An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Saxophonist Ronnie Bowers (Dick Powell) wins a studio contract and goes to Hollywood. He stays at Hollywwod Hotel (of course). At the same time big egotistical star Mona Marshall (Lola Lane) has a tantrum and refuses to attend the premiere of her new picture. In a panic the studio hires lookalike Virginia (Rosemary Lane) to impersonate her and have Bowers take her to the premiere NOT telling him it's not Marshall. Naturally they fall in love. You can pretty much figure out the rest of the plot yourself.

The plot is old (to put it nicely) but Powell and Rosemary Lane make a very likable pair and have beautiful singing voices. The score is good (highlighted by "Hooray for Hollywood") and director Busby Berkeley shows off his unique visuals in a really fun drive-in musical sequence (with Edgar Kennedy doing his patented slow burn). Also Glenda Farrell has a few funny bits as Monas sister Jonesie.

Still the movie isn't that good. The rest of the cast mugs ferociously and most of the humor is just not funny. Lola Lane especially is just lousy trying to play Mona for comedy. Also there is racism--a stereotypical black maid is played for laughs and there's some truly appalling racist "humor" at one point. That's probably what keeps this off TV most of the time. I realize it was accepted at the time but it comes across as revolting today.

All in all a so-so movie with some serious problems helped by a good cast and some great songs. I give it a 7.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: This film is another of director Tim Burton's attempts to capitalize on a familiar title to bring his 'vision' to the screen. He has done it with 'Batman', 'Sleepy Hollow' and now this. This is not a remake. The only thing it has in common with the original is that it has simians that can speak (and Charleton Heston makes a cameo). Burton has reconstituted the entire story, watering it down for today's mass viewership.

The original Planet of the Apes was a product of its time. During the 1960's America was struggling to redefine its civilization. It was a turbulent time of soul searching and rethinking social norms. It was the civil rights era where groups long considered inferior demanded to be treated as equal. In that context, POTA was allegorical, reflecting the philosophical turmoil confronting the audiences of the day. POTA was an extremely intelligent film that broached difficult questions and elegantly held the oppressions of American society up to scrutiny by making the white guy justify his intelligence to a species he considered inferior. The dialectic between Colonel Taylor (Charleton Heston), Dr. Cornelius (Roddy McDowall) and Dr. Zira (Kim Hunter) was thought provoking and intelligent with ironies both subtle and obvious.

Burton's version is as much a product of today's times as POTA was of the sixties. This is Apes for Dummies. It is superficial and jejune, substituting politically correct platitudes for intelligent dialogue and focusing more on form than substance. The 'surprise' ending is utterly incongruous and contributes nothing to the film except a cliffhanger that sets up the sequel. While the ending of the original POTA gracefully tied everything together in a single powerful scene, Burton's ending simply mocks the audience, taunting, 'I know something you don't know, and you are going to have to wait for the sequel to find out.'

From a technical perspective, as is always the case with Burton's film, the film is excellent. The makeup is fantastic and Burton's camerawork is outstanding (though I continue to dislike his dark look). However, thirty-three years of advancements in prosthetic makeup can not compensate for the insultingly vacuous script.

The story has been reduced to a monster movie. The humans band together behind Captain Davidson (Mark Wahlberg) to fight the monstrous Apes, aided and abetted by a few turncoats (notably Helena Bonham Carter as Ari). The presentation is formulaic and simplistic with plenty of violence, perfect for today's fast food mentality.

The acting is mixed. Mark Wahlberg is a fine actor who is simply miscast in this role. Walberg is excellent at playing dark, sullen characters that are tormented but strong. This part requires an inspirational hero, a profile not in Wahlberg's repertoire. Helena Bonham Carter is a brilliant actor whose character is so far beneath her ability that the disconnect is laughable. She tries desperately to do something with the flimsy character, but her interpretation presents like a cross between a college peace demonstrator and love sick teenager.

Then there is Tim Roth. His is a virtuoso performance, single-handedly saving the film from total ruin. Roth is diabolically hateful as the malevolent General Thade. He creates one of the most villainous and despicable bad guys I can remember in some time. Additionally, his physical acting is superlative, rendering a chimp-man that is such a perfect meld that one can almost believe that the species exists.

This film is a great disappointment. It is decent entertainment, as long as you check your brain at the door. I rated it a 3/10. From a technical perspective it is much better than that, perhaps a 9/10. However the story is an insult to the original franchise. It is simply another attempt by Burton at self adulation, using a familiar title to attract throngs to the box office so lots of people can see what a genius he is. Of course it's true, but it would be great if he used that talent to produce substantial films, instead of simple minded pap formulated for mass consumption.
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: I can clearly see now why Robin Hood flopped quickly. The first episode of it is probably the worst ever thing BBC has aired. The opening scenes were about as intense, meaningful and intelligent as two monkeys fighting, Robin Hood had no character, and the sword fight was just laughable. The worst part of the episode was Robin Hood snogging some cow clad in make-up at the beginning of the episode - how many people wore eyeliner in the 12th century? Nobody. The series may have improved drastically since then, but this first episode quickly put people's hopes down, and is essentially a pile of cr*p. A great hero of England has been disgraced.

"Will You Tolerate This?" I won't, that's for sure, unless the BBC start to understand what is a wise investment. 3/10
An example of a movie review. positive (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A:
Sergio Martino's The Case of the Scorpion's Tail is a scenic giallo from the early 70's heyday of the genre. An explosion on an aeroplane results in one million dollars in insurance money for a bereaved but unfaithful wife. The money is subsequently snatched by a black-clad assassin and a series of brutal murders follow.

Scorpion's Tail plays the mystery element, written by giallo specialist Ernesto Gastaldi, fairly straight. But, being a giallo, the murders themselves are memorable and well-staged. In fact, the violence in this movie is very strong in places - a scene with a broken bottle being particularly graphic. The emphasis on the violence no doubt influencing the giallo genre to move into more and more extreme territory. But like the best films in the genre the brutality is offset by a good score and attractive photography. The music by Bruno Nicolai is at times reminiscent of Ennio Morricone's avant-garde work in The Bird with the Crystal Plumage but is also strong in its own right. The photography is helped by the nice use of foreign locales - in this case London and Athens - where Martino manages to get in, respectively, the Houses of Parliament and the Acropolis! There is also some inventive camera-work too, the most effective being the use of slow motion in a sequence where a woman runs towards the door where the maniac is prowling outside. In this particular scene Martino has the killer hack through the door with a knife in a manner influenced by Dario Argento's Crystal Plumage, however, it also has the killer attempt to flick the latch open with the blade of a knife which is something repeated later by Argento in Suspiria. So Martino's film is influential in its own right.

This is a good solid giallo that both genre and non-genre fans can appreciate. The performances are good and the production values are fine (although the plane explosion is, shall we say, somewhat low-budget!). The DVD release by NoShame is nice. It has both the English and Italian language options which is a real bonus. However, it is worth pointing out that at times you need to be a fast reader to fully appreciate the English subtitle option. This applies to both the movie and the documentary in the extras. This is a minor point though, the DVD release is a worthy addition to any giallo collection.