very sad movie, very moving. I don't want to say TO much more, I;m not into giving away the plot, but I will say this-the film is VERY realistic, there are so many romantic relationships that go through these problems, so many familys similiar to the one depicted in the film. I see this as being very realistic and being so real, makes the movie that much more moving. My generation loved this movie growing up, so many of us loved Prince and there is alot to relate to for any teenager who has gone through similiar problems.

That said, it's definetly NOT just a movie for teens, Id recomend it to all age groups. And it's not all so dark, the movie has some great music, band performance scenes, and sexy fun scenes between Prince and Appelonia.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: I just finished watching this film and found it very enjoyable. It is a quiet, little film that doesn't overwhelm you with special effects or "big" performances. It simply takes you into the lives of the people living in a small hamlet in the backwoods of North Carolina.

Henry Thomas gives a good performance as Raymond Toker, a young loner who finds a baby abandoned in the woods. Toker's search for the baby's parents takes him on a journey that will have a profound impact on his life. David Srathairn plays Truman Lester, a slimy conman with an ulterior motive. And David plays the bad guy to perfection.

There is much more to this film than first meets the eye. Filmed on location in North Carolina and with a wonderful sound track of traditional music, it is worth watching.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer:
There is a remark that one of heroines was raped on "drunken rampage" by Russian soldiers, which is completely untrue. This movie should not be shown only because of this.

Also there is a statement by someone, that KGB prosecuted "Jews, Gypsies etc", which is "worse than Nazis". KGB was looking for so called "zionist" agents, who were (KGB believed) imperialist agents. This is totally different from targeting Jewry as a whole nation, as Nazis did. Gypsies were never prosecuted. KGB was political tool and used politically, but from internationalist standpoint. Communists really did not distinguish between nationalities.

Whole movie stinks like fake. Main hero does not speak Russian, signs in Berlin contains typographical errors, KGB general looks totally phony. Some so called "russian proverbs" are totally made up, and list goes on and on.

Not recommended to watch - this movie is full of lies, and phony stuff. Go to "Good shepherd" instead.