Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive negative
=++++=
Answer: This is a horrible movie. All three stories are bracketed with a psychiatrist hypnotist line which is unnecessary and all the stories are bad. The first is about wild wolves and some lady, there are some things that don't make sense, but the hypnotism thing makes up for that. The second one, with bad Bill Paxton as a maniac roommate should not be viewed by anyone. The last one, sadly the best is almost incomprehensible which I guess makes it better than the other garbage.
An example of a movie review. negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive).

A: Having watched both the Lion King and Lion King II and enjoyed both thoroughly. I thought Lion King 1.5 might be worth watching. What a disappointment ! Disney must be getting desperate for revenues.

Especially now that they lost the deal with pixar.

Basically, they just picked up some bits of footage that were left on the editor's floor (or garbage can) and glued them together to make a

quick buck. Unlike LK I & II, both of which had strong story lines.

This movie hardly has a story at all. While the characters and animation are always fun to look at, there is simply not enough material here for a movie. Some of the bits could have been good 2nd disk fillers on the original offerings.

Disney - Shame on you for putting this trash out to make a quick buck!

Next time take the time and effort and put our an enduring work.
Q: What's an example of a movie review?
An example of a movie review is here: "Father of the Pride " was another of those good shows that unfortunately don't have a very long life . And that is pretty sad ,specially if you consider that almost all the time the worst shows are still on air ( think in "The Simple life ") I admit that are many similarities with this show and "The Simpsons" ,but despite the similarities ,the show have it own merits . The animation is just adequate ,not incredible ,but is good .The best are the characters . All the animals are very likable and funny , and even Sigfried and Roy had their moments . The music was good ,I liked many of the songs .

Even if the show isn't very original ,I think that this had lots of potential .Like "Mission Hill " a show that isn't very famous but I liked a lot , this didn't have the appreciation that it deserved . What a shame .
Problem: Write a negative (OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive) movie review.

Answer: This is an "anthology" horror film. It's made up of 4 short stories taken from the fiction of Robert Bloch (who wrote for Weird Tales and was personal friends with H.P. Lovecraft, but is most famous for the original story "Psycho"). The quality of the stories is very uneven and I didn't think very much about the film was creepy or horrific at all. It would have been better to do it as a comedy like "Comedy of Terrors." Only the last of the 4 stories was really done in a humorous way, and it's probably the best of them (the one with Ingrid Pitt). I've seen a few of these Amicus anthology films and the only one that was really worth my time was Freddie Francis' "Tales from the Crypt." The anthology style works well for the producers, because it means that they can hire a bunch of "big name" actors, employ them for only one week of shooting or so, and then bring in the next big name. So you essentially pay for 6 weeks of movie star salary but get 5 or 6 different names on the marquee. But that's very unfortunate for the audience, because the audience would like to see some scenes with Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Ingrid Pitt actually acting together. Instead they're stuck in these vignettes by themselves. So let's take them one at a time, briefly.

The first story has Denholm Elliot, who does a really admirable job of trying to bring some dignity to his silly role as a writer terrorized by his own character. Unfortunately the actor who plays Dominic, the source of the horror, Tom Adams, just looks silly which ruins any possible horror. There's some hilarious stuff if you want to laugh at it though, like the scene where Dominic kills Elliot's psychiatrist. It's the patented scene where the killer creeps up behind the victim but nobody is watching, so the whole audience is supposed to shout out "LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!" The second story is the one with Peter Cushing. God I love that man so much. Too bad so many of his films, like this one, pretty much stink. In the story he's supposed to be pining away for a long-lost love, and he sees her likeness in a wax museum. It's a completely predictable story that goes nowhere.

Then you have the bit with Christopher Lee, where he plays the father of a little kid who turns out to be a witch. Again this bit could have been fun if it had been played for laughs. But instead we're supposed to be horrified when Lee slaps the child and surprised when she turns out to be evil. The actress, Chloe Franks, was pretty good in that type of "Bad Seed" role though.

The last story is kind of amusing... Ingrid Pitt plays an actress and Jon Pertwee plays an actor who accidentally buys a vampire cape that turns him into a real vampire. That's about all the story has to offer. I was surprised at how bad Ingrid Pitt's English is, I guess she must have been dubbed in some of the other films I've seen her in.

Not a very memorable film or one that I would recommend to anyone but horror completists.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer: I first flicked onto the LoG accidentally one night while waching television: since then, I have never missed an episode.

It's humour is very weird, like a cross between Brass Eye's social commentary, the Fast Show's excellent one-liners, and an amazing plot that seems to develop each week without ever going anywhere. The best example of this was Hillary Briss's special stuff - what was that all about?

The humour will not appeal to all. Some will say it's just too sick, and it's easy to see where they're coming from. Nonetheless, give it a try. If you don't like it, don't watch it, but if you do like it you'll be very glad you took my advice.
Problem: OPTIONS:
- negative
- positive positive
=++++=
Answer:
I'm normally a sucker for romantic films which are well-filmed and well-acted out. This is a romantic (period) film set in 17th-century Italy, but filmed in French with English subtitles. The fact that it is a period film means it will inevitably be slower-paced than films set in the modern day era, so it Will bore some. If you can overlook that fact, it is actually a really good film. The scenery, the costumes, and the cinematography are beautiful, and the main actors and actress are very compelling in their portrayals, projecting the intensity of the emotions that are running through the plot. The story is like a sad love story with an unhappy ending. Its easy to believe that this is an accurate portrayal of the real-life characters. In spite of the fact that I was really moved by the main characters and the storyline, I decided to check out the validity of the story and found out that the main theme of the movie's story - that of an sad unfinished love story - was completely fabricated.

In real life, Artemisia was raped by Tassi initially, rather than submitting to his advances willingly and passionately as the movie had portrayed. She continued to have sexual relations with him only because he had repeatedly promised to marry her. When they were in court, he had *not* admitted guilt of rape out of pity for Artemisia's torture (unlike what the movie portrays). In reality, he had tried to portray Artemisia as a loose, promiscuous woman with insatiable sexual urges. In the movie, his sister testified in court that Tassi had a wife and had sexual relations with his sister-in-law, and Tassi's character was all the while made to appear as if his sister had been slandering him regarding his alleged affair with his sister-in-law (although he admits to having had a wife back in Florence). Needless to say, in reality it wasn't really like that at all. In fact, far from it. Tassi was really responsible in the planned murder of his wife, whom he had begotten from rape. And to add to that, Tassi really had sexual relations with his sister-in-law, impregnating her in the process, but all this wasn't really mutual as well - again, he had raped his sister-in-law before.

So now we have a clear picture of the real Tassi as a multiple sex offender, what do we make of the film Artemisia's portrayal of him as a lover? We take it as an attempt to make this movie into a romantic film... that this film was never made to be historically accurate... Apart from these points just mentioned, there were other historical inaccuracies like in its interpretation of Artemisia's art (in real-life, she was never really influenced by Tassi's painting style, and she was actually considered a much better painter than Tassi ever was.) One thing remains true and its the fact that Artemisia Gentileschi has been credited as the first woman painter in history, and although her mastery of the art rivalled many of her male peers, she had always experienced difficulty in getting enough credit for her work because of her gender as a woman, in 17th century Italy.

Enjoy this film for its own sake, for it is a pretty good romantic drama, but take its historical references with a grain of salt.